The USA is not far behind China, though one man alone has put them in this position and, at the time of writing, would have been fifth in the medal table.

Michael Phelps is an extraordinary athlete, a once-in-a-generation type, and I have nothing but admiration for his professionalism, dedication and commitment especially after hearing of his difficult upbringing with attention deficit disorder.

Though, the more I think about it, the more I question the actual swimming events.

I am open to debate here and would welcome any opinion to contradict the point I will try and make.

Swimming, in a sporting sense, is extremely close to track running – even cycling/rowing – in that the objective is to get from A to B as fast as possible.

If that means hopping, skipping or crawling so be it, the first person to cross the line will win, regardless.

I have concluded – after holding my school 100m record for a time – that straight forward sprinting is the quickest way of getting from A to B.

My point is that swimming adheres to the Olympic motto "faster, higher, stronger"and that is surely what the aim should be. Why then has swimming evolved in such a way as to have several ways of getting to B?

Logic says that the fastest swimmer in the world is Eamon Sullivan of Australia who holds the 50m freestyle record at 21:28 and who, like sprinter Usain Bolt, is the quickest ever at his sport.

This is not an attack on Phelps. I am purely questioning why, and how, the backstroke, butterfly and breaststroke have evolved, considering there are quicker ways of swimming – with speed being the objective.

To me, it is like doing a backwards cycling sprint or a 100m sideways shuffle in athletics! Swimming has created ways and events in which one athlete can claim eight gold medals in one championship.

If swimming was like running, and only the athlete's quickest stroke was used, then Phelps would, potentially, be looking at a maximum of five gold medals – an absolutely amazing achievement in itself.

What would make a true all-time great athlete would be one who won golds at sprint and endurance events.

Will we ever see a double 100m and 800m champion on the track? I doubt it.

I will continue to enjoy my 2008 Olympic experience, and Phelps' achievements will live long in my memory.

Though I still have questions in my mind as to the rationale for having four different ways of doing one activity, let's see how many countries Mr Phelps can beat in the medal table.

Team GB watch out.

****

Carl Lewis gave vent this week to some strong opinions over the modern-day drug scandals and the damage caused to the reputation of track and field events.

The focus on Lewis followed the extraordinary achievements of Michael Phelps and the growing debate as to whether Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time, greater even than American sprinter and long jumper Lewis.

Combined with the success of Phelps, gymnastics and even beach volleyball, track and field looks to have been pushed to the back of the queue in the American media and that seems to have provoked Lewis' outburst.

It's no secret that athletics has been under stress with the lack of good news in recent years and you have to wonder what damage – particularly financial – the sport and participants have suffered as a consequence.

Now Lewis has thrown up a couple of ideas aimed at helping to restore athletics' good name.

He suggests educating youngsters and coaching them into being honest, professional athletes to compete without tarnishing events like the Olympics, as opposed to trying to catching the bad apples with drug test when they're older. Lewis says that drug cheats should be thrown out of the sport and banned even from coaching.

While I understand his bitterness – not least as someone who has been affected by cheats in his career (the 1988 Olympics and Ben Johnson spring to mind) – I do wonder if he has ever heard of the word atonement.

Now don't get me wrong, I think cheats could be dealt with harshly. But I'm also a believer in redemption and I don't believe in completely banishing people who can teach others what they have learned from their mistakes.

I do, however, think he's bang on with his ideas and early prevention is better than dealing with the horrors later.

Then I learned that world football's governing body, FIFA, had ordered former Chelsea striker Adrian Mutu to pay the Stamford Bridge club £13.68m in damages for a breach of contract after testing positive for cocaine.

And I began to wonder what would happen if all those athletes who had tested positive for illegal substances were to be sued by their athletic bodies and fellow athletes who have been tarnished and hit financially by their mistake.

You have to wonder how many footballers will be deterred by the thought of having to pay back vast amounts of their cash for a few seconds of poor decision making after learning of Mutu's fate.

If athletes – in any other sport – were faced with the same possibility, would it further deter them from bringing their sport in to disrepute?

I have heard, even within rugby league, that clubs would consider taking legal action against individuals whose behaviour compromised their employers.

In athletics, the competitors are faced with the deterrent of a lengthy ban, but they may still return and continue to make money – even though their actions may have affected many others.

I think FIFA's way of dealing with things creates a bigger deterrent and offers better recompense for the victims.

Ends