The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) World Indoor Championships in Birmingham have just finished. They went well. But they also produced 22 disqualifications.

There was widespread dismay at this statistic. There were suggestions that British judges loved disqualifying people. There were suggestions that some of the decisions had helped home athletes. There were raised eyebrows and pursed lips among the BBC pundits, with Michael Johnson doggedly pointing out the fact that, if you run inside your lane you can gain an advantage because it means you actually run less distance than you should.

Which is true.

United Sttes athlete Paul Chelimo was one of those to lose out, disqualified from his 3,000 metres heat for stepping, once, onto the infield on one of the curves.

"It's devastating," Chelimo said after he learned of the decision. "It's an indoor track and it's banked and we're running 15 laps, what do you expect? It's not going to be 100 percent - someone is going to lose a step. And it happened today, it was me who lost a step.

"Whatever I was doing was not intentional...I stepped inside the rail by mistake.

"I qualified the right way. I was top four, that's what I worked for. I did not get any advantage by stepping inside the rail. The rules are rules...I cannot bend the rules."

But now some are arguing that the rules could, maybe even should be bent.

US observer Alan Abrahamson, on www.3wiresports.com, argues - quite persuasively - that the sport is effectively spiking itself in the foot by holding to such strict rules. He even cites a comment made by the IAAF President Sebastian Coe writing last October for the Evening Standard on the subject of changes he might like to see including "simplifying the rules of our sport, reducing for instance disqualifications in major championships for minor lane infringements in distance races".

Now clearly you can’t have people running all over the lanes in athletics. Everyone needs to be running, and to be seen to be running, the same distance.

But, to take Chelimo’s mis-step for example, it is clearly the reverse of helpful to him as he swings off balance and then manages to get himself back on track. He’s not infringed anyone, he just looks as if he’s momentarily lost concentration, and he’s made life harder for himself.

Maybe there is leeway here to refine these rules so that they don’t punish athletes who have effectively punished themselves.

Rules are rules - until you change them. Until that point, unfortunate as it may be in terms of the public and television spectacle, you have to abide by them.

There were rules in cycling around the time when Bradley Wiggins was winning the Tour de France in 2012, regarding therapeutic use exemption (TUE).

The recently released report following a Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) inquiry says Team Sky, for whom Sir Bradley was then riding, had "crossed an ethical line" by using TUE’s that were not justified by medical need, and maintains the rider used a TUE as many as nine times in four years, according to "confidential material from a well-placed and respected source",

He maintains, passionately, that he never went beyond the rules in terms of using the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid triamcinolone in order to treat a medical condition, asthma.

Sir Bradley also denies the evidence of the anonymous source, describing it as "malicious".

Who do you believe?

But stepping aside from that question for a moment, some of the comments on this case by the newly installed President of the International Cycling Union (UCI), David Lappartient, have made for somewhat puzzling reading.

The Frenchman has told BBC Sport that the UCI’s independent anti-doping unit will be opening up their own inquiry into the matter following the light that has been shed so far by the DCMS investigation. Fair enough.

Lappartient also makes it clear that the TUE system has been changed since the time when Sir Bradley was racing at the top level.

"Just by a letter of support from the doctor, then it was not so difficult to get the TUE, which is something completely different now," he said.

"So you have to put this in the context of the time; the grey zone was too big and it seemed that this grey zone has been used by Team Sky at the time so, is it doping? Is it just using the rules? That is why the MPs' report just says they were not breaching the rules."

Lappartient added: "It's in the report, what I can read, you can see that substances were used not for health problems or with strong pain but to increase your performances, then yes, that is something unacceptable for me and the philosophy we have, even if it seems there is no breach, no violation of the rules."

And when asked if there could still be cheating even if rules had not been broken, Lappartient said: "If you are using substances to increase your performances I think this is exactly what is cheating."

Did Team Sky, whose "marginal gains" mantra was a carte blanche for pushing the envelope, ultimately push too hard? That remains to be proven.

In the meantime, Lappartient’s statement doesn’t stand up. Using substances to increase your performances is exactly what is constituted by a TUE. It’s legal. You can’t offer it, then castigate those who take advantage.

That is like saying an athlete has acted incorrectly for consistently running right up to the inside line of his lane. You’ve fixed the line. If you don’t like it, change the rules. Because that’s what elite athletes do.