2012 IOC evaluation

[Rafa]

I've opened this thread because well, ive read through many IOC reports over time and I never understand some of the scoreds awared to cities. I always just assumed they have some higher knowledge.

1. In the applicant city evaluation for 2012

a. Havana and Rio are given the same score (min 4 max 6) for existing venues. Are you being serious??? How can havana with its 25 makeshift existing venues be regarded as the same as Rio's 12 existing venues???

b. Havana is awarded (min 4 and max 6) cities like moscow and london are just awarded one point more ...at (min 5 and max 7)?? moscow has a a good set of venues? including an olympic stadium..? what about wimbledon,lords, wembley stadium? i dont think one point is really enough to separate the two?

no wonder the IOC calls the scoring system "fuzzy" logic...

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Simple - the evaluation report sums up two things in that section - firstly is the existing venues.  Crap or otherwise, Havana does have a number of venues that are suitble for the Olympics.  They need some work, but Baseball, Softball, the Aquatic sports and Football would be well taken care of.  Rio is in the middle of a building boom - so the number of 'planned' venues was extremely high for 2012.  Exisitng venues - apart from the multitude of Football stadia and a couple of old arenas - were thin on the ground.  That will not be the case after the Pan Ams in 2007 - thus a 2016 or 2020 bid will be an entirely different issue.

Now to London and Moscow - London was fairly marked low in this section as all the major venues - again except for a few Football grounds (Twickenham, etc) and the Docklands Arena - were earmarked for redevelopment.  Wembley Arena would be shut for a year for refurbishment, the Stadium was half built, the Dome was in a sorry site.  Venues available there and then were minimal.  Obviously a building boom was offered and the UK could adequately afford it.

Moscow had the 1980 Games venues - many of which had been under utilised and thus neglected.  They proposed many new venues as well - so there is a few existing - but unsuitable venues.  Thus low scores.

Madrid and Paris had far more immediately usable sites than the others - and NYC - well, its NYC.  They can dig up a venue for anything.

I hope that clarifies a bit.

What amazes me about 2012 is Istanbul was marked relatively poorly.  They had buit two major arenas, a full size Olympic stadium, and were about to start on the aquatic centre (dunno if that has eventuated yet).  Really - Istanbul may find itself with the best sporting infrastructure a non Olympic city has ever had.

[Rafa]

rio de janeiro's airport was described as having "sufficient capacity"

it currently has annual traffic of about 4.5 million passengers...

what is "sufficient"?

[amorincognito]

Rio's airport is actually running grossly under-capacity, as more and more international flights are being run to São Paulo.

The 2012 race was full of capable bids and the report just weeded out the ones they really didn't want.  IMO, they probably would have kicked out Madrid if they could have without causing an uproar; it was the only bid to stand a chance at beating the system.

If I had the thread from back when the report came out, some pointed out some clear oddities in the analysis.  It came down to (IMO) Rio and Istanbul, and to a lesser extent Leipzig, being clearly marked down, and Moscow and Paris being clearly marked up.  The victor of this report, I still think, was the Madrid team, who had put together a strong bid, sadly at the wrong time, who placed second overall but topped the most categories.  I don't know if that thread can be resurrected, but I even put the mathematical analysis to a certain test and it should have at least put Leipzig ahead of Moscow.

The full report, for anyone who doesn't have it, is available from the IOC website, here.