The scene described was worthy of the mockumentary "Twentytwelve" as one of umpteen antipodeans hired to offer the expertise gained from the staging of the Sydney Olympics addressed a room full of Scottish sports people a couple of years ahead of the Commonwealth Games.

"What we need to focus on here is pregacy," he declared, according to one who was there, before explaining that he was referring to the need to work on creating a legacy from the event in advance of it.

In reality it did not need someone from the other side of the planet to tell us that because one of the most amazing minds Scottish sport has produced had already explained it.

Initially asked, in 2011, to appear on a BBC Scotland panel discussing the way forward for Scottish sport, but unable to take part, I had watched the resultant programme in the hope, which was fulfilled, that Tom English, whom I had recommended as a replacement due to his similarly wide range of sporting interest, would make the right points in challenging the status quo.

However the most striking contributions came from Graeme Obree, cycling's superman, who has always seemed to be ahead of the game and back then was warning that the opportunities presented by the London Olympics and Glasgow Commonwealth Games were in the process of being lost.

Returning to that other gathering, then, it could, depending on perspective, be argued that the response to the notion of "pregacy" made by one wry, homegrown Glaswegian in attendance was either diagnostic or symptomatic when he observed that the nature of the work he saw being done suggested that the real outcome would be "nae-gacy".

Analysis is now underway and such nae-saying seems justified with some results looking as disturbing as anecdotal evidence suggested was the case.

I have reported previously in this space on separate projects in both Easterhouse and Springburn whose organisers expressed the view that in sporting terms the Commonwealth Games experience completely passed local youngsters by.

Their messages were almost identical, that they believed the Games were a middle class party to which youngsters in deprived areas neither felt identification, nor were encouraged to do so.

They also felt that the facilities created for the Games were not accessible to those in their area because of cost.

That would seem to go some way towards explaining the discrepancy between positive local reaction to the overall benefits of having hosted the Games and the downturn in terms of local sporting involvement as outlined in my colleague Helen Puttick's article earlier this week: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/exercise-levels-fall-locally-after-glasgow-2014-commonwealth-games.129376513

The satisfaction registered appears to be down to the creation of some jobs locally and a sense that neighbourhoods had become safer which it seems reasonable to attribute, at least partly, to increased attention from the police and local authority in a bid to minimise the risk of unsavoury incidents while the eyes of the Commonwealth, if not the world, were upon the East End.

However anyone claiming those outcomes were what was being referred to by those telling us what hosting these events in London and Glasgow would mean in terms of the health of the nation, can only be engaged in the most blatant revisionism.

A huge part of the pitch was the understanding that they would inspire people to take up sport and the reduction in activity and exercise undertaken, as outlined in Helen's report, is in line with the post-Olympic evidence that has been emerging from England where they have much more detailed analysis publicly available.

A parallel theme meanwhile emerges in Alan Campbell's two part HeraldSport investigation into the Scottish Football Youth Initiative (SFYI) which essentially outlines how 20 years of investing heavily in a top-down approach has delivered horribly inferior results to those to which I referred last week when recalling the days when our state schools routinely produced footballers and other sportsmen who would excel on the global stage.

Without any significant return on investment SFYI has concentrated resources on the few rather than the many, but unlike a Commonwealth Games, it is operating in a truly global environment, rather than being able to indulge in the practise of what one disenchanted administrator described to me as "targeting soft medals" in bidding to up the prize count and so the photo opportunities for organisers and politicians at multi-Games.

Those "soft medals", in case you are wondering, are won at Olympics by investing heavily in technology-based sports where relatively few countries can be competitive, or at Commonwealth Games in sports where rival nations are traditionally uncompetitive.

The real challenge, then, is to invest in providing the sort opportunities for all of our state school pupils that already exist in our private schools with meaningful access to the widest array of sports, allowing them to decide what captures their imaginations.

Meantime may I suggest a more accurate definition for the word invented by the man from "Glesca'Foreteen"...

Pregacy: something close to pregnancy but which is all about generating expectation before failing to deliver.

The sooner it is struck from the lexicon, then and we accept that those who said focusing so much on the big city Games would offer grand entertainment for a couple of weeks but little in terms of on-going benefit, the better.