Olympics 2004 Publication of Athens Review:  Don't Look Back in Anger would be an obvious subtitle to the Athens Review, which was commissioned by the Irish Sports Council last July and published officially yesterday. The tone of the 83-page report is of sympathetic reflection but businesslike analysis of Ireland's preparation and performances in the Athens Olympic and Paralympic Games.

It's unlikely to top the bestseller list, but it includes arguments which overthrow more traditional Olympic beliefs. Forget about "taking part", the Games are now about "sport-specificity" and "strike-rates" and the preserve of the demonstrably and progressively elite.

Yet the moral of the story is familiar: Ireland has an Olympic performance record of a nation much weaker than it is. If Cian O'Connor's show jumping gold medal is taken into account (and there are obvious reasons why it shouldn't be), then Ireland finished in equal 64th place in the medal table after the Athens Olympics; which is exactly where it was after the Sydney Olympics, and which still reflects a nation "much weaker than it is in socio-economic terms".

In fact, that ranked Ireland lowest of the eight nations used for comparison in the review which also won Olympic medals in 2004. More specifically, in Olympic terms Ireland is now markedly inferior to New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Croatia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Puerto Rico, and more or less equal to Costa Rica.

The review acknowledges, however, that Ireland's investment in high-performance Olympic sport is relatively recent. It is also lagging behind in the amount of revenue it commits to elite sport per annum. The dominance of the three field sports - Gaelic games, soccer and rugby - should also be taken into account, as should the continued absence of a physical education curriculum in primary schools.

In its more detailed review of the Athens Olympics, the report is in fact primarily concerned with the Sydney Review, which this time four years ago presented 29 recommendations that reflected the state of play surrounding Ireland's Olympic campaign for 2000.

While concluding that each recommendation was addressed in whole or part, and thus justified describing the Athens representatives as the "best supported Irish teams in history", in some cases the spirit behind them was not observed.

In other words, the heart wasn't in it.

A couple of recommendations are still seen as a source of focus, and one concerns the work of the Irish Sports Council's high performance committee. Only the establishment of an Irish institute for sport will see that one fully implemented.

Another recommendation concerned the revision of funding and the carding scheme made available to Olympic athletes, and again the Athens review calls for it to go further. Essentially it calls for more rigorous assessment and greater accountability, thus reducing the "social security mentality".

Each of the major stakeholders in Ireland's Olympic campaigns are then addressed individually: the Irish Sports Council (ISC), the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI), the Paralympic Council of Ireland (PCI), the national governing bodies (NGBs) and the National Coaching and Training Centre (NCTC).

The latter comes out worst. While the calibre of individuals working within the NCTC in Limerick is high, their structure and systems are not considered to be wholly efficient or effective. The review, in fact, acknowledges the strain in the relationship between the NCTC and the Sports Council.

But it also reports that the NCTC has an exceptionally wide brief and is deficient in the manner it sets priorities for its functions and, as a consequence, displays "sub-optimal delivery" of key services.

The Sports Council doesn't escape criticism. It needs to narrow the range of activities it supports and be more specific in the targets it sets for athletes. Greater accountability must also be applied to the authors of such plans.

In relation to funding, it is told to "narrow its focus, enhance its systems of accountability and tighten the links between athletes, their governing bodies and service providers".

Unlike Sydney, the OCI is this time praised for making "substantial progress" over the past four years. Its recommendations are now far more specific, and start with the appointment of a chief executive. The selection criteria, such as the early cut-off date for qualification and the acceptance of only A-standards, is also largely defended.

The PCI fully justified its improved investment, but does need to note the rapid and continuing rise in global standards of Paralympic competition.

And finally, the NGBs are described as a "mixed bag", with some responding very well to the Athens Enhancement Programme and some less so. But a general culture change is still necessary which will continue the drive towards full-time professionalism.

The concluding recommendations are hopeful. Ireland can look towards "between six and nine finalists consistently and repeatedly", but that will mean bringing more athletes into a top-10 ranking on a more permanent basis.

For now, though, the road to Beijing is largely a clearway, and from that point of view the past four years of Ireland's Olympic journey have been fruitful.