This is the main piece in the host assessment and selection machinery which has replaced the simple, if potentially messy process, culminating with a tense, devil-take-the-hindmost, one-member-one-vote-per-round election, that served the Movement reasonably well for so long.

I have come to regard it as a fairly typical Thomas Bach-era reform in that it is; a, far less transparent than the previous modus operandi and, b, centralises power.

The first part of that assertion will need little justification to anyone who experienced the full-blooded, highly public Summer Games campaigns of the 1980s, 1990s, noughties and beyond. Let’s just say I found it less than surprising that the first "race" under the new system should essentially have been won by John Coates, a consummate and uber-smart IOC insider.

Point b may call for a little more unpacking.

The Future Host Commissions are, yes, commissions, and as such can be held almost entirely under the IOC President’s thumb.

The Olympic Charter spells out at length the extent of the IOC President’s powers in this area, should he choose to exercise them.

The President, so the Charter says, "establishes permanent or other standing or ad hoc commissions and working groups whenever it appears necessary. Except where expressly provided otherwise in the Olympic Charter or in specific regulations established by the IOC Executive Board, the President establishes their terms of reference, designates all their members and decides their dissolution once he considers that they have fulfilled their mandates."

Wait, there’s more. "No meeting of any commission or working group may be held without the prior agreement of the President except where expressly provided otherwise in the Olympic Charter or in specific regulations established by the IOC Executive Board."

Not only that: "The President is a member ex officio of all commissions and working groups and shall have precedence whenever he attends one of their meetings."

(In fairness, since IOC Executive Board members are excluded from the Future Host Commissions, I would assume that that last stipulation does not apply.)

There are other specific references in the Charter to the Future Host Commissions themselves, but little else so far as I can see that would override the language above.

In one particularly woolly sentence, it is stated that: "All regulations and procedures of the Future Host Commissions shall be adopted by the IOC Executive Board and shall enable the commission members to fulfil their mission in a flexible, pro-active and contextualised manner, taking into account geographic, strategic, technological, economic and societal developments and opportunities."

The Charter also explains how the IOC Executive Board shall "study the reports and any recommendations of the Future Host Commissions and, if endorsed, submit a report and recommendations of any interested host or hosts to be submitted to the vote by the Session for election, not later than one month before the opening date of the Session to elect the host of the particular edition of the Olympic Games."

To me that "if endorsed" speaks volumes about who is really in control here.

-----------------------------

It has been a fascinating month so far for those of us with a season-ticket to that long-running soap opera-cum arm-wrestling bout, Russia versus the international sports authorities (some of them).

First, a reshuffle at the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) triggered a public expression of concern by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regarding the "sudden resignations of three Supervisory Board members, including the Chair".

Then, a day later, it was announced that WADA’s Executive Committee had the previous day endorsed, "by way of circulatory vote", a WADA Disciplinary Committee recommendation to revoke the approved status of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory to carry out blood sample analysis for the Athlete Biological Passport. The lab in question, a WADA media release reminded us, had already been provisionally suspended since January 2020.

Meanwhile - moving swiftly on to the Big Picture - natural gas prices have been going through the roof.

Europe, of course, is a major buyer of Russian gas, prompting one business journalist to observe pithily on Twitter, "I’m no expert on geopolitics but the fact Putin controls Europe’s energy prices feels…sub-optimal".

Cue an intervention from Vladimir Chizhov, Russia’s permanent representative to the European Union, who, as the Financial Times (FT) put it, "called on Europe to mend ties with Moscow in order to avoid future gas shortages”.

The FT reported that while Chizhov rejected assertions that Russia had played a role in Europe’s gas crunch, Europe’s choice to treat Moscow as a geopolitical "adversary" had not helped. "The crux of the matter is only a matter of phraseology," Chizhov said. "Change adversary to partner and things get resolved easier."

Now, call me a cynic, but one relatively cheap way for Governments to "mend ties" in such situations is to start pulling strings in the domain of sports diplomacy.

Supporters of the Rodchenkov Act may not much like it, but I cannot help but wonder whether, by keeping Europe warm this winter, Russia may not end up bringing itself in from the cold in international sport.

Saint Petersburg 2036, you say?