Jacquelin Magnay explores whether the Games were all gloss. Acknowledging the sporting achievements of the Games, Magnay then addresses some of the Games contradictions and occurrences outside athleticism.

Magnay states that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) "just stood passively at the side, having lost early control of these Games." An interesting observation. What level of control should the IOC have? Should they have spoken up as it became increasingly obvious that China was not going to meet its human rights and environmental commitments?

As Magnay points out, these Games could be remembered for their imprisonment of two elderly ladies obeying Chinese law.

Magnay writes about the buses being on time and the logistics working for these Games. Was it a tell-tale sign that the gloss was off immediately; some teams leaving the closing ceremony were unable to find their supposedly arranged transport and no-one could assist them.

IOC President, Jaques Rogge has told us that the lasting legacy of the Games will have created a source of inspiration for a generation of young Chinese people. Inspiration to lock up elderly ladies, to deny the right to peaceful protest in designated areas? Inspiration to continue censorship and to break promises made to the world? These do not seem like the type of inspirations that will motivate young people to create a better China.

What do you think? Did the IOC do enough? Were the Games a success? If so, how do you define that success?