Members of the International Olympic Committee gathered for a dinner at the Olympic Museum on the banks of Lake Geneva. The next morning, they would see presentations from seven candidates vying to be their leader, a role that would by most measures be the most important in international sports.
At the closed-doors gathering, the outgoing president, Thomas Bach, ensured that the members present — the people who determine who will eventually lead the I.O.C. — were kept apart from the candidates. It was, he said perhaps jokingly, so they could enjoy their meals in peace.
This scene was in keeping with the quirky and sometimes stifling rules of an election that will be decided when I.O.C. members vote in March at a resort in southern Greece.
The winner will assume leadership of the organization that controls the Olympics, an event that is as prestigious as it is expensive, and a diplomatic status higher than any other figure in the sports world. However, many of the candidates have been critical of the thicket of rules and regulations surrounding the election that they say have hindered their ability to get their message across not only to I.O.C. members but also the wider world.
5 Comments
Rotfront
Let's give the I.O.C. some credit. Managing an organization as large as this is no small feat, and rules help keep order.
Matzomaster
The closed-door meetings allow for more candid conversations without outside influence. It’s their choice!
Karamba
The closed-door meetings are a sham! Transparency is necessary for an organization that claims to represent the world of sports.
BuggaBoom
The candidates should embrace the challenge. If they can’t navigate these rules, are they really fit to lead?
Loubianka
I appreciate the I.O.C.'s effort to keep things professional. A focus on the candidates in such a setting can lead to serious discussions.