Charity is a great front for grandstanding and disgraced biker Lance Armstrong used just that when he pedalled a stretch of the Tour de France as the race reached its challenging final stages. His presence intended to raise funds for leukaemia naturally sparked a feeding frenzy in media and fans and stole the thunder from the riders who have been taking part in the main race.

Why was he allowed to do this? Not so much the attraction he is even after being found guilty of doping but allowing him to follow the route at such a crucial stage of the race? Surely, for those who profess to ‘protect’ the interests of the sport upstaging them is scarcely the right option. Think of it. There you are bone weary and in agony coming to the end of the gruelling last stage and you are told that Lance Armstrong, them an who bruised cycling when he fell from grace is not only over but he’s engaged in a little cameo performance that has the press and the public scrambling for a dekko.

If you want someone to make a dog’s breakfast of things especially in sport just get the management and the officials involved. Here the message is clear: even if he is a disgraced doper all is forgiven if he can draw crowds and make money. The same celebrity run could have been done in the aftermath not at the expense of the Tour de France participants.

Across the pond sprinter Justin Gatlin gets no joy for much the same crime. Ending his four year ban for doping he is back on track and underscoring himself as the biggest threat to Usain Bolt at the World meet in Beijing later this month. But even if Gatlin breasts the tape first he is ineligible for the IAAF Athlete of the year award because of the past indiscretion. Point is, the man has paid his dues. He was banned for 48 months. If he is allowed to take part in the top meets then to load his back with stigma is unfair. Either it should have been a clause in the ban but to change the rules in the aftermath is not a very nice thing to do.You cannot apply these rules retrospectively and it doesn’t wash that you are keeping the game clean by dropping names from the shortlist. How ludicrous it would be for the runner up to accept the award while the winner stands by? How does this improve the credibility of the sport?

Then we have piety being sprayed by the BCCI where the mandarins of Indian cricket insist on maintaining a ban on bowler S. Sreesanth even though the man has been found innocent of all match fixing charges by the legal system. On what grounds can you possible keep him off the field except for extreme prejudice once the courts have let him go. And the sad part is that Sreesanth has to be mealy mouthed and unctuous and make those embarrassing verbal genuflections to the mighty officials who are practically sociopathic in the pleasure they are getting from watching the player wriggle on their hook. What part of ‘not guilty’ have they been unable to understand?

It is the same sort of arrogant rosette wearing bureaucrats who arbitrarily got rid of Van Ass, the Indian hockey coach after he had not only pulled the Indian team out of anonymity and got them on track for the Olympics but was upping their confidence. Then he upset somebody’s fragile ego and that was it.