And now the matter has acquired urgency again, following the report by Tages-Anzeiger that Swiss Sports Minister and Federal Council member Viola Amherd had written to Thomas Bach, the Lausanne-based organisation’s President, calling for it to take a "further step" and exclude officials from Russia and Belarus in response to the attack.

I do not think the answer is as cut-and-dried as many journalistic colleagues.

As the IOC itself has pointed out, the Olympic Charter requires members to "represent and promote the interests of the IOC and of the Olympic Movement in their countries".

It also specifically requires them to "not accept from governments, organisations, or other parties, any mandate or instructions liable to interfere with the freedom of their action and vote".

However, other elements in the IOC’s rather surprising recent response to my insidethegames colleague Patrick Burke have helped to clarify my thinking.

The IOC response included the following sentences: 

"Many people have been arrested in Russia after even just calling for peace.

"Nevertheless, some athletes and officials have had the courage to call for peace.

"One can imagine there are many others who would like to call for peace, but are afraid because of the draconic repercussions.

"Silence can be a message in itself."

I must admit, my initial instinct was to retort: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing."

I then concluded this would be hypocritical: I can well imagine if I were unlucky enough to be in Russia at present, my own survival strategy would be to keep head down and lips sealed.

But then, I am not an IOC member required by charter to "represent and promote the interests of the IOC and of the Olympic Movement" in my country.

As Burke also reported, Bach has called on world leaders to "give peace a chance".

Insofar as the IOC has a message to Vladimir Putin, one must presume it is contained in those four words.

Yet, by the IOC’s own acknowledgement, it would take great courage for Russian IOC members to repeat this, given the possibility of "draconic repercussions".

In current circumstances, in other words, it seems to me it would be putting Russian members under intolerable pressure to insist that they "represent and promote the interests of the IOC" in Russia, as required by the Charter.

This means that they cannot effectively do their job as IOC members and should therefore be suspended, while emphasising a) that this is not intended as an individual punishment and b) that they will at once be reinstated when circumstances change.

Having said that, in almost any situation there is value in keeping a communication channel open.

But you do not need four members/honorary members to do that.

I would suggest therefore the retention of one Russian IOC member in position - preferably honorary member Vitaly Smirnov, a man with more than half a century of IOC experience - to fulfil this potentially critical role.

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

I was saddened to learn last week of the death of IOC member Alex Gilady at the age of 79.

Gilady had his faults, as do we all, but he was a generous man and I owe a significant part of my understanding of international sports politics, such as it is, to him.

We used to meet quite regularly in the bars and coffee-shops of whatever city Olympicland was colonising that week, but also in London.

He had a fondness for one of the cafes in Selfridges, but I think the story I am about to tell you took place in a much swankier bar in one of the Park Lane London hotels.

The 2018-2022 FIFA World Cup bidfest was in full swing.

I was full of it - I think at that stage in the race it was still possible for countries to bid for either or both tournaments - and had conceived some madcap theory for how England might win.

Gilady indulged me for a few moments, then sighed, placed a hand on my forearm (often a prelude to his most telling interventions) and said: "David, David" - a smile and shake of the head - "Why don’t you tell your readers the truth?

"Tell them it is impossible for England to win."

"What do you mean?" I frothed, indignant at this casual dismissal of my brilliant scheme.

He returned my look, but said nothing more.

Of course, I quickly realised he was right.

That was Gilady.