LONDON’S Olympic bid was trying to recover yesterday from two embarrassing setbacks to its efforts to secure the 2012 Games.

After its decision to back down on its offer of £15 million “sweeteners” of money and help for athletes, it emerged last night that London and Madrid have breached the guidelines that they must not use images of members of the International Olympic Commitee (IOC) in their presentations, as they did to sports officials in Berlin a week ago.

IOC insiders say that neither of these controversies has helped London, but they will be forgotten by July 6, when the body votes on which city should stage the 2012 Games.

However, this week the IOC Ethics Commission will remind all five contending cities — the others being Paris, the favourite, New York and Moscow — that they must not use pictures of foreign IOC members in their presentations, as it could give the impression that they are supporting the candidature.

London had a slide of Keith Mills and Debbie Jevans, two of its officials, with Sam Ramsamy, of South Africa, a member of the IOC Evaluation Commission that visited London in February. Madrid used Jacques Rogge, the IOC President, and Juan Antonio Samaranch, the Spaniard who was his immediate predecessor.

A spokesman for the London bid said yesterday: “If that (using pictures of members) is a matter of concern to the IOC, then obviously future presentations will be amended accordingly. This is not a major issue and the IOC does not perceive it as a matter for investigation, but more of a matter of reminding the contending cities about the use of images.”

London will also be trying to establish whether its offers of help to international federations, their competitors and national Olympic committees can be restored after it withdrew them on Saturday. Lord Coe, the head of the London bid, said yesterday that the incentives, which were announced last Monday, remained “on the table” since they helped competitors and officials.

The Ethics Commission, which oversees the conduct of bidding cities, is expected to close its investigation into the case of London’s commitments after the official withdrawal.

London backed down on its offers after Dr Rogge said last week that the IOC wanted a fair competition, not a bidding war. Over the past six years, the IOC has been particularly sensitive about the whole issue of “sweeteners” after the 1999 “favours-for-votes” Salt Lake City scandal, when bribery was widespread and ten of its members resign ed or were expelled.

Neutral observers see a difference between bribes to individual members and financial aid to the world governing bodies and competitors.

London’s proposals, inclu- ding flexible air fares for athletes and vouchers for accommodation for teams using selected British training centres, has been widely welcomed by governing bodies. Istvan Gyulai, the Hungarian chief executive of the International Association of Athletics Federations, said that he hoped that the controversy did not damage London. “It would not be fair because London has been trying to help important stakeholders,” he said. “However, rules have to be respected. The international federations are very pleased about these commitments from London, such as the ceiling on the prices of hotel rooms. They are not bribery.”

Speaking on BBC Radio 5 Live yesterday, Lord Coe said: “The offers, the charters, were put on the table with the best of intentions. Right through the bid book, the guiding principle has been to provide the very best experience for competitors.”

He pointed out that giving teams free flights to the country had been standard practice since the 2000 Games in Sydney. London offered “flexible” flights only after responding to the wishes of officials.

Asked why London had withdrawn the offer, Lord Coe said: “If the IOC President says that he does does not want a bidding war, it would be foolhardy of me not to reflect very clearly on these remarks.”

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax