Samaranch's outrage bears the hallmark of hypocrisy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Talk about irony. The word is that the South Korean Kim Un-Yong's bid to succeed Juan Antonio Samaranch as president of the International Olympic Committee failed because of an ethical weakness.
Kim's crime was to suggest that IOC members received an annual stipend of around $50,000 (£35,000). In his opinion it would cover reasonable first-class air travel, five-star hotel accommodation – and who knows it might even put the odd kid through college – and would certainly obviate the need to shake down prospective Olympic hosts in the fashion of bent cops having their morning coffee and bagel.
Samaranch, who lobbied so hard for his successor Jacques Rogge, was outraged. Rogge got the job, be sure, because Samaranch wanted him. The former president, scarcely believably, also changed the rules so that as an honorary president he can continue to sit in on all the IOC's executive meetings. For 21 years Samaranch has travelled like a prince, with trappings that would have made the eyes of the embarrassed French president, Jacques Chirac, swivel. Samaranch's working expenses have never been publicly itemised, but would $50,000 have covered the yearly tab? Perhaps back at the turn of the century. The nineteenth, that is.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments