Compiled by PHILIP REID

London not gambling with illegal betting

THE INK was barely dry on Kieran Behan's qualification for the London Olympics than Paddy Power – quicker off the blocks than Usain Bolt – were letting us know the Irish gymnast's odds of winning a medal were 33 to 1, hardly sufficient to make you rush to the local shop or ping on to the on-line account but affirming the impression that the guy is one of the world's best when it comes to tumbles and handstands in the men's gymnastics floor routine.

Still, the speed of Behan’s new market price underlined one indisputable fact: the 2012 Olympic Games will be the most bet on sporting event of the year.

Whilst the vast majority of betting is legal and above board, one prominent International Olympic Committee member – Denis Oswald, who is on the executive board – has gone on the record in describing illegal betting on events as a bigger threat to the integrity of the sport than doping.

And, given the betting scandal unearthed last year in cricket which led to the jailing of three Pakistani players, it is hardly surprising those tasked with running the London Games have their eyes on potential betting problems.

It is estimated the global illegal betting industry is worth some €120 billion annually and security chiefs in London have set up an intelligence unit at the Olympics to target betting syndicates. Indeed, Britain’s Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson has warned that illegal betting was the biggest threat to the reputation of the London Games.

The intelligence unit for this year’s sporting showpiece will comprise members of the IOC, the Gambling Commission in Britain and the police and will seek to pinpoint any suspicious betting patterns.

Those legal bookmakers who do things by the book are ensuring they are seen to be above board. Betfair has led the way by signing up to a Memorandum of Understanding with the IOC to share information on any betting integrity issues and it is likely all of the leading bookmakers will adopt a similar stance. Given these giant betting corporations have developed software designed to flag any suspicious transactions, it would seem like a win-win move, for the Olympics, the legitimate gambling companies . . . and the ordinary punter too.

Court's views Open trouble for Aussies

THE TROUBLE with free speech is, sometimes, people use it too freely. Take the case of Margaret Court. If she were a normal 69-year-old grandmother, nobody would have taken any notice of her comments about same-sex marriage. Nobody except her nearest and dearest would likely have heard them in the first place.

If she were a senior pastor in a Pentecostal church, which she is, maybe her congregation and a few more would have picked up on it.

But Court is not just a grandmother or a pastor. She’s also the greatest tennis player Australia has ever produced, and probably the greatest women’s player the game has ever witnessed. Better than the Williams sisters. Better than Connolly. Better than King. Better than Navratilova. Better than Graf.

In her playing career, Court captured a record 62 Grand Slam titles – including a record 24 singles titles – and that number actually rises to 64 if two “shared” mixed doubles titles at the 1965 and 1969 Australian Opens are counted. Those matches weren’t played due to bad weather.

And, on induction into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, she was described thus: “For sheer strength of performance and accomplishment, there has never been a tennis player to match (her).”

So, it’s hardly surprising – especially the timing, ahead of the Australian Open in Melbourne, the first Grand Slam tournament of the year – that Court’s reaffirmation of her views on same-sex marriage have created an unholy row Down Under. And equally, it’s hardly surprising someone so competitive and unerring on the court in her playing days would be expected to back down in the face of vocal outrage to her stance on homosexuality.

Court’s views on the issue are nothing new, it must be said. Back in 1990, Court expressed the opinion that Martina Navratilova and other lesbian and bisexual players were ruining the sport and setting a bad example for younger players. In 1994, she delivered a speech to the Australian parliament in which she claimed homosexuality to be an “abomination to the Lord”. And, in 2002, she stated that homosexuals commit “sins of the flesh” and can be “changed”.

Since swapping the tennis court for the pulpit, Court has been consistently vocal in her religious stance: She campaigned against laws proposed and eventually passed by the government of Western Australia that gave homosexual couples equal rights to de facto couples and, just last month, spoke out about same-sex marriage in a newspaper interview in which she stated, “politically correct education has masterfully escorted homosexuality out from behind closed doors, into the community openly and now is aggressively demanding marriage rights that are not theirs to take”.

Cue the reaction. Navratilova and Billie Jean King, two other tennis legends, responded with criticism of their own and the reaction gathered momentum with a Facebook campaign for opponents to Court’s viewpoint to unfurl “rainbow flags” at the Margaret Court Arena, one of the show courts at Melbourne Park, which is named after the Aussie tennis legend.

On hearing of the planned protest, Court’s response was typical. She was not for backing down, also arguing the tennis arena was not a suitable place for such a protest. “Minority groups can have their views (but) as soon as a Christian stands up it’s not allowed,” argued Court.

And, of course, she plans on attending the Australian Open, rainbow flags or no rainbow flags, where the first back-hands of the year in the various quests for Grand Slam titles will seek to make tennis, rather than sexuality, the focal point.

This issue is one more headache for the organisers of the Australian Open, who in recent years have had to deal with ethnic violence involving supporters from Croatia and Serbia. At last year’s tournament, more than 150 spectators were evicted after racial chanting erupted into violence and the groups were given police escorts to different parts of the city.

No doubt, the security enforcers would take some civilised flag-waving over ethnic violence any day.

Owner's vote of confidence in Big Mick is actually for real

OOPS! ON first hearing that Wolves owner Steve Morgan had given his backing to manager Mick McCarthy, you’d be inclined to think the manager’s time was numbered. The dreaded vote of confidence and all that . . .

Thankfully, for Mick, that seems to be far from the case.

Of all the clubs in the mad world of Premier League soccer where money and results carry a currency all of its own, it would seem McCarthy has found a sane owner: Morgan believes in letting a manager get on with the job in good times and in bad.

It’s called trust. It displays loyalty.

It seems par for the course that McCarthy’s Wolves are involved in relegation dog-fights when in the Premier League, and you only have to look at his expression on the sideline to know he lives and breathes every header and kick his men make in their fight for survival.

You suspect the relegation battle is only going to get harder for Big Mick over the coming weeks and months and, sometime and somewhere, the boo-boys that let their voices heard – briefly – around Molineaux earlier in the season will be heard again.

McCarthy, though, is a survivor himself. He hasn’t had the bags of money to spent on quality players other managers have been afforded and he has been near the bacon slicer a number of times at Wolves (in 2007-’08 and again last season). Morgan’s words – “We are not a hire-and-fire club” – should give him the encouragement to get the job done.

First steps in new golfing strategy

IT IS interesting – and proper – that the leaders of the Golfing Union of Ireland, the Irish Ladies Golf Union and the Professional Golfers’ Association (Irish Region) have started to work together on a new strategy for the sport in Ireland.

After all, the bodies must be doing something right as golf, through a haul of six Majors since 2007, continues to reap the greatest international rewards of any sport here . . . but there is also an awareness that you can’t afford to stand still.

The idea is that the different bodies – chaired by businessman Redmond O’Donoghue – will work to ensure best practice in continuing to advance the sport.

With the likes of US Open Rory McIlroy blazing a trail on the men’s professional circuit and the Maguire twins, Leona (left) and Lisa, arguably the hottest talents in the women’s amateur game and set to move on to the pro ranks in a couple of years’ time, it is a golden era for golf with a healthy outlook on the competitive front.

The pity is that the coming-together won’t consider any possible merger of the organisations.

For the future, perhaps?

As one Henry takes to stage another bows out

THE RETURN of one Henry. The departure of another. And a world of difference between the two sportsmen. Thierry and his hand of God returned like a prodigal son to the Emirates – on loan from NY Red Bulls – to a hero’s welcome at a time when David, a favoured son of Hill 16, decided that his time as an intercounty player had passed its sell-by date.

Not that David Henry’s decision to depart the Dublin All-Ireland winning squad during the week was universally accepted, it must be said. On Twitter, Alan Brogan called Henry (left) the “smartest, most versatile” player he had played with or against; Kevin McManamon described him as a “class act,” and Barry Cahill called him a “great player”.

However, All-Star Paul Flynn went a step further and called on European Tour golfer Shane Lowry to use his influence – as a cousin of Henry’s – to inveigle the footballer to stay on board. Sounds like a done deal, though, even if Lowry agreed with Flynn that his sporting cuz had one more year left in him.