Compare the recent statements on the vexed issue of Russia by the bodies the two men run, and you can see why.

This week’s legalistic, characteristically didactic IOC statement preaches that the Olympic Games "cannot prevent wars and conflicts" but can "open the door to dialogue and peace-building in ways that exclusion and division do not."

It then condemns the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" as a "blatant violation of the Olympic Truce…and of the Olympic Charter" before kicking any decision on Russian and Belarusian participation at Paris 2024 down the road, while emphasising that this will be "at its full discretion, and without being bound by the results of previous Olympic qualification competitions".

It also issues a series of recommendations for International Sports Federations and other bodies "in the event that they decide to admit athletes with a Russian or Belarusian passport to their competitions."

The blockbuster World Athletics statement of March 23, by contrast, comes across as clear, unhedged and, in the words attributed to Coe himself, angry.

The governing body of the Olympics’ bedrock sport "reaffirmed" its decision to keep Russians and Belarusians out of all World Athletics Series events "for the foreseeable future," with Coe noting that "the unprecedented sanctions imposed…by countries and industries all over the world appear to be the only peaceful way to disrupt and disable Russia’s current intentions and restore peace."

The two-time Olympic gold medallist went on: "The death and destruction we have seen in Ukraine over the past year, including the deaths of some 185 athletes, have only hardened my resolve on this matter."

Whatever you think of the two bodies’ respective stances, the contrast is stark, particularly in tone.

Oh, and it is probably worth pointing out here that Coe did not attend the "11th Olympic Summit" referred to repeatedly by the IOC statement, having been "excused".

Indeed, with FIFA boss Gianni Infantino similarly "excused” (it was quarter-finals day at the Qatar 2022 World Cup), there were actually more Olympic winter sports Presidents attending than summer sports.

The legalistic tone of the IOC statement was perhaps most apparent in a segment touching on the "70 other ongoing armed conflicts and wars around the world (source: Crisis Group, CrisisWatch Database)".

Here we learnt that "[National Olympic Committees] in the regions impacted by these armed conflicts and wars are following the principles of the Olympic Charter. They are not requesting the exclusion of athletes from the other party in the armed conflict or war, and they are allowing their athletes to compete in international sporting competitions without restrictions."

The implication, I suppose, is that one person’s war of aggression is another’s just cause.

I can certainly see the argument; but rather than washing one’s hands of any attempt to differentiate, isn’t it a more moral stance to form a considered view on each individual outbreak of hostilities and respond accordingly?

And if sanctions against an aggressor state are deemed, after due reflection, an appropriate response, well, why on earth should sport be excluded?

I am afraid the melodramatic claim that "if Governments took over the decisions regarding which athletes can take part in which competitions, it would be the end of world sport as we know it today" rather stuck in my craw.

This is not Moscow 1980 all over again: the Russian capital is not the prospective host of the next Olympics. The clue is in the title - Paris 2024.

It is simply a question of weighing one state’s actions (OK, two) and determining whether a reasonable and pragmatic response ought to include excluding that state’s athletes from our greatest global multi-sports festival.

As another distinguished IOC lawyer Richard Pound recently told me: "At a certain point, there is a shared national responsibility for national conduct."

Coe, of course, may be a candidate to succeed Bach as IOC President in 2025.

Seen in that light, the March 23 Council meeting - which also, as summed up admirably by my insidethegames colleague Mike Rowbottom, "barred transgender athletes from women's competition, altered DSD athlete regulations" and "reinstated the Russian Athletics Federation following seven years of suspension" - could give the former middle-distance star the beginnings of a distinctive campaign platform.

These were, to repeat, World Athletics decisions, not Sebastian Coe’s; so, he is not, in any way, tied to them, even if his comments make plain his support for the body’s Russia stance.

But it is equally easy to see how they could be used to portray a leader prepared to take tough decisions and to speak out for what he believes to be right.

Shakespeare/Coe, the orator; or Bach, the professor - who makes the better politician?

It may not be long before we find out.