There are sore losers. And there are bad losers. And then there are the French.
BLAIR WON THE OLYMPICS BY FLOUTING RULES, CLAIM FRENCH
PARIS April 21, 2006 (Telegraph) - Downing Street reacted furiously last night after Tony Blair was accused by a leading French newspaper of winning the 2012 Olympic Games for London with private lobbying that breached the ethics of the International Olympics Committee.An investigation by Le Monde falls just short of alleging that the Prime Minister's personal conduct amounted to corruption.
But it suggests that several "deals" were offered to undecided delegates during two days of behind-the-scenes meetings ahead of last July's IOC vote in Singapore, awarding the games to London by 54 votes to Paris's 50.
French crybabyism. Nothing new there.
Le Monde quotes a European but non-French delegate as saying Mr Blair closeted himself in his hotel suite with a procession of voting IOC members. The newspaper speculates that the Prime Minister could have used the meetings to confirm agreements reached earlier after each delegate was asked the simple question: "What can London do to obtain your support?"
It doesn't get any more sinister than this, to place a bid then inquire how to improve that bid's chances. Le Monde by alleging Tony Blair has done his lobbying badly and won implies that the French did theirs properly and lost. But are we to believe that the French never posed a similar question? If so, well, really, why is Le Monde surprised that the French effort failed?
Another unnamed IOC member is quoted as saying: "Lobbying is not a case of cash in envelopes. That's finished, or nearly. It's a case of commissions on contracts, grants for projects. Who would know if a company made a very advantageous bid for work, including commissions, and that its government covered its losses?"
Yes, who would know such things? Well not Le Monde's anonymous IOC source who simply poses the question in the abstract but who offers no evidence nor shares his personal suspicions of any particular wrongdoing. It is as much to say, closeted in his hotel suite, who would know if Tony Blair farted and paid off some IOC minion not to tattle?
Mr Blair's lobbying, Le Monde states, "contravened the ethics of the IOC, but the Belgian president, Jacques Rogge, let it pass".
Or perhaps Mr. Rogge let pass what was passable, requiring a higher standard of proof than merely thinking the worst and wishing it so. Though this doesn't seem to have occured to Le Monde.
The paper says that of 25 undecided members who cast tactical votes in the final round, 19 went to London.
In the final round there were two candidates, London and Paris. The 25 undecided IOC members were destined to eventually become decided voters. What is sinsiter here, Le Monde suggests, is that the majority of undecideds decided for London. Had they swung for Paris, well, dear browser, nothing wrong there.
Of course, if what Le Monde suggests were true, then the larger indictment is the base ethics of the 19 IOC members who were allegedly bought off and the 6 who refused Mr. Blair's bribes yet failed to report him. Again, this is something that hasn't occurred to Le Monde.
Mr Blair's official spokesman described the claims as "wild and inaccurate" and said London had won through "bloody hard work".
"Bloody hard work". Ah, we see why the French feel they were unfairly disadvantaged. And in that typical "oh-and-yes" French way of thinking, Le Monde recognizes that, whatever Mr. Blair did or did not do in his iniquitous hotel lair, Jack did little.
Again quoting its "non-French European" source, Le Monde contrasts Mr Blair's energetic support of the London bid with President Jacques Chirac's almost detached approach."Mr Chirac spent eight hours in Singapore, three of them wasted at the inaugural function and the rest shaking hands and drinking cocktails in public with voting members. Tony Blair, on the other hand, shut himself in his suite for two days, saw 40 members and no one would ever know what was said there."
At the time Pave speculated on what lay behind the failed French bid. Unlike Le Monde, Pave was careful to characterize our comments as so many guesses -- though our guesses have more substance than Le Monde's reporting. And then there is this French explanation for the failed bid:
And as if to illustrate the above, here is French Sports Minister (Le ministre de la Jeunesse, des Sports et de la Vie associative) Jean-François Lamour explaining why France will not bid for any near future games:
NO BID FROM FRANCE FOR OLYMPIC GAMES
February 19, 2006 (GamesBids.com) - “We have every reason to believe that a new bid would lead to the same result. We first need to understand why we are not understood by the members of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)”, reports Reuters. He added, “four times [scil. four losses, Paris has lost 4 bids as an Olympic venue] is enough”.
The French are often reproved as haughty, vainly proud. But to be this petty and pouty and openly pathetic excludes any claims to pride, misplaced or otherwise.
The Le Monde article can be read in its entirety here.
[All emphases added.]
PFFT (What is this?): Crybabyism 5 | Rayonnement français 0
