These are all allegations that have been levelled at the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Athletes’ Commission, a much-derided body which rivals the Executive Board in the criticism stakes, in recent months.

The Commission has been led through arguably its most turbulent period by Zimbabwean Kirsty Coventry, whose term at the helm concludes at the end of the delayed Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games.

Top of Coventry’s in-tray in her lucrative IOC role - she is also Zimbabwe’s Sports Minister - before the postponement of the Games had been the discussion, debate and - at times - diatribe surrounding the controversial Rule 50, which prohibits athletes from protesting on the podium or field of play.

Amid a rise in athlete activism - a hot topic in the Olympic Movement and beyond, particularly since the murder of George Floyd in the United States last year - the Athletes’ Commission embarked on an 11-month process to determine whether the rule should be kept.

At the end of the consultation, which included a survey responded to by more than 3,500 athletes, the ban on demonstrations on the podium has been maintained, although the rule has been watered down by allowing athletes to do so in designated areas of the field of play at their Olympic event.

Frequent critics of the IOC Athletes’ Commission would have sarcastically raised their eyebrows and expressed mock surprise when the results were announced in a detailed report in April.

After all, IOC President Thomas Bach had stated publicly his wish for the Olympics not to become a "marketplace of demonstrations", leading some to allege the outcome had been pre-determined before the process had even begun.

But Coventry, a two-time Olympic champion in swimming who was elected chair of the Commission in 2018, believes such claims are "not fair at all".

"We did not know how this was going to go so I think it is really unfair to say it was pre-cooked," she said.

"It is a cheap shot - it is going to get some people stirred up but when you look into the work that we did, the report speaks for itself.

"We went out of our way to engage with everyone. We had individual and continental calls with Athlete Commissions, we did our own survey and we took the surveys from other Commissions into account.

"At the beginning, when we laid out our plan, there was not that much negativity. 

"Then when the results started coming out from certain countries, you started seeing negativity.

"It was almost like ‘well we have seen this is not going to go our way so we need to attack in a different way’.

"I very much disagree with some of those comments, especially because the same organisations had an opportunity to engage with us and they didn’t."

Chief among the critics, which included a spate of Olympians, were Global Athlete, which said the recommendation to largely retain Rule 50 was "another sign of an outdated sport system that continues to suppress athletes’ fundamental rights" and claimed the research methodology was "both leading and flawed".

The World Players Association said it was tantamount to "censorship" of athletes’ rights and "brazenly ignores the courageous acts of athlete activists both today and in the history of the Olympic Movement".

Global Athlete, an advocacy group launched in 2019, said its stance was based on consultation with experts. Coventry said the organisation had "turned down" a request for their respective experts to "sit down and talk to each other".

"For me that is not being constructive," Coventry added. "We can’t continually give and give and only be attacked negatively when there is no constructive criticism."

Whatever side of the argument you sit on, everyone can agree the Rule 50 issue is a complex one.

You have some who feel preventing athletes from protesting on the podium, at the Village or at the Opening Ceremony is depriving competitors of their human rights, while others believe such areas of the Games should be sacrosanct.

There are also causes which the IOC itself would support, such as anti-racism and human rights.

"There is not only one specific cause," Coventry said. "I very much believe in standing in solidarity as 10,000 athletes against non-discrimination is way more impactful than trying to decide whose cause is greater.

"We are not there to say your cause is greater or better than the person next to you.

"I also don’t know how we would protect athletes who don’t come from as open societies. As the Olympic Movement, we have to protect everyone the same way.

"We have to try to be able to have moments where we collectively are fighting for equalities and non-discrimination and messages of solidarity, because that is how you live at an Olympic Games.

"You live with 206 other countries in an atmosphere that is intense and stressful, but everyone is peaceful. I would hate to see that being changed because we all know there are certain countries who would take those political opportunities. So how do we protect that and protect those athletes who wouldn’t have a voice at home?"

In some ways, keeping the ban on podium protests makes it more likely that an athlete will demonstrate when they are not supposed to.

"Does it make it more enticing? Maybe," Coventry says. "It’s human nature.

"It is like telling a two-year-old 'don’t touch that' and then they touch it.

"It is human nature to push boundaries but at the same time athletes also like to know rules and regulations. That discipline is why a lot of us get into sport.

"Athletes would like to know what’s what rather than not really knowing what the consequences might be."

Those very consequences will prove a thorny issue for the IOC. You would be hard pressed to find someone who believes punishing an athlete for speaking out or protesting injustice, be it racial or otherwise, is appropriate.

Yet that is the route the IOC and the Athletes’ Commission has chosen to pursue, with sanctions set to be determined by the organisation’s Legal Affairs Commission.

This is despite the fact some countries, such as the United States, have been adamant that they will not punish athletes for such acts at Tokyo 2020.

John Carlos and Tommie Smith were on the end of severe punishments at Mexico City 1968, where they were thrown out of the Games for their famous podium protest before they were later - some might say too late - recognised for their gesture.

So is the IOC on the wrong side of history here? "I don’t think so," said Coventry.

"We have to continue listening to everyone, we are a global movement and so we have to be able to show that.

"We can’t just pick and choose which individuals or countries to listen to at one time - we have to make decisions in a global way for everyone at the time that we are in right now.

"That solidarity and where everyone is treated equally is one of the things I love about the Movement.

"We have to make the most fair and equal decisions to make sure that messaging continues."

The decision to maintain Rule 50 only fuelled the fire of those who allege the Athletes’ Commission is too closely aligned to the leadership and is merely an extension of the administration.

Supporters of this view point to how member Hayley Wickenheiser was criticised for not contacting the IOC first when she broke rank and called for Tokyo 2020 not to go ahead last year.

Coventry has a seat on the IOC Executive Board by virtue of her position as chair, which some see as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, she represents athletes at the highest table, but that position invariably means criticism of or going against Bach is unlikely.

"We have worked extremely hard to have good relations with the leadership so that our programmes get pushed through," the 37-year-old said. "We’re doing what needs to be done.

"This is the case in any big organisation. You have to be able to talk to the leadership and the IOC members and let them know what athletes’ views are.

"If people outside of that see that in a negative way, that’s their view. But I think we have really gained a lot of respect within the organisation.

"Critics will always be critical, and I think it is good to listen to those things. Take those that are going to make you better and leave the ones which aren’t going to be helpful where they are."

Aside from Rule 50, tension with other groups and fighting off criticism of their stances on most issues in the Olympic Movement, the Athletes’ Commission has also been heavily involved in devising the strict rules all participants must adhere to at Tokyo 2020.

The much-maligned "playbooks" paint a sorry picture of what the Games will be like for athletes, officials and media alike. Under the measures, designed to ensure Tokyo 2020 will be "safe and secure", athletes have been told to arrive no earlier than five days before their event and depart no later than two days after, while they will also be banned from any tourist activities and even celebrating.

Their friends and family will also be absent as international spectators have been barred as part of efforts to limit the number of people in the Japanese capital for the Games.

The build-up to the July 23 Opening Ceremony has been dominated by "will they, won’t they" speculation amid concerns over staging the biggest sporting event in the world during a pandemic that has irreparably changed our lives.

Much of the talk has focused on why the Olympics and Paralympics should not happen. The IOC, mindful of trying to improve the narrative and convince a sceptical Japanese public that the Games will be safe, sees it differently - largely for financial reasons.

But why should the Games go ahead, from an athlete’s perspective? "Athletes deserve their moment," Coventry says.

"Everything has been looked at down to every ‘I’ that has been dotted and ‘T’ that has been crossed.

"Athletes understand the protocols. They would rather be able to just compete and at least have that opportunity rather than no opportunity at all."

During the Games, elections for the Athletes’ Commission are due to be held, with 30 candidates standing for four available slots, which carry the added incentive of IOC membership and all the benefits that status brings.

Greek pole vault star Katerina Stefanidi, British triathlete Alistair Brownlee and Spanish basketball player Pau Gasol are just some of the names in contention.

The IOC has confirmed the election will be held in-person as normal, with athletes at the Village voting between July 13 and August 3. Competitors will also be able to cast their vote at the satellite villages for sailing and cycling, as well as the official hotels for football and the marathon and road cycling events.

Coventry is one of those leaving the group, alongside Australia's James Tomkins, France's Tony Estanguet and Sweden's Stefan Holm. Commission vice-chair Danka Barteková's term is also up but she has confirmed she is standing for re-election and is the favourite to succeed Coventry in the top job.

Reflecting on her three years as chair, the Zimbabwean cites the work the Commission has done on mental health, the development of toolkits, medal reallocation and overseeing financial grants of $10,000 (£7,250/€8,500) to NOCs across the world as her main achievements.

But her time with the IOC is not over yet. It is clear Bach and the IOC Executive Board see a future for Coventry within the organisation.

She will become a full member at the Session in Tokyo, which had been considered a certainty even before she was chosen to lead the Coordination Commission for the postponed 2026 Youth Olympics in Dakar.

That could pave the way for an eventual tilt at the IOC Presidency at some point down the line. Bach’s Presidency is due to conclude in 2025, and while that may come too early for Coventry, seasoned observers have tipped her as one to watch.

"We will just have to wait and see," she says when asked about her future ambitions within the IOC.

"It has been a pretty incredible eight years of being able to work for athletes and fight for athletes.

"The Movement and the Games have been such a huge part of my life for so long and I would love to continue giving back to a Movement that I believe has changed my life for the better in so many different respects."