Sean Ingle’s suggestion of holding the Olympics every two years is an interesting one (Paris Olympics were great, so why not hold summer Games every two years?, 30 December). However, another option would be to take some or all of the indoor sports out of the summer Olympics and put them into the winter Games, alongside the current sports that under International Olympic Committee (IOC) statutes require snow or ice to be an essential and inherent feature.

As well as maximising the profile of the Olympics every two years, this would reduce the financial and logistical loads of hosting the summer Games, while also spreading the excitement and interest in the winter Games beyond the reducing number of countries capable of hosting them.

Back in 2014, as a newly elected president of an international federation affiliated to the IOC, I suggested this in a media interview. Needless to say, it did not make me popular, either with the IOC or with my contemporaries in other sports. But it’s still a good idea.
Brian Cookson
Past president, British Cycling (1996-2013), Union Cycliste Internationale (2013-2017)

• In response to Sean Ingle’s suggestion that the Olympics should be every two years, it is tempting to question the now ubiquitous capitalist assumption that the Olympics’ job is to generate revenue and deliver audiences rather than be the culmination of a physical and mental endeavour.

The Olympic cycle, like football World Cup cycles, recognises our existential condition. These are ritual culminations, not the constant distraction of normal sport. Premier League champions have two months to bask in their victory and then off we go again. Contrast this with World Cups where we (maybe) reach a peak of euphoria and then – if we are English, anyway – a state of deep mourning.

The Olympics are the same. They are far enough apart to be a culmination and for time to change us and them before each new edition. Our Paris babies will be starting school when Keely Hodgkinson steps on the track in Los Angeles, and who will she be by then? Confident victor or laid low by the trappings of fame and success? If we love sport, we need some events to be the waypoints of our lives, far enough away from each other that we can see the change between.
Ross Styles
Cambridge

• After Sean Ingle asked why we shouldn’t hold the the Olympics every two years, Michael Bulley replied: “Perhaps because the word Olympiad means a period of four years” (Letters, 30 December). But the word Olympiad means a period of four years because that is the gap between Olympics. If they were held every two years, then two years would be an Olympiad. I disagreed with the article because World Athletics Championships are held every two years and European athletes can also shine at the European Championships, also every two years!
Claire Chandy
Bristol

• The meaning of “Olympiad” could change to two years and the four-year interval could become “Worldcupiad”. Would we mind?
Dr Mike Davis
Blackpool

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.