They won six medals, including gold for high jumper Maria Lasitskene, and were cheered rather than booed by the British crowd. At the same time, they were unable to celebrate with their own flags and national anthems and it will always be remembered that they were barred from competing as Russia.

International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) President Sebastian Coe described this as a model which has "worked really well" in London and at other events this year.

Could Russian participate in a similar way at February's Winter Olympic Games in Pyeongchang?

International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Thomas Bach was asked a variant of this question on at least five occasions during a joint press conference with Coe last week. I tried to be clever, asking for his "personal view about neutral participation in light of what he had seen at the athletics". I was swatted away with the ease you would expect from a foil fencer weaving to avoid a telling blow.

"I cannot prejudge in any way the results of our two Commissions and the Executive Board," Bach smiled. "This will depend, very much, on their work. The rest would be speculation."

The Commission, led by Swiss officials, IOC grandee Denis Oswald and IOC Ethics Commission member Samuel Schmid, have now set a tentative deadline of October to complete their work. 

Oswald is exploring "allegations" of sample manipulation and also analysing all samples given by Russian athletes at Sochi 2014. Schmid, meanwhile, is addressing the "institutional conspiracy across summer and winter sports athletes who participated with Russian officials within the Ministry of Sport and its infrastructure".

It was reported by the Press Association last week that only a "fine" will be imposed in an article quoting a "senior anti-doping official". This was swiftly rejected by the IOC as "pure speculation". Others here, though, on the Russian and International Federation side have also been discussing similar rumours.

"I think a fine is a bit of a superficial gesture," World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Athlete Committee chair Beckie Scott told insidethegames at an interview arranged before this report emerged. "To be honest, I think there's a large percentage of athletes who still feel that, for such a massive scale of corruption and defrauding of the Olympic Games, there was no real consequence of substance [last year]."

Fair enough, I thought afterwards. Scott has always been an outspoken critic of drugs cheats and, when you consider that she only received a cross-country skiing gold from the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics two-and-a-half years late when the two Russians in front of her were disqualified for doping, who can blame her? 

She was also speaking after reflecting on the Icarus documentary which has provided new revelations about Russian skulduggery and, crucially, exposed them more to the general public.

We were therefore surprised to spot an article on the Olympic Athletes' Hub co-signed by Angela Ruggiero and Tony Estanguet, the respective chair and co-chair of the IOC Athletes' Commission, criticising Scott's opinions. It received very little attention due to its posting halfway through an action-packed evening of finals at the IAAF World Championships.

It could have been missed completely had it not been for an eagle-eyed colleague. Yet it provided a remarkable glimpse into IOC thinking.

"We believe the comments made by the chair of WADA's Athlete Committee are inappropriate at this time," the pair, who each also sit on the WADA panel, said. "We believe speculation about possible outcomes without knowing the result of the work of the two IOC Commissions is creating confusion to athletes."

It can be argued that they have a point and that it is better to wait until the IOC probes are completed.

I disagree for three reasons.

Firstly, we already have realms of evidence from two WADA-commissioned investigations and work done by journalists and other whistleblowers. The IOC cannot, therefore, take ownership of the scandal and claim that only their findings and implications are valid.

Secondly, the IOC were originally due to finish their investigations by March and, while we are told that the delays are unavoidable, they cannot expect everybody to respect a blackout until they are ready to reveal their hand. They certainly did not do this last year before the McLaren Report was published.

Thirdly, whatever they say in public, you can bet your bottom rouble that discussions and negotiations with Russia are already underway, even if a final decision has not yet been reached.

Even when you disregard this, it seemed a gross overreaction for them to send out such a statement.

It gave the impression once again that the IOC and WADA are not on the same page and it was also easy to conclude that both Estanguet and Ruggiero's number one priority is to serve their IOC masters rather than athletes. 

The fact both the former canoeist and ice hockey player are also playing key roles in Paris' and Los Angeles' respective bids for the 2024 and 2028 Olympics does not help this impression. 

Ruggiero and Estanguet insist this is unfair and they were not requested to send out the statement by "powers on high" - IOC director general Christophe de Kepper, probably - but felt strongly enough to do so independently. 

They also claim that, when the IOC Athletes' Commission does reach a verdict after the investigations are completed, it will not automatically be the same one as that of Executive Board.

I am not saying Ruggiero and Estanguet must go out on a limb and clash with the views of Bach. Yet it would be nice to see some free-thinking in public from a body which should be representing the views of athletes in tracksuits rather than politicians in suits.

Benefit of the doubt for the time being, then, but the IOC have too much of a track record at these sorts of games for us not to be sceptical. Too many cases of loyal officials being coerced into delivering a pre-written speech in return for greater career prospects and too many "independent" decisions which are actually the opposite. 

A similar thing, incidentally, also happened last year when IOC Executive Board member Patrick Hickey used his position as President of the European Olympic Committees to distribute a "shocked and concerned" statement slamming Scott and anti-doping bodies for their "unprecedented" and "premature" call for a Russian Olympic ban.

Trouble is, while the IOC are adept at politics behind closed doors, they are less good at effective public messaging, and this apparent attempt to re-control the narrative has not really helped.

St Lucia's IOC member Richard Peterkin got it right, as he often does, when tweeting: "What's up IOC and WADA athletes? We need you guys on the same page if there is to be any meaningful change on anti-doping. Come together."

Trouble is, both sides only seem to want to come together if the other agrees to their way of thinking.

Don't get me wrong. WADA are equally as capable of these sorts of games and they play politics just as well, perhaps better in the public sphere.

The difference, so far as I can see, is that I do find myself believing that the priority of WADA and anti-doping officials is to ensure sport is a cleaner place. I am still unsure if this is the case with the IOC…

So what is likely to happen?

Several conflicting messages are currently being spun around Olympic corridors. 

On the one hand, I have had several conversations with IOC staff during which they have spoken candidly about how Russia will receive a stronger punishment. An interview Bach gave with the New York Times in June was apparently an attempt to lay the foundations for such a shift.

"We have the impression that some in Russia were thinking by addressing the issues for the future, the past would be forgotten," he told the newspaper. "You cannot forget what happened in Sochi. We have made clear that the past - what happened there - has to be sanctioned."

"Judge as on what we do this year rather than before Rio,"I was told separately, before being led to believe that a neutral Russian team was a real possibility.

Bach's tone during the New York Times interview was apparently stronger than ever before. Yet if you look at the actual words he said, he does not really give much away. Yes, they will receive a "sanction", but we are still completely in the dark as to what this will be and how it will be justified.

The delays to the IOC Commissions have apparently been caused by work being done by a Swiss company to study test tubes used at Sochi 2014 to assess if they were illegally opened and then re-sealed with fake urine samples. Will they establish once and for all that this happened or will they reach a different conclusion from that previously achieved by in the McLaren Report? 

And what is Schmid's aim? Will he prove the duplicity of the Russian "state" or will he somehow conclude that they were not involved? 

If the answer to both of these questions is the former rather than the latter, then surely a stronger punishment will be merited to justify the biggest example of proven cheating in sporting history? Neutral participation is seemingly a good compromise as it would allow "clean" Russian athletes to compete.

I still doubt that Bach would be willing to risk the political fallout of such a decision. Apparently, the Russians have already told the IOC in no uncertain terms that they will boycott the Olympics if they are not allowed to compete under their own flag. Other countries may follow suit. 

If true, this is essentially blackmail - but it may prove effective.

Bach and Russian President Vladimir Putin, incidentally, are each expected to attend the World Judo Championships in Budapest at the end of this month. They are expected to avoid meeting each other by attending at different times during the event. 

The alternative theory currently doing the rounds is that some sort of letter will eventually be issued by senior Russian figures to the IOC going some way towards an apology.

A "substantial" fine will then be imposed. Russian athletes and officials directly implicated will also be punished, but there will be no blanket restrictions.

I would guess that the money may go to an independent anti-doping agency currently being set up. WADA have already suggested that this should go to them directly while senior IOC member Richard Pound has raised the prospect of athletes denied prize money by doping cheats demanding a share. 

All of this would set a fascinating precedent above and beyond the distinct case of Russia.

I was also intrigued by a paragraph at the bottom of the Ruggiero and Estanguet message referencing a WADA Athlete Committee statement issued defending the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and criticising those questioning its "independence".

This apparently followed Scott and others questioning CAS' consistency in reaching decisions, although I cannot pin my finger on when exactly she has said this in public.

Could this message be foreshadowing the moment where CAS make the decision which proves key in Russia's eventual punishment?

Maybe, maybe not. As with everything else, we cannot be sure at this stage.

There is also always the possibility that fresh revelations could emerge from a new whistleblower which shifts the goalposts completely. 

Either way, it may now be October, rather than next month's IOC Session in Lima, which provides the most interesting and unpredictable moment in sports politics over coming months.