The international Olympic Committee (IOC) is to end its 40-year cooperation with IBM. According to the computer company it is not exercising its right to extend the contract because it does not wish to accept new conditions laid down by the IOC.

An IOC press release states that it will not continue its relationship with the computer company beyond the year 2000, because of "considerably better offers" and the "occasionally arrogant" approach of IBM managers.

This seems a odd attitude from IBM since the computer system at the Atlanta Games in 1996 was an unmitigated failure. Results from the various sports, which were supposed to come into the main press centre, did not come in on time and some did not arrive at all. In the end journalists gave up relying on the system, which regularly crashed.

A programme which was supposed to give details of all the main athletes at the Games failed to include Sonia O'Sullivan and many of the African runners who went on, predictably, to win gold medals. By the end of the first week journalists were cynically referring to the system as delivering the results for Atlanta 98. The question is where does all of this "arrogance" stem from ?