If ever there was a lie to the old adage that sport and politics don't mix, the festering row over a united British football team at next year's London Olympics must rank as the ultimate example.

Ever since London won the right to stage the Games, the three non-English Home Associations have steadfastly insisted they do not want to know anything about a united team because of a perceived threat to their independence. The key word here is perceived.

What on earth are the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish actually making such a fuss about? Every time the issue is raised, the same old argument gets trotted out: take us out of our comfort zone as an individual member of FIFA and it's a slippery slope to wrecking our national identity. Show me the evidence. It's a bit like saying the introduction of goalline technology will automatically lead to video evidence all over the pitch. In other words, choose an argument that suits your side of the debate without looking at the bigger picture.

Sepp Blatter may not be known for his consistency but he is not alone in insisting that any Team GB at next year's Games will be treated as a one-off. For once we should believe him. Why? Because the right of the four British Home Associations to exist as individual federations is ingrained in the FIFA statutes. To change them would be hellish difficult if not impossible. As would forcing them to metamorphise into one member called Great Britain. Some FIFA members privately want that to happen. But they are in a minority and would face huge obstacles bringing it about.

Not only that. The four British Associations have long been responsible, both individually and collectively, for drafting the laws of football as we know it. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with FIFA, make up the International FA Board (IFAB). For decades they have been the lawmakers, or custodians, of world football. Are the three non-England federations seriously suggesting that the IFAB will instead become FIFA and one all-British affliliate just because a united Olympics team is given the green light? It's a somewhat fanciful notion.

And what about the sporting criteria? It's one thing if the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish do not actually have enough talented players to make the squad. It's quite another if the likes of Gareth Bale (pictured) are not at least given the opportunity to perform. No-one would suggest for one moment that an Olympic medal ranks as highly as that of the World Cup or European Championship. Not when it comes to football anyway. But for Bale and others like him, it could – as Britain's new FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce said in Paris last week – be the pinnacle their international careers.

Boyce, to his credit, seems intent on trying to mediate in the dispute and is supported by, among others, Bale's boss at Tottenham Hotspur, Harry Redknapp. "I don't think any player would turn down the opportunity to play, it's so special and you've got to grab it with both hands," said Redknapp.

While the recent appeal of Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland not to boycott a Great Britain football team may smack of a panic move, there is surely a legal case for having to release players instead of hiding behind the national identity issue. Show me the rule that says national federations can lawfully behave unilaterally in this way. Does this not represent just as slippery a slope as any threat to national independence?

And what would the rest of the world think in terms of the credibility of the Olympic tournament? "It would be very disappointing if all the players were English and could only be English," said Hunt. "I really think this is a time when we need to put football politics aside and think about the athletes."

His words, ultimately, could fall on deaf ears. British entry into the Olympic football competition has long been a source of rancour, with the four constituent footballing nations competing as separate entities in every other tournament. Indeed, there has been no men's British football team at the Olympics since 1960. But that doesn't mean we should deny one now. If the three non-English federations remain as intransigent as they are, the most likely outcome will be an England team rebadged as Great Britain. What a cop-out that would be.

Andrew Warshaw is a former sports editor of The European, the newspaper that broke the Bosman story in the 1990s, the most significant issue to shape professional football as we know it today. Before that, he worked for the Associated Press for 13 years in Geneva and London. He is now the chief football reporter for our sister publication, insideworldfootball

As a former pugilist, the British Olympic Association's chairman, Colin Moynihan, is adept at the jab.

At today's press event in the Tate Modern, faced by media set on questioning his increasingly egregious stance with regard to upping the cut - or should that be uppering the cut? - which the BOA would get from any London 2012 surplus, Moynihan flicked out an opening jab that set those facing him on the back foot.

"Now before I open the proceedings," he said, "I know that some of our friends of the press have a different agenda, so in the interests of the Olympic athletes and the Olympic sporting legacy for this country, I can report that good progress was made over the weekend, and at our request the Government has agreed to a meeting to discuss an amicable resolution to the current contractual dispute."

There followed an equally nippy retreat to the safety of his corner as he added that "in the circumstances" it would not be proper to offer any further comments on the day.

In moving on to the reason for the press gathering in the plush surrounds of the gallery's Starr Auditorium – the news that 27 illustrious former Olympians would be providing advice and support for Britain's London 2012 competitors in the role of voluntary Ambassadors – Moynihan described the imminent Games as "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for British sport".

Moynihan's critics, who seem suddenly numerous and vocal, suggest that he is currently energised by a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the BOA.

But any opportunity to further question the noble Lord about his plans, ahead of tomorrow morning's chinwag with the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson, was to be frustrated.

Having said his piece, Moynihan (pictured) effectively removed himself from the proceedings by handing over to the two former athletes chosen from the illustrious throng present to publicise their new roles–five-times Olympic champion Sir Steven Redgrave, and double Olympic champion Dame Kelly Holmes.

Before the illustrious pair did their bit, however, there was a screening of an accompanying video. Which mixed treasured archive of the moments in which many of those present had defined themselves in British sporting history with sound bites from the likes of Sir Clive Woodward, the BOA's handsomely remunerated Director of Elite Performance and touching additional comments from children who, so far as I could see, were not credited.

It was an impressive production. On a par with the charming and inventive film aired by the team bidding to bring the 2012 Games to London, who now form that dread acronym LOCOG – and from whose board meetings Moynihan and his colleague Andy Hunt are now banned while their dispute over the Olympic surplus endures.

But as the credits faded, the thought remained: what was this no doubt costly video for? The 2005 effort involving the likes of Leytonstone's very own David Beckham had a clear purpose – to please and persuade those International Olympic Committee members whose votes would be required to bring the 2012 Games to London.

What purpose was there in this latest effort? No one needed to be persuaded of anything. It was not as if there was a strong lobby against former Olympians doing their bit to support aspiring current Olympians. "Oi, Olympian, leave those kids alone!" "Let the young ones make their own mistakes!"

So there was something indulgent about it.

And after the two model role models had played their part in explaining the BOA's goodhearted new scheme, addressing their comments to an auditorium in which the front row was filled with 17 of their peers, the inevitable surge towards the small figure at the centre of the proceedings produced an inevitable result.

As the TV lights sought his face, and reporters shouted out his name in vain – why do reporters do that when they know someone is not going to speak to them? Is it because they feel they can at least justify their efforts with proof that they tried? – the BOA chairman bundled his way out the Starr Auditorium, which was clearly beginning to feel more like the Star Chamber.

Nobody had been able to land a blow on him.

But if Moynihan lived to fight another day, he clearly had a very difficult bout ahead of him the following morning as he faced the man now occupying the role Moynihan himself filled from 1987-1990 before moving on to another tricky contest at the meeting of British sport's national governing bodies, in which he will doubtless be asked to justify the costs of taking the BOA case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

A good jab and fancy footwork can only take you so far.

Mike Rowbottom, one of Britain's most talented sportswriters, has covered the last five Summer and four Winter Olympics for The Independent. Previously he has worked for the Daily Mail, The Times, The Observer, the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian. He is now chief feature writer for insidethegames

The FIFA Presidential election will turn on two words: Goal Project.

This was Sepp Blatter's great idea, energetically pushed by him ever since he got elected as President. But, and this is crucial, it was run by Mohammed Bin Hammam. The Qatari can win if, through his stewardship of the project, he has built such support in FIFA that he can undercut Blatter, particularly in the small organisations round. It is a big if.

Yes, the election will see much talk of transparency and reforming FIFA. We have had such talk before and Bin Hammam is already engaged on such campaign themes.

Bin Hammam will present himself as a moderniser. But at the end of the day he knows, and Blatter fears, that it is the Goal Project and how Bin Hamman may have boosted his election chances by administering it, that will turn the election.

The Goal Project is the most deeply political project any sports body has ever undertaken. It shows what a remarkable sports politician Blatter is. You may like him or hate him, feel he has damaged football or enhanced it, but you cannot question his skills as a politician. The Goal Project demonstrates that he knows how to use his power and position to make sure he always wins elections.

Essentially the Goal Project is football's equivalent of what Americans call pork barrel politics. This is where members of the Congress make sure that whenever there is a bill before Congress, it almost always contains a clause that will bring some benefit to their constituents.

This benefit may take the form of bringing a US military base to the area, or some other defence project, or having a new public works initiative, or providing some financial relief that will attract business and industries.

The idea is that when the member goes back to the electors to canvass votes for re-election, he or she can point to the particular project and say: "This is what I did for you, now vote for me."

In essence, it is officially sanctioned electoral bribes. Politicians all over the world do it. Only in America is there a name for it: Pork Barrel Politics. Blatter's name for it is Goal Project.

That is what Blatter has been doing and that is what he is very good at doing.

On the face of it, nothing could be more commendable than the Goal Project. It can, and is, presented as what FIFA does best. FIFA taking football to places where football has not developed and where there are not the resources to develop the game. So here comes FIFA with money to build playing fields, stadiums, provide for coaching facilities, administrative offices, anything that can help the game put down roots and develop. What could be more laudable?

But if this is the pro, there is a con to it. This is that, come election time, the countries that have benefited from the Goal Project will remember to vote for the man who brought the benefit: Blatter.


But this is where the rub comes in and could mean a lot to Bin Hammam (pictured with Blatter and Jordan's Prince Ali). For, as administrator of the project, he is the man who has been in touch with the people receiving the benefit. And if, in the 12-year Blatter reign, Bin Hammam has done the miles, then it is possible that come June he, and not Blatter, will benefit.

The power of the Goal Project to translate into votes should never be underestimated.

I was made vividly aware of the power of the Goal Project at the FIFA congress in Seoul in 2002. Never in FIFA history has a sitting President ever faced such a challenge. True, back in 1974 Sir Stanley Rous was beaten by João Havelange, but that was a campaign where Havelange quietly gathered support over the unsuspecting Rous over many years and then ambushed him in Frankfurt. Even then the result was desperately close.

Blatter went to Seoul with his Executive in open revolt against him and with his general secretary, Michel Zen-Ruffinen, making all sorts of allegations about the way he had run FIFA. The allegations were that he had mismanaged FIFA finances; there was lack of accountability and questions about probity. Some of these questions were raised by men like the late David Will, then British representative on the FIFA Executive.

There was much confidence from UEFA that this time, they would get him. UEFA also thought it had a man who could take on Blatter, Issa Hayatou, President of the Confederation of African football (CAF) and the first black man to challenge for a job that has always been the preserve of the European or people of European stock (Havelange was a child of Belgian parents who had migrated to Brazil).

Talking to delegates days before the vote, it was clear that many of them just did not think Blatter had done anything wrong, let alone have any worries that he had to answer questions about financial probity or the lack of it. And many of these delegates were from countries where the Goal Project was very active and had benefited from it.

It was possible that some of these delegates had benefited personally as well, but that is impossible to say. But the way the delegates spoke of Blatter was very like constituents in an American election grateful to his or her Congress representative for bringing jobs and industries to their region.

They were ready to do Sepp's bidding, and so it proved. Minutes before the vote, Hayatou's man was predicting a first ballot victory for the man from Cameroon. In fact, he was not so much beaten on the first ballot, as swept aside.

At that time of course, Bin Hammam was a Blatter ally, leaving his sick child to campaign for him. It has never been disclosed what led to the two men falling out. The word is Blatter reneged on a promise to step aside for the Qatari after three terms. Interesting that now Bin Hammam has finally challenged him, Blatter says this is going to be his last term.

That may be so, but the problem with such deals is that they never seem to work in FIFA. Recall when Lennart Johansson stood against Blatter in 1998. His ticket was also one of transparency. But there was also an understanding with Hayatou that the Swede would step aside after one term. But he did not win. With all sorts of allegations of vote buying, this could never be proven.

Or look at the UEFA Presidency election of 2007. The Michel Platini camp has always believed that when he contested against Johansson, not only was Johansson not very well, but the Swede, it seems, had agreed to stand aside if he won to give Mathieu Sprengers a chance. But then Johansson did not win.

Now it seems Bin Hammam is ready to do a deal with Platini. The Frenchman started off as a Blatter man, but in recent years the ardour has cooled and may be open to an offer. The chance of the man who runs European football ruling the world game could be attractive to many in Europe.


The other great worry for bin Hammam is that he cannot match the Swiss in the way he can play the crowd, particularly at a FIFA congress. The Swiss is the master of the stage, as he proved in Buenos Aires in the summer of 2001. Do not underestimate that.

In the Argentine capital, the scenario could not have been bleaker for Blatter. That was the first FIFA meeting since the collapse of ISL, FIFA's marketing company. There was a lot of worry about FIFA finances; Blatter was in a minority, even with his own Executive where he faced fierce opposition from UEFA.

UEFA, with Mike Lee, then head of communications, had orchestrated what it felt was a well prepared strategy. At the congress, the UEFA treasurer, Sprengers, would present facts and figures in a sober, cold fashion. Blatter, it was felt, would not be able to recover.

The problem was that Sprengers never got a chance.

The procedure for Congress is that the President makes a few short remarks welcoming the members and then hands over to the general secretary for the roll call. Only after the roll is the Congress meant to be in session. But Blatter effectively hijacked the Congress. His remarks were a lengthy speech in praise of himself and his handling of the ISL crisis, at the end of which, he got the delegates to vote.

When the then FIFA general secretary said the vote could not be taken as the roll call had not been done and the Congress was therefore not in session, Blatter just pointed to the forest of hands raised to indicate such formalities do not count.

Sprengers did speak, but as he did, applause rolled across the floor. For Blatter had arranged for Havelange to walk in, and these were all devotees of Havelange, the creator of modern FIFA.

It is hard to see bin Hammam doing that. But if he really has sweetened the associations with the Goal Project, then he will not need such theatrical turns to win. He might still surprise Blatter, and the world.

Mihir Bose is one of the world's most astute observers on politics in sport and, particularly, football. He formerly wrote for The Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph and until recently was the BBC's head sports editor.

www.mihirbose.com

http://twitter.com/mihirbose

Young people don't always get a good press. If you believe what you often read in the papers, we're all hanging around street corners, smoking, drinking and acting irresponsibly.

The reality, as most rational people know, is actually somewhat different. There are by far and away more young people that are respectful, well mannered members of society, that will go on to have a positive involvement in the community.

As a 17-year-old, I like to think of myself as one such responsible teenager - and I put sport at the heart of how I have developed as a person.

I am chair of the Young Ambassadors Movement, a group of young people who use the values and power of the Olympic and Paralympic Games to motivate and inspire other young people to become involved in sport.

We Young Ambassadors came about as a result of London winning the bid to host the 2012 Games.

Since the Young Ambassador programme began back in 2006, it has grown dramatically through the management and support of the Youth Sport Trust - by 2012 we will see more than 8,000 young people up and down the country using the Games as a way to engage more youngsters to take up PE and sport.

It really is a very exciting time for young people.

It's not always been an easy road though. The cuts to school sport announced by the Government last October sent me into overdrive to be honest. When I heard about the plans to remove all funding I had to take action to try and stop it.

A petition opposing the decision was launched across the country and more than half a million signatures were taken to Downing Street, with an accompanying peaceful demonstration in London.

Looking back on it, I like to think I played my part in encouraging the Government to have a rethink in December when they confirmed they'd be reinvesting money into school sport.

As part of this, there is going to be additional money for the Young Ambassadors movement to be expanded so that every secondary school and some primary schools can introduce even more Young Ambassadors in the run up to London 2012.

So where do I think things are at now?


Whilst it's not all the money, it's a much better place than where we were back in October.

I think everyone involved in school sport needs to think about how the money which is now being invested can be best used to benefit as many young people as possible.

Members of the Young Ambassadors steering group and I met recently with Education Minister Tim Loughton to discuss how things are likely to move forward.

I was encouraged to hear the Minister tell us he is very keen on promoting more sport in schools and that he's committed to doing this.

He wants to continue meeting with us, to hear the views of young people, and we'll be working with him on how we think the Young Ambassadors programme can continue to be developed.

It's been a rollercoaster few months, for me personally and for school sport.

Back in October I could never have anticipated being thrust into the limelight on national breakfast TV talking about the importance of sport, or meeting with ministers at the very top level of Government.

It has tested the many skills I have developed through my sporting journey – my confidence, leadership and self belief to name but a few - thankfully they served me well. "

Debbie Foote is chair of the Young Ambassadors Programme for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

After covering the fight game for the best part of half a century, I have come to appreciate a decent scrap, and there are some tasty ones on the menu, not least between David Haye and Wladimir Klitschko.

But the one catching my eye at the moment is an intriguing domestic spat between two old mates.

No, not the pending punch-up featuring Olympic gold medallist James DeGale, now British pro super middleweight champion and his former amateur buddy George Groves, who beat him once when they both wore vests and subsequently have become the best of enemies.

This set-to features another couple of pals who have fallen out, in this case over money – not theirs but the sum the British Olympic Association believe they are due from 2012 organisers LOCOG.

Hence the current contretemps between (both in the blue corner) M'lords Moynihan and Coe. The two Tory peers may be lightweights pugilistically but are respective title holders in the heavyweight division of sports politics.

How apposite then, that both possess something of a boxing background – Colin Berkley Moynihan, aka the Mighty Atom, won a Blue at Oxford as a bantamweight (he was actually quite useful with his mitts and remains proud of the fact that he was once banned by the Amateur Boxing Association because he was discovered sparring with professionals at London's Thomas A'Beckett gym – taboo in those unenlightened days).

Sebastian Newbold Coe, aka the LOCOG Larruper, also did a bit of boxing in his youth before concentrating on breaking world records on the track rather than opponents' noses, but he remains an avid fight fan, and has served as a steward on the British Boxing Board of Control.

However, his practical interest in unarmed combat since he retired from athletics has been throwing other people's weight around on the judo mat with close friend William Hague, one time Tory leader, now foreign secretary as his chief sparring partner.

So let's get ready to rumble!

The combative backgrounds of both parties make their current differences even more intriguing, especially as the BOA have refused to accept the decision of the referee – in this case International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge, who awarded LOCOG a controversial points verdict, and have taken the battle to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland for settlement.

Actually, never mind the boxing analogy - if nothing else it has given the 2012 a new event for the Olympic agenda: The tug of war.

This complicated and increasingly bitter wrangle concerns the divvying up of an anticipated £400 million ($650 million) surplus once the 2012 marketing revenue is counted.

LOCOG reckon this should subsidise the loss-making Paralympics while the BOA argue that as the Government are committed to underwriting them, 60 per cent should go into a legacy pot for grass roots and facilities.

Moreover the BOA are concerned that the future of some Olympic sports in this country could be jeopardised without some tangible financial legacy which the cash-back from any Games profit would help provide.

The issue is both vexed and complex, dating back to an agreement made with a previous BOA administration to give up rights to market the Olympics leading up to next year's event in return for £33 million ($54 million) compensation.

Moynihan, noting that Vancouver gave the Canadian Olympic Association £71 million ($115 million) for less valuable rights to the Winter Games, argues that the BOA settlement was seriously undervalued, and seeks a bigger cut.

While to the public it may seem a tiresome tiff between two fellow Olympic medallists, ominously it is the first major rift in what had seemed to be a smooth passage towards 2012.

Legal fisticuffs between Olympic Board members is certainly rather unseemly at this stage of the Games.

Moynihan declines to discuss the issue, saying it is now sub-judice, but he insists he remains on good terms with Coe and London mayor Boris Johnson (co-respondents in the case): "This is purely a commercial dispute and should not affect our relationship."


Nor, he says, do the BOA need the money to plug the reported £5 million ($8 million) black hole in their own finances, over which eyebrows have been raised as high as some of the salaries paid to senior staff, not least Sir Clive Woodward's reputed £300,000 ($488,000) a year as performance director.

However, there is rather more to this bizarre bout than meets the eye. At the heart of the matter is Moynihan's long-held desire to make the BOA the hub of British sport, as is the case with several other corresponding Olympic bodies, most notably in Italy and Germany.

He believes the BOA should be the principal architect for the preparation and delivery of competitors to 2012, and Olympics beyond that.

It is a position that has been nominally occupied by UK Sport, the Government agency, who distribute funding elite athletes and are now calling the shots when it comes to setting out medal targets, something with which the BOA feel they should be more involved.

Moynihan, a little man with lofty ambitions, may well have some justification in feeling that the BOA is not accorded the status it deserves with London's Olympics looming.

The days are gone when the BOA was simply a glorified travel agency, making sure that the uniforms fitted and that everyone marched in step at the opening ceremony.

First Craig Reedie and now Moynihan as successive chairmen, have hauled the BOA into the 21st century.

But that takes money, which is something the BOA, without an input from the Exchequer, have always had to find for themselves.

There are those who question not only Moynihan's motives, but his methods.

Ex-England rugby supremo Woodward is not the only expensive BOA recruit. Hiring high-fliers like new chief executive Andy Hunt and marketing director Hugh Chambers from the commercial fields, and bringing in the formerly US Olympic Committee communications head honcho as media chief has not come cheap.

But Moynihan is convinced it is necessary to get the best talent to make the BOA more professional in every sense and secure the organisation's place in the Premier League of British sports administration.

Another factor is Moynihan's relationship with the UK Sport chair, Sue Campbell, now elevated to sit with him and Coe in the House of Lords as a Baroness, albeit on the cross benches despite her known Labour sympathies.

The friction stems from Moynihan's election in 2005 as BOA chair, which he believed Campbell tried to block by surreptitiously canvassing unsuccessfully for another candidate, the Olympic swimmer Duncan Goodhew, to challenge him alongside vice-chair David Hemery. This she denies.

As I have said, all of this makes for the sort of fascinating bill-topper the likes of which those eminent purveyors of the sock market, Don King and Frank Warren, would feel at home promoting.

Ding, ding. Seconds out, last round.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday, and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Olympics, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

I sit writing this blog as I return to the UK from the Olympic capital of Lausanne having spent the past 24 hours locked in meetings with some of international sport's most senior and impressive administrators.

From the IOC's Sports Director Christophe Dubi to Andrew Ryan of the Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF), each person I spoke to had a perspective that made me feel differently about sport in general and international sport in particular.

I have been in Lausanne as a participant on UK Sport's International Leadership Programme (ILP). Each year up to 15 people from UK NGBs are selected to go through 12 months of intensive development. The aim is to ensure that those people understand better the structure and politics of international sport and develop the skills, competencies and, perhaps more importantly, the networks needed to enable them to become successful operators on the international stage.

As the CEO of a domestic NGB focussing, amongst other things, on delivering medal success in the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in just under 500 days time, it is sometimes easy to forget that although we compete with other nations for podium places, we need to work together with those same nations to develop sport internationally.

Of course there are healthy tensions that exist between competing countries. We all want to win and, quite rightly, do so in a way which contributes to the development of our sport in our own jurisdictions. What is important though, and I have been reminded of this as part of the ILP, is that we recognise that success cannot come in isolation.

The strongest sports globally have many strong countries and govern in the interest of the many rather than the few. We can be successful on the international stage and at the same time work in partnership with others for the betterment of sport, in my case track and field athletics.

It becomes increasingly clear to me also that the relationship that exists between an NGB and its International Federation (IF) is one where there can and should be mutuality both of obligation and benefit. An example which brings this to life is the IAAF World Athletics Championships which we are bidding to host in London in 2017.

Bringing the Championships to the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park would of course be a tremendous opportunity to deliver against a number of our domestic objectives. At the same time, such an event would enable the UK to contribute to the development of our sport on a global basis - working in partnership with the IAAF in recognition of the fact that we have a part to play in this area, should we be entrusted with this responsibility.

As a stakeholder in the global property that is sport, developing an understanding of the objectives and challenges of our partners enables us to play our part more effectively. Having the quality of access to administrators at the highest level of sport that the ILP brings has helped me to see this more clearly than ever before.

I look forward to building on this knowledge and continuing to work with the unique, informal and international network that I am now a part of. As we host the European Athletics Congress in London next month, I am as enthusiastic as I have ever been about the contribution we hope to make internationally.

Niels de Vos is the chief executive of UK Athletics. This blog was first published on UK Sport's website

I write this from Palma, where I have been based since finishing the Miami Regatta at the end of January.

I've spent nearly all my time on the water with training partner Mark Andrews and coach David (Sid) Howlett.

My main focus has been on my fitness but there have been some interesting developments arising from our kit testing.

There was a good range of conditions meaning I was able to sail pretty much every day, this enabled us to really test different hulls, masts and sails.

When it comes to sail design we use a lot of photographic work and a computer programme which works out things around sail shape, depths and twists in different conditions and circumstances.

The Argentine sail designer Juan Garay was in Miami with us and since then he has been working back at home on fine-tuning the sails we are now testing.

I'm slowly getting my weight up for the Finn and although you could always be a bit heavier, I'm not too far off where I want to be now.

My sailing fitness is also improving with all the time I'm spending in the boat. As we get closer to the Palma regatta in April my focus will switch more to racing again.

I did manage to get a few days back the UK, where I attended the launch of a new photographic exhibition celebrating the 80th anniversary of the J.P Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race in London.


The event brought together a host of past race winners and legends. I've done the Round the Island Race a few times but never won, and it was great to speak to many past winners!

Hearing their stories makes you realise what a hard race it is to win. It's a great showpiece for sailing and it is a unique opportunity for so many people to get involved.

The bulk of people sailing aren't there to try to win anything - they are just out enjoying the day and the fact the race is as long as it is (50 miles) gives them the chance to really settle down and properly work out how the boat is being sailed and the technicalities behind making the boat sail faster and more efficiently.

I also completed a photo shoot for a yet-to-be-announced new sponsor, it's always a strange experience to complete these shoots, especially when I'm hiking my Finn suspended in the middle of a studio with wind machines and camera's flashing. However, it was great fun and I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

Next up is the Princess Sofia Regatta in Palma (April 2-9) which is part of the ISAF World Cup.

I will have done a lot of training by then so I can't wait to get out racing.

Ben Ainslie is Britain's most successful Olympic sailor. In total he has won three gold medals and one silver and is the current 2010 ISAF World Match Racing Champion.

www.benainslie.com

As Ian Thorpe, five-times an Olympic swimming champion, gets back into serious training ahead of his projected comeback at London 2012, perhaps he will wonder occasionally whether it really is a good idea to try and return to the heights he abdicated five years ago, at the age of 24.

Heights that have since been commanded by the man who left Beijing with eight gold medals round his neck - figuratively speaking - Michael Phelps.

But if Thorpe - who announced this week that he has teamed up with the controversial Gennadi Touretski, the Russian-born coach to illustrious past Olympians such as Alexander Popov and Michael Klim – is assailed by any doubts as he bores through the water like the Thorpedo of old, he should comfort himself with the following thought: "At least I'm not a short track speed skater."

Obviously, from a physiological point of view, Thorpe could never involve himself in this winter sport as the blades needed to accommodate his size 17 feet would have the same lethal effect upon fellow competitors as those on Boadicea's chariot wheels once had against Roman opposition.

That said, the aquatic Aussie can turn this negative into a positive – which is after all what all elite athletes are supposed to do – and reflect upon the fact that, as he strives for Olympic glory, no rival is going to come careering into his lane to send him thrashing down into the depths.

All Thorpe has to worry about is swimming up and down and not hitting his head on the turns.


If only life were that simple for the likes of Jon Eley or Sarah Lindsay, two of Britain's more successful short track speed skaters whose competitive ambitions have been checked recently by factors on a different scale of awkwardness.

Lindsay had the bitter experience of being disqualified at last year's Vancouver Winter Games after a collision with Canada's Jessica Gregg soon after the start of her 500-metre heat.

"It always gets rough and there are always falls and crashes at the start," she lamented after what may have been the last appearance in an Olympic career that stretched back to 2002. "But nobody has right of way, until you're on the track and in your lane."

Eley was similarly disconsolate - although not to the point of tears - at the weekend's World Championships in Sheffield after crashing to the floor just two seconds into his 500m semi-final thanks to the flashing – and clashing - blades of the Chinese competitor starting to his right, Xianwei Liu.

Crashing, flashing, clashing – it's all go in today's modern short track. The young man from Solihull was left slowly circling the ice with hands clasped behind his back, looking like Prince Phillip on a particularly trying day.

Such reverses are not always received so passively.

Lindsay railed against the judges' decision in Vancouver.

And when the 1500m victory of South Korea's Kim Dong-Sung at the 2002 Salt Lake Games was annulled on the grounds that he had impeded the silver medallist, home skater Apolo Anton Ohno, there was an appeal that went, fruitlessly, to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, threats to boycott the closing ceremony, a national outcry back in Korea, and a number of threatening emails to Ohno that were investigated by the FBI.

But the overriding impression of short track speed skating is that it has a culture which accepts the possibility that any skater can train every hour that God sends for a big competition and be blitzed out of it in the blink of an eye for reasons which may or may not be down to them.

As the divinely named Apolo himself put it after being involved in a three-way crash in the Salt Lake 1500m final which allowed the last skater, Australia's Steven Bradbury, to coast across the line for Olympic gold: "That's short track."

(Just a thought – but if the banal minds who currently operate our national football stadium could have had anything to do with it - "Right, it's over, drown out all spontaneous celebration with a massively amplified version of that most hackneyed of winner's anthems, We Are The Champions" - then the music blaring from the PA that evening at the Salt Lake Ice Center would, without doubt, have been Elton John's "I'm Still Standing." Thank God that wasn't the case.)


The fatalism of Ohno's statement would have been embraced by the British short track speed skater who won double Olympic gold before it officially counted – Wilf O'Reilly (pictured).

Having won the 500 and 1000m events at the 1988 Calgary Games, when short track had demonstration sport status, O'Reilly's hopes of repeating his achievements once the sport was officially inside the Olympic tent, at the 1992 Albertville Games, came to grief through two heavy falls.

Two years later, during the Lillehammer Winter Games, his ambitions foundered once again because of a damaged blade on his skate in the 1000m, and - incredibly - in the 500m, where, to make matters worse, he was prevented from changing his blade before a re-run. If it had been racing, there would surely have been a stewards' enquiry.

O'Reilly certainly wasn't smiling, but he accepted his fate. "When shit happens, it happens," he said. I think what he meant was: "That's short track."

Mike Rowbottom, one of Britain's most talented sportswriters, has covered the last five Summer and four Winter Olympics for The Independent. Previously he has worked for the Daily Mail, The Times, The Observer, the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian. He is now chief feature writer for insidethegames

No doubt there are many among you who are beginning to think that the life of a sports columnist is one long round of noshing with celebs. Honestly, more often than not it is a bacon sarnie in the office canteen but I must admit that just lately the nosebag has been on at some rather fashionable eateries with a fuistful of sport's power-players.

Recently we dined with Wladimir Klitschko, Marvelous Marvin Hagler and Daley Thompson in Abu Dhabi (well if you are going to name drop you might as well place drop)... and last week I wrote about breaking bread at a Pimlico bistro with Tessa Jowell, the former Olympics (now Shadow) Minister and her current delight at remaining involved with 2012.

This week wasn't exactly healthy for the waistline, either, the Football Association inviting a few of us to sit down with Fabio Capello at the plush watering hole, once favoured by Princess Di, San Lorenzo in London's Knightsbridge.

It was a lunch clearly designed to put the England manager in a more favourable light with an increasingly disenchanted the media, and Don Fabio was dutifully relaxed, friendly and very forthcoming.

Unfortunately rather too forthcoming. He confirmed that it is in his mind to restore the England captaincy to John Terry, who you may recall, was arbitarily stripped of the armband by Capello himself before the World Cup because of the Chelsea player's unsavoury off–field behaviour.

The apparent U-turn wasn't digested at all well by some of his dining companions, judging from the subsequent reaction in the public prints.

One scribe who had been merrily clinking chianti-brimming glasses with Capello later suggested that, not for the first time, the Italian had got it it hopelessly wrong, and was stumbling from one PR disaster to another.

Capello's argument is that Terry has served his time. "One year's punishment is enough for anyone."

Now that set me thinking while we waited for the double expresso to arrive. It was only last week that Capello's opposite number in track and field, Dutchman Charles van Commenee, was broadly hinting that if shamed drugs runner Dwayne Chambers wanted to fight his Olympic ban, he might support him.

Obviously the spirit of forgiveness is in the sporting air at the moment.

So is this the right time to think about a similar act of clemency for another of our tarnished heroes?

Linford Christie has been persona non grata with UK Athletics and the British Olympic Association since failing a drugs test in his athletics dotage 12 years ago.

As things stand he has no involvement with 2012, other than personally coaching some useful athletes who will be. But officially Christie will not be welcome in the Olympic ring.

Should we now be asking whether it is fair that, whatever he may have done (or may not as he still disputes the positive finding) Britain's most-medalled athlete of all time remains on the outside looking in when the greatest spectacle this county has ever experienced explodes into glorious action next year?

It seems a terrible waste of his obvious expertise as a coach and mentor.


I know of the bitter animosity between Christie and Lord Coe, but could not the hatchet be buried for the occasion?

After all, they talk of an Olympic Truce for wars, so why not warring personalities?

Christie is 50 now and it does seem that the 1992 Olympic sprint champion has mellowed judging from his charismatic  appearance in "I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here" and a subsequent remarkable BBC radio interview in which he talked openly about his lack of involvement in 2012, and those who insist on continuing to ostracise him.

"Some of these people need to look at what they do.  People talk about you either because you are better than they are or you've done something successfully and they want to be like you. I just take things in my stride.  My conscience is clear. I sleep at night, I shut my door and I don't have to worry about it.

"To be honest, I am not a jacket and tie kind of guy anyway. My best role is to be with athletes. Last year my athletes were among the top in Europe, the Commonwealth and the UK.  If they want to cut their nose off to spite their face, that's their business. The way I am is the way I am. I produce results. I am their friend, their confidante. I play the father or the brother role, any problem they have, they can call me any time. A lot of coaches will dictate and say 'this is what you've got to do.'  With my athletes I am open to discussion and come to some compromise."

Of the two failed drugs tests – 1988 in Seoul when he was given the benefit of the doubt then banned from athletics in 1999. "It doesn't really bother me that much because I know what I have done. I know I didn't do anything wrong and other people know I didn't do anything wrong. It wasn't fair at all but with the drug procedures in our sport, sometimes the innocents get caught up in the system. If it's moved on and got better, then me getting caught up in the system, well, so be it.

"When I was banned the chain of custody was broken. The guy took my sample home, he had it on his window sill and in various places, why would he do that? Nandralone, for which I was banned, sits in your system for at least six months, but when they tested me a week later, I had nothing at all in my system.

"But I can't get frustrated about it. I coach other athletes like Darren Campbell who is very vociferous about the use of drugs (and Katherine Merry, Mark Lewis Francis) and none have ever tested positive. And if you speak to them they would tell you straight, if I was guilty of anything, they would not be around me. Remember athletes are not chemists. If they don't put it on the label and it's in whatever you take and is your system, regardless of how it got there, you're guilty.  I remember when caffeine was banned but nowadays you can take it, so why isn't it banned now? Sometimes I believe the system is not there to catch some of the guilty, it's there to catch out some of the innocent.  It needs to be looked at."

Nowadays Christie can even laugh at references to his 'lunchbox'. "I hated it at the time when to was first mentioned two or three days after the Olympics.  Another time and another place I would laugh at it. In fact, I do now. What brought it home to me then was when I visited a school and a little girl, aged about five or six said to me, 'My mummy says, how's your lunchbox?' I really wouldn't want my kids talking about things like that, and I really wouldn't want other kids to talk about it. Now I can laugh and make jokes about it.  Having a laugh and a bit of banter with the athletes is what I am all about. I suppose I am much more relaxed about things now. In fact I am a bit of a joker, one big nut."

Christie did not have many friends in the media when he was competing and there have been plenty of run-ins with him over the years. But not once has anyone doubted that his heart is rooted in athletics, even more so now that he devotes much of his time to coaching and nurturing young talent jn surroundings in west London that are somewhat less than glamorous.

Forgive me if I am beginning to sound like Signor Capello. If John Terry can be considered worthy of being England captain again then surely Linford should be asked to rejoin the Olympic party as an official guest.

I'd be happy to invite him and Lord Coe to lunch to discuss – it though I'm not sure either would accept.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday, and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Olympics, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire

This past weekend I traveled with my family, my wife and mother, to beautiful Fort Myers, Florida for the official grand opening of the Art of the Olympians (AOTO) Museum. International Olympic Committee member and five-time winter Olympian HSH Prince Albert II flew in from Monaco to attend and participate in this special historic event.

There were lots of activities scheduled to celebrate the occasion: Olympian school and hospital visits, Olympians breakfast with Prince Albert, a press conference and student round table and a black tie reception and Gala banquet, all with Prince Albert. On Sunday there was even a friendly game of volleyball with the prince. Wow! But it was during the "Painting with the Prince" event, on the lawn in front of the Museum on Saturday afternoon, that something quite extraordinary happened and something truly historic. Even though I was right in the middle of it I did not realise, for several days, what had actually happened: Something truly historic had taken place.

In homage to Al Oerter, the late, great Olympic Icon and four-time time Olympic gold medalist in the discus and founder of the Art of the Olympians, all the Olympians including Prince Albert put on white body overalls and began creating art as Al used to do: pouring paint onto a giant canvas and then throwing discus' splattering paint across the canvas and beyond.

His wife of 27 years, Cathy Oerter, and I poured paint onto a canvas which lay on the grass. Then Prince Albert and I and others threw our discus' onto the wet paint. The paint went everywhere - surprise, surprise! There were several hundred people crowded around the laid out canvas cheering, photographing and filming. Despite repeated warnings to stay back to avoid getting paint on them they remained close and seemed to want to get splattered with paint!

I came to realise a few days later that the spectators and photographers and people filming from the media, documenting the creation of this collaborative painting actually became part of the performance. What had actually transpired was what is called in the art world: "A happening" - which is a performance, event or situation that interacts with the audience, making them, in a sense, part of the art. The original idea was to have Prince Albert and other Olympians work together to create a collaborative symbolic Olympic piece of art to celebrate the opening of the Museum and to be hung, when dry, in the museum to document the occasion.


The painting of splattered paint by a group of Olympians and Olympic artists is a great keep sake, a unique piece or memorabilia. It's haphazard markings and lack of structure are an interesting contrast to the discipline and focus the creators had to have to become Olympians.

Jackson Pollock made art history back in the 1950's with his "action" paintings by dripping paint onto a canvas. Without a brush he fought for control to create his work. Last Saturday we went several steps further in losing and trying to gain control in creating a real "action" painting. With multiple people, throwing a discus' onto the wet canvas the kayos and lack of control prevailed, but that did not matter. In fact that was the intent.

Jackson Pollock also made art history by filming and documenting his method, revealing his process. The old film footage of him painting alone outside his studio is historic and he is credited with being the founder of modern day performance art.


When Prince Albert, myself and all the other Olympians took part in creating a single piece of art we paid homage to both Al Oerter and Jackson Pollock.

The performance, the spectical if you will, became the real piece of art. The end result did not matter. It was the event: Royalty, Olympians, the media and the public all coming together at the same time to celebrate and create something.

It took me several days to realise that what had actually happened Saturday afternoon was what is known in the art World as "A Happening" which is a performance, event or situation that is meant to be considered art.  In this case the performance aspect happened (excuse the play on words) by accident.  "Painting with the Prince" was meant to be a simple fun fund-raising event creating a piece of art. But it was this event that became the real piece of art and art history.

Key elements of happenings are planned, like this one was, but artists sometimes retain room for improvisation as we did. In true happenings the boundary between the artwork and its viewer is eliminated as indeed happened on Saturday afternoon, making the audience a part of the artwork.

But this was no ordinary run of the mill "happening". This was something very special and very unique: This was a "Royal Olympic Happening".

Prince Albert's presence in Fort Myers to support to the Art of the Olympians was a great boost to what we are doing to promote Olympic ideals, sport, art and culture around the world. But it was his participation: wearing overalls, throwing a discus, splattering paint surrounded by an enthusiastic crowd that really made the day special and made history. For in that moment the Prince, an Olympian and IOC member, became an artist and joined the ranks of the Art of The Olympians and the likes of Al Oerter, Bob Beamon, Florence Griffith-Joyner (Flo-Jo) and Peggy Flemming to name but a few.

The Olympic family is about 100,000 members strong around the world. The Olympic artists family is a much, much smaller group with about 40 members at present.

It is a great privilege to part of two such families and to have my own family, my mother Mary and wife Clarissa, there this past weekend to experience the events and see history in the making.

I have to say next to making the Olympic team in 1984 and 1988 and seeing my two children being born, "Painting with the Prince" was one of my all time life experiences.

Thank you His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco for your support of the Olympics and the Arts.

Roald Bradstock represented Britain in the 1984 and 1988 Olympics and in 1996 was an alternate for United States Olympic team. Bradstock competed in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 United States Olympic Trials. He has now switched his allegiance back to Britain and hopes to compete in the trials for London 2012. In addition to being an Olympic athlete, Bradstock is also an Olympic artist dubbed "The Olympic Picasso"

The multi-million pound dispute that has come to light this week involving the British Olympic Association (BOA) and London 2012 has flagged mediation up as the first port of call. This is a row over money that is requiring neutral intervention and its association with 2012 is creating a lot of media attention.

From my point of view as a professional mediator I was surprised to have read today that the BOA was able to select the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the official mediator.

I have doubts that the IOC is the ideal mediator in this high profile situation.

There appears to be some lack of clarity as to whether this is actually a mediation – whereby parties find their own solution with the help of a neutral mediator or if in fact if it will be an adjudication - when a decision that is binding on the parties is handed down by a neutral party.

The whole reasoning behind mediators and adjudicators from a personal stand point and I am sure those with international qualifications on vetted panels will be of the same opinion, is that these appointed people must be completely independent and totally impartial to the parties involved in the dispute at hand. The other point to raise is that the mediators and adjudicators should be able to easily prove this and let the public if necessary easily see that they are a totally independent party.

Society presently demands total transparency on anything that has a place in the national and international press and therefore any sporting body, business etc must acknowledge that they will have to in some way prove themselves through the press to the rightly judgmental public who in this day and age pick up on any notion of unjust and bias appointments through an ever more educated public jury.

It seems a safer option to appoint a mediator that is from a neutral organisation which can honestly vouch for the accreditation of and professional competence of their members.

It appears that the IOC is incorporated into the dispute resolution procedure of the agreement between the BOA and London 2012, with a possible appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport - which the BOA have now taken.

It really would have been better professionally and for the clean 2012 profiles of the BOA and London 2012 for them to have made the first stage in resolving this dispute originating back in 2005 to have been mediation by an independent mediator affiliated with Sports Resolutions, the World Intellectual Property Organisation or the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

This could then have been followed up by a fast track arbitration or adjudication by an independent neutral appointed by one of the bodies.

It strikes me that a 21st century dispute resolution practice is deserved for a 21st century dispute.

It could be deemed as disturbing that in this modern world we are still witnessing impartial mediation techniques that no-one seems to highlight or question logically.

Over the next coming weeks it will certainly be interesting to see if any mediation bodies feel the moral need to start asking questions on the tip of their tongues or if they will shy away from the word 2012 involved in this particular disagreement and keep mute.

However, on a far more positive and uplifting note, the most important and welcome aspect to all this mentioned above is that early dispute resolution is actually being used and the whole thing is so far being kept out of the courts.

Mediation is still the obvious choice on keeping costs down with money in the pockets of the disputing parties rather than in the lawyers' bank balances.

It focuses the minds of the disputers as to how to make sense out of the nonsense and really come to a concrete agreement quickly that is fitting with the preferred outcome of both parties rather than leaving on side feeling like the looser and one the victor that can create a sense of unfinished business from one party's point of view, only for it to rear its ugly head later when for instance the black and white profit figures are called for.

With an Olympic surplus figure being bandied around as £400 million ($648 million) this dispute was going to raise some eye brows and it really should have been prudent for the parties to follow a thought out mediation plan that could be spoken about without risks of embarrassment or question marks in the professional world.

It was short-sighted especially when we are only 500 days away from the Games next week.

The eyes of the world will be on the Games and therefore on the practices of the bodies involved in the greatest sporting event on earth and practices of the strictest professional nature must fundamentally be stuck to.

Michael Cover is the Principal of Michael Cover ADR Limited and over 30 years experience as a barrister, and solicitor, both in private practice and as in-house Counsel. He is an accredited Mediator with CEDR, ADR Chambers and ADR Group and has been involved in over 100 mediations. He is a member of the Sports Resolutions UK Panel as well as being a member of the Panel of Arbitrators and Mediators of Just Sport Ireland, the Irish National Sports Disputes Resolution body.

The Ministerial limo is no more, so during our lunch in Pimlico she had to keep nipping out between courses to feed the parking meter. Tessa Jowell MP, a prime architect of London getting the 2012 Games in her erstwhile role as Olympics Minister in the last Labour administration. may be in the shadows now yet she remains very much in the picture.

She giggled when I mentioned that she is still prominent in the list, recently published by The Times, of sport's most powerful and influential movers and shakers. "Really? I'd never have thought it."

"Her networking skills, devotion to the London 2012 project and accumulated knowledge make her indispensable, even to the Coalition Government," reads the citation.

Indispensable she certainly was when London were bidding for the Games.

Indeed, it is fair to say that but for her London may never have entered the race; it was Tessa who, as Secretary State at the Department  Media, Culture and Sport, twisted Tony Blair's arm and ceaselessly bent his ear once then idea was put to her by Craig Reedie, then chairman of the  British Olympic Association, almost a decade ago.

She had to apply a lot of pressure, but it worked,

So it seems somewhat sadly ironic that, barring an unforeseen snap General Election, she will be an outsider when the Games open in July of next year.

Well, perhaps not quite.

For Lord Coe insisted that she remained a member of the Olympic Board even when she lost office and he will ensure she is still right up there with the other bigwigs when it all happens.

She and Coe have always rubbed along, even though they look at thing politically from different perspectives. And she became popular within the IOC.

Yet Tessa knew virtually naff all about the nuts, bolts and Byzantine machinations of the Olympic Movement when she first got the job of being the political anchor of the Games bid. In fact I recall her early on once telling a group of us about a phone conversation she had just had with "that nice Peter Rogge".

But she proved a remarkably quick learner and a good listener.

She certainly listened when a few of us sports journos buttonholed her at a Crystal Palace athletics meet and told her that not having a having a certain Sebastian Coe on board was plain daft as he was the one British sports personality the IOC hierarchy respected above all others.

There had been an odd reluctance on the part of the BOA to get Coe involved, but after our chat Tessa made him a vice-president of the bid board and, when its then American chairman Barbara Cassani, a Ken Livingstone nominee, inevitably proved a square peg in the Olympic rings, it was Tessa who insisted on appointing Coe head honcho She also talked him into staying on when things hit a sticky patch during the infamous Dispatches episode.

The rest, as they say, is history.

It is good that Coe has repaid her commitment to him by keeping her very much in the front line of London's march on 2012. Hugh Robertson, the Coalition's Olympics Minister, certainly has no objection and says he finds her supportive, as does Lord Moynihan, another Tory who sits the Board.

Boris Johnson too - although that particular cross-party alliance is likely to be tested soon. For during our bite together Tessa revealed that she is to be the campaign manager for Livingstone when he attempts to regain the London Mayoral seat from Bojo next May, just a couple of months before the Games begin.

"I hope there'll no hard feelings," she says, "But this is politics."

So with Tessa as his henchwoman help we might see Livingstone doing the honours at the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and not Boris, which from the entertainment viewpoint if nothing else would be a pity. But then, like Tessa, Red Ken did play a vital part in helping to get them, and ensuring much needed re-generation for this part of East London.

Which is why, whatever the outcome of the mayoral poll, both Johnson and Livingstone will be up there in the posh seats alongside Tessa when it all kicks off for Coe doesn't forget those who helped him along the way, whatever their political hue.


For then record, Tessa endorses the decision to turn over the Olympic Stadium to West Ham. "I was surprised the Tottenham bid got so far but the Olympic Park Legacy Company have done a very fair and rigorous job," she says. "The joint bid between West Ham and Newham Council means that that the legacy commitment made originally can be realised. It is the best thing for the community. We were always going to have a legacy and to keep our pledge not only to the IOC and IAAF, but to the athletes and the people of East London.

"Lord Sugar may take the opposite view but he would be hard pressed to find an Olympic city so far ahead of its legacy plans at this stage." Much of this is down to her.

So what else is Tessa up to these days, apart from being the Shadow Olympics and Cabinet Officer Minister?

"Constituency work mainly," says the long-standing MP for Dulwich and West Norwood. "I just love being involved with people."

At 63, she is trim and fit, visiting the gym three times a week. She also cycles and swims.

Since getting the Olympic bug she has become a genuine sports enthusiast (as befits the mother of a professional golfer). Her passion for the Olympics has become infectious, although her last boss, Gordon Brown, was not quite as easy to persuade as Blair as to the worthiness of London 2012.

You might even say it needed a bit of cheek by Jowell to finally convince him.

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday, and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered a total of 16 Summer and Winter Olympics, 10 Commonwealth Games, several football World Cups and world title fights from Atlanta to Zaire.

I've now completed my first competition, the Scottish Championships in Perth, since last year's European Championships.

It's been nine months since I had reconstruction surgery on my cruciate ligament in my right knee.

I was a little bit nervous going into the competition, but I got through it and came out injury-free. I am very relieved to have competed on all six apparatus.

The competition didn't go quite as I had expected, but to be honest I never really thought I would be able to compete on all six apparatus at this stage of my recovery.

All the credit must go to my medical team and British Gymnastics.

I started on the floor with a good clean routine but without the normal difficulty.

Next up was pommel, where unfortunately I had two falls.

I had clean routines on both the rings and the vault, before I moved onto parallel bars where unfortunately I made two large errors.

High bar was the last apparatus and I put in a solid routine with very few deductions.

I was off the pace on the scoring but I was more focused on completing a full competition across all the apparatus. But I still managed to bag a silver medal in the process.

This was the first step in the final stage of my recovery, and my focus will now be on improving my skills and difficulty to get me back to the level prior to my injury.

I have another competition this weekend in London where I hope to increase my difficulty before hopefully qualifying for the GB team and the European Championships in Berlin in April.

Once again I can't thank everyone enough including the medical team, British Gymnastics, my coaches, sponsors, friends and family for giving me so much support, belief and encouragement over the past 11 months.

I'm now officially back, so watch this space!

Daniel Keatings, who is powered by Opus Energy, made history in 2009 when he became the first British gymnast to win a medal in the all-round event at the World Championships. He was also the first British gymnast to win a European Championship gold when he won the pommel horse event in Berlin in 2010. To find out more about his sponsorship deal with Opus Energy click here.

Given how these organisations see themselves as accountable to nobody but themselves, and this in an era when the cry of democracy and transparency cannot even be resisted by Arab despots, this may seem a ridiculous question.

Yet I am inclined to raise it because of how different the Cricket World Cup in India is turning out compared to the Football World Cup in South Africa.

I have been struck by this comparison in the past week as I have travelled in India following the 50-over cricket tournament.

It is widely accepted that the World Cup in South Africa was a very well organised affair.

I am sure the London Olympics will provide a similar, if not better show.

India, in contrast, has demonstrated for the second times in six months how not to organise a world event.

It boils down to control. Both FIFA and IOC exercise iron control over their events.

Neither the Commonwealth Games Federation, nor the International Cricket Council have such powers.

It has meant the Indians have been left to their own devises and they have brewed quite a horlicks.

We all know the appalling problems of last October's Commonwealth Games, both in the run-up and during it.

This included the shambolic way the Indians prepared for the Games, with the media exposing shocking living conditions for athletes just days before the Games were due to begin.

Then there were ticketing problems, with Indian officials insisting venues were sold out, yet most events were held with hardly anyone present.

It was as if, having bought tickets, spectators were stubbornly refusing to come and watch the sports.

The Commonwealth Games Federation was an impotent bystander as these events unfolded, saying it had none of the resources that the IOC has.

India did try and redeem itself as the Games commenced, but its end has not meant the end of the Indian misery.

The shadow cast by the allegations of corruption is so large that, with the arrest last week of two more officials of the Organising Committee, the entire leadership of the Games, barring the chairman Suresh Kalmadi, is now behind bars.

All the indications are that Central Bureau of Investigation, the Indian FBI, has far from completed its task and the Indian media freely speculates about how many more may be arrested.



While there is no suggestion of sleaze at this World Cup, ticketing has again been a huge problem.

This time, the on-line system has proved so wretched that fans who had bought tickets six months ago have still not received them.

Even the commercial partners of the International Cricket Council have not received their tickets.

The most unedifying moments for the Indians came last Thursday as spectators queued at the box office for tickets for Sunday's India-England match in Bangalore.

Instead of officials asking for credit cards or cash, they found policemen carrying lathis, batons, and were given quite a beating.

The Bangalore City Police Commissioner, Shankar Bidri, for good measure, defended his men in words that might have been borrowed by the Americans defending their action of destroying a village during the Vietnam War.

He said: "People were crawling over each other; there was a likelihood of a stampede. To prevent a greater injury, you have to cause a small injury."



Contrast this with South Africa last summer where FIFA had the sort of control a Government may envy.

In South Africa, FIFA behaved as if it was the almighty Vatican of sport. It was clear to anyone who followed the tournament that this was a completely FIFA run operation.

FIFA had allowed South Africa to use its World Cup franchise, but FIFA was running the show.

In effect, for the South African World Cup, FIFA moved its offices from Zurich to Johannesburg and other cities of South Africa, and controlled every aspect of the World Cup down to the ticketing. Locals on the ground had very limited input into the whole thing.

Indeed, on certain issues, FIFA succeeded in having a status even higher than that of the South African Government, bending it to its will for the competition.

So, as part of the price for hosting the World Cup, the South African Government was forced to amend its laws.

This meant that those who committed football related offences were tried quickly. In a country where it can take years for a case to come to court, such football related offences came to court in matter of weeks.

FIFA made it clear it was this was price South Africa had to pay to receive this unique sports brand.

So pervasive were FIFA controls that they resulted in a leading South African saying he felt the World Cup meant FIFA had occupied his country.

Strong words, but it reflected the feelings of many in that country. But so desperate was South Africa to host the competition, that it was prepared to pay any price.

It knew this was not a permanent occupation like that of bygone colonial powers.

After all, what were a few weeks of misery for the eternal glory of becoming the first country in Africa to host the tournament?

The 2012 London Olympics will not see quite such oppressive IOC control. But they have seen legislation to make sure that ambush marketing regarding use of the IOC symbols, such as the rings, or anything connected with the word Olympics, however remotely, is punishable by law.

In addition, London will have to prepare itself to receive the Games. This includes giving the IOC a "clean city", so that there are no rivals to the IOC and its sponsors and also having Olympic lanes during the Games to facilitate transport for the Olympic family.

The ICC can exercise nothing like this sort of control over this World Cup or, for that matter, international cricket in general.

This lack of control was brutally revealed when, a day after the tournament began, David Becker, head of the ICC's legal department, wrote a letter to Sharad Pawar, chairman of the central Organising Committee.

The letter warned the Indians not to try and sell tickets at the box office as there could be "chaos and physical injury", a warning the organisers in Bangalore clearly ignored.

It also expressed the fear that relationships with sponsors were at "breaking point." So bad, indeed, that they might demand some of their money back.

Given that Pawar is also President of the ICC, and therefore Becker's boss, the letter was unprecedented.

The World Cup may be the ICC World Cup, just as the South African World Cup was the FIFA World Cup as FIFA never stopped reminding us, but, unlike the football variety, this is not a franchise operation.

On the ground, the Indian feudal cricket barons run their own stadiums and grounds much as they do normally. The ICC can complain and wring its hands but, unlike FIFA, it cannot bend Indian cricket, let alone Indian government, to its will.

Of course, it is complicated in cricket in that the ICC, with its English origins, does not control world cricket in the same way that Fifa, which was set up by the French, controls world football.

Also, the Indians are the economic powerhouse of the game. They contribute 80 per cent of world cricket income through television fees earned from the huge market provided by their 1.3 billion cricket mad population. And world cricket could not function without Indian money.

What is even more fascinating is how Indians react to foreign criticism.

Their defence is that India has its own way of doing things and the world does not understand. So the Bangalore police commissioner said: "The Indian situation is very different. It is very difficult for people in America and Europe to understand."

This was almost a repeat of the line taken by the Commonwealth Games official, Lalit Bhanot, now behind bars.

When asked about the lack of hygiene in the village he uttered the immortal line that hygiene standards in India were different to those in the West.

So what would you have? A FIFA style totalitarian control of an event, or an ICC laissez-faire system?

South Africa could argue that the World Cup has boosted its image.

In contrast, India with an economy that is growing at 10 per cent a year and an acknowledged power, has seen two successive sporting events tarnish its shiny, new-India image.

The conclusion seems obvious. If you are going to use sport to boost your image, make sure it is a tightly controlled operation.

Otherwise, like India, far from doing any good, it may harm the country. But then again, if India wins the Cricket World Cup for the first time since 1983, it will not care what the world thinks.

Mihir Bose is one of the world's most astute observers on politics in sport and, particularly, football. He formerly wrote for The Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph and until recently was the BBC's head sports editor.