Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Press Release

Swiss Timing: Commonwealth Games 2010 Delhi

Corgémont (Switzerland), April 26, 2011 – Swiss Timing, the world


leader in timekeeping and data-handling, denies again all the repeated
allegations and rumors refering to any irregularities committed during
the last Commonwealth Games 2010 in Delhi.

Swiss Timing repeats and confirms that

CBI has not made any formal charges against the Swiss Timing
company.

The tender procedure and the bidding procedure have been totally
transparent and Swiss Timing has at no time tried to illegally
influence the tender and bidding procedure.

Swiss Timing has entirely fulfilled its contract according to the


stipulations and conditions set and agreed on by both parties.

Before, during and after the Games, the Swiss Timing experts had
to work under disastrous, chaotic conditions. Despite this
situation, Swiss Timing delivered an impeccable service to the
athletes of the Commonwealth Games 2010.

The pricing has been totally transparent. The difference between the
price of the Commonwealth Games (CWG) 2006 in Melbourne – which is
frequently misquoted in the Indian media – and the price for the CWG
2010 in Delhi has of course been discussed during the tender procedure
between the various Committee expert groups and the departments of
the Organizing Committee. The Organizing Committee (OC) was of
course informed about the Melbourne offer, as well as the
Commonwealth Games Federation. Both offers and contracts are
transparent and comparable. Various employees working for Melbourne
in 2006 were also working for the OC in Delhi and can confirm the facts.
Facts and figures:
The timing contract for the CWG Melbourne 2006 amounted to 10.2
million Swiss Francs. The contract for the CWG 2010 Delhi amounted to
24.9 million Swiss Francs. Similar contracts were concluded also with
the Asian Games 2006 in Doha, and the PanAm Games 2007 in Rio de
Janeiro.

The payment terms are always part of the offer submitted.

Here are the main elements of the price difference between the two
CWG events 2006 and 2010:

1. The scope of work in Delhi was much bigger than the one in
Melbourne. The OC in Delhi requested additionally: Games
information system, virtual TV graphics, CIS (Commentator
Information System which contains all relevant information for
media); tennis was an additional sport in Delhi 2010.

2. The various timing and data-handling systems that had to be


transported, mounted and operated in Delhi, were substantially more
numerous: The material used in Delhi weighed 190 tons versus 60
tons in Melbourne. Examples: 49 TV generators in Delhi versus 28 in
Melbourne; 150 CIS in Delhi versus 80 in Melbourne; the swimming
pool in Melbourne was fully equipped, whereas for the one in Delhi
everything had to be transported to Delhi by Swiss Timing and
installed afterwards.

3. The number of people employed was 50% higher in Delhi than in


Melbourne because of the bigger and more challenging scope of the
operation: 240 persons in 2010 and 160 persons in 2006.

4. Scoreboards: strictly from the surface area of the boards, 880 m2


was used in Delhi versus 116 m2 in Melbourne.

5. Various very important infrastructures were provided by the


Organizing Committee in Melbourne, whereas in Delhi, nearly
nothing was done in this regard by the OC. These infrastructures,
absolutely necessary for the success of the operation, had to be
either delivered or even produced by Swiss Timing itself: various
scoreboard structures, cabling for the tournament gates, electric
generators, local transportation (trucks and cars), etc.

6. The preparation procedure was different. Delhi required an IT lab


test and software homologation, which was not the case in
Melbourne. In addition, the preparation time for the Commonwealth
Games in Delhi, with its considerable requirements, was much
shorter than for Melbourne: in Delhi, the contract could only be
signed 6 ½ months before the start of the games, in Melbourne, the
OC was ready 13 months before the start of the games.

7. In four years, from 2006 to 2010, there were major advancements


in technology as well. In 2006, only a few video scoreboards were
necessary, whereas at Delhi 2010, the majority of the scoreboards
were required to be video, equipped with the latest technology. In
addition, transponders were used for track and field and a new HD
camera (which was designed for and introduced by Swiss Timing at
the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing) was used for swimming events.

8. Finally, the financial and the administrative conditions, as well as the


support and efficiency of the Organizing Committees in Delhi and
Melbourne were unfortunately absolutely not comparable; the
additional costs and risks in Delhi were of course reflected in the
offer.

These are only the most important elements, but we could list many
more.

Contact:

Béatrice Howald, Spokesperson


Phone +41 32 343 68 33
e-mail: press@swatchgroup.com

Оценить