Bach triumphantly told the IOC Session that the Olympic Games' unifying message had fended off the "boycott ghosts of the past", with only diplomatic action taken by countries concerned by China’s human rights record.

"You may remember that at our IOC Sessions in January and July 2020, we could already see the dark clouds of the growing politicisation of sport on the horizon," Bach said at the time. 

"We also saw that in some peoples’ minds, the boycott ghosts of the past were rearing their ugly heads again.

"This is why we have been working even harder to get the unifying mission of the Olympic Games across to as many leaders and decision-makers as possible: the United Nations, the G20 leaders, intergovernmental organisations and national governments, individual politicians and many, many more.

"In all these conversations we stressed that the Olympic Games can only accomplish this unifying mission, that we can only get all humanity together in all our diversity, if the Games stand beyond all differences and political disputes.

"We appealed to them to respect this and thereby to support this precious mission of the Olympic Games. 

"Today we can be happy and proud that apparently this message got through."

While there never seemed a genuine threat of athletes skipping Beijing 2022, the outcome was trumpeted as a victory. 

Bach, after all, had written an op-ed in 2020 to outline his views and warn nations against boycotting the Games.

The IOC President had again recalled the impact the Moscow 1980 boycott had on his career, as well as claiming it had "no political effect" on the Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan. 

He opined that it only served as a trigger for revenge boycott at Los Angeles 1984.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appears to have significantly shifted the dial, a point Bach acknowledged when outlining the IOC’s justification for calling for a ban on athletes from Belarus and Russia last month.

He argued that without recommendations the organisation would have been unable to ensure "integrity, fairness and safety of our competitions". 

The exclusion of athletes from Belarus and Russia was now viewed as the only way to ensure unity.

"Without this, we would have to face the situation where Russian or Belarusian athletes would be competing for titles, while Ukrainian athletes could not, because of the war in their country," Bach wrote. 

"Without this, we would have had to experience the politicisation of sports competitions by athletes or teams, some of them being encouraged by third parties.

"We also had to consider the safety risks for Russian and Belarusian athletes taking part in international competitions, because of deep anti-Russian and anti-Belarusian feelings following the invasion."

The comment appeared to establish the argument that International Federations will undoubtedly use at the Court of Arbitration for Sport for excluding athletes from the two nations. 

Essentially that competitions would be unable to take place as planned, with competing nations threatening not to compete against Russia and Belarus.

The International Paralympic Committee’s eventual decision to exclude athletes from the nations at the Beijing 2022 Paralympic Games was made on that very premise. 

It was a similar story for the International Swimming Federation (FINA) World Championships.

Likewise, FIFA’s arm appeared to have been twisted by national federations, as Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic had refused to participate against Russia in the European playoffs for Qatar 2022.

Had Russia - or the Football Union of Russia - remained in the tournament it is feasible they would have advanced to Qatar 2022 due to having no opposition. 

England were among the nations to also declare they would refuse to play Russia in international matches. 

Such a threat could have made Qatar 2022 a farce.

The power now seems to be out of International Federations' hands - albeit the majority have followed the IOC recommendations anyway.

A boycott could well be on the cards in luge, following the decision of the governing body’s Court of Arbitration to lift a ban on Russia luge athletes two days ago. 

An open letter published by Ukrainian athletes today - shared by the FIG - called on athletes and National Federations to boycott events until Russian competitors are banned.

"Reach out to your national federations and say that you won’t take part in any FIL competition until FIL decides to ban entire Russian Luge Federation from our sport and forbids its athletes to participate in luge races", the letter read. 

"Make a loud, clear and united statement.

"Present your statement to your national federation and make sure that your federation reaches out to FIL and confirms the decision that its athletes won’t compete alongside Russian team during the war and Russian invasion in Ukraine!"

The overturning of the decision was celebrated in Russia, with the verdict leading to the call for a boycott.

The case may be an isolated one at this stage, but I suspect it could be a consistent one in international sport for the foreseeable future.

As it stands, sport’s position appears unified in excluding Russia and Belarus. 

The question is whether that will remain the case in the future.

Clearly a long way off at this stage - given the ongoing conflict - but the sporting world will at some point seek to reintegrate Russia and Belarus when the war ends. 

It would not be a surprise to see the timelines for reintegration differ between those running sport and those participating.

The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee said last month that discussions were ongoing with fellow National Olympic Committees over defining criteria which would allow nations to be part of the Olympic and Paralympic Movements.

Whereas in the past, the Olympic Movement has resisted calls for Russia and Belarus to be excluded from events over the state-sponsored doping scandal and I wonder whether athletes and nations could be the ones to dictate the process which would eventually see Russia and Belarus return to the fold.

Boycotts were also raised in two other contentious sporting issues in recent weeks.

An alleged boycott by female cyclists was touted by a group opposing transgender athletes' participation in women’s sport as having contributed to the International Cycling Union and British Cycling blocking Emily Bridges from competing at the British National Championships last week.

Whether the suggested boycott had an impact, the fact it is on the table feels a significant development in long-running issue that sporting organisations have been struggling to come to grips with - or unwilling.

Qatar 2022, meanwhile, had seen some calls for a boycott over concerns over human rights and the safety of LGBTQ+ fans. 

England manager Gareth Southgate questioned what a boycott of the tournament would achieve, noting that stadiums had already been built. 

The England team has instead vowed to "shine a light" on issues around the tournament.

In the case of Qatar 2022, Southgate’s view is probably correct in that the preparations are too far down the track for a boycott to have an impact, as the tournament would likely take place with or without a nation should they chose to skip the event. 

I wonder though whether the increased awareness and spotlight provided by athletes now would see threats to boycott if an organisation like FIFA made a similar host selection in the future.

The situation does feel different now. 

Boycotts definitely feel like they are back on the table as an option.