Jump to content

2018 Evaluation Commission Visit Report


Recommended Posts

Maybe the IOC isn't impartial... And maybe a lack of knowledge about the condition to host Great WoG...

This is the one that gets me. And he brings it up often.

So let's get this right - the IOC knows NOTHING about how to organise an Olympic games, but Tulsa is an expert at how to organise a large sports event.

As I've said before, Tulsa, your support for your home town bid is admirable and entirely understandable. Your inability to accept that Annecy has to compete against anyone, or that anyone else might have a good, or better, case for hosting, just makes you look ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 292
  • Created
  • Last Reply

OK I found some time to read the ENTIRE report. Which is kinda like Christmas for an <I>nerde olympique</I> like me!

They've politely eliminated Annecy: transportation, housing costs, and lots and lots of tiny "digs" in the detailed commentary. Either Munich or Pyeonchang would be fine as far as the Committee is concerned: both have a few concerns, but on balance are solid bids.

But they're hinting that Pyeonchang should get it. Repeated messaging about what was promised for 2010 and 2014 either being completed or nearly completed. Including hosting Continental Cup test events in their calculation of experience in the 15 sports. The 20 minutes between the two main sites. The enthusiasm for the Games across the country. Munich's only deficiencies are the land dispute in Garmisch (they don't entirely buy the bid committee take on it) and the distance/isolation of the sliding venue.

But they also leave unanswered the question of North Korea. They give South Korea's answer...but leave it to IOC members to decide for themselves whether the nuclear loons (with tiny nukes, though, to be fair) are a dealbreaker.

I'm guessing they're not. PC on the FIRST ballot. Munich will get a OWG next time Europe's got a shot at 'em (which is dependent on what happens with OSGs, <i>biensûr</I>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said B4, if the IOC isn't concerned about some Chechyen rebels, what's a few nuke-happy North Koreans.

This is the one that gets me. And he brings it up often.

So let's get this right - the IOC knows NOTHING about how to organise an Olympic games, but Tulsa is an expert at how to organise a large sports event.

Precisely. Tulsa knows so much better. :rolleyes:

But they also leave unanswered the question of North Korea. They give South Korea's answer...but leave it to IOC members to decide for themselves whether the nuclear loons (with tiny nukes, though, to be fair) are a dealbreaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree. Question is whether IOC members think the Koreans can mitigate as well as Putin....since they have a few more pesky democratic laws than Russia.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypothetically though, North Korea coming down on South Korea would have nothing to do with South Korea's democratic laws, since North Korea is it's own country. If North Korean wants to be a nuisance, they have the power to do so, regardless. The same threat was there for the 1988 Summer Olympics, so the IOC already has on-hand experience on how this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god... I come back to the board about a month later and the same arguments are going on. I thought Tulsa's worries had all been answered by many of us. Obviously, the answers didn't satisfy nor convince Tulsa.

Anyway, Tulsa keeps mentioning issues with snow. Tulsa, I have no idea where your annual snowfall of '25cm' comes from, but it's actually 250cm, if you look through reliable sources, including the Korean meteorological agency. I told you once already and you called me a lier. I suggest you look it up yourself. I had provided a link at the time. I'll provide a link to the relevant Korean Tourism office site (http://www.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/SI/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=264190).

Vancouver still managed to host an awesome olympic games despite some of its rainy/drizzly days during the olympics. That's not only because Canadians are awesome (yes, I'm a little biased). We had snow transported by helicopters at times! So... really, it doesn't matter even if for some reason, there wasn't enough snow. Besides, Koreans probably will get enough snow.

What really would suck, of course, for the South Koreans is if North Korea gets jealous and shoots a few missiles here and there. But as others mentioned, that risk existed for the last 60 odd years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why you'll give Tulsa so much credence. I think he's like a schoolboy...and this is his first go-around in this tea-leaves reading we've been doing here for years.

Tulsa, the Olympics are a 2,000+ year-old tradition. So there is also a tradition of spreading the spoils around. If you don't understand that, then I think you still believe the earth is flat. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I found some time to read the ENTIRE report. Which is kinda like Christmas for an <I>nerde olympique</I> like me!

They've politely eliminated Annecy: transportation, housing costs, and lots and lots of tiny "digs" in the detailed commentary. Either Munich or Pyeonchang would be fine as far as the Committee is concerned: both have a few concerns, but on balance are solid bids.

But they're hinting that Pyeonchang should get it. Repeated messaging about what was promised for 2010 and 2014 either being completed or nearly completed. Including hosting Continental Cup test events in their calculation of experience in the 15 sports. The 20 minutes between the two main sites. The enthusiasm for the Games across the country. Munich's only deficiencies are the land dispute in Garmisch (they don't entirely buy the bid committee take on it) and the distance/isolation of the sliding venue.

But they also leave unanswered the question of North Korea. They give South Korea's answer...but leave it to IOC members to decide for themselves whether the nuclear loons (with tiny nukes, though, to be fair) are a dealbreaker.

I'm guessing they're not. PC on the FIRST ballot. Munich will get a OWG next time Europe's got a shot at 'em (which is dependent on what happens with OSGs, <i>biensûr</I>)

wow - what a great summing-up, jawnbc!

I agree with your comments about the report - how the IOC will decide is another issue...

I wouldn't be surprised if Munich or Pyeongchang win. (Its Pyeongchang to loose)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my god... I come back to the board about a month later and the same arguments are going on. I thought Tulsa's worries had all been answered by many of us. Obviously, the answers didn't satisfy nor convince Tulsa.

Anyway, Tulsa keeps mentioning issues with snow. Tulsa, I have no idea where your annual snowfall of '25cm' comes from, but it's actually 250cm, if you look through reliable sources, including the Korean meteorological agency. I told you once already and you called me a lier. I suggest you look it up yourself. I had provided a link at the time. I'll provide a link to the relevant Korean Tourism office site (http://www.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/SI/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=264190).

Vancouver still managed to host an awesome olympic games despite some of its rainy/drizzly days during the olympics. That's not only because Canadians are awesome (yes, I'm a little biased). We had snow transported by helicopters at times! So... really, it doesn't matter even if for some reason, there wasn't enough snow. Besides, Koreans probably will get enough snow.

What really would suck, of course, for the South Koreans is if North Korea gets jealous and shoots a few missiles here and there. But as others mentioned, that risk existed for the last 60 odd years.

You are totally crazy

THe reallity is, PC don't have lot of snow, max is 25 cm and in 2009 during the biathlon world cup, there were nothing, no snow, no supporters, is true and to say the contrary would like mean you are pro Korean or Korean... Some people here are community manager???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, Tulsa keeps mentioning issues with snow. Tulsa, I have no idea where your annual snowfall of '25cm' comes from, but it's actually 250cm, if you look through reliable sources, including the Korean meteorological agency. I told you once already and you called me a lier. I suggest you look it up yourself. I had provided a link at the time. I'll provide a link to the relevant Korean Tourism office site (http://www.visitkorea.or.kr/enu/SI/SI_EN_3_1_1_1.jsp?cid=264190).

Tulsa, Denial is a long river in Egypt!! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some fact true :

Weather condition and natural snow aren't good in PC, only few cm in average, the less snow between the 3 bids

(If you don't believe me remember some event like Biathlon in Alpensia in 2009 where there are no Snow, 0 cm)

No supporters when there are event, 93% of popular support but in fact nobody

(if you don't believe me, comeback on Biathlon in 2009 and Alpinski event and Freestyle event)

Lack of knowledge about organize ski event

(if you don't believe me, comeback on Skicross in 2011, the event have been canceled because it was too dangerous)

This aspects are very important but maybe, some here think isn't important...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some fact true :

Weather condition and natural snow aren't good in PC, only few cm in average, the less snow between the 3 bids

(If you don't believe me remember some event like Biathlon in Alpensia in 2009 where there are no Snow, 0 cm)

No supporters when there are event, 93% of popular support but in fact nobody

(if you don't believe me, comeback on Biathlon in 2009 and Alpinski event and Freestyle event)

Lack of knowledge about organize ski event

(if you don't believe me, comeback on Skicross in 2011, the event have been canceled because it was too dangerous)

This aspects are very important but maybe, some here think isn't important...

Uhmmmm...Korea organized a successful 1988 Summer Games and half of the 2002 World Cup. :blink:

As I said before, you live in a distant planet if you think you know more than the IOC.

You are so deluded, Tulsa. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I found some time to read the ENTIRE report. Which is kinda like Christmas for an <I>nerde olympique</I> like me!

They've politely eliminated Annecy: transportation, housing costs, and lots and lots of tiny "digs" in the detailed commentary. Either Munich or Pyeonchang would be fine as far as the Committee is concerned: both have a few concerns, but on balance are solid bids.

But they're hinting that Pyeonchang should get it. Repeated messaging about what was promised for 2010 and 2014 either being completed or nearly completed. Including hosting Continental Cup test events in their calculation of experience in the 15 sports. The 20 minutes between the two main sites. The enthusiasm for the Games across the country. Munich's only deficiencies are the land dispute in Garmisch (they don't entirely buy the bid committee take on it) and the distance/isolation of the sliding venue.

But they also leave unanswered the question of North Korea. They give South Korea's answer...but leave it to IOC members to decide for themselves whether the nuclear loons (with tiny nukes, though, to be fair) are a dealbreaker.

I'm guessing they're not. PC on the FIRST ballot. Munich will get a OWG next time Europe's got a shot at 'em (which is dependent on what happens with OSGs, <i>biensûr</I>)

I agree.

I would have preferred that the commission frankly says:

All of the 3 bids can host the games. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend:

1. PC because it’s a new horizon and we need to develop the interest for winter sports in Asia.

2. Munich because Germany is a very strong winter sports country that hosted the winter games once only. Keep it in mind for 2022.

3. Annecy because France already hosted the winter games 3 times. Keep it in mind just in case North Korea drops a nuclear bomb on PC and a new pole invalidates Garmisch's participation.

It would be better that all these insidious remarks all along the report, the game consisting in minimizing PC’weaknesses and maximizing Annecy’s, Munich being in the middle of this 2 extremities.

A few examples:

Annecy:

In terms of cultural and city activities, Annecy 2018 proposes to use the city’s historic, pedestrian centre as an “Urban Olympic Park” in which two live sites are planned. The “Nations Square” concept, to showcase the history and cultures of the countries belonging to the Olympic Movement to the public, is a positive initiative. Similar activities would take place in the centre of Chamonix.

Although several initiatives were broadly outlined, and some cultural themes were identified, little detail was provided. Should Annecy be elected as the host city, early attention would need to be paid to these areas to develop concrete and integrated programmes to ensure that the bid’s vision for culture, education and city activities would be implemented.

Is this remark justified (bold)? Why does the commission need to minimize this positive initiative?

(From my point of view, venues at the heart of Annecy, Chamonix and mountain villages, closed to pedestrian areas with cultural events is a very good idea that would boost the whole atmosphere)

As the Games vision is to use existing infrastructure wherever possible and as the City of Annecy has a low accommodation capacity, the Games accommodation plan has been based on providing rooms in the various Games zones. The approximately 25,500 guaranteed rooms are thus located in 533 accommodation facilities in France and Geneva (Switzerland). The spread of accommodation and the number of establishments involved would create operational and financial challenges across various client groups.

This could be re-written “a la PyeongChang”:

As the Games vision is to use existing infrastructure wherever possible and as the City of Annecy has a low accommodation capacity, the Games accommodation plan has been based on providing rooms in the various Games zones. The approximately 25,500 guaranteed rooms are thus located in 533 accommodation facilities in France and Geneva (Switzerland). The spread of accommodation and the number of establishments is a challenge. However, the area welcomes millions of visitors each winter and is used to manage this. Moreover, it participates to the convivial atmosphere in Annecy 2018's vision.

In general the transport concept incorporates many forward-thinking measures in terms of environmentally friendly transport and more sustainable travel patterns minimizing automobile use and maximizing public transport. The substantial rail development would be the most significant long term legacy for the Annecy-Chamonix-Geneva region and would promote a more sustainable transport system in line with Annecy 2018’s Games vision.

__

With the plans for a much improved rail and public transport system, the Commission believes that the Olympic transport demands would be met. However, given the relatively dispersed concept, travel times between Games zones for some client groups could be long.

This could be re-written “a la PyeongChang”:

With the plans for a much improved rail and public transport system, the Commission believes that the Olympic transport demands would be met. The Semnoz, La Clusaz/Le Grand Bornand ski venues present a transport challenge due to limited access but this should not be problematic as this was perfectly managed at the 2009 world championships in Val d’Isere with the same type of access. Moreover, this allow to offer snow events at the Annecy hub.

PyeongChang:

The average snow depths are relatively low but this should not be problematic as the bid committee committed to providing 100% snow coverage for Games competition through artificial snow-making facilities and the distribution of stored snow if natural snowfall was insufficient.

This could easily be re-written as:

The average snow depths are relatively low. The bid committee committed to providing 100% snow coverage for Games competition through artificial snow-making facilities and the distribution of stored snow if natural snowfall was insufficient. However, it could be a major challenge in case of bad weather conditions like in February 2009.

PyeongChang 2018’s vision, reflected in its motto “New Horizons”, is for the City and Region (Gangwon Province) to become a new winter sports hub in Asia, and for the Games to be the catalyst for the further and accelerated growth of winter sports participation, particularly amongst youth, in Korea and throughout Asia.

The bid aims also to develop interest in those winter sports not traditionally popular in Korea.

This could easily be re-written as:

However, winter sports are traditionally not popular in Korea. It may be a challenge to fill all the stadiums and create a real atmosphere.

Although the development of the Jungbong venue is likely to have a significant site impact, the Commission received assurances that the forest preservation area would remain protected.

This could easily be re-written as:

The development of the Jungbong venue is likely to have a significant site impact. Although the Commission received assurances that the forest preservation area would remain protected, little detail was provided. Should PyeongChang be elected as the host city, early attention would need to be paid to this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXCEPT neige, it is NOT you writing the Evaluation Reports. It is people (who have a certain expertise as deemed so by the IOC) who are assigned to the task...so you just deal with it. That's like saying...well, the Bible should've been written this way...the Treaty of Versailles should've been written that way, Les Miserables a certain way, Carmen another way...etc., etc.. What? :blink: None of this shudda-cudda.

Will u & your paisano, Tulsa, please GET REAL??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Reports are written by a professional team. So they know what they are doing. There is enough balance of opinion and fairness in a committee. You are ONE person viewing it thru the prism of your candidate. Don't you think the partisans of the 2 other cities would DISAGREE with your version? <_<

If there is a slant...well, what do you think they are trying to say? If it's ALL equal, then why even bother to make a report? They ARE making recommendations one way or another.

Besides, neige, some IOC voters don't even BOTHER to read the Reports; others will not be swayed by it. So, in the end, it's all a wash. Some are the wiser by them; others aren't. The 100 or so voters will, after the presentations, just go with what they think is best for the Olympic movement at the time.

And in a winter voting, neige, you probably have the 1/4th body of voters from non-winter countries who DON'T really care one way or another where the WOGs are held. It doesn't mean a hill of beans to them. Those would probably be the African, Asian, Caribbean members who, and this may make your day, may actually like French cuisine more than Korean. Or their spouses/partners might actually like to winter in the (French) Alps rather than the other 2 places...so. (Altho if one lives in the Caribbean, I don't know why one would head for the winter climes??? :blink: ) Thus, in other arenas, you may already have a built-in edge which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with winter sport at all. Do you hear the Koreans or German boosters complaining about that?

And then they move on to the next item on the agenda. As you say, c'est la vie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look again at 2016 race.

Tokyo was the best bid.

Rio had a lot of problems.

(Security, financial, transport, accommodation, dispersed plan)

Moreover, Rio received low score than dropouts Doha.

Nevertheless, IOC evaluation report noted "a very high quality" about the Rio.

This expression could not be found in other cities.

Some media title.

- Rio looks like frontrunner as 2016 Games IOC report released

- Rio's 2016 bid boosted by IOC evaluation

- Rio 2016 Happy With IOC Report On Bid Cities

The most important thing is dynamics on the Olympic decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PyeongChang:

The average snow depths are relatively low but this should not be problematic as the bid committee committed to providing 100% snow coverage for Games competition through artificial snow-making facilities and the distribution of stored snow if natural snowfall was insufficient.

This could easily be re-written as:

The average snow depths are relatively low. The bid committee committed to providing 100% snow coverage for Games competition through artificial snow-making facilities and the distribution of stored snow if natural snowfall was insufficient. However, it could be a major challenge in case of bad weather conditions like in February 2009.

They could ALSO add:

However, snow conditions are fine in most years and as such this should not be a problem. Nevertheless, even if there is a lack of snow, we are certain this can be corrected using good planning and basic technology, just like how Vancouver efficiently corrected for almost non-existent snow on Cypress Mountain in January and February 2010. Furthermore, we are confident that Annecy and Munich can do the same, in case there is a lack of snow such as was the case for the 1964 Winter Olympics in Innsbruck, Austria.

PyeongChang 2018’s vision, reflected in its motto “New Horizons”, is for the City and Region (Gangwon Province) to become a new winter sports hub in Asia, and for the Games to be the catalyst for the further and accelerated growth of winter sports participation, particularly amongst youth, in Korea and throughout Asia.

The bid aims also to develop interest in those winter sports not traditionally popular in Korea.

This could easily be re-written as:

However, winter sports are traditionally not popular in Korea. It may be a challenge to fill all the stadiums and create a real atmosphere.

They could ALSO add:

However, we realize that the Olympics are different from World Championships, and attract a larger crowd not just from all over Korea, but also from all over the world. Although some winter sports may not be traditionally popular, we are confident that given the magnitude of the Olympics, filling the venues and maintaining a lively atmosphere will not be an issue, just as it was not an issue in Vancouver, where sports like biathlon are not traditionally popular as well. In addition, we also have reason to believe that as the Games have never been to Korea before, a Pyeongchang Games can offer a unique atmosphere than that of any other previous Games, including that of Nagano. We recognize that just as a Lillehammer Games was different from an Albertville Games, so goes a Pyeongchang Games would offer a different atmosphere than even a Nagano Games, thus enriching Winter Olympic lore.

Although the development of the Jungbong venue is likely to have a significant site impact, the Commission received assurances that the forest preservation area would remain protected.

This could easily be re-written as:

The development of the Jungbong venue is likely to have a significant site impact. Although the Commission received assurances that the forest preservation area would remain protected, little detail was provided. Should PyeongChang be elected as the host city, early attention would need to be paid to this point.

They could ADD:

However, we recognize that Pyeongchang and the Korean government has already assured the IOC that their forests will be protected as best as possible, through measures including but not limited to reforestation and avoidance of impacting areas with protected species. As these assurances have been given to us in good faith, there is little reason as this point not to believe they will keep their word. If elected as the host city, we will pay early attention to this point, but we are confident they will be responsible in developing the necessary infrastructure needed to host the Games. We also recognize and respect the sovereignty of the Republic of Korea, and understand that we do not need to babysit every single action they make, as some opposing members on Gamesbids.com would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Annecy because France already hosted the winter games 3 times. Keep it in mind just in case North Korea drops a nuclear bomb on PC and a new pole invalidates Garmisch's participation.

It would be better that all these insidious remarks all along the report, the game consisting in minimizing PC’weaknesses and maximizing Annecy’s, Munich being in the middle of this 2 extremities.

North Korea didn't drop the bomb during Seoul 1988, when the two countries were actually real enemies in the true sense of the word. They also didn't drop the bomb during the 2002 World Cup (why would they, since they were friendly by that time).

If North Korea didn't drop the bomb during South Korea's Summer Olympics and World Cup, why would they intentionally sabotage a much smaller Winter Olympics when they are not even real enemies the way they were back in 1988?

The people of South Korea don't even pay attention to the North's rhetorical threats anymore, they're so used to it. Life goes on as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wonder about the differences between Pyeongchangs bid for 2014 and 2018

It's just a slogans changed.

2014 - Peace on the Korean peninsula.

2018 - New Horizons.

why did Sochi "win"?

I think that

1. Winter sports strong country that point was the most significant effect.

2. Compensation for the Moscow 1980. (Made a good presentation)

3. Putin's influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...