London kept its side of athletics legacy bargain, now IAAF must award capital the World Championships

Not again: Lord Coe will be praying for no repeat of the jubilation when Qatar was awarded the 2022 World Cup (Photo: AFP)

I am trying to picture the headlines next week if Doha is chosen ahead of London to host the 2017 World Athletics Championships. It doesn’t make pretty reading.

If anything, the humiliation would be even greater than England’s last-place finish in the 2018 World Cup vote because London is so obviously a more suitable candidate than its rival, with its furnace-like temperatures and crowds so sparse that they have to bus in migrant workers for Diamond League meetings and then lock the

stadium doors to stop them leaving early.

One can only imagine the backlash. It would be seen as a snub of epic proportions, and it would certainly re-open the debate over whether a permanent running track in the Olympic Stadium can really be justified.

If the International Association of Athletics Federations couldn't care less about cementing Britain’s athletics legacy, then why should we spend tax-payers’ money keeping the Olympic Stadium in public ownership just to guarantee the future of the running track?

The clamour to tear up the track would be deafening, while the personal criticism of Lord Coe for his insistence on a permanent athletics legacy would also grow louder. And all this at a time when Britain was supposed to be getting ready for a gigantic celebration of Olympic sport, with athletics at its centre.

Such a scenario is why the IAAF council members must do the right thing next week and vote for London. It is surely payback time for the efforts of Coe, and indeed the Government, in sticking so firmly to London’s promise to retain an athletics legacy for the Olympic Stadium.

That promise was made to the International Olympic Committee in Singapore in 2005 and was a key factor in London’s success in securing the 2012 Games. It is widely believed that Lamine Diack, the IAAF president, switched his vote from Paris to London because of that undertaking.

Diack certainly did not forget London’s promise earlier this year when the Olympic Park Legacy Company were weighing whether to allow Tottenham to tear up the track and rebuild the stadium as a football-only venue.

In fact, his outrage at such a prospect could not have been plainer as he talked of “betrayal” and “a big lie” if the track was removed.

It is worth recalling the statement he released in support of a permanent running track. He wrote:

The crux of the stadium debate for the IAAF focuses on the commitment given by the London bid committee in Singapore in 2005 to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), which has many members from the sport of athletics, to retain a sustainable athletics legacy after the London Games.

This promise was not a footnote of London’s bid: it was a core  policy of their presentation to convince the Olympic family of their exciting, viable legacy plans. It offered a vision of year-round health and fitness opportunities for the local community and a venue to stage national and major international athletics competitions ranging from meetings like the Samsung Diamond League to Area and World Championships.

So there it is. In reminding us of London’s promise, Diack also acknowledged the city’s vision of a vibrant athletics legacy with major international meetings, including the World Championships, being staged in the stadium.

That is the vision that Coe has held on to ever since London was awarded the Olympics, despite the pressures to water down the promise made in Singapore.

London has kept its side of the bargain. Now it is up to the IAAF to deliver.