It was my original intention to mark the end of Pound’s time as a full IOC member by writing a profile, and I approached him with this aim in mind.

Typically, however, his responses to my many questions were so direct and so thought-provoking that it seems preferable to reproduce them verbatim.

What follows is the second part of a question-and-answer-style interview, which was conducted by email. 

10. Do Russian athletes need to be given a chance to qualify for Paris 2024, irrespective of how the war pans out? If so, how would you set about doing this? 

Unfortunately, that matter seems still to be up in the air. The unanswered philosophical question is whether an unprovoked war changes the aspirational Olympic paradigm.

This was certainly the case with the two World Wars and the South African apartheid regime.

At a certain point, there is a shared national responsibility for national conduct.

11. Do you think the important role you played in getting to the bottom of the Salt Lake City scandal effectively cost you the IOC Presidency?

It certainly was a significant factor. Organisations want to be perceived as "clean," but they don’t like the cleaners, especially the chief cleaner, who carries most of the water and has a much higher public profile.

Both Rogge and Bach were members of the Commission, but neither was active or vocal. I would be surprised if I received any (or many) African, Latin American or Asian votes.

That said, it was important for the future of the IOC itself that it undertake its own investigation and demonstrate its willingness to impose consequences on its members whose conduct had been unacceptable.

We did not want to be negotiating, for example, with the U.S. Congress (which was more than ready to share its pristine ethical standards with us).

Instead, we said we would be pleased to report to the Congress when we had finished our investigations and adopted a series of reforms, which we did at the end of 1999. The matter was put to rest.

12. Given your experience of Juan Antonio Samaranch, would you advise Bach not to seek to extend his term beyond 12 years?

I do not have the sense that Bach intends to try to amend the Olympic Charter in order to extend his Presidency. Were he to ask for my advice, I would counsel him against such an action.

13. What qualities does the next IOC President particularly need? Are these qualities the same as they have always been, or are they changing?

It’s a bit like a job description which suggests that the only possible winning candidate would be God, on a good day.

I don’t know that the particular Presidential "qualities" are changing, but the IOC parameters have certainly expanded and have become more complex.

Early Presidents were presiding over a very modest and impecunious organisation that was responsible for an event that was on the fringes of the social and legal orders. That is no longer the case.

Under Samaranch, there was a major expansion of the reach of the organisation and its ability to generate significant revenues for the benefit of International Federations, National Olympic Committees, athletes and Organising Committees for the Olympic Games.

Many IFs are now heavily dependent on revenues generated by the IOC.

That said, it seems to me that the Olympic Movement needs a leader who can communicate, since a successful Movement involves creating and maintaining a consensus (internal and external) on the inherent values of sport and Olympism.

Samaranch was not good at this and Rogge was only marginally better. Communication consists of listening as much as (or more than) speaking. Samaranch was a good listener and was willing to accept both dialogue and advice.

The IOC President needs to understand the complexities inherent in a worldwide movement (both in the context of sport and the practical need to operate in a world that is ultimately driven by political imperatives) and must be able to recruit and retain a professional administration that has the competence to provide necessary advice and to implement the related policies.

14. You have always been known for speaking your mind. We journalists are struggling to identify anyone who might succeed you in this respect from among voting members. Is it still important for the membership to be prepared to call out the leadership from time to time, or have times changed? Why do you think so few colleagues are willing to question the leadership (in public at least) in any meaningful way?

As I mentioned the IOC is ultimately a communications play. We need to generate buy-in from a number of publics, each of which has a separate set of issues that are considered important.

On many occasions, I am an interpreter for the IOC, explaining in appropriate language what is the purpose or implication of a particular decision or policy.

The IOC does many things well, but proactive communication has not been one of them. IOC communications tend to be reactive or reflect dogma, neither of which is easily digestible. It is learning, but is not yet adept.

I have always been willing to interact with the media, since they are an important facet of bringing the Olympic Movement to the attention of the world.

The better informed the media are regarding facts and context, the better they can do their jobs, which are in some respects, bringing the Olympic Movement to the world, one of our own objectives.

When I say bringing the Olympic Movement to the world, I do not mean as disciples or spokespersons, but as independent journalists who are objective, well-informed and knowledgeable.

For the most part, we are not dealing with rocket science, so while there may be some confidential aspects of policy in the course of maturation, my experience is that the media understand such limitations (even though they may nevertheless ask). What is important is that they can rely on the facts and that I never lie.

Another form of communications in which I am often involved is internal, in the sense of advocating for positions or actions that I think will be helpful in the overall mission of the IOC.

Doing this requires careful thought and an ability to simplify the issues, recognising that not all of those who will be called upon to decide are as familiar with English as am I. Also, "suggestions" are generally more effective than declarations.

A footnote to that form of communication can be found in the context of IOC Sessions.

While many IOC members (and media who now participate as observers in the Sessions) have an excellent grasp of English, those who do not are at the mercy of hard-working interpreters, who struggle, in real time, to understand what I am saying and to reproduce it in a different language, in which structure and vocabularies may be radically different.

So, my job is to make their job as easy as possible in the circumstances - no jokes, no puns, no complicated sentence structures.

The feedback I get from interpreters is that I am one of their favourites, not necessarily because they may agree with what I say, but because they can understand and translate what I have said.

On rare occasions, when I am opposed to what seems likely to be emerging, I try to intervene before a decision is made.

Human nature is such that decision-makers are generally very reluctant to change their minds once they have decided.

Changing one’s mind is seen by many of them as a sign of "weakness" rather than a sober second thought.

Now, as to my "successors," I cannot give you a reliable assessment.

In some cases, they may not have thought through the subject matter or may have no experience with it and are reluctant to deal with possible contrary opinions, where they might be reported as disagreeing.

Some are more willing to speak in meetings than in public. Some recognise that organisational policies are more appropriately expressed by the organisational leadership.

Some may be genuinely worried about annoying the leadership and others may not be accustomed to dealing with a generally informed media. Some may also have a wary eye on how whatever they might say will be received in their own countries.

And, at the extreme end of the spectrum, there may be some who operate on the basis that to get along, you go along.

I had a personal policy of saying truthfully what I could, including background that might be helpful in understanding how decisions were reached.

I assumed the onus of communication, in the sense that it was my responsibility to create the necessary understanding and that if the media did not understand or agree, that was my "fault."

What I did not accept was any deliberate manipulation of or tampering with what I said. When that happened, the next time I saw the journalist, I would bring the matter forward and say that I was giving him/her a yellow card.

If it happened again the yellow card would be replaced by a red card and the journalist would no longer have access to me and the journalist would have to explain to his/her editor why everyone else on the face of the planet seemed to have no such trouble. In the circumstances, I issued very few red cards.

You may remember the weekly telephone calls we organised in the context of the Salt Lake City scandal investigation.

These calls were intended to ensure that all of the media heard exactly the same information.

At the end of my summary of progress, journalists could ask whatever questions they might have, a process handled by the conference operator.

I had a short list of "red card" journalists and the process organised with the operator was that whenever any of their names came to the top of the list, they were automatically dropped to the bottom, a process that played out until the end of the scheduled conference.

15. Do the President's powers need pruning? If so, in what respects?

Despite the improvements in travel and technology, the (maximum) 115 IOC Members are nevertheless spread around the entire world.

It is necessary to have the organisational ability to appoint commissions and conduct the business of the IOC, as well as presiding over Session and Executive Board meetings. An enlightened President will consult prior to acting.

There is also a "soft" power to indicate (directly or indirectly) what "Lausanne" might wish to see happen, as well as what it might not. That is a more subtle power and not easily supervised.

16. Do you have a parting message for Russian sports leaders, having spent more time than you probably wished in recent years scrutinising their conduct?

Russian athletes and sports leaders are welcome additions to the Olympic Movement, but must understand that if they wish to be part of it, they must accept and respect the applicable rules.

Their sport conduct cannot not be inextricably linked with state conduct. Their conduct in recent years has not been acceptable.

17. And a message for world leaders in general? Why does sport and the international sports movement remain a worthwhile investment for public funds when there are so many other deserving claims on the money at their disposal?

This is an ongoing series of issues. International sport provides a fine opportunity for creating good relations and better understanding between countries.

The recent G7 and G20 communiqués on the occasions of Tokyo and Beijing have been very supportive of such exchanges.

Participation in the Olympic Games has encouraged countries to invest in sports facilities and sport development, which increases the health standards across the population generally, in addition to the competitive sport system.

A healthy society is cheaper to maintain than one which is not, thereby significantly reducing the costs of health care.

The human nature aspect of this, however, is that prevention is not politically sexy - cures are sexy.

Looking solely at the next elections does not lend itself to constructive long-term planning.

18. The Olympic Movement has faced some truly extraordinary challenges over the past 4 or 5 years. Judged against your long experience, does it seem to you that Paris 2024 and Milan/Cortina 2026 are where they need to be at present in terms of preparations? If not, where do they need to catch up/do better?

I am more confident regarding Paris than with respect to Milan Cortina, but Paris is much closer to fruition than 2026 and I have not followed the Milan Cortina preparations as closely as those of Paris.

There are clearly some organisational issues involved with Milan Cortina (which come as no surprise to practically everyone), but I am not aware whether they are critical.

I suspect that solutions will be found and that the Games themselves are not in jeopardy. As the old saying goes, the situation may be hopeless, but not serious.

19. Are you planning a memoir, or is it still something you might think about in 10 years' time?

I have done some preliminary drafting, which is fun, but I am quickly coming to the conclusion that a “normal” memoir will be far too long for today’s readers.

I doubt that a two (or three) volume work would be of much interest to publishers, so I will seek some advice.

Regarding timing, I would not publish anything until I am no longer an active member.

The first part of The Big Read can be found here