IOC ready for battle with London's Mayor
I've been talking regularly to International Olympic Committee President for more than a decade now.
When he took over from in 2001, he became more diplomatic in his answers to my questions. It came with the job.
So it is interesting that he made it crystal clear to me in an interview this week that there will be no messing with chiefs if they stray too far from their promises during the bid.
I was talking to him about at plans to build a £40 million temporary venue near the in Greenwich.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions
As I revealed in this blog a fortnight ago, the London Mayor wants the idea scrapped and is trying to push through plans which could mean more travelling for some competitors.
Some sports have already objected to this. When I asked Rogge how he would handle the situation, he reminded me quickly that he had the right to veto plans if they are too far from the pledges made by a host city.
Don't forget, London can't just change the venue plans, even if they finally get the approval of 2012, Olympics Minister and the .
The has the final say and it won't allow anything which affects the experience of athletes who were promised they would 'compete and not commute' in 2012.
Expect plenty of rows on this for months yet. And also expect Johnson to dig in hard to get his way.
2012 has become very political. This row is so acrimonious that Johnson rushed in front of TV cameras this week without even telling 2012 he planned to do so.
Boris has stepped out of the Olympic tent. The 2012 consensus has been shattered. With the IOC also ready to play a hard game, we are in for some interesting days.
I'm 91Èȱ¬ London's Olympics Correspondent, which means I report on every aspect of the preparations for 2012. I'm going to be telling you what people are saying about London's preparations - both in the Olympic corridors of power and on the streets of the capital - and I want to hear your views.
Comment number 1.
At 1st Oct 2009, 00_neoFrenchyFrench wrote:How many divisions does the IOC have?
:-)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 2nd Oct 2009, Cape Town 2020 wrote:Why so much fuss? If they bothered finding contractors who would build the Olympic Stadium and Aquatic Centre for much more realistic prices, then squabbling over 40 million would be no issue.
They are making a mountain of a mole hill. London's progress has been exceptional.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 2nd Oct 2009, digiPiter wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 5th Oct 2009, Euloroo wrote:Considering London will overall be one of the most concentrated Games, it seems a shame not to use great venues like the refurbished Wembley Area. This would share the benefit of the games, give more to the London economy and have a lower carbon footprint than a new temporary venue. The sticking point in all this, as Matt Slater alluded to a few months ago, is the ability of the North Circular to transport Olympic participants. Whilst a huge amount is being investing in the Tube (take a closer look at the Kings Cross tube hall extension plans, Adrian), London Overground and DLR the North Circular is getting some regigged lights at Henly's Corner and an westbound extra lane at Bounds Green. Not enough I think unless the London Traffic Control Centre can work some magic.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 5th Oct 2009, Adrian Warner wrote:Euloroo, interesting points you make. I just took a look at my blogs from last year and next week it will be exactly 12 months since I first broke this story about the plans to scrap the temporary venue and move some sports to Wembley. The fact that it hasn't been solved yet shows how reluctant many of the sports are to force competitors to take on the North Circular. I was surprised how well informed badminton officials were about the route when I spoke to them a year ago. Remember, London promised the world athletes would "compete and not commute" in 2012. Having said that, I think there is a good chance that Wembley will be used but 2012 officials are going to have to convince badminton that their players will not suffer. There is no problem with Wembley as a venue. In fact the world badminton champs are going there in the year before the Games. But this is all about what they call "back of house" facilities at the Olympics -- all the space needed for competitors, sponsors and the extra security etc. Wembley Arena is quite small in that respect.
,
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 6th Oct 2009, freddawlanen wrote:Whoever thinks that building temporary structures for the Olympics is anything other than a bad idea and a giant waste of money, needs their head read.
London won the right to host the games, primarily because of the pledge to leave a long term legacy for the future of sport in Britain, how can any temporary structure deliver this?
We are already seeing vast quantities of cash being spent on things that will leave nothing for future athletes, the media centre being a prime example (at £350m+) of this.
I'm a big supporter of London 2012 and if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well, so why all the wasted money, why the temporary structures and does anyone even know what the main stadium will be used for after 2012?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)