The week began with the nation wallowing in grief after the tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, with many predicting it would serve as a late catalyst to boost the campaign to remain in the European Union (EU). It proved anything but, as the nation awoke on Friday (June 24) morning to a triumphant leave decision which stunned the world.

Sport, for once, has not quite matched this, with Twitter feeds clogged up with despondent pessimism from remain supporters rather than the usual diatribes about doping and corruption. But it has still been another fascinating week of grand and not-so-grand gestures in the Olympic Movement as an electorate of greying administrators continues to debate whether Russia should stay or go to Rio 2016.

It began with a strong message from the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) that virtually none of the athletes from the world’s largest country would compete at this year's Olympics, with those “handful” deemed eligible to participate free to do so only under the ignominy of a neutral flag.

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach then somehow managed to “fully respect” this decision, while at the same time pulling the rug out from underneath its central premise and announcing that Russian athletes could, after all, compete under their own flag.

Russia, clearly buoyed, switched from tentative suggestions that they had “not ruled out” a boycott to support and praise for the IOC stance. Yet, just as momentum was beginning to shift, the IAAF and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) stood by their call for a neutral flag, before Russia - along with Belarus and Kazakhstan - was suspended by the International Weightlifting Federation for having three positive tests in re-analysis of Beijing 2008 and London 2012 doping samples.

My personal view has taken a similar spiral. Bach, speaking at Lausanne’s Olympic Museum with all the prestige and history of the Games lurking in the next room, came across poorly, with his repeated claims towards “zero tolerance” and “protecting clean athletes” failing to disguise how he was protecting the Olympic brand and essentially offering Russian an olive branch. At the Vienna press conference following the IAAF Council meeting a few days earlier, Sebastian Coe, for all his flaws in the past, came across as strong and statesmanlike.

He was clear and unswerving in his message, with Task Force head Rune Andersen providing evidence and legal back-up when needed, as both gave a clear signal that they were not prepared to tolerate Russian bluster. Bach, on the other hand, was anything but concise. In a rambling and convoluted performance, the German served mainly to confuse those in attendance, with even the most grizzled of veterans left scratching their heads. “Bach effectively confirms no Russian athletes will compete under Russian flag in Rio this summer,” tweeted one, only to add a few minutes later: “Slightly confusing…but, Bach saying Russian cleared by IAAF to compete in Rio will do so under Russian flag. But supports IAAF decision.” Others reported that he had indicated more Russians would be able to compete than the IAAF suggested, which he did not, or at least, we did not think he did.

“He is a lawyer, so he likes to be detailed,” an IOC official said afterwards. “He was not as confusing as he can be today…”

“He is being deliberately confusing,” said another journalist in less sympathetic fashion.

The only thing clear was that he had put forward a different and less hostile stance to that offered by the IAAF, and appeared to have no interest in the athletics body’s key promise of encouraging whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova to participate in Rio in order to encourage others to provide similar evidence. He never outwardly encouraged Russia to step up their appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and the declaration following the Olympic Summit was quite strongly-worded. But somehow his words contrived to make Russia far more confident in their chances.

Once the dust had settled, however, Bach’s message did receive support. Several journalists, including my colleague David Owen, have repeatedly argued against “clean” Russians - i.e. those who have not been directly implicated in a doping scandal - being barred from the Games, claiming it would set a dangerous precedent and rubbish the longstanding doctrine of innocent-until-proven-guilty. We published an eloquently written column by Russian hammer thrower Sergej Litvinov last week making this very point.  The claim that criticism against Russia is politically motivated has also been repeated once again. Others believe the IOC are correct not to allow athletes tainted by doping to compete under the Olympic flag, while, like with the EU Referendum, there is also an age divide wherein those who remember the boycott-stained Games of the 1970s and 1980s are more determined to ensure no country is ever barred again. Even the participation of Stepanova is debatable considering she is, after all, a doping cheat herself.

I accept all of these arguments but, as written before, believe that the bigger picture of making a definite stand against drug use is more important. The high-profile nature of Russia has certainly added to the criticism, and there has been far less of a focus on the weightlifting bans handed to Bulgaria, Belarus and Kazakhstan. 

But, politics or not, the fact is that serious allegations of state-sponsored doping have emerged only in Russia, and it is therefore only with Russia that the sporting authorities have the opportunity to act. 

As for clean athletes and the claims of Litvinov, they have been failed not by the authorities of international sport, but by the authorities in their own country, who have, at the very least, turned a blind eye to and indirectly encouraged the wrongdoing taking place. How else can you take a serious stand against these athletes than by punishing the whole team?

It is indeed brutal, problematic, and a dangerous precedent, but the opposite reaction, the one which Bach has at least partly encouraged, suggests to Russia and other countries that, however much cheating and doping is carried out, all it needs is a quick threat of a boycott and the sports world will come crawling back.

There are several parallels to Brexit here for the sports world. Britain’s decision to vote to leave was, above anything else, a rejection of the so called elites who dominate most facets of political, economic and cultural life. Rightly or wrongly, and somewhat ironically considering lead Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson was Mayor of London during the 2012 Games, the Olympics is increasingly seen as a tool for these elites to extend their scope at the expense of normal people. In Rio, for instance, where spending has been diverted from schools and hospitals for construction projects, and in Rome, where the 2024 Olympic bid faces extermination following the election of anti-establishment Mayor Virginia Raggi. These anti-Olympic sentiments will only rise in the Western world in the months and years ahead. Administrators also have been increasingly careful not to be seen as equally as aloof and out-of-touch as the bureaucrats at the EU headquarters in Brussels.

To return to doping, the silent masses who supported leave can be compared with the glut of athletes and fans getting increasingly frustrated by the dilly-dallying of administrators. These masses eventually made themselves heard after years of neglect, amid weak and broken promises. Sports bodies are gradually learning that a rhetorical commitment to “zero tolerance” is not enough, and a continued lack of concrete gestures will eventually be punished. 

Politics is a game of moments and opportunities. 

Johnson, seen by many in the past as a bumbling caricature of incompetence, saw his time has come and no appears favourite to replace Cameron as British Prime Minister. WADA, IAAF and the IWF have been just as guilty of passivity in the past, but they have realised that now is the time to act and take an unequivocally strong anti-doping stance. Bach, you feel, still has to learn this message.

Of course, many will claim that once the Olympic begins in Rio, everyone will forget their concerns about doping and cheer on as the likes of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps do their thing. This may happen, but people said the same about a leave vote triumphing in the EU referendum...

Sport and the Olympic Games is at a similar crossroads, and the likes of Bach and IOC must act to remain on the right side of history.