Front and back pages, television and radio bulletins, Twitter, blogs and websites. It was even a topic at Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons - while a future King of England wrote a letter about it and some protesters took to the roof of Fifa House in Zurich.

We all love the poppy - according to David Cameron - except, perhaps, those gardeners conversant with its latin name and who treat it as a weed.

Nonetheless, there was a palpable sense of righteous indignation when the Football Association's desire to have the emblem embroidered or printed on the team's shirts for Saturday's friendly against Spain was thwarted by Fifa president Sepp Blatter and the rest of the Fifa crew.

England defender Phil Jones will now be able to wear a poppy on his kit as well as his tracksuit. Photo: Getty

The game's laws state that "...basic compulsory equipment must not have any political, religious or personal statements". The rules add: "The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political, religious or personal slogans or statements will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or by Fifa."

Fifa's calculation, therefore, was that the poppy represented a political statement and would not be allowed.

A statement read: "We regret to inform you (the FA) that accepting such initiatives would open the door to similar initiatives from all over the world, jeopardising the neutrality of football."

Message received but not understood.

"How could the poppy be construed to be a political symbol?" came the riposte, led by Sports Minister and ex-Life Guards officer Hugh Robertson. His letter in support of the FA's request got straight to the nub of the argument.

He wrote: "It is not religious or political in any way. Wearing a poppy is a display of national pride, just like wearing your country's football shirt. I hope very much that you will approve this request."

At that point, there was no sign of Fifa budging.

The FA, clearly irritated, circulated a long list of the other arrangements it had in place for Saturday to mark Remembrance Day.

Its relationship with the armed forces has grown much closer over recent months, with Tickets for Troops, support for Help for Heroes, the laying of a wreath, the minute's silence, the poppy emblem on the training tops... In fact, pretty much everything conceivable, short of the emblem on the shirts, was now in place.

The heat in the debate was growing and soon the voices of dissent became a clamour.

Then it was time for the Prime Minister to weigh in. "Outrageous," he said.

Was there just a hint of revenge for perceived injustices over England's failed bid to land the 2018 World Cup, I wonder?

No sooner had Cameron published his letter to Fifa, decrying the stance of football's world governing body, than the Duke of Cambridge, future heir and FA president, let it be known that he, too, had sought to straighten out the matter with Blatter.

As those letters were making their way, presumably by fax, to Fifa headquarters, the guardians of the game had a more immediate problem to deal with.

Two protestors had joined the crows on the roof of Fifa House, attempting to make their point with a banner featuring the fateful flower. To use the popular sporting parlance, this was becoming squeaky bum time in the pressure cooker. And nobody wants that.

What Fifa needed now was an elegant solution - and, with the intervention of an active and qualified referee, they got one. Chris Heaton-Harris, MP for Daventry and regular man in the middle in the Northamptonshire Combination League, spotted the possibility.

The letter of the law, drawn up, somewhat ironically in this case, by the Home Nations and Fifa, specifies there should be no unwanted message on the essential kit. However, it does not refer to any extra bits of "outerwear".

Heaton-Harris contacted Fifa with the suggestion that the poppy be included on the black armbands the players were to pull on. Hey presto... faces saved all round. Laws of the game upheld, royalty's anger contained and the public pacified.

Well, all except, perhaps, the pacifists...

Court Four at Southwark has been busy throughout: on Wednesday it was rammed, with solicitors and journalists squabbling over chairs and people straining to hear the judge's words in the public gallery at the back.

On the previous day former Pakistan captain Salman Butt and fast bowler Mohammad Asif were both found guilty of conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments for arranging the deliberate bowling of no-balls in the Lord's Test against England last year.

Left-arm seamer Mohammad Amir and the players' agent, Mazhar Majeed had already pleaded guilty, but with reporting restrictions in place we hadn't been able to tell you. Now they appeared in court for the first time.

By the time proceedings began around 1100 GMT, pet theories had all been talked out by the sizeable gathering of journalists, the ranks swelled by the presence of some specialist cricket correspondents, including at least one former England captain, but I bet with all his inside knowledge of the gossip around match fixing even Mike Atherton was taken aback by what was to come.

He was handed a further file of submissions by Amir's team with the promise they would answer his concerns.

Then came the first of the day's interjections from the press. Quoting the Master of the Rolls in 1982, a colleague suggested reporting restrictions should be lifted as the risk of contempt was small.

A good effort, but not accepted by our red-robed and bewigged High Court judge who has handled this case as adroitly as one would hope and expect throughout. So, armed with yet more reading, he retired and so did we until 1400 GMT, when the shelling really started.

Back in court the atmosphere was getting even more febrile, the anticipation unexpectedly heated by the intervention of Majeed's counsel, who told the court they had changed their minds and wanted reporting restrictions lifted after all.

A game-changer for we custodians of the fourth estate who'd been given permission to tweet from the start of the trial. We began clattering out this drama to the world in 140-character bursts.

Majeed's lawyer went to town. Butt, he claimed, and not his client had initiated this fixing scheme in 2009, aided and abetted eventually by the others in the dock but also by a fourth player who wasn't facing charges. He offered no names, but if the International Cricket Council (ICC) get the transcript of the trial they'll have a few clues.

Pakistan cricketers Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif were found guilty of their part in a "spot-fixing" scam while Mohammad Amir had admitted the charges prior to the trial. Photo: PA

Then came the moment that led to the sharp, audible intake of breath. Majeed's counsel said he was going to explain how the proceeds from the News of the World's sting were distributed. He said that Majeed had paid £77,000 to the players involved in the no-ball fix, out of the £150,000 he was given.

He said £2,500 went to Amir, £10,000 to Butt, who was looking wretched in the dock at this point, and £65,000 to Asif. Asif? The man who said in his defence the no-ball was just a coincidence, and that he'd never had anything to do with this, and had never taken any money? Why did Asif get the lion's share? Well, according to Majeed's counsel it was because they needed to give him a big payment to keep him loyal to their group.

Pause, breath, mental adjustment. Mr Justice Cooke asked for a repeat. We hadn't misheard. Could the implication be that there was another fixing clique in the dressing room who were seeking his services? Fingers and thumbs flew as did the tweets.

Then another development. Perturbed, counsel for Butt and Asif raised their objections. This hadn't been information used as evidence and tested during the trial. It amounted, they argued, to "derogatory mitigation", damaging to their clients who denied any knowledge of the payments. This they said should be brought under reporting restrictions.

But the genie was out of the bottle, a point made again by interjection from another colleague, because we'd all tweeted it, and the dialogue among the twitterati was already under way. Too late to impose reporting restrictions now.

"True" said the judge, "too late" and anyway he didn't buy the objection. He did however agree that as this wasn't part of the trial evidence it would be discounted in his calculations in respect of the sentencing.

Majeed's mitigation finished with a story of how a good man, generous of time and money, devoted to his family and his diabetic wife had lost a fortune in the property game, and now understood he would be going to jail.

Not, according to his counsel, as the evil fixer as he had been portrayed, it was claimed, by the defendants in the trial when it suited them. No, no, far from it. Majeed would admit to being the arranger, but not the corruptor.

Butt's mitigation painted the picture of the man who had lost everything, from national hero to figure of contempt. Reputation, livelihood, the chance to be Pakistan captain, the chance to be involved in the game he lived for. His money was spent.

All that was left, said his counsel, was his family and for their sake could leniency be pleaded? An hour before his guilty verdict, his wife had given birth to a son. An immediate custodial sentence would keep them apart for who knows how long?

Asif's pleas went along similar lines. Reputation in ruins, livelihood destroyed, a four-month old baby girl at home needing a dad, all because his front foot had strayed over the crease when delivering that pre-arranged no-ball for the benefit of gamblers unknown, who stood to make far more from this than he did.

And so Amir. Head in hands at times in the dock, he looked older than his teenage years. Nineteen now, 18 at the time. Not for money, it was argued, had he done his. He was pressured into doing it and he was caught in a trap - sprung by whom? He did not say and made clear he would not name names.

His lawyer read his statement wherein he apologised to all of Pakistan for his actions. A prodigy, who did not know if he'd ever be employed to play cricket again. Mike Atherton's Times article where he argued for understanding in Amir's case was read in court.

Athers listened on from the press seats, watching the faces of the defendants, that seemed at least in Butt and Asif to have lost the indifference, perhaps arrogance that they wore at times during the trial.

A colleague who'd interjected earlier over reporting restrictions, and who has guided correspondents like me through the complexities of countless trials, observed that the players reminded him of juveniles he'd seen in the dock who'd suddenly realised the enormity of what they were facing, and whose swagger had evaporated.

He was right. It had. The consequences for these players are unavoidable and life changing. Sporting cheats, wherever they are, should be sleeping less comfortably. Good.

It was a while ago that he offered that observation, at the time when Fifa and World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) were wrestling over compliance with the world anti-doping code, and how they would manage disciplinary measures. I was never convinced that football had actually embraced the code fully, but Wada seemed satisfied in the end.

Blatter's remarks seemed to be entirely based, at the time, on a lack of positive drug tests at successive major tournaments. (Before, incidentally, the recent Women's World Cup where five members of the North Korean team failed tests for performance enhancing drugs, resulting in the team's ban from the next competition in Canada in 2015.)

It's an absurd remark because football and footballers are no different from any other sport, in that where there's financial reward for success, there's doping. To deny that because no-one's been caught is meaningless. We all know sprinter Marion Jones never failed a drugs test, but by her own admission, was a cheat.

A player using cocaine, a strong stimulant, before a match would risk a two year drugs ban under the Wada rules. Post-match, out of the competition context, Wada's rules don't include cocaine on the banned list.

Scotland striker Garry O'Connor was named by Channel 4's Despatches programme as having served a ban after testing positive for cocaine while at Birmingham City

The Football Association (FA), however take a different view. They have, for several years, been running a separate drug testing programme based on the pragmatic realisation that temptation is out there, and that drugs scandals (even of the weekend post-match nightclub indiscretion variety) can harm the game's image, and dent its desire to provide role models for kids.

The testing programme isn't a secret, but its results are kept confidential to allow for treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, or so the FA argue. They don't have to do it, their only obligation in respect of doping is to ensure the Wada code is followed, and the use of performance enhancing drugs is tackled.

Channel 4's Dispatches programme, "The truth about drugs in football" took on the FA over a perceived lack of transparency, naming several players who'd been caught through the recreational testing programme. I'm no TV critic, so I won't share with you my thoughts on the programme, but I did feel it raised some legitimate questions about the way the FA manages its doping policy and I put them to the FA.

On the issue of transparency over the frequency of testing for performance enhancing drugs faced by players and particularly by the game's elite performers in the Premier League, the FA say:

"The FA do not report a breakdown of tests per league, and numbers of games tested, in order to prevent clubs and players being able to estimate when their club's quota of tests has been completed, thus minimising the risk of potential doping. To disclose this information would be detrimental to the testing programme.

"We do however, do more testing in the Premier League than any other league, but test all four professional leagues to ensure the whole of professional football is subject to an anti-doping regime rather than just the very top level. Fans of League Two football have as much right to believe that the game they pay to watch is free from doping as any Premier League club fan. Ditto the players - all professional playing fields should be level and drug-free, not just the top league."

The programme discovered that since 2007, testers from UK Anti-Doping have recorded 240 incomplete tests at training grounds where their officials have been unable to find players they want to test. In respect of the responsibility of clubs to notify the testers about any changes to their training schedules, the FA revealed four clubs have been fined for breaches of the rules.

"For clubs, we operate a three strikes policy in any two year period. If a player is on a squad list and not present for the Doping Control Officer and the player has been targeted for testing, this would constitute a missed test strike if the player has not updated his whereabouts and provided an alternative location and hour slot for testing prior to the start of the training session from which he is absent."

Regarding any obligation on a selling club to inform a buying club that a player had tested positive for drugs under the FA's programme of testing for recreational drug use, the FA said, "They do in-competition or for performance enhancing drugs. I make the point once more that The FA doesn't even need to do this - Wada does not demand it. In the NFL a player could take cocaine out of competition and it never be tested or sanctioned. Clubs can, of course, ask the question of the player."

The bigger picture from all of this is the reality that recreational drug use remains a grey area for the sports doping authorities, who limit their responsibilities to the brief they were given, to tackle doping in sport.

In the background lies the tension with governments who provide half of Wada's (modest) funding largely because their anti-drugs message to wider society is helped by having sport that's clean, and where drug use is forbidden.

You may have noticed when you picked up the papers over the last few days that pictures and copy from football league matches has been a bit thin on the ground. Your eyes do not deceive you: It's because of a dispute over the terms and conditions for coverage of live matches that newspapers, websites and wire agencies have been asked to sign up to.

The previous agreement, set up six years ago, has now expired, and rather a lot has changed since then in terms of platforms, available content and customer expectations: In 2005, 'Twitter' was what birds did outside your bedroom window of a morning.

The media world has marched on and, so says everyone involved, must this new agreement.

What's developing is something of a Mexican stand-off, with on the one hand the vast majority of clubs locking out those media organisations who're in dispute, and on the other, the papers withholding coverage.

The clubs like the publicity their sponsors get via the papers and websites reportage of matches, and the brilliant eye catching pictures that draw us in.

What they don't want is their commercial revenues being hit by the availability of free content, like live text updates, interactive services and photos that compete with their own offers, and those of their partners.

The News Media Coalition, which represents many of those currently locked out in this dispute, makes a manifesto pledge to, 'ensure that the right and duty of the News Media to report any and all matters of public interest, freely and without interference, is guaranteed and defended at all times.'

So this dispute could be presented as a press freedom issue. In reality, it's a negotiation, and heels are firmly dug in: In a joint statement last week, the Leagues gave a cuffing to the news organisations over their reluctance to sign the deal offered, describing this as, 'unfortunate,' and, 'serving no-one's interests.'

They did however say they were open to further discussions, which of course is the reality: The Leagues and the clubs they represent need the media just as much as the media need them. What they're arguing over is the equivalent of the pre-nuptial agreement. The desire for marriage is a foregone conclusion.

In the meantime, if you find yourself short of a match report and some pictures, might I make so bold as to point you in the direction of the BBC Sport football page.

The nation had been yearning for track and field success, and here was a team of bright talents, role models for women in India, beating the best of the rest of the Commonwealth.

That landmark success has been tarnished with the news that three of the four members of the team have failed drug tests over the last few days. Ashwini Akkunji, Mandeep Kaur and Sini Jose have all tested positive for anabolic steroids, and are suspended pending further investigation.

Apart from the Commonwealth gold medal, what all three have in common is a Ukrainian coach named Yuri Ogrodnik. Well, they had him in common, but he's now been sacked, according to the Indian sports minister, Ajay Maken.

Ashwini Akkunji (left), Sini Jose (far right) and Mandeep Kaur (second from right) won Commonwealth golds. Photo: Reuters

In fact, six members of the women's 400m squad, coached by Ogrodnik have now been suspended after a spate of positive tests for different steroids. The Indian sports ministry is in a spin: Akkunji was the poster girl of Indian athletics, a double gold medallist at the Asian games, and expected to go on to even greater things. There were genuine hopes of a medal at the London Olympics, but that dream now seems shattered.

Minister Maken hasn't pulled any punches in his reaction to the scandal: "The athletes have disgraced the whole nation and it's very disturbing for us," he said.

"Athletes will get their punishment in the form of suspensions, bans and losing their medals... but we can't let the coaches and any official involved in this episode get away scot-free."

At the moment, there's no suggestion Ogrodnik has done anything wrong, and he's reported in India as saying he knew nothing of any drug taking among his athletes. Ajay Maken is unimpressed: "The coach says he didn't know that the athletes were taking banned substances then I think he's all the more responsible for what's happened. The coach is supposed to know what they're taking and tell them what to take."

The tests were apparently carried out either at the national training camp in Patiala, in the Northern state of Punjab, or after a track meeting in the Southern city of Bangalore in late June.

The athletes have all protested their innocence and blamed contaminated food supplements for the results, but the strict liability rule allows no such excuses.

Drug tests are split into two samples, and the second or B samples given by the women will now be tested. They almost never contradict the A samples. There will be a disciplinary process, and a two year ban would be the normal outcome.

India's national anti-doping agency recently revealed that 122 positive tests had been recorded in an 11 month period to April of this year, mostly among wrestlers and weightlifters.

As a result they said they intended to increase the amount of testing, and carry out raids on athlete's rooms where drugs use was suspected. Ajay Maken has called for further action, including better co-ordination with customs agencies to restrict the import of banned performance enhancing drugs, and has instigated a full inquiry into the current problems.

Lord Coe, in the stadium at the time, said that the success of the women's relay team at the Delhi games "may just have changed the direction of track and field... not only in India, but in Asia." The events of the last few days have surely derailed that hope.

The other home nations outside England have long made clear their implacable opposition to the idea of a joint team, and they are clearly finding the language used by the BOA in making the announcement provocative.

They insist there is no new agreement, no falling in line. This row has been festering for years.

That is too great a risk, argue Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, irrespective of the repeated assurances from Fifa that participation in a joint Olympic team will have no bearing on their national autonomies.

They did however concede to England, some considerable time ago, the right to form a GB team, as long as they didn't have to take any part in it. In that respect nothing has changed.

What has stirred things up is the BOA's claims of a "historic agreement" having been reached, and of the announcement of a non-discriminatory selection policy that leaves the English FA free to pick, in line with that objective selection criteria, any player from these isles.

That is all good theory. Of course, discrimination doesn't fit with Olympic values, so the policy, where written, will have to reflect that.

The practise however is likely to be very different. Will the FA risk a row with their neighbours in picking Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish players in their 18-man and 18-woman squads? If so, will those players agree to play?

They don't have to, and they will scarcely be unaware of the stance of their own FAs over the undesirability of a unified team.

Many people believe it would be absurd not to have a GB football team at a home Games, and the way has been cleared for that to happen.

Just don't expect too many Celtic accents in the post-match interviews.

This new timing, said Uefa president Michel Platini at the time, was in response to the paucity of families and children in the crowd for the midweek final between Liverpool and AC Milan in Athens. Platini said the move to Saturday would allow more of them to attend because the kids would not have school the next day.

This dose of medicine was not to be swallowed for the Europa Cup final, however, as "one on Saturday is enough". So bad luck if you happen to be of school age and your team reaches that dizzy height. You will just have to yawn through class the next day.

OK, I jest slightly but it is observational humour. Plenty of fans have expressed the view that Uefa is "having a laugh" with their pricing structure for Wembley. You might fail to see the funny side if you have forked out even the minimum starting price for "neutrals" watching the game in the general admissions areas of £150 plus £26 booking fee.

If you want to take your partner and both kids, you are in for a bill of more than £600 before travel, refreshments and programmes take that to nearer £750, I imagine. Some discounts have been sorted for children but those packages are limited in number and only available in the more expensive Category B areas.

The 50,000 tickets reserved for fans of both clubs start a fair bit less but that is still a relative concept at £80 for Category D tickets, some 15% more than in Madrid last year.

Enough people have had a loud enough moan about these prices for Uefa to express a little contrition, with Platini conceding that it might have made an error.

"It was a mistake, it was not good," he told reporters in London recently. "But it is not easy to decide the price of the tickets in the Champions League final.

"We have received 200,000 requests for 10,000 tickets and now if you want to buy the tickets on the black market these tickets are 10 times the price that we decided. Perhaps in the future we have to have a new category for families that is less expensive. But if you put those on the black market, how much will they cost?"

Uefa argued the price was commensurate with the occasion. Evidence of what people are prepared to pay on the black market, thousands of pounds for the cheapest seats, tends to lend weight to the argument that they could charge more and still sell out.

But isn't that missing the point? The Champions League is monumentally well supported by sponsors falling over themselves for the chance to promote their products to their target market. Beer, razors, cars, blokes, kerching! The Saturday night switch just enhances that marketing opportunity, keeping the broadcasters happy with optimum viewing figures and people watching for longer.

Revenue from ticket sales pales into insignificance alongside the broadcast deals, so the whole event is something of a cash cow. Just for once, perhaps Uefa - and everyone else in a similar position - could stop milking the fans who pay to watch, too.

It's a meaty piece of work, looking at how the various national anti-doping agencies across Europe comply with Wada's requirements. Compliance is patchy, to say the least.

Of the 49 organisations it looked at, based on 2009 figures, only 20 actually published annual reports. There are large holes in the data they're required to provide to Wada, thus making it difficult, they argue, to measure how effective anti-doping policy is.

It also came up with the interesting statistic that it takes 600 out-of-competition tests to find a positive, but only 62 in competition. This, they say, adds weight to their argument that out-of-competition testing is inefficient, and therefore should be brought into question.

In fact, the EEAA's lawyers say they have "hundreds" of athletes ready to say their human rights have been infringed by this invidious imposition on their privacy.

They disclosed there is a rugby player ready to take the same plunge Jean Marc Bosman took and fight for his rights through the European legislative system, however long it takes.

As David Howman, secretary general of Wada notes, it's one thing to say you'll do it, another thing to actually do it, and another thing altogether to actually succeed.

Wada's battle against doping is under-resourced. Photo: Getty

That's not to say Wada dismisses the oncerns of the EEAA. Indeed, it acknowledges the criticism of their enforcement of reporting standards hits the mark.

All those global signatories to the code are supposed to file reports, including data of tests carried out, positives found, actions taken, sports tested and so on. But they don't, and that reflects the reality that often enforcing doping policy is an issue of resources: some can afford to, others struggle, although it's heard to see how European countries can make that excuse, crisis or no crisis in the Euro zone.

I've written before of the challenge facing Wada of pulling rabbits out of hats on a budget of $25m a year, or roughly David Beckham's annual income. It's simply not enough.

There are those hardened cynics who take the view Wada is funded to fail, because the truth would be too unpalatable. Let's hope not, or I really am going to take up market gardening.

There is a serious point to be made however about the threat of endless legal challenges draining the energy and resources out of Wada when they should be channelled solely at the primary objective of delivering drug-free sport.

That's what the EEAA says it wants, too. The trouble is, while everyone indulges themselves in fighting their own corner, seeking tweaks here and concessions there, the cheats are continuing to prosper.

Let's also not forget athletes aren't the only ones with rights. You and I, the paying, viewing public have a right to expect honest competition, untainted by chemically-enhanced cheats. Again, it bears repeating, the moment we stop believing and walk away, the house of cards falls down.

Athletes at that point might find the imposition of a knock on the door at an inconvenient moment more palatable than a return to enforced amateurism.

The sum of the information from Fifa house following their "summit" with Interpol is difficult to quantify.

On the one hand, the head of the investigation being carried out in Germany, commissioner Friedhelm Alhans, painted a depressing picture, with 300 suspicious games under scrutiny in an investigation that's seen 70 people arrested in Turkey, more than 20 in Croatia, and everything from international friendlies, a Champions League and some Europa Cup games, to lower league semi-pro matches under examination.

He says it's the "tip of the iceberg". Working on the literal principle, that means it's about 10 times worse than they already know about.

The messages remain mixed, however. Noble also spelled out how the fixers operate.
"Nothing new in it," he said. Find the weak and vulnerable, tempt them with enough money, and manipulate them, using violence if necessary. He managed to make the chilling reality sound as everyday as popping out for a pint of milk.

Everyone is in agreement that this is the work of organised criminal gangs. They fix matches, they traffic performance-enhancing drugs and deliberately target the $300bn (£183bn) worldwide sporting industry, because just a small slice of that is a fortune.

Much of the focus of the gangs, and now the football authorities, appears to be referees, especially where they are not fully professional. The money they make from 90 minutes with a whistle in their teeth is often a pittance compared with those they seek to stay in control of.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter spoke of the need for all referees to be professional, but even if you paid those in the top leagues £250,000 a year, they'd still be relative paupers compared to the players. Envy? Greed? Easy money? Those are the traits that the unscrupulous exploit.

Interpol's man made it clear the match fixers are working their angles because it's low risk - hardly any have ever been caught and the rewards are great. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) suggested perhaps well in excess of $100bn of the $300-$400bn sports betting industry is going on illegally, unregulated, invisible.

The 20m euros (£17m) Fifa has pledged to Interpol over the next 10 years to create its own football anti-corruption training wing at the police organisation's HQ in Singapore represents the largest single investment it has received from a private organisation, but it's a drop in the ocean to the criminals.

The German police reported they are sure that 1.7m euros (£1.5m) had been paid in bribes to third parties in the cases they're still investigating, and they seem sure there's much more going on we don't know about.

The criminals have the working capital, motive and opportunity they need. Yet the football authorities still managed last February to fail to ensure that two international games played between four different counties on the soil of a fifth were free from manipulation.

The games were set up by an agent that no-one seemed to check out, refereed by officials whose identity was unknown until just before kick-off, and even then disputed.

Several employed by the football associations involved said afterwards they thought the arrangements were a bit odd, yet failed to act.

Fifa now say they have a series of reforms to put to congress next month to tighten up their regulations, but as so often is the case, they are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

So how worried should we be? You decide......

Yes, at least one. Locog has always said it will hold another sale of the remaining tickets and I gather that is more likely to be this summer than next year now.

The plans are fluid at the moment and there could be an announcement fairly soon. Do not forget you can still get tickets through the two official hospitality providers, Thomas Cook and Prestige, which will be offering hotel and event packages.

There is even a small chance that some events might end up being box office on the day, but there is no confirmation of that. If you are really disappointed and have missed out, there is always the Paralympics. Tickets go on sale on 9 September.

What are my chances of getting a ticket for a high-profile event?

The velodrome is likely to be massively over-subscribed

Small to be honest. The fact is the ceremonies, big athletics and swimming nights and track cycling will be massively over-subscribed, and the biggest demand is likely to be at the lowest price point. It is a ballot system, and if you are in it, you have a statistical chance. Good luck.

When will the money come out of my account, and when will I find out what tickets I've got?

The process goes on until 24 June, which is the last point at which you will be told for which events you have been successful in getting tickets.

In some cases, your account will be debited quite a bit before your notification e-mail or letter, but the organisers say they are trying to make the payment and notifications as close as possible.

They point out this is a very complex process, but are aware that people want to know what they have bought.

If I get too many tickets can I sell them back?

Yes, but you will have to wait, and only if someone wants to buy them. Locog is promising a simple, easy to use system for resale of tickets via their website early next year. It is basically going to work along the lines of others, like the one created by Fifa for World Cup tickets.

You might have for example three second round badminton tickets going spare at £20 each, and the website will match you up with an interested buyer, with money changing hands electronically. It is all face value only, so do not expect to make a profit or be involved in some auction-style sale.

Can I sell on to family and friends?

Yes, with the basic principle that you are not supposed to make a profit. Locog will not stop a private transaction like that, but they do not want tickets advertised in newspaper or online classifieds or on auction websites. Come on, you are not going to rip-off your Granny are you?

Update 16 May 0930 BST: Minor changes made to details as money begins to be taken from buyers' accounts.

He's not the kind to glibly reassure you that everything's fine and his organisation are completely on top of it all. It isn't, and they're not.

Making a keynote address at UK Anti-Doping's conference, Howman pointed out the challenges facing sport going forward, and clearly illustrated the futility of sport trying to fight doping on its own.

He warned that his sources at Interpol and other agencies were clear that the criminal underworld was increasingly getting its claws into sport.

Marion Jones was jailed in 2008 for lying to a federal investigator about taking banned substances

He says the people who are trafficking steroids and making fortunes are the same ones trying to fix matches, organise spot-fixing, launder money and bribe officials.

By his reckoning, $100 (£62) of raw materials can be turned into $10,000 (£6,217) of profit for the steroid pushers, a dramatic return on "investment" and all the incentive they need.

He spoke of several instances when anti-doping officers have been offered bribes - some of them we've heard about, "others we probably haven't," he said, before reciting an incident in Vienna at an anti-doping lab involving cash in a brown envelope.

No wrong-doing was discovered in that case, but Howman believes bribery is very much a live issue.

It's not just criminality that he's concerned about. There are inadequacies in the testing and analysis regimes too.

"We're not collecting enough blood. The scarcity of testing concerns me. There are some substances that can only be found through blood tests and there's not enough going on," he said.

Howman believes too many excuses are being made for not doing it - the extra cost of collection, storage and transportation of samples, for example. The implication is that people are cheating and getting away with it under the testers' noses.

The scientists at doping labs are, he thinks, sometimes 'bottling' borderline cases and not flagging them up as possible infringements, knowing that if they do a difficult court case will follow with lots of explaining to be done.

"It's human nature. Our expert witnesses need to be properly trained. We need to make sure scientists understand what it is we lawyers do," he explained.

Howman again used the example of Marion Jones to illustrate that science alone cannot be the answer to sport's problems.

Jones admitted to taking drugs over a seven-year period during her career, but she never failed a drugs test and he said: "We need to harness other methods, law enforcement, customs, to ensure we're more effective."

With a modest annual budget of $26m (£16.2m) to run all of Wada's services, Howman says the organisation are constantly questioning whether they're investing in the right areas and believes lateral thinking is required.

"Why don't we get France to drug test Germany, and Germany to drug test France? Perhaps there'd be more enthusiasm for catching cheats from another country?

"What about one sport testing another? How about offering cash rewards for information that leads to catching a doper?"

He is clear that the fight is not getting any easier and while Wada might have had some successes against the "dopey dopers" (as he refers to those who appear at major events believing they'll get away with it), the sophisticated doper is more of a challenge.

"We're doing some things better, but so are they," he warned. "Cheating athletes are becoming more sophisticated, they're getting very good at cheating. They think they can evade testing.

"We must confront complacency but we can only do so much. We need help to make the playing field more level, and we can't ignore the impact of the criminal underworld."

These are difficult times in every sense with the 2012 Olympics looming large.

Howman leaves no doubt that the idyll of a drug-free Games in London next year is nothing more than an illusion and that - while it's a battle worth fighting - the struggle against doping is not getting any easier.

Q: Is there ever an excuse for failing a drugs test?

The principle of strict liability underpins the whole of doping policy. What it means in practical terms is that you, the athlete, are responsible for what's in your body regardless of how it got there.

There are mitigating circumstances, but the burden of proof rests on the athlete. In other words, Toure will have to satisfactorily explain how a prohibited substance was found in his sample. Some examples could be proof that drink or food was maliciously spiked by a fellow competitor, or proof the substance was forcibly injected by a third party.

The reason that strict liability is used is to prevent reliance on the obvious excuse of "I didn't know it was in the tablet I took," or "I didn't know what I was taking".

It's a similar to the caveat "ignorance of the law is no defence." It's a tough stance, but it has to be to protect the clean athletes.

Toure faces a battle to clear his name. Photo: AP

Q: Manchester City say the substance found in Kolo Toure's sample was on the "specified list". What does that mean?

The World Anti Doping Agency, WADA produces an annual list of all prohibited substances.

It's regularly updated, and always under review. New drugs are being found all the time, and understanding of what effect they can have changes. Some categories of drug are a total no-no like steroids, and their use is banned at all times. Others are only banned during competition, and that includes the category of stimulants.

The stimulant section is divided into two, "non-specified" and "specified". The non- specified include things like amphetamines, which could clearly be performance enhancing.

Specified stimulants, for example ephedrine, fall into a rather more grey area. Ephedrine is found in a lot of cough and cold remedies, and an athlete might be able to argue that its use was not intended to be performance enhancing.

To reflect the fact that there may be an explanation for the presence of these substances which could have a more innocent foundation, the punishments vary from a warning to a two year suspension from any given sport.

In a recent case involving the Hamilton Academical player, Simon Mensing - who tested positive for a substance on the specified list - UK Anti-Doping accepted that the substance had been taken inadvertently in a dietary supplement and that Mensing had taken steps to check whether the supplement contained any prohibited substance.

Despite those checks and balances, he still committed an anti-doping violation, but his punishment was only a four week ban.

Q: What happens now to Kolo Toure?

When a urine test is taken, it's split into two: an 'A' sample and a 'B' sample.

The 'A' sample is tested and the 'B' sample is stored for cross referencing. Toure can now ask for the 'B' sample to be tested to see if it comes up with the same adverse finding as the 'A' sample, or if it contradicts it. It's very rare for the 'B' sample not to match the 'A'.

Assuming they do match, there's then a process to be followed which will establish if there's a case to answer, then to set a time for a full hearing to take place where the facts and any mitigation can be discussed.

After the hearing, any sanction will be announced. Toure has the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. WADA can also appeal if they feel the case has not been handled properly, or if the punishment isn't appropriate.

Fifa's latest financial figures for the four years to the end of 2010 show the organisation earned more than $4bn. That's an increase of 59% over the previous four year stretch which included the World Cup in Germany.

Its broadcast rights and marketing which are leading the boom of course, and Fifa is riding the wave that's thrown the Premier League skywards too.

Fifa has banked $631m to its reserves, which now stand at $1.2bn.

The World Cup was a major earner for Fifa

Fifa says of the money it raised, 70% was ploughed back into the game by staging tournaments and investing in projects. Fifa put $794m into football development, including its 'Goal' and 'Win in Africa' projects.

More than $350m has been handed out to the member FAs, under what's called the Financial Assistance Programme.

The joke used to be it helped increase significantly the number of luxury cars in the car parks of some federations, but Fifa says this money is properly audited, and that 21 FAs are selected at random every year, and their spending checked closely to make sure it's appropriate.

Fifa still manages to spend handsomely on itself. $707m went on its operating expenses, including the burgeoning fifa.com operation. Deputy secretary general Marcus Kattner insists they stuck to their approved budget, and that costs are under control.

He says the sum includes their substantial staff costs for the development projects and the 23 international tournaments they ran over the four year cycle, many of them small, financially unproductive events.

"I believe operational efficiency is at a high level," Kattner says. "Of course you can always do more to reduce costs, but I believe they're at a good level."

The figures also emphasise Fifa's dependence on the World Cup for the lion's share of its revenues, and the risk it would face of ever having to take the step of cancelling the event. Executives concede finding ways to be less reliant on the one big event, and generating income other ways is a huge challenge.

Overall, staging the World Cup in South Africa resulted in a net loss for Fifa. The budget of just over a billion overran, compensated for in part by higher than expected revenue, but overall, the net cash outcome was a $31m loss.

Fifa's president Sepp Blatter says he's a happy man. It's amazing how much of a warm glow $4bn can bring to a man but perhaps the smile reflects more the fact that still, despite the talk, no-one has come forward to challenge his presidency.

Perhaps, before the deadline of the end of March, a hat, or an Arab head-dress will be thrown into the ring?

Bernie Ecclestone has promised a decision on whether the race can go ahead next week. At present, the Bahraini authorities are trying to sound optimistic. Cancelling the event would be a huge blow to them.

Constructed in time for the 2004 season, at an initial cost cost of around £100m, the area surrounding the circuit has since been identified for a huge investment project worth more than £1bn.

It'll house business, entertainment and educational space, according to the planners. Perhaps they cast an envious eye in the direction of their Gulf neighbours in Abu Dhabi, where the extraordinary Yas Island project is the home of the state's own Grand Prix. The track costs alone reportedly stand at £800m. The Island? More than £25bn.

The Bahrain Grand Prix is scheduled for 13 March. Photo: Getty

These Grands Prix matter to the Gulf states as they attempt to establish their importance in the world, their voice on the international stage. They make headlines and showcase the nation. They're part of foreign policy. Look what the 2008 Olympics meant to China.

Bernie Ecclestone understands the desire for nations to use sport to promote their international credentials, and he's been quick to exploit the opportunity. The truth is, those countries need F1 more than F1 needs them.

F1's global landscape is rapidly changing. The appetite for breaking new ground continues undiminished among the major sports organisations: look at FIFA. The success of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa must have been a factor in emboldening the executive to go for Qatar in 2022, along of course with the commercial opportunities. The Gulf states are the big spenders in the sports field at the moment and their ambitions are high.

F1 has already established itself in Asia, with China and Korea joining Singapore, Malaysia and Japan. This season for the first time it goes to India. F1 isn't short of nations wanting a slice of the reflective glory. In 2012 the circus returns to the United States in Austin, Texas. 2014 should be Russia's debut.

The calendar is already packed. This season for the first time there will be 20 races. Expansion has its limits in terms of what the teams can cope with or are prepared to put up with. If the Bahrain race goes, it's very unlikely it can be rescheduled.

The churn has seen some of the old established races like the Austrian Grand Prix fall away. The British Grand Prix hung by a thread, before a long-term deal was done. Sentimentality isn't Bernie Ecclestone's strong suit; deal-making is, and the effect of the government-led bids to stage races in new territories has been to force the old guard into improving their act, upgrading their facilities, doing things better.

While embracing the new, F1's established acts have become stronger too. The Gulf Grands Prix have helped the commercial rights holders for the sport turn over more than $1bn (£616m) according to the 2010 accounts, and double the profits to $193m.

F1 is a successful brand which would survive the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix, should it come to that. The worst of the damage would be felt in the local economy, and reputationally by Bahrain.

F1 will move on. It has no shortage of suitors.

It was in Atlanta in 1996, where I was covering swimming for the BBC's World Service.

Tickets for the aquatics events were highly sought after, with United States swimmers expected to dominate. As you'd expect, the black market was flourishing.

They seemed genuine swim fans. Weaving against the human tide heading into the pool was a species I recognised: baseball caps, stubble, sweating in their denims and trainers. When they opened their mouths, it came as no great surprise. I've heard it at pretty much every major event I've been to. A regional English accent; "buying and selling, I'll buy any spares..."

Demand will always outstrip supply for certain events, as these would-be spectators discovered in 2008 (Getty)

They duly satisfied the demands of the desperate fans, and trousered no doubt a tidy profit, in hard cash, no questions asked, no income tax, not vat, God bless hooky street...

They'll be out at the London Games too, working their angles. But they'd better steer well clear of the Metropolitan Police. The Met is on a mission. In truth, the guys doing the hand-to-hand stuff down in the crowds are just a small part of the problem.

Their bosses, and often it's organised crime, have business plans these days according to the Met: they spread their risk: fake ticketing websites, hospitality scams. They are cleverly constructed hoaxes, ways to get the unwary to part with their hard earned.

Alarmingly, It works every time. Remember Beijing where swimming heroine Becky Adlington's mum and dad were stitched up by scammers, left in the lurch having parted with more than £1,000 for tickets that apparently never existed.

They were just two of many sports fans who've found themselves in the same situation, usually without the high profile that eventually brought a happy ending to the Adlington's saga. People who are desperate to see something are swept along by the promise of a way in, and leave their critical faculties behind. How many of those tickets clasped in the greasy palms of the touts will be fakes? How would you know?

Already, the Met has made more than 30 arrests, is investigating the usual suspects, and that includes those who hover around Premier League stadiums on Saturday, then head to the theatres and concert venues later on.

The police know these characters, they know they were out at the World Cup in South Africa, in Beijing, and Vancouver.

They intend to seize their cash, and hope the courts use their power to hit them with a fine of up to £5,000... in a market worth millions that might seem somewhat paltry, but if they can hit the big players with their dodgy websites under the fraud laws, the penalties rocket, including detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.

There are 36 officers working full time just on Olympic ticket fraud prevention. Already, they say, they've looked at or taken down hundreds of websites, and are investigating a similar number of known touts.

On top of the Met's work, the London Organising Committee (Locog) has set up its own systems.
It is using software to track suspicious multiple ticket applications. Each ticket will be bar-coded, and zapped on the way into the park, and/or the venue. If anything that comes up dodgy, or doesn't seem right, the ticket holder will be taken to one side, and will be subjected to a, "quiet word".

Unbelievably, in the past a lot of black market tickets have come from allocations originally given to the 200 or so national Olympic Associations, which is part of the Games family.

This time, the system for allocating tickets will be much more intelligently focussed.

Those with little or no track record of producing successful athletes in a particular event will find they won't be given many tickets for it. Those that ask will be disappointed.

Locog's view is that if you get the ticket into the hands of a genuine fan in the first place, it's far more likely to be, "sticky". In other words, they won't let it go at any price.

There'll be a mechanism for selling back unwanted tickets, and moving them on to friends and family at face value. It isn't a crime, but seeking to do that and make any kind of profit is, and this time, the Met means business.

The advice to all is, there's only one place you can be sure of getting a genuine ticket, and that's through the London 2012 ticket website, at www.tickets.london2012.com It's your first port of call.