Satisfaction because it is always good when a drugs cheat is exposed but despair because here was yet another result from nearly a decade ago that would need to be changed. 

The re-testing programme carried out by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has had major repercussions on the history of the Games and seems certain to continue do so for many more years yet.

According to research carried out by Olympic statisticians Bill Mallon and Hilary Evans, as of April 1 there had been 182 positive drugs tests from Beijing 2008 and London 2012, including the original positives and the positive re-tests.

Of these, there were 81 positives from Beijing 2008 and 101 from London 2012. Of these 182 positives, nine athletes tested positive at both Olympics, meaning a total of 173 athletes have been sanctioned.

In the men's 94 kilogram weightlifting event at London 2012, six of the top eight finishers have since tested positive, including the top four. It means that Iran's Saeid Mohammadpour, who had originally finished fifth, is now the Olympic champion and Poland's Tomasz Zieliński has been promoted from ninth to the bronze medal. 

Sotherton had originally finished fifth in the heptathlon at Beijing 2008. She was first upgraded to fourth after Ukraine's silver medallist Lyudmila Blonska tested positive for the anabolic steroid methyltestosterone. Now Chernova has be shown to be a cheat, Sotherton has moved into the bronze medal position. Chernova also lost her bronze medal from London 2012 following re-tests. 

Sotherton, as you would expect, received plenty of congratulations following the news of her unexpected bronze medal. Many who contacted her on social media spoke about how important it was that justice was served and drugs cheats need to be exposed, however long after the event. 

I do not disagree with any of that. But it is hard not to feel a bit depressed that so many events I have sat and watched have now turned out to be an illusion. There are some events I have watched at the Olympics, and remember being thrilled by at the time, that I don't even know who the medals have been awarded to now. 

It is not sustainable for any event to charge people small fortunes to attend them and then a decade later expose it was all a lie. Imagine if your ambition had always been to attend the Olympic Games and you got tickets for the women's 1500 metres final at London 2012. 

Following re-tests six of the top nine, including three of the top four and the gold and silver medallists Aslı Çakır Alptekin and Gamze Bulut, both from Turkey, have been disqualified. Justice has undoubtedly been done but if you were the casual spectator you would feel cheated, not as cheated as the athletes in the race who had not taken drugs, I admit, but still cheated. 

Why would you bother with the Olympics or athletics again? If too many people begin to think like that then television and sponsors will start reviewing their relationship with the Olympics and major sport. That is the beginning of the end. 

Britain's former world 10,000m champion Liz McColgan admitted on her Facebook page last month that she felt uneasy at the fact so many medals were being re-allocated so long after the event. 

"I do not agree with upgrading of athletes to medals after doping testing years later, the medals should be made void," McColgan wrote. "What about drug user from 20 years ago that technology failed to catch, not fair these clean athletes don't get upgrades. Also it's not as easy as saying just promote the next in line as these cheats had affected the entire race , i.e. heats stopped others with medal opportunities from qualifying, how often has a favourite been put out etc."

The reallocation of medals is an emotive subject, I acknowledge that. 

Five of the seven men who finished behind Ben Johnson, in the Olympic 100m final in 1988, were subsequently implicated in drugs. 

These include America's Carl Lewis and Britain's Linford Christie, promoted to gold and silver respectively after Johnson was disqualified. 

But did anyone who watched that race at the time feel less thrilled by what subsequently happened after the race. Who doesn't remember Johnson sticking his finger in the air as he crossed the line and feel a huge surge of adrenaline? 

Marion Jones was stripped of the Olympic medals she won at Sydney 2000, including her gold in the 100m, which was never re-awarded because the woman who finished second, Greece's Ekaterini Thanou, was embroiled in her own drugs scandal. The IOC withheld the medal, so there is no official Olympic champion from those Games. 

It was one of the reasons why David Wallechinsky stopped publishing his book The Complete Book of the Olympics after London 2012. 

"It’s very confusing who wins the medals, who doesn’t and who’s been tested," he told insidethegames. "'When you write about it it’s very difficult. What’s the point of describing a race where the top four people may get disqualified?"

Wallechinsky, though, supports the IOC position on re-testing samples up to 10 years after the Olympics and believes that in the long-run it could prove a powerful deterrent.

"It’s a warning to people that you can pass the test at the Olympics, but we are going to keep the samples and in 10 years we may catch you. It’s hard to be confident that you are going to beat a test that has not been invented yet.

"I think this is a good period."

Wallechinsky's book - which for London 2012 ran to an incredible 1,334 pages - is full of events from the 1970s and 1980s won by East German athletes later exposed as drugs cheats. 

These athletes will never lose their medals, however, because the IOC statue of limitations has long run out. Also, it would be naive to believe that there were not plenty of athletes from the United States, Great Britain and West Germany behind them who were also using exactly the same methods. It was only the East Germans that wrote it down and filed it away to be discovered decades later. 

Drugs testing was in its infancy in those days and it never occurred to the authorities to store samples so they could be re-analysed when science improved. 

This current re-allocation of medals is not going to change anytime soon, especially with more major events following the IOC lead and storing samples to re-test as new technology is discovered.

Let us hope that Wallechinsky is right and the fear of being unmasked as a cheat 10 years after their greatest moment of glory will make today's athletes think twice about cheating.