It might sound beyond ridiculous, given the scale of Kirsty Coventry’s seismic victory in the International Olympic Committee presidential election. But as the various royals, sporting dignitaries, politicians and billionaires left the Costa Navarino resort on Friday, some really believed the result could have turned out very differently.
Yes, the 41-year-old Zimbabwean ex-swimmer had won in the first round with 49 votes to become the first woman to lead the IOC. And yes, Juan Antonio Samaranch and Sebastian Coe, the other members of the “Big Three”, had come away with just 28 and eight votes respectively. But in the postmortem there were several stories about how the IOC machine had powered Thomas Bach’s chosen successor over the line.
“We were hearing about phone calls telling members: ‘Don’t waste your vote, do the right thing’”, said one well-placed source. Another admitted: “The lobbying and strong-arming was intense.” There were even reports of at least one IOC member going up to Bach to voice their displeasure.
Some camps believe it changed the entire race. For months most candidates had their own internal trackers, which predicted who each IOC member would vote for round by round, as the lowest scoring candidate dropped out. And at the start of the week, several camps had similar numbers for the crucial first round of voting.
Samaranch, depending on who you spoke to, had either 24, 28 or 30 votes in the bag. Lord Coe’s ranged from as low as 20 and as high as 26. And while two camps had Coventry in the low or mid-20s, and another a fair bit higher, the consensus was that there was everything still to play for.
At this point Coe was still hopeful that his message of being the change candidate was working. And he saw a path to victory in the later rounds, with some promising to switch to him after lending Coventry their first-round vote.
Samaranch, meanwhile, hoped that his charm, his small-c change manifesto and his 24 years at the IOC might turn the vote his way late on. Until the final 48 hours, most reckoned he was the slight favourite.
But the danger zone for both men was always going to be the first round. They knew Coventry had to knock them out early, as she wouldn’t pick up many more votes in the later rounds. Their mistake was not believing that she could do it.
But 24 hours before the election there were growing signs Coventry was gaining serious momentum. The first came when Bach was made honorary IOC president. As the 71-year-old received the award he feigned surprise, even though he surely knew it was coming. But then came an hour-long eulogy from IOC members, some of whom shed tears while others compared him to Nelson Mandela.
“May the Olympic gods continue to guide you, dear president,” said his deputy, Nicole Hoevertsz. No wonder that one critic described it as “a level of unctuousness that would not have looked out of place on the politburo in Pyongyang”.
But those in the room were divided about what this choreography really meant. Was it the IOC membership giving Bach a send-off so he didn’t feel too angered when Coventry lost? Or did it mean the 71-year-old German was giving a final reminder to members of his power and how he wanted them to vote?
One candidate’s team admitted they misjudged it. “It was a classic example where you see the signs but you tell yourself it is something else,” they said.
By Thursday morning it was clear that Coventry was picking up steam. Observers reckoned her vote had risen into the 40s. Meanwhile Bach was looking noticeably more cheery as he cracked jokes about being a lame duck.
after newsletter promotion
In the afternoon a 10-minute coffee break before the scheduled 4pm election turned into 45 minutes. Were Coventry’s supporters trying for one last push, some in the room asked?
Whatever the reason, it worked. After a minor delay when IOC member Samira Asghari struggled to vote, causing the IOC director general Christophe De Kepper to tell her: “You are testing my nerves and those of the candidates,” the contest was over after two minutes.
While Coventry celebrated, others were conducting a postmortem. Most agreed that Coe took by far the biggest haircut in the final stages and queried if the IOC election rulebook, which states that “the IOC administration shall maintain strict neutrality at all times”, might not be worth the paper it was written on.
But when Coe was asked whether it was a clean fight, he was sanguine. “Oh, it’s an election.” While another influential voice made a similar point: “Elections – what’s new?”
However this was a contest where the rules were so strict that, when the entire IOC membership had dinner in Lausanne in January, the seven candidates were put together on a table with Bach, where they had a lobster and couscous starter followed by cod, to prevent them lobbying potential voters.
Yet while there is still some disquiet in some quarters, the sense is that the membership will move on and close ranks behind Coventry. That is what the IOC tends to do, after all. No wonder IOC honorary member Dick Pound said the voting process “makes the Vatican conclave look like it’s open house”.
For Coe, his requiem for a lost dream will perhaps return to whether he misjudged the appetite for change among members and the extent of Bach’s power. Perhaps the die was cast in 2016 when Coe and World Athletics banned Russian track and field athletes from the 2016 Olympics for state-sponsored doping.
But Coe can at least reflect on this. His candidacy at least got Coventry talking about the need to do more to help athletes, cut costs at the IOC, and to protect women’s sport, none of which were in her manifesto. Perhaps one day he will see that as a positive. But for now this defeat will sting.