Diack, also a member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), describes the Tottenham Hotspur plan to knock down the stadium - part of the Premier League club's strategy of relocation to Stratford - as "an outrageous proposition" and reminds Britain of the need to follow through on what he maintains many observers viewas "long overdue recompense" for their effective reneging on hosting the IAAF WorldChampionships in 2003 and 2005.

"The crux of the stadium debate for the IAAF focuses on the commitment given by the London bid committee in Singapore in 2005 to the International Olympic Committee, which has many members from the sport of athletics, to retain asustainable athletics legacy after the London Games," Diack says in a statement.

"This promise was not a footnote of London's bid: it was a core policy of their presentation to convince the Olympic family of their exciting, viable legacy plans.

"It offered a vision of year round health and fitness opportunities for the local community and a venue to stage national and major international athletics competitions ranging from meetings like the Samsung Diamond League to Area andWorld Championships.

"There is no doubt that this commitment played its part in the UK winning the right to host the 2012 Games.

"It was also seen by many as a long overdue recompense for the 2001 decision to scrap a £100 million ($159 million) stadium at Pickets Lock (pictured), London, which despite written assurances from the UK Government, led to the subsequent withdrawal of the UK from hosting the 2005 World Athletics Championships."



Referring to the Spurs proposal, Diack adds: "To now demolish the Olympic stadium,throwing away the original £500 million ($795 million) investment of public money seems to me anoutrageous proposition, especially in the present world economic climate.

"Instead, letus keep London's promise alive and leave an athletics legacy at the venue with a topfootball club as a valued partner."

Diack believes a multi-use stadium on the Olympic site - effectively the West Ham United proposal - would be the best solution.

"This option, which draws together football, athletics and the whole local community through clubs and schools, can work financially and leave a real living legacy in theEast End of London," he adds.

"While concerns have been raised about sightlines for football we should recall thatfootball has often shared with other sports and not just outside the UK.

"The old Wembley Stadium had a track around the pitch which was not only used for athletics but for speedway and greyhound racing!

"In the history of FIFA World Cup and UEFA European Champs and Cups, most matches have been played in multi-purpose arenas.

"Five out of the last six Champions League finals have been held instadiums with tracks!

"Athletics is the Olympics' number one sport and the principal stadium sport of the Games.

"For this reason, even if the International Association of Athletics Federations has no vote in the final decision regarding the London Olympic Stadium legacy, we care deeply about what will happen when the Games are over.

"As I already said in an official statement issued on 7 November 2008, 'what saddens me most is that a country like Great Britain, with its magnificent tradition in oursport and a great future ahead of it, surely must be entitled to have a decent athleticsstadium in its capital city?... for the IAAF, destroying the track would be totally unacceptable'."

Contact the writer of this story at [email protected]


Related stories
January 2011: Exclusive - Tottenham Hotspur PR guru fights back over "legacy" as Olympic Stadium decision looms
January 2011: Olympic champion excluded from London 2012 Stadium decision
January 2011: If Tottenham get Olympic Stadium it "would·destroy the whole idea" of London 2012 claims bid star
January 2011: Tottenham plan to move into Olympic Stadium suffers major setback with new Crystal Palace plans
January 2011: Exclusive - Bolt and Caborn add backing to West Ham Olympic Stadium plans