her slipping up on the balance beam, and to America's defeat by China in the final.

"First they called her [Sacramone's] name up, then they did not even put her name up even though the Chinese had finished... She was mentally prepared and then she had a mental break, then after not doing the job on the beam, her concentration for the floor exercise was bothered."

Sour grapes? Perhaps. But there is a tradition of host-country bias at the Olympics.

To this day, South Koreans are still mystified as to how their boxer Kim Dong-Kil was adjudged to have lost 4-1 on points to America's Jerry Page at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, despite having outclassed his opponent.

In the 1980 Moscow Games, television pictures showed Russians opening the giant doors at the end of the stadium behind the javelin throwing area when the Soviet thrower was competing and closing it again when he wasn't; the idea being that the draught funnelled through would give the javelin a bit of extra lift.

And 100 years ago, in the first London

Games, there were angry American complaints after their runner John Carpenter was disqualified by British judges after winning the men's 400m having been adjudged to have blocked the British runner Wyndham Halswelle.

The problem it seems is one of prestige. Host countries desperately want to win as many gold medals as they can. When showcasing a political system is part of the equation - as in Moscow in 1980, Los Angeles in 1984 and Beijing today - the pressure is even greater.

Banning judges from officiating athletes from their own country, as recommended by Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates, in the light of the double trap shooting controversy, is clearly a sensible idea.

But even when only neutral judges are allowed, as in boxing and judo, arbiters have historically shown bias towards competitors from the host country. The problem is not just one of cheating. It's that everyone wants to please the Olympic hosts just that little bit too much.