This should have been a day of celebration for London 2012 after what has arguably been their best week since they were awarded the Olympics and Paralympics six years ago. The Olympic Stadium has been more-or-less been completed 16 months before the start of the Games, the Athletes Village has been widely praised and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) gave the organisers another gold star following yet another flawless inspection.

But, instead of being able to toast their success with a glass of champagne, Sebastian Coe and his team find themselves in the middle of the biggest row to have hit them since preparations begun and one that threatens to rumble on for several months undermining all their fabulous work.

It is, of course, the dispute started by the British Olympic Association (BOA) and its chairman Colin Moynihan over the distribution of the surplus cash after the Games. Moynihan does not believe the final figure should take into account any costs of staging the Paralympics, which the BOA fear will make a loss, while everyone else thinks it should. The IOC claim to have final jurisdiction over the dispute and have ruled in the favour of London 2012. Moynihan has ignored them and is taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he will almost certainly suffer a humilating defeat.

For the first time today Coe began to let his true feelings about the affair begin to show publicly. At the press conference held to coincide with the end of the eighth IOC Coordination Commission visit to London the subject of the BOA dominated, even though chairman Denis Oswald had given London 2012 the most glowing report I had ever heard a city receive in more than 10 years of covering these Commissions, including Sydney, generally considered to be the best Olympics in history.

Coe, faced with wave after wave of questions about the affair, grew visibly irritable. He shifted uncomfortably in his seat and, at one point, London 2012 chief executive Paul Deighton jumped into answer a question, perhaps fearing that Coe was about to say something he might later regret. Having observed Coe at close quarters for more than 20 years I don't quite ever remember his body language being as aggressive and dismissive as when the BOA and Moynihan were mentioned. It brought to mind Clive James' famous description of when Coe received the silver medal after losing to Steve Ovett in the 800 metres at the Moscow Olympics 31 years ago that he "looked like he had been handed a turd".


Coe, who later redeemed himself by winning the 1500m, and Moynihan were teammates on that British team in 1980 with Moynihan claiming a silver medal as the cox of the men's eight and later both moved into politics as members of the Conservative Party. Moynihan has always made much of his supposed close association with Coe and as recently as this Tuesday he was claiming that he did not believe this current row would affect their relationship and that he would be a "friend for life".·

The truth is that Coe and Moynihan have not been close for several years. Coe and London 2012 long ago grew tired of Moynihan and Andy Hunt, the chief executive of the BOA, who seem to have made it their mission to ensure they make as much money as possible from the Olympics. Coe is not alone in having got fed-up with the BOA. Moynihan has alienated most of the major players in British sport and is now doing the same internationally. Until this row erupted Moynihan was on the road to achieving one of his lifetime ambitions, being made an IOC member. That dream now lies in tatters.

Having travelled extensively around the world recently I have had the opportunity to speak privately to more than 20 IOC members about the current dispute and they are unanimous in their condemnation of Moynihan. "He is ruined in the Olympic Movement," one prominent member told me. "There is no future for him anymore. You don't ignore the IOC and take them to CAS and expect to remain part of the club. He will be lucky if they let him through the front door of·Château de·Vidy [the IOC's headquarters in Lausanne] again."

Moynihan had been at the centre of controversy even before he was elected as the chairman of the BOA. It is now widely forgotten but he was never the first choice to replace Sir Craig Reedie, who had already decided to step down as chief of the BOA even before London were awarded the Olympics and Paralympics. Sir Matthew Pinsent had been groomed to take over from Sir Craig but at the last minute decided that he wanted to concentrate on his career with the BBC and withdrew.

Moynihan seized the opportunity but only after senior figures in British opposed to him, including the chair of UK Sport Sue Campbell and then Sports Minister Richard Caborn, tried to block his appointment by finding an alternative candidate. Among the figures approached to stand against Moynihan were 1972 Olympic silver medallist Alan Pascoe and 1980 100m breaststroke champion Duncan Goodhew. The quest proved unsuccessful and the allegations led Hugh Robertson, then the Shadow Sports Minister, to demand a Parliamentary enquiry and he even threatened to call for resignations if the Government were found to be behind the campaign. It would be interesting to know Robertson's views now that he is the Sports Minister and after he had an unproductive meeting with Moynihan earlier in the week.

One senior British official claimed to me that Moynihan "seems to like living life on the edge" and that he is "never happier than when he's in the middle of a row" where he "can demonstrate his superiority complex". Early on in his new role Moynihan risked provoking a major row with the then Chancellor Gordon Brown over funding for Britain's Olympic sports, and there are plenty of key figures who believe that the Tory peer, the Sports Minister under Margaret Thatcher, has used his position to try introduce the radical measures he proposed in his independent sports review, "Raising the Bar", by stealth. There were some good ideas in the document that have since been adopted - including an independent UK anti-doping agency - but it was basically a vanity project that was designed to promote Moynihan and help him achieve another of main aims, putting himself at the centre of British sport.


London 2012 officials believe that Moynihan has provoked the current row in the hope that they will grow so weary of him that they will capitulate and give him the £5 million ($8 million) he is insisting the BOA is due as part of the Joint Marketing Programme Agreement with them if the Games make a surplus. They insist that this will not happen because it would be irresponsible to start distributing money before they know what the final cost of the Games will be.

The BOA insist that they have the cash necessary to ensure that Team GB can prepare properly for London 2012 but the sceptics have their doubts, pointing out that under Moynihan staff salaries have risen from £1.9 million ($3.1 million) in 2005 to £4.2 million ($6.7 million) in 2009 with the appointment of big names like Sir Clive Woodward, who is paid £300,000 ($483,000) a year as director of elite sport, while reserves have dropped from £4.5 million ($7.2 million) to £1.3 million ($2.1 million). The BOA is due to file its 2010 accounts by June 11 amid speculation that they could actually be in a negative position. If that is the case then that could lead to even louder questions about the futures of Moynihan and Hunt, especially as if they insist on taking the dispute with London 2012 all the way to CAS it could potentially cost them tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees, including LOCOG's if they lose.

It is easy to understand Coe's frustration that the dispute is overshadowing all the good work he and the rest of London 2012 are carrying out. It is easy to forget now but when London was awarded the Games there were widespread fears that Britain would be able to construct all the facilities necessary in time. The memory of Wembley hung over London 2012 like a toxic cloud. The thought back then that the Olympic Stadium would be ready so far ahead of schedule seemed fanciful. What has sprung up in Stratford in less than 1,000 working days is truly a miracle.

Moynihan was not involved in London's successful bid and the way he is going he may not be around for the Opening Ceremony next year either. Among his roles is sitting on the IOC's International Relations Commission, whose members have been chosen, it is claimed, because they have the skills "to strengthen existing dialogue and cooperation, and to contribute to resolving conflicts when possible".

Perhaps the 4th Baron Moynihan ought to think a bit more about that when it comes to domestic relations.

Duncan Mackay is the editor of insidethegames

Following on from the Government's announcement yesterday that the new Bribery Act will come into play July 1 this year, only a mere three months away, it is now clear that all businesses trading in the UK must educate themselves on and understand the implications this will have on corporate hospitality during the London 2012 Olympics. We now also have additional guidance which is helpful, in as far as it goes, in understanding what kinds of entertainment and hospitality might fall foul of the Act.

From my point of view as a solicitor in the Sports Group at Charles Russell, I daily stay abreast of new developments in legislation that will ultimately affect the exploding sports business world and in this instance the use of corporate hospitality as an aid to securing new business opportunities.

Corporate hospitality at sporting events has become accepted as legitimate business practice. It is used as a means of entertaining clients and contacts, targeting new clients or as a part payment for goods or services in a mixed cash/value-in-kind deal. It plays a central role in the success for many businesses and will undoubtedly feature strongly in commercial strategies during the Olympics with so many sporting events on our doorstep.

It's fair to say that the Bribery Act was not conceived with typical corporate hospitality in mind. In simple terms, it is intended as a way to boost the UK's credentials in the fight against business corruption. However, there are legitimate concerns that sporting hospitality could now be viewed as "currency of bribery" under the legislation and therefore entertainment strategies will have to be reviewed to avoid prosecution.

The Government has said it does not intend "genuine hospitality" or similar business expenditure that was reasonable would be caught by the Act. Ken Clarke's statements and the guidance make this clear and there has certainly been a degree of scaremongering, possibly perpetuated by lawyers and compliance advisers.

However, to take an extreme example relating to the Olympics, when a single VIP package for 10 attending the opening ceremony at the Olympics, with a champagne dinner and reception, costs £55,000 exc. VAT, there must be concerns is £55,000 genuine hospitality? Those wishing to get the best seats at high-profile events can buy an 'A' package for £45,000 before VAT. The point is, looking to entertain clients at the Olympics is a far cry from the price of a ticket to a rugby match.

So far in fact that it is reported that many companies are steering clear of the Games to avoid any potential Bribery Act issues. If this is the case, it would be a great shame if companies were deterred from entertaining clients at the biggest sporting event to hit our shores since 1966 for these reasons.

The guidance to the Bribery Act helps clear up the picture somewhat. However, there is a lack of specific examples and the bottom line appears to be that logical common sense must rule as to what kind of hospitality is 'reasonable and proportionate'. During this window leading up to July it is going to be a golden period to try and educate employees as far as possible on what the Bribery Act is and what affect it will have on corporate hospitality practices.  At Charles Russell we feel that businesses need not panic, but should be pro-active in taking the legislation seriously and planning ahead.  Some quick fire steps include:

* Keep accurate records of all corporate hospitality events your business hosts or takes part in. These should include who attended, what the event was and the reason for your involvement.

* Where possible, document the legitimate reasons for entertaining a client or contact – for example, as an expression of gratitude for previous business (not an inducement for future work). A regular review or "audit" of hospitality on a monthly or quarterly basis, for example at monthly team meetings, will show a hands-on approach to monitoring activity.

* Appoint a senior figure within your business to monitor and maintain the records. The Government have stressed the importance of "top level commitment" in the prevention of bribery.

* Although difficult at this stage, try to draw up a broad corporate hospitality policy for your business setting out what is acceptable and the legitimate business aims the business hopes to achieve through its corporate hospitality programme.

* Finally, keep your eyes and ears open! This area of law is developing quickly and with no definitive timetable, so keep up to date with any further developments and ensure you are in a position to act upon any guidance published by the Government.

From my point of view the most crucial question still remains unanswered: "At what point does corporate hospitality become illegal bribery?"

So far official information distinguishing between what hospitality is acceptable and what is not is far from clear cut. Ultimately, comments coming from the corridors of power will do little to reassure corporate hospitality providers that their businesses will survive in this challenging economy under yet another testing new regime that takes time and dedication to comply with.

Jon Walters is a member of the Corporate Commercial team at Charles Russell specialising in sports law. He advises clients on a range of commercial rights and regulatory issues, including Nike, Mercedes GP Petronas F1 team andthe Welsh Rugby Union. Charles Russell are available for professional advice on the Bribery Act implications. For more details click here. 

It was exactly nine years ago that I called in on the English Schools Boxing Championships in Barnsley during a visit to Yorkshire. A good friend, ex-journo John Morris, the former general secretary of the pro body the British Boxing Board of Control and subsequently president of the Schools ABA. had marked my card: "There's a 15-year-old kid who is sensational, the best of his age you are ever likely to see."

He was right. That kid was Amir Khan. He demolished his opponents in quick time, went on to become the Olympic lightweight silver medallist at 17 and, four years later, the WBA world light-welterweight champion.

It is some journey from Barnsley to Baguio City in the Philippines, where I tracked down Amir this week to chat about his upcoming title defence in Manchester against the unbeaten European champion Paul McCloskey on Saturday April 16.

Amir is training there with the great Filipino Manny Pacquaio, now a stablemate, in a state-of-the-art high altitude complex complete with running track and swimming pool. A far cry from his days as a schoolboy scrapper.

However Amir was intrigued to learn that two days before he faces Ulsterman McCloskey at the MEN Arena, Manchester will be the scene of a revolutionary tournament featuring schoolboy (and some schoolgirl) boxing - with a real difference.

For this will be boxing without the blood and bruises.

Moreover the kids, mainly aged between 11-13, will not only be in the ring as combatants but acting as seconds, referees and judges.

This event will be part of a four-hour Festival of Boxing, featuring a number of local schools, at the Abraham Moss High School, in Crumpsall, and is the latest evidence of how the sport, once counted out by those spoilsport teachers, over-protective parents and PC education authorities who threw up their hands in horror at the thought of little Johnny getting a tap on the nose, is making a tremendous comeback in schools.

Much of the credit for this must go to Kate Hoey, a Schools ABA patron, who kicked-started the revival when she was Sports Minister after years of schools boxing being a no-no. Now it is back in hundreds of schools across the nation, albeit more as a sort of 'boxercise' in some, but also competitively and, thanks to Hoey's initial support, as part of an A level PE course in many others.

But what has been happening in two cities – Manchester and Plymouth – is quite fascinating, with the kids being taught not only how to box, but how to score and referee a fight.

This is the brainchild of Frank Collinson, an England international ABA coach who has fought a long, hard and ultimately fruitful campaign to get boxing back into schools.

John Lloyd. head of PE and St Anne's Academy in Manchester, was one who attended a SABA course run by Collinson some 18 months ago and with another Manchester teacher, Chris Davies, whose Abraham Moss school hosts the even, thas helped evolve the novel form of the noble art that will be on display on 14 April. A similar scheme also operates in Plymouth and the hope is that it will catch on nationwide.

Says Lloyd, 33: "I was a bit sceptical at first but after attending the course I realised boxing was practical and skilful and a there was a lot more to it. I could see the benefits for it's inclusion for participation for kids. I hadn't got a boxing background at all, in fact if anything, I was opposed to it as I thought boxing a violent and unnecessary sport. But I was converted.

"So I went to my head teacher and explained what we would need in terms of equipment and alleviating parental concerns to get a boxing course started and he was very supportive. Then I designed a curriculum that I felt appropriate for our school. The trials were very successful and we got nearly all of the 11-13 year olds, boys and some girls, involved."

The pupils are also encouraged to officiate. "We take them through not only the rules of the sport but all the safety aspects, and how to award points. Myself and a colleague actually sparred to show them the sort of punches they should be using, or looking out for. They picked up things quite easily. Obviously they were closely monitored."

Another innovation is that trying to knock out or even hurt an opponent is discouraged to the extent of points being deducted if a combatant is over aggressive. Boxing without brutality?

"There is an art to refereeing these particular bouts because if it appears that one boxer is too powerful for his opponent, he can be restricted in the punches he is allowed to throw, being told for instance that he can only use a jab whilst his opponent can continue to throw combinations. Points are also awarded and deducted for good and bad discipline in the ring. Really it is all about discipline.

"The rules are spelt out beforehand so the kids know exactly what they have to do. There are winners and losers but victory is achieved on skill and discipline, not punching power. One of the instructions the referee uses is 'power off' if he thinks one boxer is coming on too strong."

Another example of the scoring system is that if one boxer loses points for ill-discipline – eg not breaking when told or not reducing the power of their punches – this could out-weigh those awarded for skill. One imagines that it also helps the ringside judges with their maths classes!

"The whole idea is to concentrate on skill and movement," adds Lloyd. "I can honestly say all the bouts we have had there has only been one injury – and that was caused by a mouthpiece rubbing on to the gum and causing it to bleed. I have seen far worse injuries in football and rugby."

Lloyd's school is in Langley, a tough suburb akin to Manchester's infamous Moss Side, and he says that many of the kids involved are from underprivileged backgrounds, some from one of the largest council estates in Europe. There are also a number who live in hostels or sheltered accommodation. There are 600 pupils at the school and almost half of them, including 50 girls, have taken part in the programme.

Although boxing is officially on the curriculum at St Anne's, some of the programme is taken after school or at weekends, and in conjunction with the competitive bouts – staged over three two minute rounds - there is a programme called "Skill-Spar" where no decision is awarded but elements of the sport are used for exercise purposes. This wil be also be featured at the upcoming tournament.

"Obviously this is designed to capture an interest in boxing for the kids and the hope is that they can then move on to a more orthodox form of boxing. What we endeavour to teach them is how to punch accurately and cleanly.

"They are told not to twist punches as they land as obviously this can cause cuts."

Since introducing boxing Lloyd says that the behaviour at the school is vastly improved.

Of course, all this is far removed from the "Thrilla in Manila", or any of razzle-dazzle stuff we may see from Khan two days later, as it is probably more like fencing than fighting.

But as Lloyd says it teaches youngsters the nobility of the art, keeps them off the streets and instils a sense of fair play. And of course, that all-important discipline.

So more power to their elbows – though not, of course, to their punches!

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.

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.