Delicate issue of gold rush reward

IT started with a cheeky request to the Queen. "If she's watching this", from Rebecca Adlington's best pal, after the 19-year-old double gold medal winner in the Olympic Cube had broken world and Olympic records and the hearts of her competitors. Talking straight to the camera, Cassie Patten reminded the Queen of how Kelly Holmes had been honoured after her double gold triumph on the track. "She should be Dame Rebecca now, as well," she informed the monarch in whose name

By the time Chris Hoy had won two of his three golds, there was a crescendo of appeals that he should become Sir Chris. But presumably his team-mate who won two golds for the individual and team pursuits, helping to set a world record in the latter race, would be knighted, too? No? Why not? Both, at that point, may have won another gold. Would they then be unquestionably well qualified to be honoured?

When Rebecca Adlington was first mooted as a Dame, I initially reacted to such an acknowledgement of her talent, dedication and of the honour she has brought to team GB with unease. Is my unease unjustified? She would be at least as deserving of the honour as a certain English international team whose members were the recipients of honours almost as soon as the last stump was drawn.

Rebecca and Chris are the best the world has seen in their respective disciplines, and although she won gold, twice, Dame Kelly Holmes was not. So why don't I feel as happy at the thought of Rebecca's achievement being recognised as I felt when Kelly Holmes was made a Dame? Because Rebecca is 19 years old and it seems too much of a burden, creates too much of an expectation on the public's part – thus putting more pressure on her – and too much of a distraction for a young athlete who's still developing, physically and mentally. It's not fanciful to think she could be the Michael Phelps of 2012. As for Hoy, London beckons.

Until the last Olympics, sportsmen and women were usually honoured at, or near the end of their careers. And there would be nothing wrong in Her Majesty putting aside medals and papers, marked for presentation to Rebecca and Chris when they retire as elite athletes, even if they continue to compete in Masters competitions.

But who all should be honoured, and with which honours? For example, should it be only gold medallists? Would one be enough, or would a world record equal a gold? Take the marathon. Few runners run more than the marathon at the Olympics, so their chances of winning two golds in one meet are pretty low. But could they hope for a knighthood if they smashed the world and/or Olympic records?

And what about the great team player, or doubles player, who turns in the fastest split time or most dazzling performance but whose team-mate(s) don't? Has he or she just got to be a good sport and wonder how basketball superstars like Michael Jordan and his successors in the Beijing "Dream Team" manage to be honoured first among equals?

I hope that the honours awarded to this wonderful group of Olympians properly reflect the brilliance, dedication and sacrifice represented by their medals, but before any gongs are handed out, more thought is needed on the most appropriate way to do this.

Maybe we should have a brand new honour, one that's for sporting excellence. Is it fair, or appropriate, to honour athletes, politicians and public servants using the same criteria for selection when they are carrying out such markedly different functions?

Flag of convenience?

I had a rare opportunity this past week-end to see a genuine expression of one-nation Britishness. You'd be forgiven for believing that, thanks to the Games (or the state of the medals table) a great patriotic wind was blowing. Yet the English-based newspapers, without exception, featured front-page photographs of medal winners from south of the border. Those printed in Scotland featured medal winners from north of the border.

Newspapers reflect the attitudes of readers, so would it be correct to deduce the Union Flag has acted as something of a flag of convenience, and not just for some Scots competitors who'd have been happy to let the watching world know their country of origin?

Results reflect neglect

The Report on Human Trafficking published today might have shown fewer women trafficked into the sex industry in Scotland if the planned inquiry into such prostitution set up by Jack McConnell's government had been allowed to continue its work. Instead, it was subverted and neglected whilst a lobbying group close to members of the Government concentrated all of their effort into the one area of prostitution with no trafficked women... the streets.