Nevertheless - and despite the London Mayor's optimism when talking to London Assembly members on Wednesday - it remains a very real prospect that a stadium widely acclaimed during London's successful Games, and which took just three years to build, will take four years to convert.

Dennis Hone, the chief executive of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), said as much again when he repeated his line to the London Assembly from last week that 2015 is now the target but 2016 a possibility.

Johnson added, worryingly, that Londoners might have to be patient and recognise the Olympic Stadium was not built to be "the kind of omni-purpose world-class venue capable of hosting Premier League football that it should be".

Fireworks light up the Olympic Stadium during the London 2012 Paralympic closing ceremony. Photo: Getty

So why are we in this mess?

The main reason, as Johnson suggests, is that organisers made a major mistake by writing Premier League football out of original designs for the legacy use of the stadium. But we've known this for years. So why is it in danger of descending into another farce?

The process to find a long-term anchor for the stadium is stalling because the plans to convert it for Premier League football have changed again, increasing the cost to somewhere between £180m and £190m.

Under the original deal with West Ham, which collapsed last autumn because of legal challenges, the Premier League team would own the freehold to the stadium.

At that time the cost discussed was around £95m to £100m and was to be funded from three sources - £38m from the Olympic budget of £9.3bn, £40m from Newham Council in the form of a low interest loan, and around £20m from the sale of Upton Park.

This would have paid to extend the roof - which currently only covers two thirds of the seating area - add corporate hospitality facilities and refurbish toilets.

So why has the cost almost doubled?

The main reason is the decision to add retractable seating to bring football fans closer to the action.

Demountable seats - similar to the ones used for temporary venues like Greenwich Park during the Games - cost less but take weeks to put up and take down.

This potentially impacts on the commercial value of the stadium as it may reduce the number of events that can be staged there.

So, while a retractable seating mechanism costs a lot more to factor in, the LLDC is thought to now favour the option as it could lead to more income in the long run.

The roof also needs an even bigger extension as it would now need to cover the running track and the retractable seats on it.

But while the costs have gone up, the funding provision has, largely, remained the same.

There is still £38m from the Olympic budget, a loan of £40m from Newham (although this could be increased) and a contribution from West Ham, though, surprisingly perhaps, this appears to have gone down to around £10m.

West Ham argue that they bring unique commercial value to the stadium project and now believe that, as they are no longer going to own the freehold to the stadium, it is the landlord - the mayor and LLDC - who should bear the cost of upgrading it for football. Without them, the stadium will become a costly millstone around taxpayers' necks, they say.

The Premier League club are understood to have submitted a package which includes a minimum lump sum, an annual rental (around £2m) and a share of any naming rights deal they are able to bring in. There is also haggling going on over how the revenue from catering should be split between tenant and landlord.

But it is the capital funding shortfall that is proving to be the big stumbling block. So how do you plug the gap?

Johnson has already tried to raid the £377m Olympic budget underspend - receiving a swift and negative response from the Chancellor, George Osborne. There are London taxpayer funds available and the LLDC itself could raid some of its own transformation budget but that could mean spending less on other parts of the park. There is also nervousness about the legal implications of publicly subsidising a big football club.

It is a complicated process that has not been helped by the continual changes at the top of the LLDC. Johnson is now chairing the organisation, having taken over from Daniel Moylan in September, while Hone, the widely respected chief of the Olympic Delivery Authority, replaced former chief executive Andy Altman.

West Ham remain the favourites to secure the deal as anchor tenants for a stadium which cost £431m to build, well ahead of rival bids from Leyton Orient Football Club, a football business school and a consortium proposing Formula One races in the park.

Yet the LLDC could still snub West Ham, appoint an operating company and just hire the stadium out for concerts and more occasional sporting events like NFL matches, big rugby games, combining it with more community use.

This would allow the stadium to reopen in 2014, and avoid spending the best part of £200m and losing valuable income while the stadium remains shut. Without a big football team the running costs would also be lower.

Of course all this could have been avoided had the Government and the Olympic Delivery Authority factored in Premier League football back in 2006 and 2007 when the plans were being drawn up.

It is a costly mistake which continues to overshadow all the other wonderful achievements delivered by London's Olympic organisers.

In many ways the BOA has never been stronger. Team GB's third-place finish in the medal table in London - arguably the country's best performance in the history of the modern Games - may have been financed and overseen by UK Sport and the sports themselves in the run-up to the Games but it would be churlish to overlook the way the BOA ran the team in the face of huge expectations from a home crowd desperate for success.

But Coe's predecessor Lord Moynihan knew what he was doing when he announced at the end of the Games that he would be leaving a year short of his full term. The BOA's finances continue to look perilous - the 2011 accounts showed a £411,000 loss and it has extended a £5m overdraft to next year.

Elected British Olympic Association chairman Lord Coe. Photo: Getty

Cutbacks are already under way with a big staff reorganisation and the departure of the well-paid director of sport Sir Clive Woodward will help reduce overheads. But the corporate thrust of the BOA under Moynihan and chief executive Andy Hunt in the years before the Games was supposed to set the organisation up for a sponsorship windfall once the rights to exploit the Olympic rings in the UK reverted to them from Locog at the end of the London Olympics.

So far that hasn't happened and it will be Coe's main task to drive through a commercial programme which will help secure the BOA's financial future.

Almost as important will be defining the BOA's role in British sport at a time when the two main government-funded sports organisations - UK Sport and Sport England - are facing an uncertain future. While the exact nature of any changes are still unclear at this stage, what won't change is UK Sport's central role in delivering Olympic success.

No doubt one of the reasons Moynihan quit early is that he could see his demands for the BOA to play a more central role in coaching and development of elite British athletes wasn't making any headway with Government. Besides there is a reluctance within the Olympic movement for national Olympic associations like the BOA to be too closely linked to governments and public funding.

It will be Coe's job to try to set a clear vision and direction for the BOA in the run-up to Sochi in 2014 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016 at the same time as ensuring he does nothing to jeopardise what must be very realistic chances of Team GB continuing their success at the top of the medal table.

But in some ways the question is not what Coe can do for the BOA, but what the BOA can do for Coe. After his successful leadership of an organising committee which has earned universal acclaim for hosting one of the best Games of recent times, the BOA might seem a step down, a return to domestic sports politics after the soaring international profile of running an Olympics.

Speak to his advisers and they will tell you a slightly different story. Putting aside the sense of sporting obligation Coe will feel at the call from the BOA (the organisation backed him to ignore the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Games where he went on to famously win gold in the 1500m), the BOA actually presents him with the perfect calling card to keep his profile high following the Games.

It will not only give him a seat at the top table of British sport but also a foot in the international Olympic arena. In 2015 the current president of the International Association of Athletics Federations, Lamine Diack, will stand down. That is Coe's big ambition as it will not only give him the top job in his own sport but will give him automatic membership of the IOC, something he has always coveted since the days when his talents were spotted by former president Juan Antonio Samaranch.

That is Coe's long-term gameplan - and that can only be helped by running the BOA.

Hence the deal with Super Sport which gives the League and its 20 clubs access to 21 different TV stations across the world's most populous nation.

Manchester United will be one of the clubs to benefit from the new deal. Photo: Getty

But the agreement with NBC Universal does take the League into new territory. While a number of big Asian countries bought into the Premier League a decade ago, America has been a far slower burn, a niche offering in a nation still consumed by the big four of American Football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey.

By winning the support of one of the country's biggest broadcasters the League now has a chance of raising its profile. The agreement also represents a threefold increase on the value of the current deal with ESPN and Fox.

"For me this is right up there with a lot of the other big moments in the League's development," Scudamore told me. "The market in the US has become much more competitive and this is a statement from NBC that they believe the Premier League can become one of the mainstream sports."

While that might be pushing it a bit there is no question that NBC Universal, the American rights holders for the Olympic Games, will take the League to another level in the States. They have bought 380 live games a season and are committed to showing six live games a week. Exact details have not been released to the public or the clubs yet (Scudamore is holding that back until a meeting of the teams on 16 November) but while the vast majority will be shown on NBC's dedicated sports channel which is carried on cable in the States, some will go out on network television.

That potentially means access to more than 80m homes across America - a very big deal for English football. To put that into context, the average weekly audience for live Premier League matches with exisiting broadcasters Fox and ESPN is around 140,000.

Now, none of this means the Premier League is about to conquer America - a country which loves playing football but is still not convinced about watching it. Just look at the difference in fees raised by the Premier League and American Football.

The NFL signed a record-breaking nine-year deal last December with CBS, NBC and Fox worth $28bn (£17.4bn) - a 63% increase on their previous contract. Just compare that to the $250m (£155m) NBC have paid the Premier League for their rights. As one media expert put it to me, the Premier League now has a really good shot at becoming a "middle ranking" sport in America.

Having said all that there can be no doubting the continued popularity of the Premier League both here and around the world. While media markets become more fragmented live football still offers a way of driving subscriptions and TV audiences. As long as that continues then the controversy surrounding the League will do little to harm its financial power.

Pat McQuaid, president of world cycling's governing body the UCI, described it as the biggest crisis in cycling's history.

Stripping Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and telling him he had no place in cycling, McQuaid nevertheless insisted the sport had a bright future.

But while the UCI may feel it has drawn a line under the affair by rubber stamping the United States Anti Doping Agency's (Usada) incendiary report on Armstrong, McQuaid and the UCI still have some searching questions to answer.

Alongside its verdict on the Usada case, the UCI delivered a bulging pack of rebuttals which attempted to clarify some of the other issues raised in the two-year investigation.

There are still too many questions needing an answer from Pat McQuaid and the UCI. Photo: Getty

Among the hundreds of pages of evidence - mostly gathered from Armstrong's former team-mates - is an alarming claim that Armstrong paid the UCI $100,000 for the fight against anti-doping.

Floyd Landis, a former colleague of Armstrong's who now admits to using drugs, claims this was hush money to cover up a positive test for EPO collected from Armstrong during his victory in the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.

The Usada report details how the head of the Lausanne laboratory which carried out the testing reported a number of samples with suspiciously high levels of EPO. Dr Martial Saugy says when he asked the UCI about the findings, he was told one of the samples belonged to Armstrong but no action was taken as the levels of EPO were not sufficiently high to record a positive test.

The UCI says that was the end of the matter - even though testing procedures now would have deemed the test sufficient to record a positive finding.

Suspicions have been aroused because some time after the suspicious finding, in 2002, Armstrong visited the lab in Lausanne and promised the large donation to the UCI.

The UCI vehemently denies any claims of a cover up and insists the payment of the money - used to buy a blood analysis machine which is now housed at the Wada-accredited laboratory in Lausanne - was unrelated.

But why were the UCI taking money off Armstrong when they knew he had at the very least recorded a suspicious finding for EPO? By the time the money was paid in 2007 there had been countless allegations made in the media about Armstrong.

And how many sports do you know which accept large donations from leading athletes to fund the fight against doping? Even if it is all above board as the UCI claims, it leaves the organisation open to claims of a conflict of interest and poor judgment.

Anne Gripper, a former medical commissioner of the UCI, says Armstrong was so influential that he basically administered the organisation's rules.

McQuaid dismissed Gripper's comments - as you might expect - but it is hard to escape the impression that here was a sporting body completely in thrall to its leading superstar - and biggest revenue generator.

With hindsight, McQuaid says, accepting the money from Armstrong was a mistake. But, incredulous as this might seem, he revealed during Monday's news conference that some leading teams also paid money to the UCI to help finance the battle against drugs. Which teams? And how accountable is this money? What exactly is it used for?

With such blurred lines between regulating the sport and promoting it, it's not hard to see why the UCI is today facing another long battle to save cycling's reputation.

But is Britain a different country and London a different city today because of the festival of sport that has just finished? And, more importantly, will it make a lasting impact on us all for years to come, long after the memories have faded?

The successful staging of the Games has given the country a massive confidence boost at a time when there are so many concerns - economic and otherwise - to trouble us.

From the creation of the Olympic Park in a run-down part of east London, to the torch relay and the smooth running of the creaking Victorian transport infrastructure, the Games have been delivered with precision and impressive purpose.

All the anxieties of the preceding seven years - over costs, security and transport - now seem slightly ridiculous. They weren't. We were right to be nervous. Staging the Olympic and Paralympic Games are the biggest undertaking any country can take and do not come cheap at £9bn of public money.

I remember that first day of British gold, watching as rowers Helen Glover and Heather Stanning powered to victory at Eton Dorney, accompanied by a wall of noise usually reserved for football grounds. And then to Hampton Court to see a carnival of humanity lining the streets around the old palace as cyclist Bradley Wiggins added Olympic gold to his historic Tour de France victory. The sun was out and it was simply great to be British.

As the gold rush gathered pace, creating new stars and confirming British icons, so the national mood became more and more joyous. Everyone seems to have been touched. In the United Kingdom, 50.2m people - 87% of the population - watched at least 15 minutes of Olympic action.

The Paralympics, too, captivated the country in a way never seen before. Television audiences have been huge - 11m for the opening ceremony and 3.6m for the opening night of athletics - but the fact 2.5m people bought tickets to see disability sport for themselves tells an even greater story.

Who would have thought people would be having water-cooler conversations about an amputee sprinter called Jonnie Peacock, who won 100m gold by beating legendary South African Oscar Pistorius, the pioneering face of Paralympic sport?

Peacock wins Paralympic gold in the Olympic Stadium. Photo: AFP 

As Lord Sebastian Coe said in his closing address on Sunday, we will never view disability or disability sport in the same way again. London and Britain have taken the Paralympics to a new level, the greatest Games ever according to Sir Philip Craven, the president of the International Paralympic Committee. I asked one minister whether he ever imagined we would be talking on the final Sunday in such celebratory terms. "Never in my wildest dreams," was his reply.

While there was confidence among the organisers that the Games would be a success, they expected many more bumps in the road. There were some issues to deal with - empty seats and, believe it or not, cyber hackers from Iran and the Far East targeting the official London 2012 website - but, as with most problems, they were repelled. For the daily Cobra meetings, normally used to dealing with diplomatic rows, security threats and Heathrow meltdowns, this was the stuff of trivia. For a country with such a poor track record in delivering sporting grand projects, here was one we got right.

Some of this feelgood factor may be superficial, of course. Some of it may be because I have spent the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London and not in Wales or Scotland where the mood may have been very different. But I don't think so. So why was London 2012 such a triumph?

Team GB and ParalympicsGB delivered success in abundance, lighting the touch paper for the party atmosphere that accompanied the events. Britain won 29 golds at the Olympics and 34 at the Paralympics. Although the Paralympians did not finish second in the medal table as planned, they exceeded their medal target of 103 medals overall, ending with 120, 18 more than in 2008.

From Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to Oscar Pistorius and Alan Oliveira, there were some amazing international moments, too. Sporting federations spoke of the preparations being among the best they have ever encountered, with the village and venues designed to bring the best out of the competitors.

The biggest cheers at the Paralympics closing ceremony were reserved for the 70,000 staff and volunteers, otherwise known as the 'Games Makers'. They deserve every bit of credit. They have given their time freely and made these Games function smoothly.

In so doing, they may have offered us an unexpected legacy from these Games and done more for the Big Society than Prime Minister David Cameron could have ever hoped for. As for the military, their involvement may have been clouded by initial controversy, but their cheery and professional presence made a huge difference and only added to the sense of national occasion.

But these Games were sold on the promise of a legacy. The overwhelming success has created an even greater opportunity. The challenge now for Government and governing bodies is not to drop the ball. Already, clubs and federations are reporting a big spike in interest. I have been told rowing clubs are experiencing an upsurge in interest from teenage girls on the back of the success of Britain's women, while 30,000 people have been trying to join hockey clubs since the close of the Olympics.

The Government's commitment to maintain funding for elite sport at the same level as in the years leading up to London was a significant moment and should allow Britain's athletes a bit of certainty ahead of the 2016 Games in Rio de Janeiro.

But while elite sport is now a well-oiled industry churning out medals every four years, school sport and grass roots participation remain the missing links in the chain. School sport, in particular, is a mess that has suffered damaging cuts at exactly the wrong moment. Ministers and Education Secretary Michael Gove must now rush to put this right while the warm glow of London 2012 is still being felt.

The London organising committee's slogan of 'Inspire a Generation' sounded corny at first, but there have been so many spellbinding moments that young people simply must have been touched by sport. This opportunity must not be wasted and the pride, passion and purpose which made London 2012 such a success must now be applied to delivering proper, lasting change to our sporting culture and infrastructure. As Lord Coe reflected after the last burst of fireworks had lit up London, that job is only just beginning.

Whenever a big name in sport loses and then criticises the athlete who beat him or her as well as the rules governing the competition, it makes for a great story.

But there are three reasons why the Oscar Pistorius story matters:

Pistorius (left) shakes hands with Oliveira after finishing second to the Brazilian. Photo: Getty

1. He is the poster boy of Paralympic sport.

There are only a very small number of athletes who have such a high profile in an event many people are coming to for the first time. Think Usain Bolt false starting in the World Championships in Daegu last year and you get an idea of how big this story is. For Pistorius to lose is a shock. For the South African to then call into question the fundamentals of the competition is another matter altogether.

2. It gets to the heart of the Paralympics' delicate relationship with technology and classification.

Of course, in able-bodied sport - for want of a better phrase - the competitors come in all shapes and sizes. But when running blades and wheelchairs are brought into play, then the rules governing the various pieces of kit become central to everything. As does classification. It is interesting to hear the International Paralympic Committee talking about reviewing not only its rules for running blades but also tightening up the programme for the 2016 Games in Rio so that athletes like Pistorius, who is a double amputee (T44), does not compete with athletes who are single amputees (T43).

3. Finally, it exposes the tensions between the Olympics and Paralympics.

We would not be talking about the Pistorius row if he had not broken new ground by competing against able-bodied athletes in the Olympics. Some people believe the science of prosthetics is moving so fast that very soon athletes in the Paralympics will be going faster, higher and stronger than their Olympic counterparts. That might seem a bit too Hollywood at this stage but it poses a difficult question for the Paralympic movement, which relies so heavily on its close relationship with the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Will athletes like Pistorius in future aspire to test themselves against Olympians? Or will the profile of the Paralympics and the opportunities it offers be too alluring? Will world governing bodies like the IOC or the IAAF, which rules athletics, have to rethink the way they integrate with disabled sport? And should it all be moving towards one Olympic Games?

In losing to emerging star Alan Oliveira, Pistorius may have lost some of his superhuman aura. But it may also turn out to be a seminal moment for the Paralympics.

But, as Paralympics chief Seb Coe told me on Wednesday, the two events are all part of the same extraordinary summer of sport. They are not in competition with each other and, over the next 11 days people, will be just as amazed by the exploits of Oscar Pistorius, Ellie Simmonds and David Weir as they were by Mo Farah, Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps.

Commercially the Games are trying to break new ground. This is the first time an organising committee has run a competitive tender process for the domestic TV rights. This resulted in Channel 4 winning the exclusive rights, breaking the long standing relationship with the BBC. Channel 4 are thought to have paid around £8m or £9m for the rights - far more than the nominal fee the BBC paid for the 2008 Games in Beijing.

The vast majority of that money will be paid straight to the production company which provides the coverage and it is debatable whether Locog will see any profit from this. But this is a nuanced point. The implication from the tender process was that this is now an event that does not need handouts from organising committees or broadcasters because it has genuine media value.

To emphasise the point, these Games are being broadcast in more countries than ever before - over 100 - although it is worth noting the attitude of some of the biggest territories. American broadcaster NBC, the biggest media partner of the Olympics, will show just four highlights shows on network television, with the majority of coverage appearing online.

This is also the first time an organising committee has sold specific sponsorship rights for the Paralympics. The main deal with Sainsbury's is worth about £20m but 15 of the 55 London 2012 backers - including most notably Panasonic and BT - have also paid for extra rights to the Paralympics.

The organising commitee boasts this is the most commercially successful Paralympics in history and while the £30m income is relatively small in comparison to the overall £2bn budget it shows the value of the event is growing.

For the athletes, the profile is increasing, too. Double Paralympic champion Simmonds is plastered all over one building on the edge of the Olympic Park, while there are clearly now greater opportunities for Paralympians in London.

So how will the Paralympics be judged?

There can be no doubts about the public appetite for the Games. But many of the 2.5m ticket holders won't have seen athletes with physical, visual or intellectual impairments. They will not have come across goalball or understand immediately why there are 29 different 100m finals in athletics, or 148 gold medals on offer in swimming. Compare that with the 34 up for grabs at the Olympics.

But, ultimately, the British public understand world-class competition and I have met no-one who is not intrigued and excited by what lies ahead.

As with the Olympics, a lot will depend on whether there are big sporting moments that engage the country and the rest of the world. Home success will be critical, too. The British Paralympics team, known as ParalympicsGB, are aiming for their biggest medal haul yet, targeting 103 and second place in the table.

But the wider mission is to use the spotlight to challenge perceptions of disability. British Prime Minister David Cameron says it is crucial the Paralympics helps change people's views.

There are campaigners, however, who feel uncomfortable about a government championing the Paralympics and disabled sport at the same time as they are overseeing cuts to welfare support for people with disabilities. More than half of disabled people in the UK already live below the poverty line.

Some campaigners actually argue that the Paralympics - a celebration of what extraordinary people can do rather than what they cannot - sets the battle for equality for ordinary people back.

For my part, it is hard to see how the next 11 days can be anything other than a positive influence on the public perception of people who have achieved so much despite disadvantages most cannot begin to understand.

That is not to draw the focus away from the sporting achievement. It is just to emphasise the point that what makes the Paralympics so rich and so distinctive is the combination of amazing sport with incredible stories of human spirit and endeavour.

Even the Olympics struggle to match that.

But it wasn't the sort of story we've become used to over the last 16 days of breathtaking sport. The fall out from the G4S security shambles was still playing big and ministers and organisers were scrambling to find a solution.

Re-watching the news from that Sunday night is like being transported to another time.

That's not to say the failure of G4S to recruit and train the required number of security guards wasn't a story. It was. The extra reliance of the military in plugging the gap has been one of the best features of London's Games.

What the story reflected was the heightened anxiety London, the media and the country were feeling as the Olympics approached. After seven years of build-up, the level of international pressure on Britain was intense.

The International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge diligently avoids comparing hosts. But tellingly he said today that London had refreshed the Games in many aspects.

His words at the closing ceremony will be eagerly anticipated. But after a fortnight when millions of people have revelled in the drama of the Games, it doesn't feel like the country is hanging on his final assessment. They know these Games have been a triumph.

They have been a triumph first and foremost because of the quality of the sport.

Team GB showed off their medals won at London 2012. Photo: Getty

Team GB won a staggering 64 medals, 29 of them gold. The best performance of the modern era and arguably of all time. And to think the Sun splashed on day four with the headline: WANTED: GOLD MEDAL. The request was met again and again as the country drowned in home success.

We all expected the rowers and cyclists to come good but the big question was always going to focus on whether Great Britain could deliver more medals across more sports. The statistic that 16 different sports delivered medals here tells you they did.

Of course, not everything has gone to script for every sport. Swimming missed their medal targets and an internal review is under way - although some senior Olympic figures are asking why performance director Michael Scott was re-appointed before being asked to head up the review into why his team didn't win the five medals they predicted.

There are also bound to be some questions asked about athletics. Mo Farah, Jessica Ennis and Greg Rutherford produced that dazzling, golden 45 minutes in the Olympic Stadium with Farah repeating his exploits in the 5,000m a week later. But there were also some disappointing performances - capped perhaps by the men's sprint relay team dropping the baton again. Head coach Charles Van Commenee missed his own target of eight medals by two.

He said before the Games started he would quit if he didn't meet his own demanding predictions and today he told the BBC he would take a break before deciding his next move. But there is already a gathering campaign to keep him in post. Lord Coe gave an emphatic response, saying he hoped Van Commenee stay until the World Athletics Championships in 2017, which are being held in London.

Other sports such as wrestling, basketball, handball and volleyball may find they are struggling to receive the same level of funding in the run-up to the Rio Games in 2016. Here they qualified because London was staging the Games. That won't happen in Brazil.

But these are quibbles set against a backdrop of incredible success. The overall target set by UK Sport of at least fourth place was smashed with Britain coming third. The challenge now is to ensure funding for elite athletes is maintained so that Britain doesn't experience the post Games drop-off so clearly illustrated by Australia at these Games. There they won 16 gold medals and 58 in total. Twelve years on, it is seven and 35.

Today's announcement by the Prime Minister that funding will be kept at the same level for the last two years of the Olympic cycle is a big boost for sport, even if he may be accused of trying to make political capital out of the feel-good factor created by the Games. In truth this is small change to the Government.

Even if Team GB hadn't done so well, the quality of the big sporting moments might have made up for it. Usain Bolt's double treble, David Rudisha's world record run in the 800m, the Jamaican men and American women's sprint relay performances, Michael Phelps becoming the most decorated Olympian in history, watching USA basketball's dream team in action at the North Greenwich Arena. In all, 44 world records have been set and 117 Olympic records - backing up Coe's claims to provide a Games that would allow the athletes to compete at their best.

But some of the most memorable moments came not in sporting triumph but in the taking part. Double amputee Oscar Pistorius broke new ground just by competing in the Games - the first paralympian to do so on the track - and every one of the 204 countries sent a delegation which included female athletes.

There has been just one positive test for a banned substance since the Games started and, although a big doping scandal can't be ruled out until all the samples are tested, it does seem that drugs will not overshadow these Games.

The disqualification of eight badminton players for trying to fix the result of their matches provided a jolting reminder of sport's less attractive side but despite all the threats from Rogge and other administrators there has been no evidence of corruption or match-fixing involving any athletes.

On the organisational side - London's transport network didn't go into meltdown, for all the fears about security staffing levels there don't appear to have been any major problems, the Olympic park and the venues have been outstanding (and the decision to incorporate the city's many landmarks inspired). The volunteers have been friendly and helpful and the crowds passionate and very, very loud.

Tickets and empty seats are the one blot on the landscape. The sight of rows of unfilled seats in areas reserved for accredited members of the Olympic family - including us the media - played out badly. But to Locog's credit they moved quickly to pull the international sports federations into line and to sell seats that weren't genuinely needed. Any that couldn't be filled were given to members of the military or local school teachers and pupils.

Despite that, the story hit a raw nerve with the public who were so desperate to see history being made at close quarters. Even now fans I have talked to on the javelin train from Stratford to St Pancras, or on the tube, say they wish they could have got to see more. That will always be a factor of any Olympics - supply will never meet demand. But the IOC has got the message about the ticketing system and will review it for the next Games in Rio de Janeiro.

It seems amazing to even be talking about the next Games so soon. Four years ago on the closing day of the Beijing Olympics the rhetoric from London 2012 officials was very cautious, deliberately designed to play down the idea that Britain could even hope to emulate China's Olympics. The shock and awe of it all was just too much. London's would be the budget Games and the question was how on earth do you follow that?

After the last three weeks the question might now be: How can anyone hope to follow London?

Four years ago in Beijing the world's most populous nation finished first for the first time in history with 51 golds, the US some way behind with 36. Americans hoped this might be a one-off inspired by the Chinese playing host to the Games.

Four years on in London it's clear that hope was in vain. Unlike the rest of the world (and crucially the International Olympic Committee), the US counts overall medals and not golds as the true measure of sporting success. The problem for America is that China are even closing in on that too.

China won all the table tennis Olympic gold medals available in London whilst the USA latest 'dream team' are also going for gold. Photo: Getty

So how have they done it?

There are sports such as table tennis, diving, badminton and gymnastics in which China have always enjoyed success.

But over the last decade and in the run-up to the Beijing Games the country's sports authorities targeted less popular disciplines contested by fewer countries (sound familiar Great Britain?).

Women's weightlifting is a good example of this. Now the aim is to win in the most competitive pursuits - swimming and athletics. Even rowing is on the radar.

What is all the more extraordinary about the contest between China and the US is that it is still relatively young. China didn't compete in the summer Games for three decades following a dispute with the IOC over the political status of Taiwan.

The team only returned in 1984 and in the space of seven Games they have gone from also-rans to the most powerful sporting force on the planet.

China's vast population obviously helps provide a rich seam of talent. But there's more to it than that.

Critics say the uncompromising training regime for young Olympic athletes is too tough. Others, such as the American swimming coach, John Leonard have gone even further, questioning whether emerging new talents such as the double gold medallist Ye Shiwen are too good to be true.

That sniping is as much a reflection of China's past doping scandals as it is a sign of how threatened the US may feel from China's growing sporting presence. It should be stated of course that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest Shiwen has done anything wrong other than swim incredibly fast at a young age.

When another teenager, America's Katie Ledecky beat Rebecca Adlington comfortably in the 800m freestyle there was no nudging and winking in Olympic circles. It was celebrated for what it was - a remarkable performance on the toughest stage of all.

It's in the pool that the United States has enjoyed its biggest successes here.

Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin spearheaded America's dominance as they won an incredible 16 of the 33 golds available. They head the table so far in athletics while the latest incarnation of basketball's dream team are on course to win their 14th Olympic title.

Following their quarter-final victory over Australia on Wednesday night Kobe Bryant, the highest paid player in the NBA, said that finishing top of the medals table at the Olympics was a great source of pride for the country.

He added: "They (China) do well every Olympics and we are just trying to do the best we can to hit the top spot. You take a sense of pride in it. It feels good to feel like your country is well represented and your country has top spot."

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States might have expected to occupy the top spot for decades to come. China's rise means they can no longer take that for granted.

London 2012 has been no different.

The sport has been simply compelling and after an anxious four day wait for their first gold, Team GB now look well set to deliver on their target of fourth place in the medal table.

All the gold medallists have had extraordinary stories to tell - from the shooter Peter Wilson, coached by a member of the Dubai royal family - to Britain's first winners here, Helen Glover and Heather Stanning, who won the women's pair in rowing despite Glover having only taken up the sport in 2008.

Hoy now has five gold medals and one silver at Olympics. Photo: PA

Internationally, the swimmer Michael Phelps has provided the best headlines again. He may be past his best but he has built on his legend in Beijing, where he won eight gold medals, by becoming the most decorated Olympian in history.

The disqualification of four badminton teams for deliberately trying to lose has been a blemish while the sight of empty seats in areas reserved for VIPs, athletes and the media has presented the organisers with a headache.

However, when one considers what could have gone wrong with transport and security, Lord Coe and his team at Locog would have definitely taken that a week ago. And as the London Games approach the half way point they are in extremely good shape.

London was never going to match Beijing for scale but the public enthusiasm here is a marked contrast to the sterile atmosphere in China four years ago. There's still a long way to go but the sheer joy of the spectators here may well be what London's Games are best remembered for.

London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe insists it won't be an issue throughout the Games but adds that he totally understands people's frustrations and is working hard to ensure the seats are filled.

So why are there empty seats?

Locog says the seating areas are not for general members of the public or for sponsors but are set aside for accredited members of the so-called Olympic family. This includes International Olympic Committee members and officials, representatives from international sports federations and national Olympic committees, athletes, coaches and team officials and, not forgetting us, the media.

Shots of empty seats being beamed around the world are frustrating for Locog. Photo: AFP

The biggest accredited group - after the media - are the international sports federations and it is understood Lord Coe and Locog will have some frank discussions with the federations about why the seats are not being filled.

And, says Coe, if federations aren't going to take up their allocation then there are plans to ensure they are filled so there are no longer shots of empty banks of seats being beamed around the world.

The difficulty is that even if the federations now say they don't need as many seats, the empty spaces are in specifically accredited areas where tickets can't be sold to members of the public. That restricts Locog's options, although it could potentially reduce the size of the accredited areas and sell some of the tickets - as it did with the gymnastics at the North Greenwich Arena on Saturday.

Giving the seats to pre-accredited groups of teachers and students from east London is one option. Another is to give the seats to off-duty members of the military who are already in the park as part of the huge venue security operation.

But that does not help get more tickets at cheap prices into the hands of ordinary people who felt they missed out.

There are still tickets for events being released regularly on the London 2012 website, and they are being snapped up almost immediately.

Locog says there are around 100,000 to 120,000 non-football tickets still to go on sale, as well as another 200,000 football tickets. To have so many tickets still on sale might surprise many people - especially now the Games are under way.

What's interesting about all this is that four years ago in Beijing, the Chinese organisers had exactly the same problem. When it became clear that TV images of empty seats were playing badly around the world, they rushed in yellow shirted volunteers to fill them.

No one would begrudge members of the military being rewarded for their commitment to the Olympics by getting to watch a bit of the action. But critics might ask: what's the difference between what the Chinese did and filling empty seats in London with soldiers or local students?

After one day of full competition it seems way too soon to be criticising Locog for the empty seats. The public seating areas do seem to be packed, even though the pictures on TV from gymnastics, beach volleyball, indoor volleyball, canoeing and the tennis at Wimbledon tell a different story.

The sponsors were keen to confirm the empty seats were not their doing, P&G, Visa, McDonald's and Coca-Cola all putting out statements on Sunday making it clear they were filling their allocations with winners of competitions, partners, customers and employees.

But ticketing remains an extremely sensitive area for Locog. And if the empty seats continue into a third or fourth day without being properly resolved, then Coe and Locog may find they need to do more than simply have a few frank conversations with members of the Olympic family.

In the VIP seats London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe and Mayor Boris Johnson looked a bit downbeat. The Prime Minister David Cameron, all poised to do celebratory interviews with the media, suddenly became unavailable.

For months now Mark Cavendish and the road race has been built up as the real Olympic opening ceremony.

So to come in 29th was hardly the start Team GB and the organisers wanted.

To criticise Dave Brailsford's British cycling team for not delivering is clearly ridiculous. No other sport has consistently produced like cycling has over the last few years.

But something clearly went wrong for the 'Dream Team' on the 250km circuit.

"There was a group of 22 who got away and we couldn't pull them back," said the 2011 world champion.

"The guys are sat there, they are spent. They have got nothing left in the tank."

Cavendish, who finished 29th, felt the Australians used negative tactics in the men's road race. Photo: Reuters

There will also be some who will question why organisers designed a course which seemed to undermine the home team's chances of winning gold on day one.

But perhaps the harder questions will come from those who wonder whether the magnificent Team Sky mission to win the Tour de France has had an impact on the Olympic medal quest.

Brailsford, British cycling's performance director, has insisted that is not the case. I put it to Cavendish after the race and he snapped at me, saying I shouldn't ask stupid questions.

His raw reaction was a sign of just how disappointed he was following the race, which was won by Alexandre Vinokourov of Kazakhstan, a cyclist banned for doping in 2007.

British cycling and London's organisers will not panic - this is top-class sport and nothing is certain. But this weekend is all about building momentum.

The focus will now switch to the women's road race on Sunday with defending Olympic champion Nicole Cooke and Lizzie Armitstead and then in the pool with Rebecca Adlington.

After the triumph of the opening ceremony on Friday, British fans will be hoping they can get the gold rush going.

But as a hazy, overcast dawn broke over London this morning and the torch made its way down the Thames, it was impossible to ignore the growing sense of collective national excitement.

Sure there have been problems, some in the last few weeks and days. Mitt Romney may have been spectacularly chided by Boris Johnson yesterday but he was only giving voice to the concerns which we ourselves have expressed.

Today doesn't feel like the right moment for such cynicism.

The Olympic Stadium took just under three years to build. Photo:Getty

Anyone lucky enough to have walked around this Olympic Park in the last week will have been stunned at the way organisers have put this place together. I have seen it take shape piece by piece over the years, but nothing prepares you for the sight of it in full Olympic mode.

But before we all get carried away, it's worth remembering we have only reached the start line.

These Games will only be judged as a success if the organisational plans do not descend into a farce worthy of the BBC spoof documentary Twenty Twelve. They will only be seen as truly memorable if Team GB hit their medal targets and we are left with truly jaw-dropping sporting moments. And looking further, they will only be a triumph if they inspire and deliver a proper lasting sporting legacy for this country.

To understand what hosting the Olympics means to sport in this country it's worth remembering the journey of the last decade or so. It's been quoted elsewhere and was dug out by my old Daily Telegraph colleague Paul Kelso, but this sentence is illuminating.
"Our influence in international sport has all but disappeared. We are cherished only for our irrelevance and tolerated only for our history but it's even worse than that because, as a result, we are betraying our sportsmen and women."

The author of that devastating assessment of Britain's sporting status?

Sebastian Coe, now chairman of London 2012 and the man credited with articulately persuading the International Olympic Committee to take a chance on what rivals Paris described back in 2005 as the "virtual Games".

He wrote it in October 2001 - long before he even became chairman of the London bid. It was his very genuine and very un-Seb-like reaction to the Picketts Lock fiasco which had forced London to hand back the 2005 World Athletics Championships to the IAAF because we couldn't build a stadium to stage them.

To look around the park is to be transported in time to another world, another Britain. I have been to three Olympics, Sydney 2000 and Beijing 2008 in full and Athens 2004 briefly. Sydney was a wonderful celebration which has provided the template for London's approach. It's obviously early days but the atmosphere that seems to be building suggests London will be similar if not better.

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge said on Friday morning that in terms of "readiness" these Games are equal to Sydney and Beijing. When you think back to Picketts Lock, the delayed opening of the rebuilt Wembley Stadium and all the other sporting shambles, this is extraordinary in itself.

But, he added wisely, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

It was a very good reminder on this celebratory day, that getting ready for the Games is only half the story. The next 16 days are what really count.

We all know what happened next. He false-started in the 100m and was disqualified, raising questions about his temperament. Then just last month he was beaten over 100m and 200m in the Jamaican trials by training partner and friend Yohan Blake, the man who inherited his world title in South Korea.

On top of all that, questions over Bolt's fitness have continued to dog his preparations for London 2012 as he attempts to defend the Olympic sprint titles he won in Beijing.

It is perhaps no surprise then that I found a slightly more humble Bolt when I interviewed him on Thursday evening, just a day before he was due to carry the Jamaican flag at the opening ceremony.

He revealed the last two years had been "really tough" and that he had found it hard to smile because he had so much on his mind.

And he said retaining the 100m in London would be the toughest challenge of his career.

"Over the past couple of seasons, I have been through a lot," he said. "Niggles and problems, sponsorship stuff... there are so many different things I have to do and keep focused. It's hard and every now and again I get a niggly injury. It plays with your mind."

I asked him if he was finding it harder to smile.

"It's been harder because I have been through so much," he replied. "It's been harder and harder because there is so much on my mind. I am more confident now. Things are coming together and I can hopefully smile a bit more."

The pressure on Bolt to deliver in London is immense. His face is everywhere on posters across the city. There were almost 300 journalists at the Jamaican team news conference on Thursday at Brick Lane. If the numbers had not been restricted, there would have been two or three times that.

He is quite the biggest draw in athletics, so any doubts over his form and fitness are bound to cast a shadow over London 2012. But the situation with Bolt and the emergence of Blake have made the 100m final on 5 August a proper contest rather than a coronation.

Bolt believes it could be the greatest race ever.

"I definitely think so," he said. "The field, if everyone is fit, will be world class. It will be an experience for people to remember. So people should really watch out."

In Athens in 2004 the Greek sprinters Kostas Kenteris and Katerina Thanou were at the centre of one of the biggest doping scandals in history when they were thrown out of their home Olympics for failing to comply with the testers. They were even accused of faking a motorbike crash as they tried to evade the officials.

Then in Beijing four years ago seven Russian athletes were thrown out of the Games a week before the opening ceremony.

So far London has been relatively untouched by the most familiar of Olympic scourges.

A test for the banned drug - which is used by athletes to build muscle and increase power in shorter, explosive events - was introduced before the Beijing Olympics four years ago. But it was only able to detect cheats who used it for around a day after they had used it.

According to David Howman, the director general of the World Anti Doping Agency (Wada), the new test has a window of weeks not days - giving testers a much greater chance of catching those who take it.

David Howman of the World Anti Doping Agency (Wada) speaking ahead of London 2012. Photo: Getty

Howman told me the breakthrough was a "significant boost" on the eve of the Games and added that with more than 300 samples already taken from athletes here the test was up and running.

But despite this development he couldn't guarantee these Games would be the cleanest in history.

"I'm far too cynical and have been let down too many times before," he said.

According to senior anti-doping officials the HGH breakthrough is nevertheless a significant moment. Rather than testing for the substance itself it looks to detect two chemical 'markers'. It was developed by a team of British researchers who have been working closely with the UK Anti Doping agency over the last three years.

Despite the introduction of the first HGH test back in Beijing, there were no positive tests for the substance. In fact the first finding came in 2010 with the rugby league player Terry Newton, a tragic affair which sadly ended with the player ending his own life.

Officials are confident this test will be more effective although and that it will stand up to any legal challenge.

News of the breakthrough came on the day it emerged that the Moroccan 1500 metres runner Mariem Alaoui Selsouli - a hot favourite for a gold medal here - would miss the Games after testing positive for a banned diuretic.

And the International Association of Athletics Federations also announced today that nine athletes had been banned in the run-up to London. Although we knew about seven of the nine positive tests, the method of detection was the interesting element of the IAAF's release.

Three of the nine, including the Beijing 1500m bronze medallist Nataliya Tobias of Ukraine, were detected following the re-testing of samples collected at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu. The other six were caught as a result of biological passport testing.

With 5,000 tests being conducted here - the highest number at any Olympics - anti doping officials say they have the weapons to take on the cheats. The problem is the cheats always seem to be one step ahead of the testers.

Idowu row baffles UK Athletics

The UK Athletics head coach Charles Van Commenee has admitted today he is "frustrated" by the latest controversy involving Phillips Idowu. Although the two men are far from best friends, having had their own disputes in the past, my understanding is that UK Athletics are as perplexed as Idowu's camp by the BOA's decision to go public with their request for the triple jumper's medical records.

Van Commenee, UKA and Idowu came to an arrangement long ago which gave the athlete the freedom to follow his own training programme so long as his coach Aston Moore, who is on UKA's payroll, keeps them in the loop.

As far as UKA are concerned Idowu is one of Team GB's biggest stars and despite being seen as a difficult character at times should be given a greater degree of flexibility. UKA share Idowu's view that the request for his medical records should have been kept in house although the BOA argue they were only acting out of a duty of care for the athlete.

Briton Reedie set to win IOC election

Barring a late entrance into the contest, former BOA chairman Sir Craig Reedie should be elected unopposed to one of two new vice presidents of the International Olympic Committee. Reedie is already a member of the IOC executive board but his elevation will guarantee he stays on that influential body until 2015.

He will become the first vice president of the IOC since the Marquis of Exeter back in the 1960s. Elsewhere London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe confirmed today he would look to replace Lamine Diack as IAAF president when he stands down. Although hardly a surprise Coe clearly feels confident enough in London's preparations for the Games to declare now. He faces a tough battle to beat Ukraine's former pole vaulting Olympic champion Sergei Bubka.