Okay, who lied? The cosy deal between two of the world's biggest and most powerful organisations - the Chinese Communist Party and the International Olympic Committee - to strip away media freedoms, so starkly exposed midweek, reflects badly on both.
The Communist Party doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. It just wants to control what the Chinese population thinks. Clearly its decision to impose restrictions on internet access at late notice is annoying for the 20,000 members of the world's media. But for the locals, the meaning of this order is far more significant. Unfettered internet access was held up as a prime example of China's political commitment to "open up" to the rest of the world. The about-turn shows the political masters' reluctance to allow its citizens exposure to global opinion.
We now know that when China's top-level delegation bid for Beijing to host the 2008 Games seven years ago, promising a new China, they lied. As I write this, more than 150 websites are being blocked - including BBC China and German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle - journalists are being harassed, and areas such as Tiananmen Square are being tightly restricted.
Sadly, the promoted desire "to show off China and open up" has been reduced to a game of semantics with foreigners.
The tenor of the Games started to change a couple of months ago when worrying indications emerged that China would not honour its bidding promise to allow free reporting. A couple of reporters considered "undesirable" to the Chinese authorities were denied entry to the country - again a direct contradiction of China's promise to provide unrestricted access for reporters covering the Games. And the Communist Party abruptly imposed a new layer of bureaucracy on Beijing Games organisers soon after the global demonstrations involving the torch relay. Then came the riots in Tibet.
Xi Jinping, a Communist Party vice-president with direct links to the People's Liberation Army - and the man touted to be President Hu Jintao's successor - was put in charge of the Olympic Games. Executives with businesses in Beijing were refused visas and the city was emptied of non-locals.
It was then that the IOC realised it had lost control of its own Games. One of its most senior members, Kevan Gosper, became a pawn.
For months, indeed years, Gosper has been clear in his language: the internet would not be censored and there would be no reporting restrictions imposed on the foreign media. Gosper should know. He is the chairman of the IOC's press commission.
But, critically, he is also the vice-chairman of the IOC Co-ordination Commission for the Beijing Olympics. For seven years, Gosper has been the second-most senior IOC official in Beijing.
Hein Verbruggen, formerly the head of the International Cycling Union, is the co-ordination commission chairman. It is difficult to believe that such a critical undertaking to restrict the freedom of press and introduce censorship of the Games was not signed by IOC president Jacques Rogge.
Gosper is very convincing when he insists he didn't know of this deal and he had not deliberately misled the global press. He was flustered on Wednesday night when it became apparent what the Chinese were doing. A pragmatist, Gosper may well have been most upset that he wasn't a party to the deal. Other press commission members also swear they have been completely misled on the issue.
When it comes to discussing a "deal", there is - by implication - agreement between the IOC and the Communist Party. Olympic insiders insist the Chinese had delivered an "instruction" to the IOC. And Gosper said as much: "I am disappointed, but we are dealing with a communist country that has censorship and you will see what they say you can see."
These are the Beijing Games indeed.