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.

Anyone wondering about the multi-million-pound “gap to close” alluded to this week by Andy Hunt, the British Olympic Association’s chief executive, could do worse than visit the Team 2012 website.

Click on "Partners" and you find only Visa; click on "Patrons" and you find only Dr Chai Patel, former chief executive of the Priory Group, the specialist mental health and education services concern; click on "Donors" and you find nine empty silhouettes.

Only the "Ambassadors" segment is well-tenanted, featuring nine real "mug-shots", ranging from Hamish Stevenson, founder of Fast Track, to Steve Norris, the former London Mayoralty candidate.

With less than 18 months to go before London 2012 and with tickets about to go on sale, how the BOA must be hoping to identify more Dr Patels.

"I am happy asking lots of people to donate because it is very important," he told insidethegames when contacted today.

"I have agreed to donate up to the Olympics, then I’ll see what happens," he said, describing his contribution as "a substantial sum"

Minutes of a 2010 BOA Board Meeting, seen by inidethegames, suggest (though not conclusively) that a Patron contributes £1 million ($1.6 million) over three years, while Ambassadors chip in (or will raise) £100,000 ($163,000) a year and Donors at least £25,000 ($41,000).

The total raised so far, according to the website, is £13.4 million ($21.8 million).

Given that Team 2012 - which brings together London 2012, UK Sport and the British Paralympic Association, as well as the BOA - was set up in an effort to plug a £50 million ($81 million) shortfall in funding for British athletes, it is not enough.

If private donors don’t step up to the plate - and, with excitement mounting, it seems reasonable to expect the trickle of contributions to speed up somewhat in months to come, in spite of the anaemic economy - the BOA has a number of options.

It could scale back the size of the Olympic/Paralympic team, which is set to be massive, as befits a host nation.

It is, however, utterly determined not to do this - and, for what it is worth, I would support them in this uncompromising stance.

It could trim support services for the team, though anyone set to be judged on the basis of the Team GB medals haul at the Games has a strong incentive to resist this, since such cuts run the risk of turning golds into silvers and bronzes into also-rans.

It could pare back other areas of the BOA budget, although I doubt this would be easy in the run-up to a Games on home soil and with costs having already come under heavy scrutiny in 2009 and 2010.

Finally, it could redouble its efforts to extract more from the Joint Marketing Programme Agreement (JMPA) under which commercial sponsorship rights for the period up to and including the Games have been sold to LOCOG.

Regular readers of insidethegames might remember the eloquence with which Hunt has in the past described how this agreement hems him in, leaving him "horribly constrained".

"I describe it as my hands are handcuffed behind my back," he told me.

"They are then tied with baling twine over the top of my head.

"And then I’m bound in a straightjacket, put in a metal cage and it’s called the Joint Marketing Programme Agreement with LOCOG."

As I revealed in November  there is also evidence of a $8 million ($13 million) dispute between the BOA and LOCOG that may have something to do with the JMPA.

A statement regarding Hunt’s "gap" that the BOA prepared for me today certainly suggests that, while the rhetoric may have changed, the body’s sentiments towards the fateful agreement haven’t.

"We have a robust financial plan in place for 2011 and 2012," the BOA told me, "and we are now implementing that plan with the support and participation of our corporate partners, as well as through fundraising programmes such as Team 2012.

"These programmes will enable the BOA to provide British athletes and coaches with the resources and support they need to excel in London 2012 - which we expect will be the most competitive Olympic Games in history.

"All of this is being done despite dealing with the financial constraints of a JMPA with the London 2012 Organising Committee that delivers less than half the revenue the Canadian Olympic Committee received through its agreement with the Vancouver 2010 Organising Committee."

So, keep your eye on that running total on the Team 2012 website.

My forecast? The BOA will muddle through in archetypically British fashion, with the help of some increase in private contributions, a few cutbacks both to its non-2012-specific activities and the level of back-up services supplied to the 2012 team and a few extra coppers squeezed out of LOCOG.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen’s Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938

It was the Aussies - among others - who sneered that these days we Brits win most of our Olympic medals on our backsides - sitting in boats or on bikes. That may have seemed so in Athens and Beijing but in 2012 it could be that our rowers and cyclists will be challenged in the medal table by the fist, the foot and a bit of grip and grapple.

Looking at recent results it seems we may well excel in the ring and on the mat with boxers and competitors in both taekwondo and judo impressively collecting honours in prestigious international tournaments in the past few weeks.

Taekwondo, aka the way of the fist and the foot, is a boom sport here at the moment. Britons have returned with a golden haul from the US Open in Austin Texas, featherweight Mark Stamper 24, and lightweight Jade Jones - a Youth Olympic champion in Singapore last year at only 17 - both snatched senior titles in a squad of 10 who produced six medals overall.

In fact Jones moved up a weight to win her gold at under 62kg after getting a bronze at under 57kg.

It was the first time Jones had fought in the upper weight division, and all her opponents were considerably heavier than herself. Some performance.

Taekwondo is one sport that is getting it right in the arena and out.

And now judo, which has considerably under-achieved in recent Olympics, now seems to be picking itself up off the mat, a number of decent results of late culminating in 21-year-old Londoner Ashley McKenzie winning gold at under 60kg in the Polish World Cup over the weekend, beating some of the world’s highest ranking players.

This has followed silver and bronze medals for Gemma Howell and Euan Burton respectively in corresponding World Cups in Korea and Japan.

But the most distinguished achievementshave come from Britain’s boxers, who have won ten medals in major tournaments in Hungary and Bulgaria, including three golds for the men and a bronze for Natasha Jones (pictured) who, with Savannah Marshall, is looking a genuine podium prospect when women’s boxing makes its Olympic debut in London.

Which brings us to the vexing times that amateur boxing is currently experiencing. with the ABA of England now under siege from a number of disaffected elements both within and outside the organisation. We reported recently how, following information from a "whistleblower" to Sport England, an independent enquiry is currently being conducted into the financial affairs of the ABAE. This was compounded by news that Anthony Joshua, a leading contender for the super heavyweight berth in the GB team for London is up on a drugs charge, accused of possession of an illegal substance with intent to supply.

Although not yet on the podium squad - he is a member of the development unit - talented Joshua, 21, is the current ABA and GB champion and has beaten the man considered number one at the moment, Fraser Clarke.

At the same time we revealed that the ABAE President, the former Sports Minister Richard Caborn has ordered another investigation, this time into unrelated allegations that an illegal substance (cannabis) was smoked during an ABA training camp for young women in Bradford two years ago, and was hushed up.

This is a curious business but nonetheless a serious one if proven, for the girls at the camp were all aged 17 or under.

Why has it taken so long to come to light is puzzling but Caborn who was handed a dossier on the alleged incident by a former ABA council member promises: "I will sort it."

Now I have some sympathy for the ABA; the chairman Keith Walters is a decent, dedicated bloke, well-respected in sporting circles and Caborn himself, who was an able sports minister certainly has the good of the game at heart.

But the ABAE is under pressure, with UK Sport for some time in the past having been concerned that the organisation was not up to scratch in its back-room progress towards 2012.

This has been alleviated to a large extent by the formation of the British Amateur Boxing Association (BABA) under the chairmanship of former Sport England chief, Derek Mapp, a skilled political and commercial operator.

The BABA has assumed overall responsibility for Olympic preparation and the results speak for themselves.

Based at the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield under performance director Robert McCracken - and ex-pro title contender and top trainer who replaced the controversially axed and highly regarded Terry Edwards - both men and women are shaping up promisingly towards the Olympic goal.

It is quite possible, if these impressive results continue, that the record medal return of Beijing (one gold and two bronze) could be exceeded.

There are some outstanding prospects in the elite squad, among them the current European bantamweight champion, Luke Campbell, who with Anthony Ogogo (middleweight) and Fred Evans (welterweight), won gold in two international competitions in Hungary and Bulgaria respectively against some pretty serious opposition.

When you talk to the boxers they enthuse about the Sheffield set-up. Scouser scrapper Tom Stalker, who captained England in the Commonwealth Games and is a European silver medallist at lightweight, tells me: "The coaches are great. It’s the best atmosphere I’ve ever known. There’s no favouritism and we all get on famously. But this year it’s going to be crunch time.

"Its very competitive in our squad - there are virtually two of us fighting for our place at every weight division. My great rival is the Repton boy, Martin Ward, a brilliant boxer. What I’ve got to do is keep my form and make sure I’m the one who’s selected.

"We’ve got the European and World Championships coming up this year which are important for qualifying for the Olympics so we have to keep, our toes."

It is no only the current boxers who are impressed by the Sheffield scenario. Stalker’s great pal is Frankie Gavin, Britain’s only world amateur champion who has now won all nine pro fights. He says: "They’ve got some terrific boxers there. I particularly like Tom and Luke , they’re brilliant. We could get a few medals in London. I was sorry when Terry Edwards left but I am pleased to hear that he is going to be involved with the Games (as Boxing Operations Manager for the 2012 tournament Edwards will be responsible for organising the event). That speaks for the reputation he has. But I am not taking anything away from his successor Rob McCracken - he’s doing a great job."

Indeed he is, but one of the big worries at the moment for the ABA, apart from the internecine ‘whistleblowing’ is the apparently fractious relationship with international governing body AIBA.

This follows the action of chief executive Paul King in attempting an unsuccessful coup against the immensely powerful Dr CK Wu, the head-honcho of AIBA. It has incurred the wrath not only of Dr Wu but his powerful henchmen.

There has been talk of AIBA "punishing" the ABAE and it may - or may not - have been significant that last week a team from Bulgaria due to compete against England boxers at Basingstoke withdrew at short notice. The rumour was that they had been pressured by AIBA whose Korean chief executive Ho Kim stopped off in London last week to reveal that he had received a letter from Caborn allegedly distancing the ABAE from King’s action.

Caborn denies that this is how his missive should be interpreted. He was merely pointing out, he says, that while the ABA were not asked to support King, he was perfectly entitled to challenge Dr Wu as an individual member of AIBA and one of its European representatives.

Of course this is so. Liverpudlian King is a long-serving, hard working and extremely knowledgeable wheeler-dealer. He is also internationally ambitious. Nothing wrong in that but whether it was prudent at this stage to challenge the high and mighty Dr Wu - and he claims to have had the backing of several other nations who are also being threatened with punitive action - is surely questionable. It is rather like the chief executive of the English FA trying to dislodge Sepp Blatter on his own initiative.

Under ABA regulations the job of chief executive has to be re-advertised after a set term. This is happening and the moment and a number of candidates have been interviewed, with King among them this week. He remains a clear favourite to stay in the post.

The latest development in this saga of sock is that some of the disaffected entities within the sport, having been refused an extraordinary general meeting this Saturday have called an "informal" meeting of their own to make their views known. It is being led by the Police Boxing Association.

Let’s make it clear that our only agenda is for amateur boxing to flourish and for GB to have a a great Olympics.

Fortunately the good things that are happening are outweighing the bad and on the fighting front GB’s boxers can look forward to next year’s Games 2012 with vigour, hope and confidence. The occasional bloody nose along the way is an occupational hazard of the sport but this messy extra-mural business I must be sorted soon because nothing can be allowed to undermine Britain’s 2012 ring of confidence.

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.

Twenty twelve is on its way. The forthcoming BBC faux documentary, that is, which will follow with comic intention the efforts of a team tasked - I think that would be the appropriate word - with the challenge - again, key word - of delivering - ditto - the London 2012 Olympics to the waiting world.

It’s a pressurised, time-sensitive operation to which a collection of almost familiar figures are dedicated.

As the BBC themselves describe it: "You’re organising the Biggest Show on Earth. You’ve got nine billion pounds to spend and plenty of time to think about it all. What can possibly go wrong?"

Hugh Bonneville plays the top man, Ian Fletcher, with sonorous aplomb. He is aided and abetted by a harridan of a press chief, Siobhan Sharpe (played by Jessica Hynes). But even Sharpe quails before the glacial Kay Hope (Amelia Bullmore) who is in charge of Heritage.

We are also offered the nerdish figure of Graham Hitchens (Karl Theobald), who has responsibility for infrastructure. And Hugh’s PA, Sally Owen (Olivia Colman), who is responsible for Hugh. ("Everyone wants a piece of him. They can’t always have it.")

If the snippets of dialogue in the clip released this week are anything to go by, this six-part BBC Four series, written by John Morton with narration from David Tennant, promises much mirth.

Fletcher addresses a barrier of microphone-toting media: "As you know, London 2012 is very much the people’s Games, which is why I am pleased to be able to announce formally that Peter Andre has agreed to be our principal torch bearer…"

On the subject of his press attaché, Fletcher enthuses: "Siobhan’s key strength is that she’s absolutely 100 per cent committed to the concept of being right about things."



Cut to the infallible operative as she engages with an underling on the phone: "No don’t talk, just listen OK? What I want you to do for me…are you there?"

Cut to Hitchins, waving his arms at two screens showing complicated maps. "It’s like flying a plane," he tells the interviewer. "If you get this right no one is going to notice. You get it wrong, everyone is going to notice. First they notice it, then they die…"

We see Hitchins struggling to guide a coach between parked cars; we hear his urgent concerns about "toiletage".

Then we see Hope and Fletcher in a pressurised exchange. Hope: "OK. That’s a problem." Fletcher: "I don’t need problems at the moment. I need solutions." Hope: “Well that’s an even bigger problem…"

Morton has a wonderfully sensitive ear for the nuances of modern nonsense, as he has demonstrated in his previous work such as the BBC2 spoof news show Broken News, and his BBC2 series People Like Us, a sitcom about a hapless film maker and his subjects which won the Royal Television Society Award for Best Comedy and the Silver Rose for Comedy at the Montreux Television Festival.

Now don’t get me wrong, I like the Olympics, and I like the fact that the next Olympics are in London. But there are certainly times when the London 2012 tone has become relentlessly earnest, and when its presentation has come to resemble a fixed grin. Such unvarying seriousness of purpose is often promising stuff as far as satire is concerned.

Not that this is likely to be satire of the Jonathan Swift, savage indignation type, if what we have seen so far is a fair indication. And unless the London 2012 Olympics are revealed to be a secret front for the trafficking of drugs and sex slaves, nor should it be.

Lord Sebastian Coe, not exactly any of these figures but perhaps a little bit of some of them, also appears to appear in the show - at least, he appears in the preview clip. It will be interesting to see what he makes of it.

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

This month saw the first hit out of the British Rowers on the Olympic course at Dorney, Eton. All the rowers were racing in a selection regatta vying for their place in the 2011 World Championship team.

This regatta also doubles for the major qualification regatta for the London Olympics. The standard of the World Championships builds through the Olympiad and this one is no exception. The prize is confirmation of a boat in London and the planning and preparation that can make the difference of a medal in 2012.

The individual racing this month was just as cut throat. This regatta was an open trial so any registered British rower who achieved a realistic standard can challenge the current team for their slot.

In 2010 the British rowing team returned to the United Kingdom having its most successful World Championships, topping the medal table and having a strong performance across all 14 boat classes. There were nine medals from these 14 opportunities, four of them gold. Feet are firmly on the ground amongst the athletes and coaches but 2010 has shown what could be possible at Dorney, Eton in 2012.

In preparation for 2012 we are looking to expose the British rowers to the Dorney, Eton conditions under race stress as part of their Olympic preparation. Olympics tend to come to you rather than you to them, time is running down and as an outdoor sport it is important that we prepare our rowers well for the conditions and environments they will face. Every Olympics has it owns challenges; a home Olympics is no exception. For some athletes and teams it will be an advantage and for some a disadvantage, again preparation is crucial.



As part of our Olympic orientation late last year we brought the athletes and coaches inside the planning and logistics for 2012. This involved meetings and discussions with the BOA (British Olympic Association) and members of LOCOG (London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games). The less you leave to chance the better the focus is on the performance. The accommodation was inspected, the meals and facilities were tested, the transport logistics, ticketing, the kitting out, the regatta course set up were all shared and discussed. The orientation finished off with a bus ride to the Stratford and a visit to the LOCOG offices at Canary wharf.

What stuck in my mind from the orientation is what a fantastically organised and well thought out these Olympics these will be. The venues and athletes village are absolutely outstanding; LOCOG and ODA (Olympic Deliver Authority) have done a fantastic job. The Games will bring huge pride to the British public, this will not only be based on how well the Games are organised but also by the success of the British team.

In a month when the Olympic schedule has been unveiled to the public, I am sure that LOCOG will also have the best interests of the home team in mind in their preparation for what should be a spectacular Games. This doesn’t need to disadvantage other teams. Venue access, weather condition information, and team competition zone positioning are all areas that LOCOG can help make a difference.

All they need to do is think first of the home team. The medals are won in centimetres and hundredths of seconds. This is all part of the home team advantage. It is no coincidence in Bejing that the Chinese rowers had the best positioned boat bay and nor was it coincidence that the same occurred in Sydney for the Australian rowing team.

Another thing they might like to do is stick a few banners up at Heathrow Airport. According to Wikipedia around 66 million people come through the airport annually, you would never guess coming through Heathrow that Britain was welcoming the world to the Worlds Greatest Sporting Competition in 515 days.

Paul Thompson, is the GB Rowing Team’s Chief Coach for Women and Lightweights. He has coached Olympic champion and medallist crews at the last four Olympic Games, including having a home Games experience in Sydney. At the 2010 World Rowing Championships his squad won four golds in the Olympic classes, including the double scull world champions Katherine Grainger and Anna Watkins

When London won the right to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games back in 2005, part of their successful bid to the IOC was the commitment to host a "green Games".

Sustainability was at the heart of the Games from the outset and together with LOCOG, BT is helping to deliver on those promises.

BT is one of six sustainability partners for London 2012. Our role is to assist LOCOG in sustainable initiatives that will reduce the environmental impact of the Games and leave a legacy beyond 2012.

As the official communications services partner of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we have set ourselves the challenge of making sure that our own sponsor activity is as green as it can be.

For London 2012, we are providing infrastructure that will support around 80,000 connections across an estimated 94 Olympic and Paralympic Games competition and non-competition venues.

With the help of the carbon-footprint measuring methodology we have developed for complex communication solutions, we will be able to use London as a benchmark to ensure that part of our legacy is helping future Games to be sustainable.

To meet the challenge of to making sure that our solution is as sustainable as possible, we have designed a "converged network" - the first time that such a design has been implemented at a Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This means that we can carry voice and data on the same network which dramatically reduces energy consumption and waste.

Additionally, in line with the zero waste to landfill commitment made in the London 2012 bid, BT intends to retain all equipment packaging for re-use at the end of the Games.

Any remaining waste packaging will be recycled where possible. Equipment which is no longer needed after the Games will be recovered for refurbishment and re-use at another time.

We are also using BT Net Design, developed by our research team at BT, which digitally calculates the most efficient layout for the network before installation.

This technology allows us to cut the volume of equipment by 5 per cent, minimising our impact on the environment.

On the Olympic Park itself, we are utilising new technology that reduces the impact of our activity.



For example, our Openreach business is piloting the use of electric vehicles for its engineers.

For BT, sustainability is not just about being green. It's also about working with communities to educate and inspire, whilst leaving a social legacy beyond just the Games.

BT has pioneered three key programmes: Communication Triathlon, which encourages a primary school child to take part in three sports-themed speaking and listening activities; Coaching for Life, which encourages parents, grandparents and carers to help children try different sports; Big Voice, a chance for teams of young people to explore life in our rapidly changing, multicultural society and turn their ideas into films to be shown on Live Sites in the run up to London 2012.

What this means is that we are thinking beyond just the summer of 2012 and ensuring that we are leaving a legacy that will last for many years beyond that.

Firstly, the copper and fibre networks installed for the Games will become part of the national BT infrastructure after 2012.

Secondly, the innovations developed as a pilot for 2012 will enable us to use our sponsorship as a blueprint for improving sustainability across our business, and in turn, the products we offer to our customers.

If we can use these methods successfully on such a big scale at an Olympic and Paralympic Games, we know that they will work elsewhere across the UK and internationally.

Finally, our community programmes enable us to use our sponsorship of London 2012 to inspire and educate young people about the way they communicate and address the issues that matter to them.

For BT, therefore, our sponsorship is not just about commercial benefit. It is more than that; the chance to change the way we operate our business and leave a lasting legacy for the UK beyond the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Johanna Hegarty is the Sustainability Director of BT's London 2012 programme. BT is the official communications partner of London 2012. 

A pertinent question of sport: Are the Government and its various funding agencies hard of hearing?

Because they don't seem to be getting the message from those athletes who unfortunately are.

Actually, it was just as well that Britain sent no-one to the Winter Deaflympics in the High Tatras of Slovakia last week. The event had to be scrapped because apparently the local organiser did a downhill runner with the money.

Police are pursuing him.

But the fact is Britain was not represented among the 800 putative competitors largely because we could not afford to send anyone. Deaf athletes are easily the poor relations of disability sport, their meagre amount of Government funding via UK Sport (a trifling £126,000 over four years) having ceased because of other, more obviously pressing, priorities.

"UK Sport have made it explicitly clear that because the Government is focussing on the Olympic and Paralympic Games there is no money available for deaf athletes, of which there are thousands in this country," Mark Dolley, a former International Olympic Committee (IOC) communications director now newly-appointed as chief executive of the UK-based International Committee of Sports for the Deaf, tells us.

"The Government is picking up the entire £95 million tab for the Paralympics but not a penny for deaf athletes."

Deaf sports were originally part of the Paralympic Movement but they never included the Paralympic Games and subsequently withdrew in 1990.

Another Briton, Leicester-based Craig Crowley, a former medal winning Deaflympian himself who previously ran UK Deaf Sport is now the international body's President. He has fought a long, hard and frustrating battle to get greater recognition for deaf sport in this country but says: "Doors seem constantly closed to us and we are very concerned for the future."

The only heartening news is a recent cordial meeting with the IOC. with whom they are keen to improve relations. The British Olympic Association are also sympathetic but what deaf sport is cash and material support, not just tea and sympathy.

As Matthew Talbot, an ex-Sport England employee and one of the Deaf UK snowboarders who had hoped to go to the ill-fated Deaflympics puts it: "I just don't understand why the Government thinks we should get no help at all. I train just as hard as Olympic and Paralympic athletes. And when we go to bed, we all have the same dreams of making our country proud. Why has the Government decided that our country should be proud of able-bodied and disabled British athletes but not deaf British athletes? It doesn't make any sense to me."

Jonathan Reid, of UK Deaf Sport, says:" We launched a nationwide campaign in 2008-2009 when a large number of MPs confirmed their support to UKDS's cause and raised questions in Parliament over the unfair treatment Deaf sport was receiving over
funding.

"UKDS was then advised by UK Sport that we should approach Sport England for funding. Sport England informed UKDS that they make a substantial amount of funding available to EFDS (English Federation of Disability Sport).

"Despite being one of EFDS' recognised Members, UKDS has been frustrated by their inability to provide core funding. In the last financial quarter, we requested a paltry £4,039 to keep UKDS operating for another three months to allow UKDS to retain the services of its part-time co-ordinator and enable further negotiations on funding to take place with EFDS and Sport England.

"The very national disability body which should be assisting deaf sport has so far been unable to effectively support UKDS for such a small amount of money and that for UKDS to find that the previous Government, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), UK Sport and now Sport England and EFDS all seem to have avoided the issue of core funding."

The current Sports Minister, Hugh Robertson, has shown himself to be not only an affable and able bloke, but a good listener. Let's hope he gets the drift, for deaf athletes, so used to the sound of silence,  seem to have become Britain's forgotten sporting community.

The last Summer Deaflympics in Taipai two years ago, in which the Taiwanese government invested $35 million, saw 3,700 participants in 21 sports. The next are scheduled for Athens in 2013 and Britain would like to be represented. So isn't it time we stopped turning a deaf ear?

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.

Whenever the hot topic of "legacy" is discussed in relation to London 2012, it is often forgotten that the benefits to the UK of awarding the Olympic and Paralympic Games to London started almost immediately.

UK Sport's World Class Events Programme began with the introduction of National Lottery funding for elite sport back in 1997. However, it was the successful bid that led to investment in the UK's events programme being doubled to £3.5 million ($5.6 million) per year.

In practical terms, from 2006 to 2007 we were able to treble the number of world class events being brought to the UK, and it's been on the increase ever since. In 2011 we're supporting a record 27 major international events on home soil in what will be a critical year of preparation.

Essentially, this means that British sport will head into a home Olympic and Paralympic Games with almost all of our national governing bodies having hosted a world-class event. Our current priority is to support athlete preparation – we know that competing at an international level on home soil can be an infrequent and fundamentally different experience for many Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

Through this programme, most British athletes and their support staff will have experienced and rehearsed for the unique environment of competing at home, and the biggest moment of their sporting lives.

Through its extensive preparations for London 2012, the UK is developing a world-leading event-staging system that makes it well-placed to bid for some of the very biggest events after the Games. Ahead of London 2012, our strategy has been to focus on hosting annual World Series events such as the FINA Diving World Series in Sheffield, the ITU World Triathlon Championships Series in London, and the UCI Track Cycling World Cup in Manchester.

We have helped pioneer new annual events such as the ISAF Sail for Gold Regatta in Weymouth and Taekwondo's British International Open which has earned prestigious WTF World Class status. This strategy has provided the UK with a regular hosting presence on the international circuits of those sports, and repeat opportunities to improve our event delivery.

Around 27,000 opportunities have been provided for officials and volunteers at significant world-level competitions on home soil, and over 3.5 million spectators will have seen some of the world's finest elite athletes across the 35 host towns and cities around the UK.



This strategy of staging regular World Series events ahead of the Games has also helped build meaningful relationships with many International Federations (IFs) and positioned the UK as a reliable and attractive hosting partner. We can't take for granted the UK's position at the top table of international sport - this needs to be earned and we need to contribute towards their objectives.

Major events are an excellent way of achieving this, as they are business critical to most Ifs; events act as the main shop window for their sports, and increasingly they drive revenue to support their operations. Consequently we find that the host countries of IF events can become important and influential stakeholders in those sports.

How can we be certain that all this won't simply slip away after London 2012? Over the last year we have worked with national governing bodies to develop the UK's programme of major event hosting targets through to 2018, and the hosting ambition of our sports is now extremely high. We are talking with sports about bids for major World Championships where, several years ago, they had comparatively little international hosting experience.

This tangible progress in developing the UK's event-staging assets, expertise and ambition is legacy in action. We're confident that the groundwork over the last five years will not only help to deliver a fantastic Games in 2012, but will in turn cement our position internationally as a world leader in hosting major international sporting events.

Find out more by clicking here. 

Simon Morton is Head of Major Events at UK Sport

Yesterday was all about the new Velodrome, but last week I attended a briefing that, in my view, encapsulated the bonkers side of the Olympics.

The occasion was billed as a chance to hear about the London 2012 venues team's work in preparing and staging the Games.

And as we gazed down on the O2 arena from twenty-odd floors up in a Canary Wharf high-rise, a series of talented and clearly dedicated individuals explained just how their expertise was contributing to the successful completion of the mind-bogglingly complex London Olympic jigsaw.

It was a fascinating insight into elements of event preparation that usually stay behind-the-scenes.

And, speaking as someone who finds organising breakfast an uphill battle, it was deeply impressive stuff.

What struck me as the bonkers bit were some of the things they were being asked to do.

At its genesis, white-water racing must have been a blissfully natural pursuit.

A river. A few like-minded men/women. A boat. And away you go.

Of course, in the world of elite 21st century sport, things are rather different.

The white water needs to be in the right place.

It needs to conform to various technical specifications, or so I assume.

And you need to be able to accommodate thousands of spectators while capturing live TV images for broadcast around the world.

As a result you get venues such as the Lee Valley White Water Centre, an arena that looks like a marvel of engineering, but which requires - according to Steve Cardwell of the Atkins engineering and design consultancy - approximately 40 kilometres of cabling and 15 cubic metres a second of water pumped through the course.

Cardwell likened this to 60 bath-fulls every second of the event.



That sounds like a lot of water and a lot of energy.

And even if the Lee Valley Centre can look forward to a profitable and secure after-life catering for the demands of ordinary Londoners, the Olympic timetable is such as to make it likely that one of these facilities will be built somewhere in the world every four years.

If you don't accept that that constitutes a questionable use of human ingenuity and the earth's scarce resources, what about this?

As Cardwell also explained, the designated site for the London 2012 equestrian arena in Greenwich Park has a four metre drop from one end to the other.

Yet the arena must be flat.

As a result, organisers were faced with the problem of a tapering wedge of space that would be created between the surface of the arena and the surface of the park.

Simply filling the hole with earth was (rightly) deemed an undesirable option.

So Cardwell explained how a sort of scaffolding system, more normally used for car- parks, was deployed and tested, initially on a half-sized arena built on a farm somewhere in Berkshire.

Horses, it seems, are quite susceptible to vibrations and they had to make sure the surface of the arena wouldn't vibrate too much.

As a result of such ingenuity and hard work, anyone who wishes in future to build an equestrian arena on a piece of sloping land on a sensitive site should presumably have a solution at their finger-tips.

But wouldn't it have been oh so much easier to stage the London 2012 event on one of our ready-made, 100 percent flat, equestrian arenas?

They're not exactly scarce: the UK is a horsey country.

Of course, as a bit of an Olympic anorak, I think I understand the other factors - the Movement's desire for a "compact" Games; Greenwich's history and uniquely telegenic appearance - that may have deterred them from choosing a different site.

But I wonder if the proverbial - and increasingly hard-pressed - man on the Clapham omnibus would be so understanding.

Don't get me wrong: I believe the Olympic Games to be a special institution; I think the world is better off with them than without them.

I am even quite moved that specialists of the calibre of Steve Cardwell and his colleagues are prepared to devote so much energy and brainpower to solving conundrums like the one thrown up by Greenwich.

But, really, there are times when the Movement must test the patience of even its biggest fans.

When you are forced to shake your head and conclude that some of the things it decides to do are a little, well, bonkers.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938

There is only one way to put it - the London 2012 Velodrome is absolutely stunning.

While the media spotlight has been firmly fixed on the Olympic Stadium and the raging battle between Premiership rivals Tottenham and West Ham United to take over the venue post-2012, workers have quietly be ploughing away on the other side of the Olympic Park creating something truly iconic.

I have been to the London 2012 Velodrome on two occasions but on each of them, I had been slightly underwhelmed by the work-in-progress construction site I had been met with despite being continuously told it would look fantastic when finished.

As someone with little vision, I was sceptical that it would but I was proved completely wrong as I today visited the completed version of the Velodrome as the structure was officially unveiled.

From the outside, it appears as if an elegant and futuristic flying saucer has nestled neatly onto the green grass of East London.

Walk inside and you cannot help but be dazzled by the bright lights, the unbelievably smooth surface of the wooden track and 6,000 cushioned seats which unlike most Velodromes, go all 360 degrees round the track to create the best possible crowd atmosphere during events.

To give you some idea of the scale of the project, the Velodrome was constructed by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) over a period of 23 months with 2,500 workers involved.

Some 48,000 cubic metres of material was excavated to create the bowl for the Velodrome - enough to fill 19 Olympic-sized swimming pools - while 2,500 sections of steelwork were installed to form the Velodrome structure.

The cable-net roof lift took eight weeks to complete and features some 16 kilometres of cabling while the 250 metre International Cycling Union (UCI) approved indoor track is fixed into place with more than 350,000 nails.

Sir Chris Hoy, who became the first ever cyclist to try out the Velodrome today, has declared it the fastest ever and "the best in the world" - and he is rather well placed to make such a judgement - and after the Games, a road cycle circuit and mountain bike course will be added to the Velodrome and BMX circuit to create the Lee Valley VeloPark.

Not bad at all.

But for me, the most striking statistic is that this phenomenon was completed on time - some 18 month before the start of the Games - and on budget at a cost of just over £90 million ($145 million).

The journalist inside me wanted to find something to criticise but apart from the poor coffee that I was served from the temporary vending machine, it is difficult to find any fault with the Velodrome which I don't doubt will be one of the shining stars of the London 2012 Games.

However, the immense success of the Velodrome construction does raise an issue.

If this iconic London 2012 venue can be delivered so efficiently on budget, why can another, just a few hundred metres away, not be?

I talk, of course, of the Aquatics Centre; the so called "highlight" of the Olympic Park.

The London 2012 bid book price estimated the venue would cost £73 million ($118 million) to build but the anticipated final cost in the latest figures released earlier this month show that the price is now £269 million ($434 million) and rising.

The escalating price was what saw the Olympic Stadium "wrap" temporarily scrapped - before private investors came to the rescue - as the ODA looked where they could cut money from one venue to give to the Aquatics Centre.

The staggering increase cannot just be down to design difficulties with the roof and construction complications because of the location and when I saw ODA chairman John Armitt in understandably jubilant mood in the Velodrome today, it was a question that I couldn't help but ask him.

"We are extremely pleased and proud about what we have done with the Velodrome but we have to recognise Velodrome and the Aquatics Centre are very different buildings," Armitt explained.

"The Aquatics Centre is a much more complex building and so we are spending a bit of extra money now to make sure that we get the environment inside it right.

"That is very tricky when you have got temporary wings in place.

"But we'll do it and we'll be finished on time.

"It's undoubtedly a hiccup but it's still going extremely well and I'm sure that the Aquatics Centre will be something to be very proud of when it's finished."



Perhaps so - but I feel the tax-payer, who is, after all, funding the majority project, will be a little more proud of a venue that has been constructed at nearly a third of the cost but looks just as fantastic.

It is a point even Armitt would have difficulty disagreeing with.

"We've always thought of the Aquatics Centre as the iconic building of the Olympic Park but the Velodrome is equally so," he continued.

"The architect, the engineer and the contractor have worked so well together.

"You don't always get that but here they have done it extremely well here."

When all is said and done, I am sure the Aquatics Centre will look magnificent but for all that money, of course it should.

For me, the Velodrome is the bargain buy that punches well above its weight and it is a more than a fitting stage for Sir Chris and his fellow Brits to take on the world.

There were a lot of dignitaries in attendance today all looking for superlatives to sum up the Velodrome but it was Sport and Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson who perhaps articulated it best.

"It is difficult not to be blown away by this," he told me.

"It is not only a fantastic piece of architecture and an iconic sporting symbol but it has and undoubted legacy element in place and despite all the other magnificent venues here; the Velodrome is the hidden gem of the Olympic Park."

On time, on budget and truly world class, perhaps the London 2012 Aquatics Centre should take a few tips from the magnificent Velodrome.

Tom Degun is a reporter on insidethegames

When Cathy Freeman crossed the line to win the Olympic 400 metres gold at the 2000 Sydney Games, she was watched from the commentary position by fellow Australian Olympian Raelene Boyle, one of her former coaches.

As the woman who had carried sky-high home hopes into the Games sank to the track under the weight of her emotion, Boyle - a triple Olympic silver medallist whose medals might well have been of golden hue but for the East German doping regime - spoke for a nation in exclaiming: "What a relief!"

Down the years, so many sportsmen and women have spoken of that feeling in the aftermath of victory, with the common denominator being that they have entered their competition as the favourite. Or, exponentially more challenging, as the home favourite.

For Freeman the pressure had ratcheted up at the very start of the Games when she had emerged as the Australian to light the Olympic flame on behalf of the host nation at the Opening Ceremony.

As she stood in her luminous catsuit amid swirling water and swirling flame, a technical hitch threatened to throw the whole ceremony out of kilter and her position appeared briefly perilous.

Not the ideal preparation for an athlete expected to deliver the performance of her life shortly afterwards in the self-same stadium.

Thirty six years earlier, another nailed-on Australian Olympic certainty, Dawn Fraser, had voluntarily taken part in the Opening Ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics, despite a directive from the Australian Swimming Union that its swimmers should not do so, given the proximity of their competition.

For that, the woman who went on to earn a third successive 100m freestyle gold was banned for a decade. Puzzle that shift out...

Fraser, for her part, had already dealt with the pressure of being a home favourite, having secured her first gold at the Melbourne Games of 1956. For Freeman, however, there was the additional responsibility of representing not just Australia, but the Aboriginal people, as she became their first track and field Olympic champion.

Freeman had also been marketed to the max by her sponsors, with two massive photographs of her adorning a tower block close to Sydney Harbour Bridge.



The poster girl came through. But her subsidence to the track in the aftermath indicated the metaphorical weight she had carried into and through the 2000 Games.

A similar weight rested on the broader shoulders of the 1976 Winter Olympics poster boy, Franz Klammer, whose mission - and he had no choice but to accept it - was to win downhill gold in front of an adoring crowd of fellow Austrians at the Innsbruck Games.

Klammer, a 22-year-old from Carinthia, had created his personal pressure cooker by winning eight of the nine World Cup downhill events the previous year, eclipsing Switzerland's reigning Olympic champion Bernhard Russi.

So Austria was all set to beat their perennial skiing rivals on home snow. Sweet. And especially so as, to every Austrian follower of the sport, such a victory would only be natural justice following the travesty that had occurred shortly before the 1972 Sapporo Games.

Their 33-year-old multiple world champion Karl Schranz, had delayed his retirement to seek the crowning glory of an Olympic gold, but on the eve of competition he was banned from taking part by the 84-year-old outgoing US president of the International Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage, on the grounds of commercialism.

Schranz was welcomed back to Vienna by a crowed of 100,000 supporters, and the American Embassy in the Austrian capital was subjected to protests and bomb threats. Meanwhile, Russi took his gold.

Could any more pressure exist for an Olympic competitor?

Well, yes. Because by the time Klammer got to the starting gate in the downhill final, the 15th to go, Russi had already put in an inspired performance to take a commanding lead.



The Austrian soon fell a fifth of a second behind his Swiss rival's time over the 3,145 metres course. But a final 1000 metres that fell little short of lunacy in its risk-taking saw the home hope home to gold by the margin of a third of a second as 60,000 spectators sent bellows of triumph echoing around the neighbouring mountain-tops.

At the time, Klammer told reporters he had skied so close to a fence that he heard "a shout or scream from a lady," adding: "I thought I was hitting her with a pole...I thought I was going to crash all the way...Now I've got everything. I don't need anything else."

Earlier this month, while attending the Laureus World Sports Awards in Abu Dhabi, Klammer was invited - by me - to reflect upon his legendary performance, and - hopeful I know, but you have to try - to offer advice to the slew of Britons who are currently facing up to the challenge of providing Olympic gold for their own home crew next year.

"Being a home favourite is great," he told me. "It's a lot of pressure, but it's more satisfying if you are able to pull it off.

"But you don't have to even think about others. That just slows you down. What you have to do is get yourself into the best possible shape. Then it's all about the physical challenge, and technique. You have to be fully prepared physically. And the execution is what you have to do. It's just mental strength – no fear of losing."

Klammer took early note of a comment by his fellow Austrian, Toni Sailer, a triple Olympic champion at the 1956 Cortina Games. "Toni said once that you are a real champion if you win as the favourite," he recalled.

"The Olympics has so many outsiders. They have no pressure whatever. They can prepare themselves quietly without pressure. That's why it makes you a champion, if you win despite all that.

"I had to take it to the edge at Innsbruck, otherwise I wouldn't have won it.

"But when you are on top of your game, everything seems to be slower. You have all the time in the world to make decisions.

"If you are not on top of your game, the slope and the turns seem to come rushing towards you."

As London 2012 rushes towards a generation of home sportsmen and women desperate to impress, Klammer's advice is surely pertinent. Got that Ennis? All clear, Adlington?

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

I hate to ruin the suspense with four months of the race still to run, but I would be extremely surprised if Pyeongchang is not chosen to host the 2018 Winter Olympics.

This assertion has nothing to do with the respective technical qualities of the three bids - Annecy and Munich are the others.

And indeed, with the International Olympic Committee's Evaluation Commission now conducting its inspection visits, I suppose it is possible that some technical lacuna might trip the South Korean bid up.

However, you would think they would have ironed out any such wrinkles in the course of their unsuccessful bids for the 2010 and 2014 Games, so I find this extremely unlikely - particularly in the light of the IOC inspectors' comments about Pyeongchang yesterday.

No, I see Pyeongchang as the likely victor because this is the outcome that the complex geopolitics of the Olympic Movement seems - quite strongly - to be pointing towards.

Let me explain.

First, if we look at the Winter Olympics in isolation, it is simple to construct a case that it is Asia's turn.

The last three Games have been in the Americas (Salt Lake City), Europe (Turin) and the Americas again (Vancouver).

And for the next Winter Games in 2014, we will be once again in Europe (Sochi).

If 2018 goes to Pyeongchang, it will be the first Asian Winter Olympics of the 21st century.

Second, a pronounced tendency has developed in recent years, for the custodians of the world's great sporting events to be seduced by the allure of new, or relatively new, territories.

The Summer Olympics going to Rio, the FIFA World Cup to Russia and Qatar, the Commonwealth Games to New Delhi – all are examples of this and the Formula One motor-racing championship has staged races in several new markets, from Abu Dhabi to Singapore, in recent years.

The Summer Olympics reached Seoul as long ago as 1988, so South Korea would not be a new host-country for the Olympic Movement.

But as a vibrant and developing economy, it is probably better-placed than Germany or France to tap into the spirit of adventure that seems currently to have gripped those whose job it is to decide where these big events are held.



Third and in a way most importantly, I think circumstances may conspire to undermine the advantage that the high proportion of Europeans serving on the IOC can sometimes hand to European bidders.

By my count, 44 of the present 110 IOC members are from Europe, against 29 from Asia – and that's if one allows a particularly broad definition of "Asia", embracing Australasia as well as the Middle East.

The potential problem, I think, for Annecy and Munich is that a number of European countries appear to have their eyes on the 2020 Summer Olympics.

And if a European city wins the 2018 Winter Games, it would probably significantly reduce the prospects of another European winner just two years later.

Other European countries - Spain, Switzerland, Sweden - are thought to be mulling bids for the 2022 Winter Games.

Similarly, if the 2018 Winter Olympics was in Europe, those 2022 ambitions would stand virtually no chance of fulfilment, giving members from those countries a potential motive for voting for Pyeongchang.

This knife, of course, cuts both ways.

IOC members from Middle East states thought to be contemplating bidding for the 2020 Games might, as a result, be minded to back Annecy or Munich for 2018, for all that the Gulf is an awfully long way from Korea.

With Tokyo and/or Hiroshima seemingly likely to bid for 2020, I would expect the two Japanese IOC members to be minded to vote for one of the European candidates for 2018 – provided, of course, they were satisfied these bids were technically proficient.

But the numbers do tend to stack up against Annecy and Munich.

With Rome almost certainly a 2020 candidate, it is worth mentioning that as many as four IOC members are Italian.

I would not suggest that this quartet would all automatically vote for Pyeongchang for this reason, but it seems logical to think it might play a part in the decision-making process for some of them.

Those three possible bidders for 2022 – Spain, Switzerland and Sweden – account for 10 IOC members between them, almost 10 percent of the electorate, bearing in mind that members from bidding countries (six in the 2018 race) cannot vote while their bids remain "live".

There are two other factors, neither having anything to do with sport, that it seems to me could yet get in the way of South Korea's Winter Olympic ambitions.

One is a severe ratcheting up of political tensions on the Korean Peninsula.

The other is if the current outbreaks of revolutionary fervour in parts of the Arab world increase the appeal of "safe old" Europe in the eyes of sports administrators.

If neither of these becomes a source of major concern, I would expect the main uncertainty when the IOC gathers in July in South Africa to be over whether Pyeongchang will be heavily enough backed to win in the first round of voting.

At four months' distance – and given the South Koreans' formidable international sports lobbying skills - I wouldn't rule that out.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938

Last month, I wrote that the bid which had the spectator experience and a sustainable future for the Olympic Stadium at its heart was the only clear-cut choice. As it turned out, the Olympic Park Legacy Company disagreed and placed the future of the stadium in the hands of West Ham.

The East London football club's bid to occupy the £537 million ($836 million) Stadium, incorporating a running track permanently in place around the football pitch, succeeded crucially because of the commitment to 20 days of "top class athletics" per year.

This legacy promise stirred the emotions, both politically and amongst a tax-paying public, many of whom only knew that the alternative was a proposal to knock down the Stadium and start again.

West Ham certainly won the battle of hearts and minds, that much we know. But surely, a decision as important as this wouldn't have been based on emotions would it? Why haven't we been told the actual criteria used by the Olympic Park Legacy Company and its Board to make this informed commercial decision?

In her recent open letter to the Evening Standard, Karen Brady gushed her thanks and promised that once the legacy is entrusted to West Ham, they will not let anyone down. I'm sorry Karen but you are sure to let someone down.

If West Ham remove the track in the long-term because their supporters complain about being too far from the action on the pitch, Brady will have massively let down UK Athletics, Lord Coe and every misty-eyed supporter of the legacy dream.

If they don't remove the track, then the English Schools championships, South of England senior and junior championships and the Newham and Essex Beagles' British Athletics League meets will be watched in a mostly empty stadium. And it will be the football supporters who will feel let down.

Is there even a plan in place to bid for European and World Championships in the future? Without one, Brady and UK Athletics will be letting the whole sport of athletics down on this promise of "top class" sport.

Refurbishing Crystal Palace with an Olympic track and creating a sustainable legacy for all of the UK's world-class athletics facilities including Glasgow, Sheffield and Birmingham should have been the promise. Without a 2012 legacy plan in place for existing athletics venues, they too will feel let down as London again will be seen as the focus for Government.

Karen Brady has successfully helped to keep the promise of the 2012 Bid team. It's time to stop playing with everyone's heart strings and start thinking seriously about how her subsequent promises can be kept.

David Hornby is the former commercial director of Visit London and was a member of the technical team for England's 2018 World Cup bid