By Duncan Mackay - 9 May 2009
 

I have just landed back at Heathrow Airport after six weeks of travelling during which I have flown approximately 32,932 miles, visited four of the world's greatest cities, interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers, met the greatest sportsman in the world and been told by British Airways that I was about to crash into the sea.

 

 

Yes, following the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) Evaluation Commission as they visited the four cities that are bidding to follow London and host the 2016 Games has certainly been an adventure that I will never forget.

 

 

For the Evaluation Commission their work is far from finished. They still have to travel to the Olympic headquarters in Lausanne in the next two week to complete their work in which they will analyse the technical aspects of each of the four bids from Chicago, Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid to be published on September 2, a month before the IOC Session will gather in Copenhagen to pick the winning city.

 

Nawal El Moutawakel, the impressive chair of the Evaluation Commission, claimed in Madrid on Friday that they were the "eyes and ears" of the IOC.

 

The Moroccan, the 1984 Olympic 400 metres hurdles champion and now her country's Sports Minister, said: "Our report is very important.

 

"The IOC members will rely on....our report."

 

Mmmm.....

 

I'm not so sure.

 

First, a quick bit of history. The Evaluation Commission assumed great importance after the IOC members were banned from visiting the host cities following the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics bribery scandal that blew up in 1998 when it was proved that some members had accepted kick-backs in the form of business contracts, medical treatments and special privileges for members of their families.

 

The idea was that if the members could not visit the cities bidding for the Games then they could not be bribed and bring the Olympic Movement into disrepute. The theory was that they would sit down and study the Evaluation Commission's report before casting their vote, which would be for the city that offered the best technical bid.

  

Sounds logical, doesn't it?

 

Except that history has proven that the Evaluation Commission's hard work [and they do work hard, believe me, despite what you might read on other blogs about them travelling business class and staying in the best hotels] is usually wasted. You only have to look at the last two cities chosen to host the Games to realise that. London was certainly not the best technical bid to host the 2012 Olympics but still won. That Evaluation Commission was also, interestingly, led by El Moutawakel (pictured). Sochi scored ever poorer in the Evaluation Commission's report for the 2014 Winter Olympics but swept to victory on the back of Vladimir Putin's high-profile support.

 

I do not think I have ever spoken to an IOC member yet who has studied the report of the Evaluation Commission fully. Most continue to make their decisions on the "what is in it for me" theory. I'm not for a moment suggesting that bribery and corruption still goes on. But each IOC member has their own individual interests and will vote accordingly.

 

An example. Lamine Diack, the president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), is a man whose character is beyond reproach. But he is on the IOC to basically serve the interests of his sport. So, faced with the choice four years ago of who to vote for to host the 2012 Olympics, he pushed his button for London. His rationale was simple: Paris already has a state-of-an-art athletics stadium in the shape of the Stade de France and by voting for London he hoped he would see another new venue built in one of the world's great capitals capable of staging his sport's major flagship events. There is nothing wrong with that - he was basically looking after his constituents.

 

Or sometimes members vote on a purely selfish nationlist basis. Take the race to host 2016. Tokyo, most people would agree, offers a superb technical bid that combines vision with the promise of cutting-edge technology. But it is going to be difficult for them to get support in Copenhagen from the four members from China and South Korea. The reason is that both countries hope to launch bids to host the 2018 Winter Olympics and having the Games in Japan in 2016 will pretty much scupper that. Again, there is nothing really wrong with that, as a Winter Games in China or South Korea will potentially be worth billions of dollars to them if they are chosen.

 

My colleague Alan Abrahamson at Universal Sports has kindly suggested in a blog he wrote earlier this week that I and Ed Hula, from aroundtherings, should be given a vote as, along with the Evaluation Commission, we were among the few people in the world to have travelled to all four cities and seen what they each have to offer.

 

I'm not sure about that but the process does need to be revamped in time for 2011 when another IOC Evaluation Commission begins travelling the world at huge expense to analyse the bids for the 2018 Winter Olympics. Each 2016 city visited by the Evaluation Commission tried to outdo the other - Chicago had Oprah Winfrey, Tokyo staged a brilliant light show each night, Rio wheeled out Pele and Madrid had the King and Queen hosting a lunch.

 

But, as El Moutawakel tried to keep emphasising [without much success, admittedly], this was a "technical report" and that emotion would play no part in it. That is all very noble but, as anyone who lives in the real world knows, detaching emotion from such an important decision as to who will host the next Olympic Games is impossible. Perhaps the IOC shouldn't even try.

 

Duncan Mackay is the publisher and editor of insidethegames.com. He was the 2004 British Sports Journalist of the Year and was the athletics correspondent of The Guardian for 11 years, being the only British daily newspaper writer to correctly predict in 2005 that London's Olympic bid would be successful.

 
Comments


Duncan, great article. I am wondering how many people in decision
making positions would read it and take lessons from it. I agree
fully with your comments about the need to revamp the voting
system and the reasoning behind it. No need to repeat any of your
arguments or to support them, the spirit is there for whoever
would like to read and understand. I am wondering if the IOC
Members will hate me for suggesting that the National Olympic
Committees should have a large role in voting a city in to host
the Games. After all aren't these NOCs the biggest stakefholder
in any Games? they bring the athletes, don't they? I wonder what
everyone thinks? Wouldn't such a topic deserve to be discussed at
Copenhagen? I also wonder...
By LL

10 May 2009 at 05:27am

The whole evaluation thing has got totally out of control,
millions is being spent on seven members who produce a report
that their colleagues do not read. Geo-politics and what suits
each individual member is still what drives the Olympic voting
process. It is time to come up with a better system - why doesn't
the IOC follow the FIFA model and let its Executive Board vote?
By Olympic cynic

21 May 2009 at 17:47pm