Kenneth has kicked off this offensive debate again

Photos of Suzi in a selection of poses, photos of other female sports presenters, comment from a range of individuals, and then, in the Mail on Sunday, a page-long piece from Kenneth Wolstenholme (he of the They Think It's All Over opening titles, for those who weren't around in 1966) about "football babes".

Wolstenholme, sweetly, has nothing against Sue Barker, who is "very nice and very professional" and "was a sportswoman and knows what she is talking about", Kirsty Gallacher and Gabby Yorath, who are "the daughters of famous sportsmen and know what they are talking about" and myself for the same reason.

I'm not actually sure which is the more offensive: to be written off as a "babe" who is only employed as a way of making "programmes fashionable by using fashion models" or to be patronisingly accepted because of my surname.

Not that I've ever had much chance of being a "babe", but that's my loss.

The thinly concealed accusation of nepotism is something that Gabby, Kirsty and myself have always had to endure, but the only certainty is that none of us would have kept our jobs for longer than a month if our surnames were the only thing to recommend us.

What Wolstenholme and any of the Mail on Sunday readers who share his "horror" are missing is the crucial element of presenting sport. Yes, of course you have to know what you are talking about and, yes, a certain degree of personal involvement helps but it is not a world closed to those who have not competed or those who do not come from the right family background.

Where does he think some of the great names of sports broadcasting (himself included) learned their trade?

Commentators and presenters alike have risen to the top because they have worked hard, put in hours of preparation, react well under pressure, can cope with talkback, have a gift for finding the right phrase and have a knack of translating what they are seeing to the viewing public at home.

They perform a completely different role to the pundit, who is there to discuss the intricacies of the game. They are there to ask the questions that the viewer at home is itching to ask and to frame the picture for the benefit of the public.

Des Lynam, Steve Rider, John Inverdale, Jim Rosenthal, Jeff Stelling, Richard Keys, Derek Thompson and (albeit in a unique capacity) John McCririck are the leading male presenters of their respective channels but have never been selected for a national side in their lives. Their surnames are not to be found in the annals of sports history but has it stopped them? Have their credentials for presenting sport ever been questioned? Do you trust them? Do you respect their authority?

No one in their right mind would dream of churning out acres of newsprint, devoting hours of radio and television time to questioning their expertise and discussing their 'look'. But turn all those men into women and suddenly you have a national debate.

Sue Barker now presents tennis as frequently in one year as she does athletics, ice-skating or racing, so where exactly does her deep personal insight into the game end and her ability to present sport on television start? Ask her now if she regards herself as an ex-tennis player and she will tell you emphatically, no. She is a television presenter of a range of sports, all of which she covers with authority, composure and humour.

Hazel Irvine, who is among the most talented all-rounders in television, can cope with any studio or outside broadcast horror thrown at her. She has helped turn Ski Sunday into a funky, fun and up-to-date sports programme, yet she has never skied a downhill course in her life. She can play golf, hockey, tennis and run a decent half-marathon but has never had a cap for Scotland or Great Britain.

She is, however, a trained journalist with a keen sense of how to write and present a story, how to conduct an interview and how best to involve the full range of viewers, from the sports nut to the casual channel hopper.

Hazel is superb at her job, yet the essence of what she does, and what we all do, is undermined by those who feel they have to pigeonhole female sports presenters into either "babes", "ex-pros" or "surname celebrities".

This problem does not arise in print journalism where Sue Mott, Lewine Mair, Kate Battersby, Sarah Edworthy and Lynne Truss can write about their passion without their right to do so being questioned in public.

Similarly, the problem in radio disappeared over 10 years ago when Charlotte Nicol and Eleanor Oldroyd started reporting on football matches and even more so six years ago when Eleanor became the first woman to present Sport on 5.

Having talked to female colleagues in radio and television, we are all struck by absolute amazement that the debate is being aired yet again. There are enough female sports journalists, reporters and broadcasters around now for tokenism to be a thing of the distant past.

Every sports job is fiercely contested by male and female candidates alike and only the best are selected.

If you can't get there on merit, you are certainly not going to get there by wearing spray-on trousers and crop-tops.

On reflection, it's probably more about a generation gap than outright sexism, and Kenneth Wolstenholme is hardly representative of the viewing public, but this should be the last time that it is suggested that sport cannot be presented by a woman because "she couldn't possibly understand it".