I went to Hiroshima seven years ago.

It was during the 2002 World Cup and the visit acted as a supreme reality check.

After three weeks wallowing in the best escapism on the planet, the sight of the Japanese city’s ruined dome, its skeleton exposed like a barbed wire climbing-frame, restored my sense of perspective with a thud.

Two days earlier in the bowels of a football stadium maybe 500 kilometresm away in Shizuoka, I had looked on as a distraught David Seaman and his England team-mates reacted to being knocked out of the competition by an outrageous Ronaldinho free-kick.

At the time, their despair seemed only natural. Viewed from the spot where the most terrible and important single event of the 20th century had taken place, it was exposed as utterly preposterous.

How could a grown man be reduced to tears by anything as small as a World Cup?

These memories came rushing back to me this week when I read that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the other Japanese city attacked with an atomic bomb by the United States in World War Two, were considering a joint bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games.

Conceptually, this is a stunning and wonderful idea.

We all take winning in sport much too seriously these days.

Pierre de Coubertin’s assertion that, "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part", has taken on the timbre of a quaint cliché, more honoured, by far, in the breach than the observance.

Staging the Games on land incinerated by bombs that harnessed what President Harry S. Truman described as "the basic power of the universe" would restore a much-needed dose of humility to proceedings.

No other city could give a more compelling answer to the question, 'Why should the Olympics be staged here?'

It is on turning one’s mind to the other fundamental question – 'How are the Olympics to be staged here?' – that the practical difficulties that would probably undermine a Hiroshima/Nagasaki bid become evident.

These are principally, 1. They are not big cities – the population of Hiroshima is just over one million; that of Nagasaki not quite half of that and 2. They are not that close – a map I consulted suggests an intervening distance of about 300 kilometres, as the crane flies.

It could be that the symbolism inherent in staging the Games in these two cities would be deemed so potent as to override the usual practical concerns, but I doubt it.

As the last two contests have shown, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is spoilt for choice at the moment when it comes to selecting its Summer Games hosts.

Having said that, a strong Asian bid should stand a good chance of walking off with the prize in 2020.

For example, Tokyo – which garnered a lot of goodwill in a losing cause with its recent 2016 bid – could be formidable if it tries again.

It seems to me that there could be a way of granting Hiroshima and Nagasaki at least a piece of their Olympic dream while investing a new Tokyo bid with a potentially decisive extra dimension.

Why not advocate making Hiroshima and Nagasaki the heart of the 2020 Olympic football tournament?

This is generally spread around the host country in any case and my hunch is that FIFA President Sepp Blatter, who is also an IOC member, would welcome the idea.

Other places associated with the war – Okinawa? – could perhaps also stage matches.

● As one Olympic race finishes, another begins.

We now know that there will be just three bidders – Annecy of France, Munich of Germany and (for the third time in a row) Pyeongchang of South Korea – in the contest to stage the 2018 Winter Olympics.

For the 2014 Games, won eventually by Sochi, there were seven applicant-cities.

So my question is: Should the IOC be concerned?

I have to say my answer would be, Yes, kind of.

There is no crisis here: economic times are hard, so it was always likely that cities which might in other circumstances have bid would think very hard before entering this prestige contest.

And these are solid runners; I would be surprised if any of them fails to make it to the Candidate-city phase, making it a three-horse race in the final stages – the same as last time.

It is only fair to point out too that Sochi 2014 is bucking the economic trend as far as corporate sponsorship is concerned.

As I speculated in February, it could be that Sochi will be the first Winter Olympics to raise more than $1 billion (£613 million) in domestic sponsorship.

But Sochi, I suspect, will prove a bit of a one-off.

Not only is Russia a part of the world where the Winter Olympics matters more than just about anywhere else, but Vladimir Putin, a politician who wields very considerable power, has made the Sochi Games a personal project.

Both factors, I would think, must be helping Games organisers to ride out these tough economic times in good shape.

Vancouver 2010, for whom the global financial crisis could hardly have come at a worse time, have appeared less serene, with the IOC recently agreeing to assist Games organisers if, as feared, they incur a deficit caused by the recession’s impact on corporate sponsorship.

The Canadian city’s problems are largely a timing issue.

As Andrew Benett, global chief strategy officer for Euro RSCG Worldwide, the advertising agency, recently told me: "If the Vancouver Winter Olympics had been in February 2011, not 2010, they would be suffering less."

However, as Benett went on to say, "Even so, the Winter Olympics have never done as well as the Summer Olympics."

In short, I am starting to wonder whether the time has not come for the Movement to start thinking in earnest about how to beef the Winter Olympics up.

The fundamental problem, of course, is that – unlike their summer counterpart – large chunks of the world, which rarely experience snow and ice, are not really interested in them.

This has business repercussions for the IOC since, while the sums raked in by the Winter Games are far from negligible, its real copper-bottomed money-spinner – the Summer Olympics – comes along only once every four years.

(In this respect, the IOC is a bit like FIFA, world football’s governing body, whose flagship competition – the World Cup – is also on a four-year cycle.)

I have long thought that the IOC would benefit by making the Summer and Winter Olympics more equal in scale.

It seems to me, furthermore, that there is a relatively simple – if no doubt politicially delicate – way of achieving this.

Why not switch some of the indoor sports currently in the Summer Olympic programme to the Winter Games?

I can’t really see why disciplines such as track cycling and gymnastics shouldn’t make such a move, in the process broadening the appeal of an event that can seem like the Movement’s poor cousin.

And how about volleyball – a sport popular in many snow-less nations that would still have, in beach volleyball, a format ideally suited to the Summer Games?

The financial milestones being established by Sochi will probably mean that Olympic bosses can get by without making significant changes to the shape of the Winter Games if they want to. Whether this would be the wisest stance to adopt is another matter.

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who 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 last year's Beijing Olympics. An archive of Owen’s material may be found by Twitter users at www.twitter.com/dodo938

I'm in a big bind here – I love rugby (even went to the school where it was invented) and I especially love Fiji rugby (I'm writing this within arms reach of a jersey signed by the 1997 Sevens Rugby World Cup-winning team, and a framed photo of the 15s side that beat the British Lions in 1977).

But sometimes you have to think with your head and not your heart. And I believe that by admitting rugby into the Olympics, the International Olympic Committtee (IOC) are propping up a political structure of governance that is discredited and needs to be swept away to save the game we all love.

Political power within the International Rugby Board (IRB) is vigorously and jealously manipulated by a self-selected elite of first-world nations. But don't just take my word for it. Last year an independent study, co-authored by top UK legal firm Addleshaw Goddard, found that seven per cent of the IRB's member unions controlled 62 per cent of the voting power. Put another way, 90 per cent of the unions (think, developing world) had less than a quarter of the votes. The system is rigged in favour of the few, over the many.

The IRB does have a Congress and it also has an Executive Committee but slotted in between is the 26-member Council, the apex of power – rugby's equivalent of a boardroom, and expressly referred to in the game's constitution as the sport's supreme authority.

Sixteen votes, two-a-piece, come from the so-called Foundation Unions of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Compared to this permanent bloc, the 10 votes shared, one each, between Japan, Italy, Argentina, Canada and the six regional confederations, are almost an irrelevance.

Impoverished Fiji, for instance, has one vote among 11 others within the Federation of Oceania Rugby Union (FORU) to select the Pacific's IRB representative (currently, the Samoan lawyer Harry Schuster). Australia and New Zealand also vote in the same FORU election as well as having two seats apiece in the Council.

And what of the IRB's Congress, where all the member unions attend? Little more than a talking shop, concluded Addleshaw Goddard, in a highly critical report entitled Putting Rugby First. Noting the Congress meets only every two years and has no formal legislative powers, consequently the wider membership - in one sense equivalent to the full shareholders register of world rugby - has extremely limited power and fewer opportunities to influence the direction of world rugby.

If the rest of the sports affiliated with the Olympic Movement are doing things differently, with greater accountability and transparency, why does rugby have this mania for control and privilege?

The answer is fear. The painful truth is rugby is not in good health across the Council membership.

Some examples: the number of senior male players in Scotland may soon tip below 10,000; in Australia almost all of the Super 14 matches were out-rated in the critical New South Wales TV market by the National Rugby League Under-20 Toyota Cup (that's right, no-name teenagers playing league); in England, a month into the Premiership season and only two sides had scored try-bonus points and five out of the 12 teams were averaging less than a try a match (prompting headlines in the Daily Telegraph such as, Is It Me, Or Is The Rugby Rubbish?)

Everybody on the Council is fretting about something, from the weakness of their local currency to inroads made by rival sporting codes. Which is why the 20 delegates representing national unions view issues through the prism, not of what is good for THE game but what is good for MY game.

This mutual suspicion is what collapsed long-overdue attempts to rewrite the laws of the game (the so-called ELVs). And why, as rugby enters its first economic recession since turning professional, the game's lack of leadership is imperilling its very existence as an entertainment choice.

Not only have the ELVs been bounced into touch but a raft of long-overdue areas of reform have also been neglected because decision-making has become such a fraught and deadlocked process.

The IRB concedes the political structure is skewed in favour of some nations but adds, it is not unreasonable to argue that those that provide the bulk of players and money into the game should have the bulk of the representation.

The bulk of players? Well, that isn't true. Fiji, with a population one-sixth of Scotland, has more senior male players and a consistently higher IRB ranking but is only represented at arm's length by a regional confederation.

Perhaps quality of players? Not true either. Japan, Italy and Canada hold three precious Council votes but between them have only once reached the final eight in all editions of the Rugby World Cup. Samoa has made it to the knockout stages in three of the five previous tournaments, yet has no direct vote.

The tragedy of rugby is that it started at the same time as football, from the same place, has a similar colonial heritage and a deliberately low cost of entry and participation.

But rugby's consistently backward-looking governance has denied the sport the spectacular trajectory enjoyed by football.

The teams likely to win the 2011 Rugby World Cup are the exact same sides you would have backed 100 years ago had there been a tournament. And those sides belong to the very unions in whose grasp all political and legislative control is permanently vested. Yet with all that power, rugby is in, or teetering near, apparent crisis within most of the council membership.

And that's why the IOC should have sent a clear message to the IRB Council. Play fair with your governance. Loosen your grip, open things up, and once you've created a level playing field, then come and join the Olympic Movement.

London-born Charlie Charters was marketing manager of the Fiji Rugby Union from 2001-04 and helped create the Pacific Islanders test side. He is now a writer, and his debut book Bolt Action, a thriller, will be published by Hodder & Stoughton in 2010

In his heyday, he was  the most powerful man in world sport, but in a peculiarly British way.

Lord Burghley, Marquess of Exeter, was President of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), vice-president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and a fierce defender of the amateur code. He had been a world class athlete and Olympic 400 metres hurdles champion.

"Few men made such a vast contribution to the Olympic Movement and amateur sport or tried to remain so loyal to the concept of Baron Pierre de Coubertin," wrote The Guardian's John Rodda of the man who had dominated British sport for almost half-a-century.

He was born David George Brownlow Cecil in 1905 , the year the British Olympic Association (BOA) was formed and that was appropriate. He held the offices of chairman and President of the BOA, one of very few to do so, and was also president of the Amateur Athletic Association (AAA) for 40 years. Even his Rolls Royce had the number plate AAA1.

He could trace his lineage back to Elizabethan times, and on the sports field he was the ultimate gentleman amateur. "He always seemed to have complete control of his nerves and has the happy gift of being able to talk about any subject under the sun, the farther removed from Athletics the better," said Bob Tisdall, his successor as Olympic 400m hurdles champion.

The IOC noted "he fought valiantly to keep amateur sports amateur, trying to instill in athletes’ minds ,the  glory of competing for sportsmanship and not for money.

Burghley was the only one of the three leading characters who lived to see the release of the Oscar winning "Chariots of Fire", set at the 1924 Paris Olympics. In the film  his part was re-christened "Lord Lindsay" and played by Nigel Havers (pictured). As producer Lord Puttnam will cheerfully admit, the film changes some details for dramatic effect.Burghley is actually  thought to have trained with matchboxes on hurdles, not glasses of champagne, evidently unwilling to waste a drop.

Abrahams and His Lordship never raced around the Great Court of Trinity together, but Burghley did beat the  clock three years after the Paris Games.

His diary entry for June 7 1927 recorded  "ran round Trinity Court on the flags while the clock struck 12, doing it  before the one but last stroke, time 42 and a half seconds." In the film he bursts in to a meeting with the Prince of Wales  and suggests that Eric Liddell takes his place in the 400m. The 19-year-old Burghley competed only at the 110m hurdles in 1924

By 1928 in Amsterdam he went to the Olympics as AAAs champion and lined up in the final of the 400m hurdles. Drawn on the outside lane, Burghley went off well and at the last hurdle produced "a desperate turn of speed when his feet once more touched the ground".

His winning time  53.4sec was a new Olympic record.

On his return to London, he was mobbed by crowds and is reported to have said: "What a reception! I would rather face a hundred champions than a crowd like that."

Two years later, in Hamilton, Ontario for the inaugural  British Empire Games (now the Commonwealth Games)  he won three gold medals and stood  for the first time on a  medal  podium, an innovation later "borrowed" by the Olympic Games.

His third and final Olympics were in Los Angeles  in 1932.  He demonstrated  sportsmanship by parading in the long and tiring Opening Ceremony, simply because he became aware that his closest rivals were doing the same. He finished fourth in the 400m hurdles  final , and also reached the 110m hurdles final and won 4x400m silver. The following year, he became a member of the IOC at the age of 28. He also went into Parliament as the Honourable Member for Peterborough, he was sent to Bermuda during World War Two as Governor General. When London was awarded the 1948 Olympics with little more than two years to prepare, Burghley became chairman of the organising committee, a role filled for the London 2012 Games by Sebastian Coe, another Lord.

It was a measure of his success that on July 29 1948, he welcomed King George VI to Wembley Stadium on a scorching day to open the games of the XIV Olympiad. Dubbed the "Austerity Games," they were staged on a shoestring with no new facilities built. "The Olympic spirit fired all those who worked in the organisation." he said. "They contributed their uttermost to create a great and glorious landmark."

He also wrote the farewell message for the Wembley scoreboard. "The Olympic Spirit which has tarried here a while, sets forth once more."

Burghley had replaced Sigfrid Edstrom as President of the IAAF in 1946 .Many believe it was down to  his encouragement that the Soviet Union made their return to international athletics. "He possessed tremendous authority," wrote Lord Killanin, the IOC President from 1972 until 1980. "He would have all the support of the Eastern European countries, they liked him and treated him with respect because he was an athlete."

It wasn’t just in the East either. When the British Army of the Rhine lobbied for West Germany to enter the 1952 Olympics, they wrote to Burghley, "In the earnest hope that you will use your best endeavours  to obtain agreement." By now an IOC Executive Board member - the last Briton to hold such a lofty position in world sport until Sir Craig Reedie was elected to the same position Copenhagen earlier this month -  in 1952 Burghley stood  for the Presidency against the American businessman Avery Brundage, another who saw the amateur code as sacrosanct. The members went with Brundage by a vote of 30-17.

Burghley became Marquess of Exeter in 1956 and challenged for the leadership again in 1964. This time, the vote was conducted by postal ballot and the figures were not revealed by the IOC to apparently to save the losing candidate any "embarrassment". Brundage won again.
"At 59 which he was then, he could have given invaluable service to the IOC over the next eight to 12 years," observed Killanin. "His knowledge of athletics and the Olympic movement was immense. Personally I think it was a great pity that he lost."

Exeter remained a vice-president of the IOC until 1966 and served on the Executive Board until 1970. He was still in charge of the IAAF and 40 years after his own triumph he presented an Olympic gold medal to another British 400m hurdles gold medallist, David Hemery.

He remained President of the BOA until after the 1976 Montreal Olympics, but his last appearance on an Olympic stage came in 1981 at the IOC Congress and Session in Baden Baden, a few weeks before his death. This was where the IOC opened the way for  professionals. Olympians had no longer to be "amateur" but simply "eligible". It was farewell to the world in which Exeter had lived his sporting life. As he said goodbye, he received the Olympic Order in gold.

The IOC president of the day Juan Antonio Samaranch offered his own tribute. "It is difficult to put into words the importance of Lord Exeter’s role...He was overwhelming and influential in his dedication to athletics. He dedicated his life to the world of sports and actively promoted the ideals of amateurism and Olympism for more than 50 years."

Philip Barker, a freelance journalist, has been on the editorial team of the Journal of Olympic History and is credited with having transformed the publication into one of the most respected historical publications on the history of the Olympic Games. He is also an expert on Olympic Music, a field which is not generally well known.

Jack Warner may be a noxious clown but he has certainly had England’s 2018 World Cup bidders jumping through hoops.

The Fifa vice-president from Trinidad, whose support supposedly is crucial to England’s quest to stage the tournament for the first time since 1966, has never been much if an Anglophile and his jibe that the bid is "lightweight" is par for the particular course he is adopting. But at least it seems to have provoked an overdue revamping of a bid hitherto heading perilously in the same direction as Paris’s abortive attempt to get the 2012 Olympic Games.
 

It may not simply be coincidence that the former Birmingham City managing director Karren Brady, aka the first lady of football and now the new sidekick of Sir Alan Sugar on The Apprentice, has been told "You’re hired!" She comes in to add glam and gumption, alongside Paul Elliott, a welcome black presence and worthy anti-racist campaigner who is as erudite off field as he was a player on it for Chelsea and Celtic.
 

Out goes Baroness Amos, off to be Our Woman in Canberra, the  Labour peer whose original inclusion baffled many in football as her knowledge of the game could be written on the back of her occasional Spurs match day ticket.   
 

All excellent moves, as was the recent belated invitation to Seb Coe, who knows more than anyone in the land about bid-winning. But do they go far enough? Much as we all want England to play host in 2018 the vibes are not altogether heartening.
 

Led by another Labour peer, Lord Triesman, who has elected himself to double with his role as FA chairman, the bid team still appears politically top-heavy (though it might well have been politic, in every sense,  to incorporate the Shadow Sports Minister Hugh Robertson as he looks likely to be doing the job for real when the bid is decided). The uncomfortable echoes of Paris four years ago remain. If the outcome was to be decided on technical merit alone then surely England would be home and dry.

 

We have the stadia, the pedigree and then organisational nous. But history shows these bids are won by style as much as substance and we continue to await the evidence that this England team (like its playing counterparts) can actually win the World Cup. Like, Paris, its lacks, pizzazz and personality up front.
 

Also, favourite is not the most comfortable position. Ask not only Paris, but Chicago - and remember England considered themselves as such when the 2006 World Cup was up for grabs. Then arrogance and complacency was blamed for a disastrous defeat – not to mention a broken promise that they would not bid against Germany. Luckily there seems little likelihood of those characteristics repeating themselves this time but other factors may weigh against England. High among them is a continuing lack of popularity among  elements of FIFA, not just Warner’s cronies. It is vital that these are won over.
 

The question is whether Lord Triesman is the man to do woo the waverers. While he may consider he has the clout, does he really have the charisma to do as Lord Coe did in Singapore?
 

London’s fortunes changed when Coe replaced  Barbara Cassani, a square peg in the Olympic rings, as bid chairman. Maybe a change of striker would work similarly for England.
 

So who could do a Seb for England? Alas, the good lord himself is otherwise occupied with 2012, though he is now giving useful input to the bid together with his erstwhile vice-chairman Sir Keith Mills. While candidates don’t exactly leap, out at you, surely it would be beneficial to those star-gazing FIFA delegates to see a former player of distinction up front? While David Beckham will be as invaluable mid-field as he was for London 2012, you can’t imagine him giving the keynote address. But you need not delve back into the realms of 1966 and all that to unearth someone capable of putting a Coe-like message across.

 

My choice would be Gary Lineker (pictured), who has the lucidity, the tele-presence, the profile and a fluency in Spanish that would impress the FIFA's influential Latin bloc. Alongside him I’d have Sir Trevor Brooking who has the necessary gravitas.
 

It is a pity that Heather Rabbatts, the former Millwall chair, cannot be persuaded to make herself available, too. Both gifted and black, she is a feisty, opinionated lady who herself would make an outstanding bid leader if football was not such a male dominated bastion. One problem though is that she is married to Mike Lee. the former UEFA and London 2012 spinmeister who masterminded Rio’s 2016 Olympics-winning campaign but whose proven PR skills have been overlooked by England. Instead he is helping to promote rivals Qatar – who are not bidding for 2018 but watch them emerge as serious contenders for 2022.
 

However it seems unlikely that the seriously single-minded Triesman  will drop himself and bring on a sub at this stage. So we must hope he is equipped to score against some tough opposition, the most formidable of which I believe will be Russia now they have declared themselves in. Having a first World Cup in Eastern Europe could be as appealing to FIFA as giving an Olympics debut to South America was the IOC.
 

It is easy to flatter Blatter,and Russia's Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko is known to have the ear of the FIFA boss, as indeed, does someone far more powerful; former President Vladimir Putin,, now the Prime Minister, whose friendly persuasion was instrumental in snatching the 2014 Winter Games for the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Matching Triesman against this Russian giant will be as intriguing and potentially painful an Anglo-Russian punch-up as little David Haye taking on the 24-stone seven-foot Goliath Nikolay Valuev.
 

Alan Hubbard is an award-winning sports columnist for The Independent on Sunday, and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered 11 summer Olympics and several football World Cups.

As the 2009 athletics season drew to a close, there was just one name on everyone’s lips: Usain Bolt.
 

That should not come as any real surprise considering the giant Jamaican has torn up the script of what is within the realms of human possibility. In a 12 month span, Bolt has twice destroyed both the 100 and 200 metres world records as well as the 4x100m relay world record.

If his performance at the Beijing Olympics – where he slowed down whilst rewriting the history books - was outstanding, the adjective to describe his performance in Berlin has yet to be invented. Perhaps 9.58sec in the 100m and 19.19 in the 200m says it all.

But while the world marvels at the majesty Bolt, a humble American lurks quietly in the background and who, despite his truly remarkable feats, seems to be the forgotten man of world sprinting.
 

His name is Tyson Gay and he is the man with the great privilege and huge misfortune of being the closest rival to Bolt.
 

In the 100m final in Berlin, Gay - who was the defending world champion over the 100m, 200m and 4x 100m relay – ran the astonishing time of 9.71, the third-fastest time in history. This time set a new United States record and when considering that modern sprinting greats such as Maurice Greene and Carl Lewis are from those shores, that certainly is no mean feat. Yet Gay only finished second.
 

Indeed 9.71 would have bought Gay a gold medal and world record in all but two races in the history of the event. Unfortunately for Gay, he ran against the genetic freak who won those two races. Whilst any normal person would have been delighted with the time and furious with Bolt, the mild mannered American just shrugged his shoulders, congratulated Bolt and told the world's media that his time simply wasn't good enough. What a true gentleman. I really can't help but feel sorry for Gay. Of all the world’s athletes, he suffers most from being born in the era of Bolt.
 

Let us take those American sprinting greats Greene and Lewis I mentioned and let’s throw in some other 100m legends like Linford Christie, Frankie Fredericks, Ato Boldon and current sprint rival Asafa Powell. Gay’s time beats them all over the distance. And on top of that, just three weeks ago at the Shanghai Golden Grand Prix, Gay ran the second-fastest men's 100 metres on record.

His winning time of 9.69 equaled the time set by Bolt at the Beijing Olympics. And all this with a nagging groin injury that is soon to go under the surgeon’s knife. He should be blistering next season then. But still, nobody appears to care.
 

Only the more knowledgeable athletics fans are even aware that Gay recently ran a time of 9.69 and can comprehend how unbelievably fast that is. But to many, Gay simply remains the man who is favorite to finish first behind Bolt.

 

However, there remains a realistic possibility that Gay could yet emerge from the great man’s enormous shadow.  Although the American is obviously a phenomenal 100m runner, I believe his best distance is over the 200m and when I had the privilege of meeting Bolt in London earlier this year, he told me the same thing.
 

Gay's best time over the distance is 19.58, the third fastest over the distance behind Bolt and sprint legend Michael Johnson. A less commonly known fact is that Gay has only raced Bolt over 200m in one major final at the 2007 Osaka World Championships. And Gay won.
 

True, he wasn't racing the fully matured version of Usain Bolt we have come to know and worship. Rather a very talented 21-year-old from Jamaica who at the time, was only destined for greatness. But even so, Gay won and therefore still holds the better head to head record over the distance. Surely that must count for something?   
 

Don’t misunderstand me, I love Usain Bolt. I think what he is doing for the sport is superb and he is without a doubt the “coolest” guy I have ever met. But I really hope that Gay beats him next season. And what’s more, I think it could happen.
 

Why?
 

Was it just me, or was Gay gaining on Bolt in the Berlin 100m final after the Jamaican’s far superior start? Furthermore, I think that if Gay has a successful operation on his groin - lets say it takes 0.7 off his personal best over 100m and 200m - and improves on the poor starts he been prone to this season; he could be a genuine threat to Bolt.
 

Let me set you a scenario. Bolt and Gay line up for a major race in 2010, let’s say – because I’m English - at the Crystal Palace Grand Prix. Bolt – as he is at the moment- is considered unbeatable while Gay is in good form though the two are racing for the first time in the season. Bolt is in lane six while Gay is just inside in lane five. The gun goes off and while Bolt gets a poor start (which is more than feasible) Gay come flying out of the blocks. After a perfect bend, Gay surges past Bolt with 70 meters left to go.
 

Bolt, who has not experienced the situation for centuries, begins to tighten up. He realises that his immortality is under threat by the last man to beat him in a major final. The crowd see Bolt struggle for the first time in their lives and their cheers spur Gay over the line in a world record time of 19.18. Bolt finishes a distant second in 19.25.
 

Imagine the headlines..."Lightning Strikes Bolt!" "Gay Topples Superman!" "Bolt Beaten Bad." Okay, I’m a little crazy and I’ve gone well into the realms of fantasy while my imagination is running away with me but if anyone can beat Bolt, it’s Gay.
 

Certainly Gay has more chance of achieving victory over the Jamaican that Dwain Chambers with his ridiculous "Project Bolt", which had about as much merit as me heading to my garage, pulling out my second-hand golf clubs and embarking on “Project Woods".

But in all seriousness, how fantastic it would be if once, just once, Bolt was beaten and we had a rivalry rather than a procession on our hands? While we all love watching the “Usain Bolt Show”, seeing one man consistently destroy seven others will eventually become tedious. And Gay beating Bolt could actually turn out help Bolt.
 

The Jamaican – who has achieved almost everything in the sport - needs a challenge like all sporting greats who have thrived because of a fierce rival’s challenge. Ali had Frazer, Borg had McEnroe and Federer’s career became far more intriguing when a young Spaniard called Nadal turned up. A true Bolt v Gay rivalry would undoubtedly be exciting to watch and would be fantastic for the sport of athletics.
 

So let us appreciate the talents of Tyson Gay. Let us cheer him on and let us be grateful that we, the spectators, have a man on our hands who is perhaps the only man in history with the potential to challenge the greatness of Bolt. After all; who better to challenge the fastest man of all time than the second?

 

Tom Degun is a reporter with insidethegames.biz

It seems that London 2012, coupled with our athletes' fantastic achievements at the Beijing Olympics and this year’s athletics World Championships, is already having a real impact on our nation. I'm lucky enough to meet an array of people participating in sport, from kids at schools, to up-and-coming athletes (of all ages) and those at the more elite end of the scale. London 2012 is certainly on people’s lips.

The fantastic achievements of our athletes in Beijing provided the perfect springboard for London and its plans for 2012. It wasn’t just that we won such a high number of gold medals, it was the fact that we medalled over such a number of different sports. This is clear evidence that the funding that has been put in place is proving worthwhile. Speaking as a female athlete, it was also great to see a leap in performance from the British women, raising their profiles and giving young women more role models to be excited about ahead of 2012.

Through my "On Camp with Kelly" mentoring initiative, I’ve seen first-hand how positive young talented athletes are about the forthcoming Olympic and Paralympic Games. I have been mentoring 60 junior middle distance athletes (45 girls and 15 boys) with 17 of them going on to compete at the European Junior Championships, European Under-23 Championships and World Youth Games. Nine of those athletes were medallists and it really seems like some of them have what it takes to make it to the top. 

The beauty of London 2012 is that, for those with the talent and aspiration, it acts as a real driver. Because of 2012, promising young athletes are having to mature more quickly. With developments in coaching and sports science, plus increases in funding, the young athletes seem to be getting faster a lot younger than before.  

"On Camp with Kelly" will have been a nine year project by the time the Games arrive and it would be fantastic to see someone from the Camp go all the way. However, it’s also important for some athletes to realise that 2012 may be too soon for them but, if 2016 is a more realistic target, they will still be able to reap the benefits of seeing the Olympics close-up in London.

It's great to be in a position where you can use your experiences to benefit a new generation of athletes. It's so important that former professional sports people pass down their knowledge and advice to young talent who can really benefit from it to help improve their performance. The BT Backing Talent programme, run through the Dame Kelly Holmes Legacy Trust, utilises retired sports people to engage with youngsters participating in sport. We recognise that former athletes have the ability to engage younger people and, in turn, inspire them.  

As part of the BT Ambassador scheme, I’ve also had the opportunity to talk with some of their younger sporting Ambassadors about their goals ahead of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics. It's good to be an Ambassador for a company that values the London 2012 opportunity and, internally, is doing all it can to make its staff feel part of the journey.

With the 1,000 Days To Go milestones fast approaching (Olympics on October 31 and Paralympics on December 3) it certainly brings home how time is flying. Before we know it, it’ll be 2011 and we’ll be on the final run-in to the event. All eyes are on London, British athletes and the sports system to achieve the best possible results and deliver a brilliant Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Some of the elite athletes that have performed so well recently will already be feeling the pressure to match or better their excellent achievements, especially as it’s on home turf.  Not everyone can go on to be an elite athlete, but everyone can be involved in sport.

I have always said sport has the ability to transform lives through Social inclusion, community engagement, communication and leadership skills, personal development, aspirational fulfilment and healthier lifestyles. The Olympic and Paralympic Games are two of the most inspirational events in the world and the thought of them coming to Britain really seems to have impacted on participation in sport.

I’m constantly meeting people of varying ability and age who want to talk about the Games now we just need them to start saying they have started playing a particular sport because they were inspired by them.

Bring on 2012!

Dame Kelly Holmes is a BT Ambassador.  BT is the official communications services partner for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and title sponsor of the BT Paralympic World Cup. For more information click here.

That didn’t take long: it’s been scarcely a week since Rio emerged triumphant as host-city of the 2016 Olympics, yet already the sports world has moved on emphatically to the next big thing – the race for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
 

With a Leaders in Football conference scheduled for last week in London, this abrupt switch was perhaps on the cards.

A little less predictable (but, OK, only a little) was the cascade of criticism showered on England’s World Cup bid, with one English newspaper posing the question, "Will England’s 2018 team do a Chicago?"

This sort of comparison should not be overdone: we are talking about very, very different races. The World Cup 'electorate' – also known as FIFA's Executive Committee - numbers only 24 (versus more than 100 members of the International Olympic Committee). And fully a third of them are from countries who are bidding for one competition or the other.

Nonetheless, there is one important way in which England’s position in the world of football is similar to that of the United States in Olympicland.

This is that, whatever they do, the rest of the world seems more inclined to typecast them in the role of pantomime villain than any other country.

This is very hard to address. Bid leaders have striven mightily to guard against any trace of the arrogance for which English football has been pilloried in the past. But is this compatible with the salesmanship necessary to persuade the rest of the world that England’s bid is best? It will be a delicate balance to strike.

One advantage of England 2018 over Chicago 2016 is that England’s technical bid - crammed with big, modern, evocative, football-specific arenas – should be demonstrably the best on offer.

Another is that it has in the Premier League, a globally revered product that takes English football into the living-rooms of fans of every nation – including countries with FIFA Executive Committee members such as Thailand and Nigeria - on a weekly basis.
 
Unfortunately this is a two-edged sword: FIFA and UEFA, the European football confederation, are inclined to see the Premier League as a powerful rival.

It would be potentially disastrous for England if it were somehow to put Michel Platini’s nose out of joint, prompting the UEFA President publicly to endorse the bid of one of England’s European rivals.

So the Premier League’s global appeal is a weapon that must be wielded with great care and, for the moment at least, largely in private.

Used in the right way, though, the global web of contacts built up over many years by Premier League chairman Sir Dave Richards and his colleagues might just make all the difference.

One World Cup bid that I don’t expect to "do a Chicago" is, ironically, that from the US.

Mexico’s recent withdrawal – predicted here as long ago as June 1 leaves the US in glorious isolation as the sole bidder from CONCACAF, the snappily entitled Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football.

That makes the task faced by CONCACAF leaders in the current bid race crystal clear: do everything in their power to ensure that one competition or the other takes place in the US.

What a contrast with the crowded fields from Europe and Asia, which have respectively four and five separate runners.

It so happens that CONCACAF has, in President Jack Warner (the man who touched off last week’s flurry of World Cup bid headlines), one of world football’s most adroit politicians.

But I reckon even I could land one of these World Cups for the US in these circumstances.

Put yourself in Warner’s position:

CONCACAF has three votes on FIFA's Executive Committee in its own right.

There are a further three votes from South America, the host confederation for 2014, some or all of whom might feel a sense of regional solidarity with their North American neighbours.

And, though one hopes that the process would be more dignified than this perhaps implies, wouldn't you expect the other bidding countries with Executive Committee members - there are SEVEN in all - to be turning their minds to how they can persuade CONCACAF members to vote for them once the US is out of the running, either because it has been eliminated or because it has won the right to stage the 2018 tournament?

With a US-based World Cup also certain to be a commercial success and to fire interest for the sport in a market that still has huge growth potential, it doesn’t appear that difficult to come up with the necessary 13 votes.

(It seems to me, incidentally, that in this dream scenario for the US, Warner is almost duty-bound to keep other bidders in the dark regarding his voting intentions at least for the time being, since such a strategy would probably leave him best-placed to extract pledges that could be of benefit to CONCACAF football.)

For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to think of the US as a likelier bet to stage the 2022 World Cup - and, looking at the bigger picture and the fact that the 2014 tournament is in Brazil, this may indeed be how it pans out.

My question, though, is as follows: given the favourable way in which the cookie has crumbled, what if the US wins the 2018 vote, as it assuredly could?

In a word, panic.

Though I still think more withdrawals are likely, as things stand today, you’d be left with an almighty scramble pitching four European bidders - Belgium/Holland, England, Russia and Spain/Portugal - against five from Asia - Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Qatar.

And, though I'm sure FIFA would take a deep breath before turning its back on Europe for what would be a fourth-consecutive tournament, who is to say that the commercial security afforded by the US might not then embolden them to sail their flagship competition IOC-like into the virgin territory of Australia or even the Middle East?

How does that motto run? "For the Game. For the World".

Food for thought.

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who 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 last year's Beijing Olympics. An archive of Owen’s material may be found by Twitter users at www.twitter.com/dodo938 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogge had reasons to be satisfied when he entered the closing reception with his colleagues yesterday in the Tivoli Gardens, ending nine days of the Olympic summit in Copenhagen.
 

Re-elected by an 88-1 majority Rogge can start his last four year term with a strengthened mandate to achieve his political goals.
 

Everything in Copenhagen went as planned by the IOC President, who most often acts with discretion, but keeps tight control over details.
 

After a 15 year break the IOC Congress dealt with issues such as conditions for athletes, the autonomy of organisations, youth involvement in sport, the future of the Olympic Games and the digital media challenges, and the Congress ended by approving the conclusions that were mostly written in advance.

Moreover, the 106 IOC members took notice of Rogge’s hints and made clear decisions on important matters like the choice of Rio as host city for the Summer Olympics 2016, the election of rugby and golf as new sports and elections to the IOC’s executive levels.

Rogge not only counts on support from his constituency. He also has the advantage that he cannot be re-elected when his third four-year term ends in 2013, and hence he is freer than before to take unpopular steps.

Therefore, the next four years will be decisive for whether the 67-year-old Belgian will be regarded as the staunch reformer that he was launched to be when replacing the controversial Spaniard Juan Antonio Samaranch in 2001.

In the first eight years, Rogge has obviously been hampered by his predecessor, now Honorary President Samaranch, who has been a very active lobbyist in the Olympic circles, not always in support of Rogge’s visions.

As recently as during the choice of the 2016 host city 89-year-old Samaranch could mobilise 32 votes in favour of Madrid, and for many years he has been assumed to control around 40 of the 76 members who were appointed under Samaranch’s 21 year long rule.

As a born diplomat Rogge's (pictured) attitude to Samaranch is kept private, but the accumulated irritation is appreciable when Rogge to the American website Around the Rings says about his own future after stepping down in 2013: "I think the first quality of a past president is to shut up. "

Until Rogge resigns, it will be needed more than ever that he speaks up.

If the IOC is to give convincing answers to its challenges, for instance with regard to involving the youth and combating the growing corruption, it has to radically change the prevailing culture of silence.

Meetings in Copenhagen have stressed that the IOC still inhabits a reality of its own where open debate about difficulties is as welcomed as the use of pesticides among organic farmers. On this field, Rogge does not display a significantly different management style to his predecessor.

The IOC likes to take praise of being open and transparent, but largely practices the opposite, although it has a far better score than many other sports organisations. Whether it is the ability or the will that is lacking is hard to tell. A few examples:
 

• One year before the congress, the IOC opened a website with the promising title "Virtual Congress". If anyone imagined something like a forum for dialogue that could warm the public and the participants up to the next Congress, they were thoroughly mistaken. The correct title should have been "Virtual Mailbox", because the website was a simple mail slot in which anyone could submit a text about the congressional five main themes, but without being able to read or comment on what others delivered. The website resulted in 1,400 entries, which was sent to delegates as a huge book. Not bad, but also not referred to at all during the Congress meetings – at least not those that Play the Game could attend.
   
• Apart from this book and the designated main themes not even the IOC members received information about the Congress programme. Neither the website nor information upon arrival revealed even basic information such as list of participants and names of presenters. Reportedly it was an angry outburst by ex-King Constantine, Honorary Member of the IOC, that convinced the organisers to put photocopies forward every morning with programme details. Only for that same day, of course - the IOC perhaps assumed we would not be able to cope with more information.
   
• During the plenary sessions, we were allowed to listen to prominent speakers, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the forefront. No questions were taken, neither by Ki-moon nor lower-ranking speakers over three days. The discussion forums we also were invited to were no such thing. Instead of exchanging and developing thoughts the set-up allowed only a pure delivery of viewpoints. Each participant was allowed to deliver a two minutes statement, but without any interaction between the delegates. 
   
• Last but not least, the organisers provided completely impossible working conditions for the media at the beginning of the Congress. The media were not allowed into the meeting room or to come into close contact with participants during breaks.

The IOC took pride in hosting a few personal representatives of the world public for the first time, and the main sessions can still be seen in their full length at www.olympic.org. But giving access to professionals representing millions of readers and viewers – no way.
 

Only after a massive protest from the media the organisers decided to lift the ill-considered restrictions.

In my quite long career as a conference guest and organiser I have never experienced such rigid and secretive management of a forum that was supposed to provide "intellectual guidance" to the IOC's leadership on vital issues.
 

One could easily get the impression that the organisers tried to avoid that hundreds of delegates would delay the straight way toward the pre-given conclusions.
 

As a final discouragement, Jacques Rogge rounded the conference off by inviting to the next Olympic Congress – in 15 years time!

Can the IOC possibly imagine that the world will continue to evolve at greater speed than the IOC itself, and that a need for consultation with the outside world might arise before the year 2024?

Why not keep the Congress every four years as part of the Olympics, as an open interaction with stakeholders, inspired by a permanent "Virtual Congress" with online debate and information sharing concerning sport’s most pressing issues?

Among all Olympic taboos, one stands out as the most serious credibility problem.
 
Although the IOC president in his two opening speeches and on other occasions stated that the IOC maintains a zero-tolerance policy towards corruption, the IOC, just like the rest of the international sports community, suffers from a collective repression of the three letters I-S-L.

The ISL was for two decades the world's leading company for sports marketing. Last year a court in Switzerland declared that the ISL from 1989 until its collapse in 2001 paid out more than $100 million as secret personal commissions to a narrow group of leaders from a handful of international federations, in return for TV and marketing rights to be managed by the ISL.

Not one federation has responded to this information, nor has the IOC. The court named only a few names of bribe takers, and therefore it is surprising that Jacques Rogge stated with certainty during the closing press conference that no IOC members had even been involved. How can he know?

The ISL taboo also leaves us unknowing if it is still "just another day at the office" to sell TV and marketing rights by channelling bribes through secret funds and bank notes bundled tightly in attaché cases. Did that practice die with the ISL?

Too add insult to injury, the only person that knows every bit of the affair, the ISL director Jean-Marie Weber (pictured) who personally distributed the bribes, was a very active guest at the IOC meetings, residing at the chosen IOC hotel, the Marriott.

ISL is by far the worst, but certainly not the only repressed affair in the sports world. Corruption is flourishing both on the pitch and in the corridors of the International Handball Federation, and in the International Volleyball Federation a new chairman is cleaning up after the Mexican Ruben Acosta, who in his 24 years as a despotic ruler awarded himself fees for at least $20 million (£12.6 million).

In 2004 IOC put pressure on Acosta, but when he voluntarily lay down his status as an IOC member with reference to his coming of age, the IOC left volleyball to its own devices.

As exception to the rule, the IOC should be commended for enforcing reforms in the international boxing federation AIBA, partly by withholding AIBA's share of the profits from the Olympics.

Also, it must be said to Rogge's credit that he ensured that the congress created a basis for the IOC to intervene more actively in future. A number of congressional recommendations are set to create uniform rules for "good governance" throughout the Olympic Movement, including in National Olympic Committees (NOC's) and international federations.

The Congress furthermore proposed that federations and NOC's must submit annual reports on governance and that it must be possible to sanction those who violate the common rules.

But the credibility of these efforts is weakened when one realises that they are to be executed by people around Rogge with a somewhat more diverse CV than the President himself.

What are we to think when the IOC this week chose Italy’s Mario Pescante for vice-president, the man who in the 1990s funded EPO experiments at the University of Ferrara, where skiers, cyclists and other elite sport people flocked?

Pescante, who had to resign as chairman of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) in 1998 because the doping laboratory in Rome cheated with tests of Italian footballers? This dubious past has not prevented Pescante from making a brilliant career as a longstanding secretary for sport in Berlusconi's Government, President of the European Olympic Committees - and now vice-president of the IOC.

And what are we to think when at the same time the IOC rejects the new President of AIBA, Taiwanese Ching-Kuo Wu, as a member of the IOC Executive Committee, though Wu has been a frontrunner in cleaning up one of the most corrupt federations?
 

The IOC must thank its Gods - presumably the Greek ones led by Zeus and Pallas Athene – that only a few politicians, media people and sports fans are interested in sports politics, while the whole world is fascinated by the IOC's core product, the Olympic Games.

These Games were also under discussion in Copenhagen. One of the toughest challenges for Rogge has been to cut back on the Olympic programme and bring down the number of participants, so the games can also be held by smaller countries and appear in a handier format.

Now that the giant Summer Olympics in Beijing 2008, decided on the same session that brought Rogge to office in 2001, lie behind us, Rogge stands a better chance to reduce the size of the Games, helped along by an international financial crisis that does not encourage massive investment in high-tech sports facilities for single use.

Also the massive cost overruns in the preparations for the 2012 Olympics in London serve to alert many countries and help the IOC President's message of moderation through.

Two issues to which Jacques Rogge has shown a strong personal commitment are those of working conditions for athletes and the high dropout from sport among young people.
 
On both themes the Congress recommendations laid a clear track for further work. 
 
The health and rights of the athletes should be protected through education and information, and all organisations of the Olympic Movement should adopt rules protecting athletes from being exploited by agents, managers and sponsors.
 

Recognising that the athletes’ entourage exercises a great influence on the young athlete, the Congress recommends creating a committee for coaches, trainers and others in the entourage.

The Summer Youth Olympics in Singapore 2010 will not only serve as a test for a new type of event, but also as a personal test for Jacques Rogge. Despite widespread scepticism, even among close allies, Rogge has insisted that this kind of Games that have run at European level since 1991, must now grow to a global scale.

The Games are meant to draw young people back to sport, both as TV viewers and as practitioners, and they are to contain more cultural elements than adult Olympics. 
 
It seems unlikely that any of the two main goals will be reached, but the Youth Olympics may become a success in another way. From a marketing perspective, games that radiate youth and joy can strengthen the Olympic brand. Youth Olympics can also be an attractive target for countries that are eager to get a profile in international sport, but cannot overcome hosting the real Olympics.

This can be the case for small countries like Denmark, where curiously enough the chairman of the national sports confederation and NOC used this week’s Olympic event to dismiss any talk of a Danish bid for the Olympics.

While the Olympic bigwigs sat down at a beautifully set table in Tivoli, volunteers started to clean up the congress venue Bella Centre. The volunteers of course knew that they could not let troublesome items remain on the floor, pretending that they did not exist.

Will Rogge use his strengthened mandate to clean up as efficiently as the volunteers at the Bella Center? In four years time, we will know how clean the IOC can get.

Jens Sejer Andersen is the Director of Play the Game, an organisation that aims to strengthen the basic ethical values of sport and encourage democracy, transparency and freedom of expression in world sport. Play the Game is an independent institution funded by the Danish Ministry of Culture, the Danish Gymnastics and Sports Associations (DGI) and the Danish Federation of Company Sports (DFIF). Its offices are based at the Danish School of Media and Journalism in Aarhus. This is article first appeared on the Play the Game. For more information click here.

My greatest regret as a player is that I never had the opportunity to compete for a gold medal at the Olympic Games.

I was fortunate enough to be a member of the New Zealand team that won gold at the 1998 Commonwealth Games. It was an awesome experience and gave me a flavour of what it might be like to compete at an Olympic Games.

Like many of my fellow top players, I grew up watching the Games. I was sports mad and watching the world's best athletes playing on the world's greatest stage gave me a great buzz.

I wanted to be there. I would have been proud to call myself an Olympian and speaking to rugby players from all corners of the world it is a sentiment that is echoed from New Zealand to Brazil, South Africa to China and everywhere in between.

You see it is not just to have the opportunity to go for a medal that excites us all, but also the opportunity to showcase our fantastic sport at the Olympic Games, to experience the Olympic village, mix with the world's best athletes and proudly represent our nation - you know it gives me a buzz just thinking about it.

Now, I might be too old to be around to play in Rio in 2016, but I was here in Copenhagen to express my belief that sevens is the perfect match for the Olympic Games, to represent the world's top players who have all backed the campaign, and share with the members and the global sporting community our passion for a sport that has brought so much joy, so many special memories and provided me with friends all over the world.

As someone who spent over a decade playing sevens, I firmly believe that it has an exciting blend of qualities that make it so suited to the Olympic Games. It reaches out to new audiences and engages youth, both girls and boys. It is played exceptionally talented players who are undoubtedly the fittest and quickest in the Game. It is also unpredictable and is already a hit with sports fans around the world who like to party, soak up the atmosphere and support all the teams.

It is also a sport that has slotted successfully into all the major multi-sport championships outside of the Games. As I have already mentioned, it is a hugely popular event at the Commonwealth Games attracting sell-out crowds, but sevens has also proven to be a hit at the World and Asian Games, leaving Rugby legacies within each host nation. sevens will also be played at the All Africa and Pan American Games, giving the opportunity for more nations to compete within a multi-sport environment - that is very exciting.

As I have already mentioned, there really are no "givens" in sevens as I can certainly testify. I played against the very best teams in the world in both 15-a-side and sevens, but only sevens currently provides the opportunity for emerging nations to compete with a defeat the best. I was in Dubai in March for rugby World Cup Sevens and I watched as pre-tournament favourites crashed out to a new generation of emerging teams.



Was I surprised? Maybe. Should I have been surprised? Definitely not. You see, sevens is a great leveller and rewards the brave and the likes of Kenya, Tunisia, the Cook Islands, United States, Zimbabwe, Portugal and Uruguay have all enjoyed success, claiming scalps. Indeed the quarter-finals of the Dubai event saw the four pre-tournament favourites crash out.

Yet it is not just the men's tournaments that provide the surprises. Women's rugby sevens is also thriving. In Dubai in March, I watched Spain, Thailand, Uganda, Russia, China, the US and Canada all cause upsets. Now, I must apologise to members of those teams mentioned if any offence is taken by classifying them as underdogs, but for those outside the Rugby family, this may come as a bit of a shock.

Indeed I was also pleased to see that the women's game has made great advances in recent years with standards increasing across the board and I have no doubt that Olympic Games inclusion will propel women's rugby to new heights around the world.

Coming back to my experiences, I know that sevens will be a success in an Olympic Games context. I know that the fans will travel, the top players will be there and that rugby will be a proud member of the Olympic family.

I also know that the global rugby family will be unified as one, and will have been awaiting the news from Copenhagen with everything crossed. Being here in Copenhagen I have been privileged to see that passion that International Rugby Board (IRB) President Bernard Lapasset and his team have for the Game, their dedication to the cause. I have also seen what this would mean to developing nations and have seen the messages of support from the global rugby family. Rugby sevens is the perfect fit for the Olympic Games.

Jonah Lomu won 63 caps for New Zealand in a career that started when he burst onto the international rugby scene during the 1994 Hong Kong Sevens tournament. At the 1998 Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur, he won a gold medal representing the All Blacks in the sevens tournaments

What do the rugby sevens World Cup, tennis’s Sony Ericsson Championships and football’s Club World Cup have in common?
 

Right, all were – or are about to be – staged this year in the Middle East. Add to the list the Dubai World Cup, two Formula One grands prix and the European Tour’s season-ending golf championship and you get a sense of how important a venue for elite sport this politically sensitive but hydrocarbon-rich region has become.
 

Up to now though, sport’s most glittering prizes have eluded it. In the 113 years since the Olympic Games were revived by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, neither they nor football’s World Cup have been staged in the Middle East.
 

The small but affluent Gulf state of Qatar in particular seems to have taken it upon itself to change that.
 

Last year, Qatar’s capital Doha was judged unlucky not to have made it onto the short-list of cities from which the International Olympic Committee last week selected the host of the 2016 Summer Olympics.
 

Now Qatar is one of 10 bidders, embracing 12 countries, competing to stage the 2022 World Cup.
 

With the likes of England, Russia, the US and Australia also in contention, Qatar will inevitably be seen as an outsider in the race.
 

Nevertheless, Hassan Al-Thawadi, the bid committee’s approachable 30-year-old chief executive evidently believes that Qatar can mount a powerful case for being entrusted with world football governing body FIFA’s flagship tournament.
 

"I believe that we will be presenting a very, very strong bid," Al-Thawadi argued when I spoke to him recently.
 

"In my opinion we have a unique bid," Al-Thawadi said. "And the magnitude of hosting a World Cup in the Middle East for the first time is not only significant but also very powerful. It has enormous positive associations.
 

"Having the World Cup in the Middle East would allow people to see and experience the essence of [the region’s] thought, culture, hospitality and progress, allowing them to gain a new and educated perspective on the Arab World. That's a strong message that FIFA can help bring to the world.
 

"Aside from that, Qatar has demonstrated itself over the past 10 years to be a very forward-thinking and sustainable nation.
 

"We hosted the Asian Games in 2006 and will be hosting the 2011 Asian Cup. We believe we have the ability to host a World Cup – and by 2022 our infrastructure and facilities will have developed even further."
 

It is clear – even if Al-Thawadi (pictured) appears reluctant for now to go into too much detail on the subject - that technological innovation will form an important plank of Qatar’s campaign platform, being used, I would guess, to try to assuage concerns about the Gulf state’s climate.
 

"We are looking at new, environmentally-friendly technologies that are quite unique," he told me.
 

"The World Cup would be a catalyst for speeding up a lot of these initiatives and we believe we can offer the rest of the world the benefits. For example, the cooling technology we are developing will benefit not only the state of Qatar but also other aspiring nations.
 

"Already, the Al Saad Stadium has a system installed that allows for the temperature in the stadium to be significantly lower than outside. We are looking at achieving a similar effect in training grounds and Fan-zones."
 

Qatar's wealth is clearly another asset – although Al-Thawadi, who is director of the legal department at the Qatar Investment Authority, a body with investments in Porsche, Volkswagen, Barclays Bank, the New York Stock Exchange and doubtless many others, appeared keen to ensure that this should not be misconstrued.
 

"We are in a position to provide a very well-funded World Cup," he said. "But the bid is not about throwing money into hosting the World Cup. We are doing it to encourage further development of our country and region."
 

FIFA is staging the contests for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups simultaneously and Qatar's strategy is interesting in that it is one of only two bidders to have decided against bidding for both competitions. Why was this?
 

"It shows how serious we are about the bid," he replied. "In 2018, we think we would be ready, but not as ready as in 2022. We are realistic. It is not a matter of just bidding for the sake of bidding. We want to demonstrate this commitment to FIFA."
 

Was it in part because Qatar assumed that the 2018 tournament would be awarded to Europe? (Under the rules of the contest, other candidates from the same continent as the eventual 2018 host would drop out of the race for 2022.)
 

"There is a lot of thought about where 2018 will go, but our focus was not related to that. It was on what we ourselves can offer."
 

The amount of travel can make the World Cup an exhausting proposition when staged by a country the size of Germany or Japan. So I could sympathise with Al-Thawadi when he argued that holding the tournament in a small country would have some advantages.
 

"If the World Cup came to Qatar, we believe it would be coming to the entire region," he said. "We are looking to bring this great competition here for the entire Middle East. People from Egypt, the Emirates, Kuwait, Syria and so on who have been unable to attend a World Cup previously, would be able to attend this one.
 

"Also, being compact has its advantages. Teams and fans won’t have to worry about getting hotel reservations in different cities a long way apart. Qatar is spacious enough for everybody to have enough room, but compact too. It is also an incredibly colourful and hospitable place with a love of community; this is an experience only a nation of our size can bring to the game. Qatar is the epitome of the global village."
 

It is hard for a small country to produce a truly top-class national football team. Qatar is ranked only 83rd in the world as I write this (admittedly only 10 places behind next year’s World Cup host South Africa). What steps could Qatar take to try to raise standards?
 

"We are all crazy about football in Qatar from the youngest kid to the oldest person," said Al-Thawadi, who played left-back in his youth team and is a great admirer of the Italian full-back Paolo Maldini.
 

"In terms of youth development, there are a lot of initiatives going on. I believe it is a matter of time."

Would Qatar consider "importing" top players from overseas in the way that a number of Middle Eastern countries have brought in top athletes, particularly from Africa, to represent them in international competition?

"There are already players - such as Sebastián Soria, a Uruguay-born forward who has played many times for Qatar's national team - who have come to Qatar, lived here for several years and gained citizenship," Al-Thawadi replied.

"So we do have players who have been nationalised, but we are not basing our development of the game of football on that."

Israel has had an improving team in recent years. Would they be welcome at a World Cup staged by Qatar?

"Any team that qualifies for the World Cup is welcome in Qatar."

What about Israeli fans?

"I don’t see it as being a difficulty. We are looking to host a World Cup. We are looking to create a unique experience for teams and fans. So the only considerations we will be looking at are those related to football."

The region is associated with tight restrictions on alcohol, yet drinking is part and parcel of European football culture. How would Qatar look to handle this potentially delicate issue, given that some fans might be in the country for weeks on end?

Al-Thawadi’s response emphasises that, while not part of Qatari traditions or culture, alcohol is both legal and "available in hotels and various locations".

"For the games, we anticipate having Fan-zones, in addition to the hospitality outlets, as designated serving areas."

Though Qatar cannot match the footballing history of an England or a Spain, it is on the same footing as them – and indeed five other bidders (Belgium, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States) – in one other important respect: it boasts, in Mohamed Bin Hammam, a member of FIFA’s 24-man Executive Committee, the body whose votes will determine the winner of both races.

Now it is Bin Hammam’s job, as AFC President, to pursue the interests of members of the Asian confederation and not just those of Qatar. Nonetheless, it should stand the Qatari bid in good stead that one of its citizens has such intimate knowledge of FIFA’s inner workings.

"Mohamed Bin Hammam is a supporter of the bid in his role as a Qatari citizen, there is no doubt about that," Al-Thawadi said.

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who 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 last year's Beijing Olympics. An archive of Owen’s material may be found by Twitter users at www.twitter.com/dodo938  

On Tuesday last week, I joined 47 athletes from 47 different Olympic and Paralympic sports and disciplines, at the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, to celebrate the announcement of Visa as the presenting partner of Team 2012.

To say that I was excited to be there would be an understatement. The creation of Team 2012 as an effective way of raising much needed private funds for Olympic and Paralympic sport, to complement the record public investment that has been made, has not been easy.

The hard work and team ethic shown by the four partners that run Team 2012 - the British Olympic Association (BOA), the Paralympic Associations (BPA), London 2012 and UK Sport - was unparalleled and I am confident that the scheme will work, establishing a vital third stream of income for elite sport here in the UK.

Thanks should go to the Presenting Partner Visa, whose support and commitment to the concept will make a real difference to elite sport in this country.  Of course the biggest thank you should go to the athletes, whose support for the scheme and unrivalled passion for their sports has made this possible. The contribution they are making by supporting the concept, giving something back to sport in this country, should not go unrecognised.

Meeting the athletes at the Stadium really brought home to me just how incredible the next three years will be. It was the first visit for many of them and the excitement and determination etched on each face reminded me that the work behind Team 2012 had actually only just begun.

So where will the money raised by Team 2012 go? A small amount will go towards the running of Team 2012, whilst a minimal percentage will go to the BOA and BPA and will be invested in performance services run by them for the sports. The majority of the money however will be granted to UK Sport, which we will invest in our World Class Performance Programme (WCCP). We currently fund 47 different Olympic and Paralympic sports and disciplines through the WCCP and the money we receive will go directly to helping make sure that alongside the substantial and vital support of the National Lottery and Government, the athletes have the best possible support leading up to the London 2012 Games and beyond. 


Deciding where we will spend the money is a thorough process – undertaken through an annual review this year and "mid-cycle" review in 2010. So the first decisions based on Team 2012 income will take place after this year's annual review of performance of each sport and won’t be finalised until after our board meeting at the end of the year.

All funding decisions will be made on merit and will be taken in line with our no compromise strategy. We look at a lot of factors based around an assessment of each sports current performance and future potential relative to each other. The Mission 2012 reporting that is now in place helps greatly to give us a more rounded picture. And we will leave no stone unturned in making sure the money is spent wisely and where it can have most impact. There has been much talk of the 12 Olympic and Paralympic sports which were only awarded basic levels of funding last year and these, like every other sport, will be discussed in detail before any decision is made.

Tuesday was the start of an important process. We should have no doubt that the money raised by Team 2012 will have a direct impact on the preparation of British athletes who will be representing us at London 2012 and future Olympic Games. We will make sure that money is spent in the right areas, where it is most needed and can have the most impact and in doing that, we will give Team GB and ParalympicsGB the best possible chance of achieving our aim of a top four finish in the Olympics and second in the Paralympics in London in just under three years time.

John Steele is the chief executive of UK Sport

Fourteen months ago they were pals on the GB Olympic boxing squad battling for medals in  Beijing, sharing the same surname and subsequently the ignominy of returning home early, their exits clouded by controversy.

Since then the careers of the unrelated Saunders boys – light-welter  Bradley and welter Billy Joe – have taken sharply different turns.

Billy Joe, the "Caravan Kid" from Hertfordshire, signed a big money deal with promoter Frank Warren after being given a slap on the wrist from the Amateur Boxing Association of England (ABAE) for allegedly "lewd behaviour" in a pre-Games incident, and makes his fourth paid appearance at London’s York Hall on Friday.

Durham’s Bradley was castigated in the media after (like Billy Joe), losing a second round contest and then suggesting he was relieved to be leaving  the Games because he was homesick. So stinging was some of the criticism of remarks he insists were misinterpreted that he might have been excused for tossing headguard and vest into the spit bucket and following Billy Joe, James DeGale, Tony Jeffries, Joe Murray, David Price and Frankie Gavin into the prize ring.

Instead he pledged loyalty to GB, one of only two of the original eight Olympians to stay amateur, alongside flyweight Khalid Yafai, after the farcical sacking of coach Terry Edwards.

What followed, he says has been a year from hell. His home was burgled, and then as result of an anonymous call he spent four months on police bail after a jar of white powder was found in his back yard. "Olympic boxer in drugs bust" screamed the headlines.

Saunders, who always claimed he had been set up, though he had no idea by whom or why, eventually had his name cleared when the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case.

He thought his nightmares were over, and back in the ring he proved he was no loser, winning 14 bouts in succession, including a defeat of the Russian double Olympic champion Alexei Tischchenko. Saunders was strongly fancied to follow Gavin as a world champion in Milan in August but broke a thumb in an exhibition bout, missing the Championships from which GB returned empty-handed.

Just when he was getting over that he slipped and fell last week, again breaking a hand that two years ago had threatened his  Olympic berth when it needed two metal plates and four pins inserted after a training fracture.

Saunders (pictured) is now determined to get fit for the upcoming international against the United States, and his recovery is vital as he is pivotal in Britain’s quest for medals in 2012.

By then the other Saunders may have become a professional world champion and stashed a million or two in  the bank, a thought that must have crossed Bradley’s mind as he wrestles with the vagaries of fortune.

Of course he may have the opportunity to earn a bob two himself now that the game is becoming pro-am with the introduction of the revolutionary World Series of Boxing which enables boxers to to take part in a global team tournament, offering three year contracts and substantial prize money without the loss of Olympic eligibility.

So keen are the newly-constituted British Amateur Boxing Association (BABA) to get a lucrative slice of this action that the Olympic super-heavyweight bronze medalist David Price was even offered the chance to return to the amateur ranks and become part of the GB team again even though he had fought professionally since Beijing. However he has preferred to sign a new deal with promoter Frank Maloney, who is reviving the pro game in the North-East.

Saunders, 23, would be a considerable draw in his native region and he continues to attract pro offers. The BABA must hope he can resist them because Britain can ill afford to lose a competitor of his calibre before 2012.

Indeed, these are vexing times for British amateur boxing. We hear of some unrest among the elite squad following the departure of performance director Kevin Hickey only eight months after being brought back to the sharp end after 20 years out of the game. He admitted the job, with responsibilities which now include the supervision and development of women’s boxing, was too much for him at 67.

UK Sport, the cash dispensers for Olympic preparation, have distributed a confidential questionnaire among top competitors all sports seeking views on the progress towards 2012. Those of some of of the Sheffield-based boxing squad may be interesting. Facilities and funding have never been better, and there is certainly exciting talent to be nurtured, but there are said to be concerns that the revamped coaching set-up is not as progressive or productive as it was under the popular if autocratic Edwards. There are murmurings that some in the sport want him re-instated, either as national coach until 2012 or in a mentoring role. Alas, such a move seems highly unlikely in the current turbulence.

Last week insidethegames reported exclusively that the Edwards, who also doubled as performance director, reached an out-of-court settlement with his then employers, the ABAE, over an allegation that that knew bonuses promised to the Olympic medalists would not be paid. No figure was revealed but according to an ABA source they case has cost around £80,000, and the financially-stricken ABA have yet to settle formally with the boxers, who are suing for their missing readies.

Apparently there were angry exchanges at the recent ABA annual meeting, at which some members were prevented asking questions, and approaches have been made to the sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, to look into the running of body, which could be politically embarrassing as it is presided over by his predecessor, Richard Caborn.

All of which is an unhealthy distraction to the likes of Brad Saunders and the boxers focusing on the fight to get Olympic medals in the ring. They do not deserve to be counter-punched by the in-fighting out of it.
 

Alan Hubbard is a sports columnist and boxing correspondent of The Independent on Sunday, and a former sports editor of The Observer. He has covered 11 summer Olympics

Throughout history great political, technological or artistic movement has come out of periods of great adversity. The United Nations from World War Two, satellite technology from the Cold War, great jazz from the Great Depression.
 

But in that adversity lies opportunity. The Olympic Movement has a once in a generation opportunity, I would say a responsibility, to better define and imbed its timeless values.
 

Last year we all witnessed a financial collapse that rocked the world’s economies – hitting communities hard. There were many reasons for that collapse but we need to be honest about one.
 

Short term, aggressive, narrow, individualistic behaviour played a central, exacerbating role in that crisis.

Behaviour that was the very antithesis of the Olympic spirit and its values. 

That impact has gone well beyond bank rescue plans and bankruptcies. It also precipitated a collective loss of confidence in many of our trusted institutions. 

If this creates a daunting world for leaders and adults then consider what it means for young people. They see even greater uncertainty in a world struggling to tackle other great issues of their future like climate change.

Is it really any wonder that so many young people are nervously surveying this landscape of disillusionment and challenging our values, beliefs and priorities.

Never let a good crisis go to waste. 

If the 20th Century was about bringing sport to the world then the 21st must be about reconnecting young people of the world to sport.

So how can we do that? First we must develop programmes that link Games together not programmes that start and finish in the course of an Olympiad. Often those programmes that do exist in that cycle are a duplication of both effort and resource. We need to think differently. So too do our sponsors who need to look beyond the two year churn of Winter and Summer Games.  

We launched International Inspiration two years ago with an ambition to connect 12 million young people to sport in 20 developing cities and countries by 2012. Brazil is one of the countries we have a programme running in and we hope the Rio 2016 team and future host cities and sponsors will be able to continue the work of International Inspiration after 2012. 

A few nights ago the hundreds of thousands of people on Copacabana beach celebrating the decision that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) made to choose Rio de Janeiro as the city to host the 2016 Games. Most of them were young people. Their celebration didn’t just capture the moment it was a celebration of intent. They want to be involved. Our challenge is to engage them and make this movement relevant to their lives. 

Of course this engagement can be promoted through schools. But that is not enough. Millions of young people do not go to school – either by choice or circumstance.

New media and social networking goes a long way – a huge amount of our communications in London are through these platforms. But still that is not enough. 

At the IOC Congress in 1981 the Athletes Commission was born. Now, 28 years later in a more complicated, cluttered and conflicted landscape it is time to form a Youth Commission that can tackle and properly enshrine the challenges that young people face in our movement.

A Commission that really understands the world of young people, the language they speak, the technology that is familiar to them, their hopes and their ambitions, their daily challenges, wherever they live and whatever they believe. 

A Youth Commission that has the authority and the resources to engage the disengaged and reconnect them to the power of sport.

A Youth Commission who can make the Olympic and Paralympic values stand tall in the lives of young people.  Values of friendship, excellence, respect, courage and determination. What do these really mean to young people. 

Far too often we leave these values in their synthetic form in the laboratory – almost too precious to touch.  

The role of the Commission would be to make them live and breathe and this is probably not a job left to you or I. My children, your children define these value very differently from us. 

We must never forget we have a head start. Many young people see the Olympic Games as a metaphor for life. A devotion to a unique cause, not just the reward. Where that reward does exist it is rooted in effort, ability and performance not circumstance, inequality or patronage. We have to be seen to stand for things that matter to young people. 

For example, competitors who respect each other do not take performance enhancing drugs because they respect the effort – maybe value the friendship - of the person in the next lane.

When I asked a young boy last week what courage meant to him he told me it was standing up against others who were bullying someone he didn’t even know. That was his definition of courage.

All Olympic committees need committees need to ensure young people are involved in decisions about cornerstone programmes of an Olympic Games, especially sport, culture, education and legacy programmes to ensure they reflect the issues that are relevant to young people.

And in our challenge we do, of course, have a sign post to the ultimate legacy The founding father of the Olympic Movement Baron Pierre De Coubertin was clear.  He said: "My unshakable faith in youth and the future has been, and remains, the principle that gives life to my work."

It can – and should – give life to all our work, too.

Sebastian Coe is the chairman of London 2012 and a two-time Olympic champion in the 1500 metres.

Friday’s vote to select Rio de Janeiro as the first South American Olympic host city opened a new chapter for the Movement.
 

But it also marked the end of an era.
 

Ever since Madrid 2016’s candidacy was officially announced a number of us Olympic anoraks had been carrying around an image in our mind’s eye.
 

This was of an old man coming to the podium to address the 121st International Olympic Committee (IOC) Session and begging IOC members assembled there to grant him his dying wish.
 

At around 3.30pm on October 2 in the pleasant Danish capital of Copenhagen, that vision became reality.
 

"I know that I am very near the end of my time," said Juan Antonio Samaranch Torelló, Marqués de Samaranch and the man who, for nearly a generation, was master of all he surveyed in the Olympic Movement. "I am, as you know, 89 years old. May I ask you to consider granting my country the honour, and also the duty, to organise the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2016?"
 

Some three hours later, he got his answer.
 

And while the veneration in which he is still held by many members who know that the Movement would probably not have survived without him, propelled the Spanish capital into the final run-off, it was nowhere near enough.
 

The Samaranch period, which started in 1980 in Moscow with his election as 7th IOC President, was well and truly over.
 

Some will argue that his demise should be dated from 2005, when Madrid lost out to London in its bid to win the 2012 Games, or 2001, when his Presidency ended.
 

But the abiding impression from Singapore, where the vote on 2012 was conducted, was that little Madrid had come astonishingly close to upsetting its four ultra-heavyweight rivals (London, Paris, New York and Moscow).
 

The octogenarian could still manifestly exert a heavy influence on the decisions that mattered.
 

His enduring clout was underlined two years later, when Sochi won the right to stage the 2014 Winter Games in a race in which I am told his influence, though exercised very late in the day, was once again in evidence.
 

Others may say that the family still has its stamp on the Movement in the shape of Samaranch Snr’s son, Juan Antonio Samaranch Jr, an IOC member since 2001.
 

I like Samaranch the younger.
 

An impromptu monologue he delivered in a hotel bar for the benefit of the IOC’s Dick Pound and myself in the final days before the vote, on the process of campaigning, was a truly virtuoso performance.
 

But I cannot, at this point, see him pulling off the trick that, coincidentally, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has managed: that of following a father with the same name into the same high office.
 

No, the era is over and for that reason I think October 2 - as opposed to October 9, when IOC members are expected to vote on giving him a second term - may also go down as the moment that Jacques Rogge stepped unambiguously out of the shadow and took a firmer grip on this incorrigibly quirky organisation.
 

I am far from sure that the straight-laced Belgian surgeon, and former yachtsman, is capable of experiencing schadenfreude.  
 

But, if he is, he must surely have felt it when his predecessor paid public tribute, during that last appeal for votes, to his "masterly leadership".
 

October 2 was the most significant day for the Olympic Movement for a long, long time – it may also now face a tough battle to maintain US commercial support at anything like current levels, but that’s another story.
 

And it was not all down to Rio.
 

● The received wisdom on Friday’s vote is likely to be that the Brazilians bossed it.
 

And Rio’s 66-32 victory margin in the final run-off with Madrid was nothing if not emphatic.
 

The detailed figures, though, tell a different story.
 

Faced with a first-round choice between four bids, all impressive but none perfect, the opinion of IOC members was so divided that almost anything could have happened.
 

Madrid actually "won" that first round with 28 votes, followed by Rio (26), Tokyo (22) and Chicago (18).

Quite a number of IOC members, I suspect, would have been torn in particular between voting for Chicago and Rio. (The Americas were, after all, the only geographic zone with more than one candidate.)
 

That’s why I wrote in January that it wouldn't surprise me if one or other of them turned out to be the first city eliminated.
 

So, looked at another way, those first-round figures show that had Chicago's last-ditch change of tack in the final month of the campaign wooed another five members away from the South American bid, Rio would have replaced them as first city eliminated.
 

Had they wooed just four members away, we'd have had a three-way tie for last place.
 

Rio ultimately won this contest so comfortably for one simple reason: away from their core supporters, they were everybody’s second choice.
 

That’s a lesson worth absorbing for candidates assembling at the start-line for the 2018 Winter Olympics race.

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who 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 last year's Beijing Olympics. An archive of Owen’s material may be found by Twitter users at www.twitter.com/dodo938