Athletics' governing body has confirmed it will not change the false-start rule before the 2012 Olympics in London.
The rule - which sees any athlete making a false start disqualified - led to world record holder Usain Bolt missing the 100m final.
But president Lamine Diack said no one at Sunday's IAAF council meeting had asked for the rule to be changed.
Diack said: "We will not come back to the issue. Bolt had a false start but that is not going to make us change."
Many, including Jamaican officials, had called for the IAAF to reconsider the rule to avoid having a star like Bolt disqualified in similar circumstances in London.
Yet the athlete himself said his disqualification had been "a lesson" and did not demand a change to the rules, as Diack pointed out.
IAAF vice-president Bob Hersh had earlier said no action should be taken until further talks.
"It's not on any current agenda but I wouldn't be surprised if it were reviewed," Hersh told BBC sports editor David Bond.
"We will have to go back and talk to our stakeholders and discuss further."
Hersh also pointed out that Bolt, the 100m world record-holder and the reigning Olympic 100m and 200m champion, had backed the new rule when it was proposed in 2009.
Former world 1500m champion and BBC commentator Steve Cram also agrees with the rule, which was amended in 2010 to automatically disqualify anyone moving before the gun.
He said: "There's nothing wrong with the false-start rule, people have got used to it and accept it and actually it's there to help people like him.
"Having this rule of no twitching, one and you're out, stops people messing around."
Until 2001, every athlete had the right to one false start before risking disqualification but that led on occasion to several aborted starts before a race took place and was changed partly because of demands from television broadcasters.
Under the second version of the rule, athletes had the right to make one false start and then the whole field was given a warning with any subsequent false starts leading to disqualification.
But that brought the risk of what IAAF director of communications Nick Davies called "a bit of gamesmanship", with athletes looking to remove any advantage fast starters have by deliberately false starting to put the field under pressure, hence a further change for 2010.
The World Championships also saw high-profile false-start disqualifications for British duo Christine Ohuruogu and Dwain Chambers.
London 2012 chief Lord Coe, an IAAF vice-president, said: "The issue is very simple for me. You have to be consistent. You have a rule and you don't suddenly revisit it because a high-profile athlete has fallen foul.
"I'd rather not have Usain false start in London. But the start's not separate from the race; it is part of the race. It's not a technical nicety. It's part of the sport like a knockout punch in boxing.
"You pay to watch a title fight in Vegas knowing that a fighter might get knocked down in the first round."
However World 100m silver medallist Walter Dix, who finished behind Jamaican Yohan Blake, said: "That false-start [rule] is killing us. Hopefully it will change by London."
And bronze medallist Kim Collins of Saint Kitts added: "At least give the field one false-start."
GAMES
David Owen: Athletics needs to up its game if it is to retain its Olympic crown
Until now, the phenomenon that is Usain Bolt had covered this up.
But Daegu has afforded us a glimpse of the world without the Jamaican showman.
And for the most part, it ain't pretty.
Sure, some events have provided fine sport.
My personal favourite to date - not for the first time - has been the pole-vault.
And the amplified shhhhhhs used by the organisers to ensure quiet as sprinters prepare to get down on their blocks are a delightful idea.
But then you think that the 5.90 metres attained by gold medallist Paweł Wojciechowski (pictured) of Poland is 25cm less than the best achieved in competition by Sergey Bubka, who may end up vying with Coe to be the sport's next boss, and reality starts to seep in.
It is surely not a healthy thing that the biggest talking point after the first few days' competition in Korea has been the sport's false-start rules.
Of course, Bolt may show up in London and gouge further lumps out of the 100 and 200 metres world records he has already abused so badly.
But what if he doesn't? What then would live in the memory about the 2012 Olympic athletics competition?
Oscar Pistorius maybe? Caster Semenya?
The problem with both these "stories", tough as it is on the athletes concerned, is that debate tends to focus on the nature of fair competition, as opposed to the wonder of their athletic achievements.
Or perhaps David Rudisha will cruise to another world record in the men's 800m.
The problem with that story is that "Kenyan wins long-ish running race" is not the sort of headline that any longer sets pulses racing far beyond Nairobi.
Now turn your mind to the competition.
In the pool, you have the enticing prospect of veterans Ian Thorpe and Janet Evans on the comeback trail, as well as Michael Phelps (pictured) trying to add further to his astonishing collection of Olympic metalwork.
That and local hero Tom Daley aiming to dive for gold.
There is the return to the Olympics of women's boxing after more than a century.
And the possibility of seeing Roger Federer bow out by winning gold at Wimbledon.
From the host nation's perspective, there is the question of whether 2008's hard-won supremacy in the velodrome can be maintained - and indeed extended to the water, with both British rowing and sailing teams exhibiting immense medal-winning potential.
Olympic team sports are on an upswing too, with the basketball competition firmly established as one of the highlights of the Games and football attracting ever more attention.
The novelty of seeing British football teams take to the field should ensure that the 2012 football competition is particularly enthusiastically supported.
Even if Bolt does do the business at London, it is hard to imagine his exploits having quite the same impact as in Beijing's stunning Bird's Nest four years ago, simply because it would be a re-run of an old story.
And who will take up his mantle in 2016 in Rio de Janeiro, when the alternative attractions promise to be still more compelling, with the arrival of golf and rugby sevens on the Olympic programme?
No, I sincerely believe that athletics will have to somehow raise its game if it is to remain much longer at the head of the Olympic pantheon.
I think Daegu this week is starting to make that clear.
Source: www.insidethegames.biz
Las Vegas 2020 Olympic gamble fails
August 29 - Las Vegas have submitted a bid to host the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics without the permission of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), it was revealed tonight.
The letter, dated August 26 and sent to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and USOC, says, "this is intended to serve as the Vegas 2020 Bid Committee's Application Letter to host the 2020 Summer Olympic Games."
The correspondence, sent to ensure it arrived at the IOC's headquarters in Lausanne before the September 1 deadline, is not accompanied by any supporting paperwork from the USOC.
"This Application Letter is not accompanied by a corresponding letter from the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) our national olympic [sic] committee (NOC) which on 22 August 2011 publicly declined to consent to the application of any US city to bid for the Summer Games of the XXXII Olympiad," reports GamesBids.com, who obtained the copy of the letter.
There has been plenty of speculation that the US would put forward a bid with several cities besides Las Vegas declaring an interest, including Chicago and New York City.
But the USOC have repeatedly insisted that they will not launch a campaign to host the Olympics and Paralympics until a a solution to the row over revenue-sharing with the IOC has been found.
But the Las Vegas group have asked the IOC to judge whether a city can bid for the Games without the support of its NOC.
They want to know if they can obtain the USOC's signature of support at the time he Application File is due to be submitted on February 15, 2012.
"This would keep the US alive in the bidding process," they wrote in the letter obtained by GamesBids.com.
It is understood that the IOC have already rejected the approach from the Las Vegas group.
A USOC spokesman said tonight that they stood by their decision not to bid and had no plans to change their mind.
Source:www.insidethegames.biz
By Duncan Mackay
Rio 2016 unveils Olympic Park masterplan
The Organising Committee for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games has unveiled the masterplan for the city’s Olympic Park, following an international competition to find the best design. The winning project was chosen ahead of 60 entries from companies in 18 countries and outlines both the park’s Games-time usage and the long-term legacy it will leave for Rio.
It shows how the different areas of the Olympic Park will be used, such as where the public spaces, squares and parks will be located, and also outlines the location of the permanent and temporary venues and the future real estate developments to be built at the site.
In 2016, the Olympic Park will be at the heart of the Games, hosting the competitions for 10 Olympic sports (basketball, judo, taekwondo, wrestling, handball, hockey, tennis, cycling, aquatics and gymnastics). The Main Press Centre (MPC) and the International Broadcasting Centre (IBC) will also be built on the site.
The new permanent sports venues in the Olympic Park will be built around the existing facilities, such as the Maria Lenk Aquatic Centre, the Olympic Velodrome and the Olympic Arena. After the Games, this group of venues will form South America’s first Olympic Training Centre, helping to discover and develop sporting talent, while at least 60 per cent of the Olympic Park will be freed up for future developments.
“This is yet another step taken towards building the Rio 2016 Games legacy,” said Carlos Arthur Nuzman, President of the Rio 2016 Organising Committee. “The Olympic Park legacy for Brazilian sports will be a training centre modelled after the successful experiences of the world’s greatest sporting powers.”
Future of London 2012 Olympic Stadium in doubt after judicial review granted
August 24 - Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient have been granted permission to seek a judicial review into the awarding of ownership of the Olympic Stadium to West Ham United after London 2012 - a move that a senior official here warned could have a serious impact on Britain's bid to host the 2017 World Athletics Championships.
A High Court judge ruled there are sufficient grounds for a review into the process by which West Ham were unanimously chosen as the preferred bidder to take over stewardship of the arena by the Olympic Park Legacy Committee (OPLC).
The decision throws in question London's bid to stage the World Championships, for which the deadline is September 1.
Mr Justice Collins ruled that there was an "arguable" case for a legal challenge, which can now be mounted in a new, separate procedure which could take months to resolve.
The hearing is due to be heard in the High Court on October 18 - less than a month before the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) meet to decide the venue of the 2017 World Championships, where London are facing opposition from Barcelona and Doha.
Lamine Diack, the President of the IAAF, warned here that unless London can provide cast iron guarantees about the future of the Stadium then its bid would be in serious doubt and the fear among officials is that unless the case is resolved by the time of the vote on November 11 its bids is set to fail.
"I told the [Sport and Olympics] Minister [Hugh Robertson] when I was in London earlier this month you have to make sure you have guarantees if you bid on September 1," Diack told insidethegames after the IAAF Congress here.
"If you are not sure you have then you have to defend yourselves in front of [the IAAF] Council."
Diack had previously told insidethegames during a visit to London, where he was shown around the Stadium by Sebastian Coe (pictured), that the IAAF's ruling Council would almost certainly reject a bid from London unless the future of the Stadium was secure following previous promises, including one by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, that had been broken.
The High Court has previously rejected legal moves from both Tottenham and League One club Leyton Orient, who fear they could lose supporters if West Ham move into the Olympic Stadium and begin offering cut-price tickets.
Tottenham argued that because the bid involved a £40 million ($66 million/€45 million) loan from Newham Council, West Ham had an unfair economic advantage, which amounted to "state aid".
Representing Tottenham, Dinah Rose QC, said that the future of the stadium was of "considerable public importance" as £486 million ($796 million/€552 million) of public money had been spent on building it.
"The question of what happens to it when the Games are over next summer is obviously a matter of very considerable importance as well as political sensitivity," she said.
"It is very important that the Stadium should be, and should be seen to be, lawfully disposed of after the Games are over."
The latest development means the decision-making process will now be reviewed, although the decision itself cannot, as yet, be overturned.
But if Tottenham and Orient's challenge succeeds then the whole process could have to be reopened.
Orient chairman Barry Hearn was delighted with the decision.
"The decision is a clear vindication of our determination to take legal action to right this injustice," he said.
"It is clear that the judge saw that there was a real case that the Newham loan to enable West Ham to win the bid was illegal."
Earlier this week, an independent review by forensic accountants Moore Stephens and commissioned by the OPLC concluded there was no reason to re-open the bidding process, despite allegations in The Sunday Times that a director of the agency, Dionne Knight, was paid by West Ham during the negotiations.
But Hearn believed the allegations played a part in Justice Collins' decision.
"The judge was also troubled by the fees paid by West Ham to an OPLC employee saying that this matter deserved further examination," he said.
"Along with our lawyers at Mishcon de Reya, we will continue to fight to the end to safeguard the future of our club - and if that means standing alone as the little guy against the powers that be in authority, then so be it.
"No-one has considered the impact on Leyton Orient of this move and it is not right that the legacy of what will be an amazing Olympic Games could be to put a family football club, with 130 years of history in its local community, out of business."
The battle may only just beginning, though.
Robertson has already made it known privately that if that should happen the parameters of the process will be amended so that whoever if successful they have to keep the running track in the Olympic Stadium.
Tottenham's proposal, submitted together with American entertainment giant AEG, included ripping up the track and instead redeveloping Crystal Palace as the athletics legacy of London 2012.
The decision was a dramatic end to a day that had started with Tottenham seemingly on the verge of a deal with London Mayor Boris Johnson to drop their legal case in return for financial help to move from their current ground at White Hart Lane and instead redevelop a site nearby at Northumberland Park.
Johnson had proposed to use almost half of the £20 million ($33 million/€23 million) given by the Government to rebuild riot-damaged Tottenham and Croydon to help the Premier League push through their plans for the new stadium.
Up to £8.5 million ($14 million/€9.7 million) of the money would have been used to help fund regeneration around the new stadium development, meaning that the planning application can finally go through.
Johnson also promised to use a series of incentives to help businesses relocate there which would have aided Tottenham's application.
Talks collapsed at the last minute, however, and Tottenham decided to push ahead with their request for a judicial review.
The fact it has been granted has strengthened their negotiating position with Johnson.
Baroness Margaret Ford, chair of the OPLC, remained confident despite the decision to grant a judicial review.
"We are delighted that Mr Justice Collins upheld all grounds relating to the Olympic Park Legacy Company's decision making process when recommending a preferred bidder," she said.
"We are disappointed that permission for a judicial review has been granted on some limited points but we are confident in our case."
A spokesman for Newham Council also claimed that they remained optimistic the original decision would not have to be changed.
"We note the proceedings in court today, where the Judge granted permission for a judicial review against Newham and the OPLC and others on only some of the grounds Tottenham Hotspur and Leyton Orient had raised," they said.
"This merely means that he found those grounds to be at least arguable.
"Our bid is the best in terms of guaranteeing a lasting legacy for London and the country.
"This is an ongoing legal process and it would be inappropriate to comment on these claims further at this stage."
Source: www.insidethegames.biz
By Duncan Mackay
US cities interested in 2020 Olympics told there will be no bid
August 22 - There will be no bid from the United States for the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics it has been officially confirmed after the seven cities which had expressed an interest in putting themselves forward were told over the weekend to forget it.
The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) contacted Chicago, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City and Tulsa to tell them that they had decided if they would miss this campaign following unsuccessful bids for the 2012 and 2016 Games.
Ever since Chicago were humiliatingly eliminated in 2009 in the first round of voting for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, which were awarded to Rio de Janeiro, the USOC have made it clear that they will only bid when they have repaired its international relations which have been damaged by a revenue-sharing row with the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
With an agreement with the IOC reportedly close, there had been feverish speculation earlier this month that New York City would be put forward before the deadline for 2020 closes on September 1.
Those hopes have now been dashed.
"With such little time left, we don't believe we could pull together a winning bid that could serve the Olympic and Paralympic Movement," said Patrick Sandusky, the spokesman for the USOC.
With the closing deadline fast approaching, so far the only declared bidders are Istanbul, Madrid, Rome and Tokyo after Durban last week became the latest city to rule itself out.
Doha is expected to make a decision in the next few days about whether to bid or not.
Source: www.insidethegames.biz
By Duncan Mackay