http://m.bbc.com/sport/boxing/36425046

I don't understand the argument.

Possibly one argument is that winning an olympic medal has previously been an 'in' into professional boxing - see Amir Khan, Anthony Joshua etc. If you allow already professional boxers to compete, in theory at least they are going to win the medals, therefore this avenue of progression from amateur to professional will have been cut off.

Put it this way - there is an Olympic football tournament but the players in that have to be mainly under 21, so it's seen equally as a stage of progression, not a top class tournament like the football World Cup.

However in contrast you have the best in the world already competing in tennis and golf(!), and the best track & field athletes in the world who win most of the medals every games are effectively professional anyway; have been for years. So maybe the whole amateur/pro things needs to be kicked to the kerb.

Your last paragraph is what I was thinking. Wiggins came to mind because IIRC, he's jumped back and forward between disciplines and major events over the decades.

The whole point of the Olympics is professionals I imagine, who else could do it without that dedication and level of backing?

when you get BIG sport it generates money. of course the pro's are going to get involved
tell me a major sporting non pro, money maker, event ...