Having thought things through and put out one or two feelers, however, I can see why this should be deemed an opportune moment for at the very least a good housekeeping exercise.

What I mean is this:

Assuming the 2026 Winter Games host is indeed designated on schedule at the next IOC Session in Lausanne in June, there will then follow a highly unusual hiatus in which no Summer or Winter Olympic bid races are ongoing.

Under the traditional timetable, one would not expect the contest for the 2030 Winter Games to start until 2021.

By the same token, the starting pistol for the big one, the next Summer Olympic contest, would not normally be fired until 2023, although it seems prospective bidders are already starting to line up.

Given the state of almost permanent revolution into which – needs must – the bidding process has been pitched more or less since Thomas Bach won the IOC Presidency in 2013, this interval provides a good opportunity for taking stock; for deciding which of the many recent bid-battle innovations the IOC might want to make permanent and then inscribing them on the tablet that is the Olympic Charter, the Movement’s fundamental document.

And if you are going to do that, well, why not have a bit of a brainstorm to assess anything else that might be deemed a good idea while you are at it?

Looking at the relevant section of the Charter – broadly Rules 32-34 – some of the basic textual changes I can imagine the working group might consider are as follows:

a) Rule 32.2 - “The honour and responsibility of hosting the Olympic Games are entrusted by the IOC to a city, which is elected as the host city of the Olympic Games.” – should this be amended to “a city or region”, or similar?

b) Rule 33.2 - “The IOC Executive Board determines the procedure to be followed until the election by the Session takes place. Save in exceptional circumstances, such election takes place seven years before the celebration of the Olympic Games.” – given what happened with Los Angeles, and the general desire for greater flexibility in an era when cities, particularly potential Winter Games hosts, are both reluctant to throw their hats into the ring and uncertain to stay the course, should the “seven years” stipulation be changed?

If so, the simplest course might be to remove that second sentence altogether.

I would certainly expect measures to be taken to ensure, should genuinely mould-breaking innovations such as the double award of the 2024 and 2028 Summer Games once again be judged expedient, that a costly additional Session would not need to be called, as was the case in 2017, to pave the way for this to happen.

c) The bye-laws to Rule 33 may get quite an extensive re-write.

This might alter details, such as restricting the field to “one bid” rather than “one city” per country, but also formalise the introduction of a dialogue phase ahead of formal evaluation.

It struck me some time ago that this might be a way of mitigating one of the big problems for the IOC that it has still not managed to solve: the tendency of the outside world to lump in general, as opposed to sporting, infrastructure costs when calculating the headline price-tag of Games projects. 

If an assessment of transportation, accommodation and other general needs required to render a city/region “Games-ready” could be made, along with some idea of cost and who might pick up the tab, well before any bid is formally launched, this might help keep such items separate from sports infrastructure and Games operational costs in the minds of the general public whose consent will ultimately be necessary if an Olympics is to be staged there.

Imagine, for example, if the 2032 Games dialogue phase began soon after Tokyo 2020.

This would leave three years to consider such matters before the official race got under way.

If the IOC is serious about becoming more proactive in targeting possible bidders, as it did for the 2022 Youth Olympics, as it appears to be, a new bye-law will probably also need to be drafted to outline how this might work.

I would think there would need to be language in the Charter to protect the IOC in the event that contacted cities interpreted an approach as tantamount to an invitation to stage the Games – much as a headhunted job candidate might presume mistakenly that the post was as good as hers – only to be disappointed subsequently.

d) Rule 34 - “All sports competitions and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies must, in principle, take place in the host city of the Olympic Games.” – which I would expect to be made much more flexible to accommodate what seems to be the new reality, in particular insofar as the Winter Games are concerned.

One Rule, by contrast, that I would be fairly confident will not change, at least not in substance, is Rule 33.1: “The election of any host city is the prerogative of the Session”.

Bach was keen to emphasise in Lausanne that the working group, which will be chaired by one of his key go-to men, Australian IOC member - and lawyer - John Coates, had been given a “kind of blank cheque to organise themselves”.

Even so, if Charter changes are being contemplated, I would expect to hear some sort of outline of the broad direction of the working group’s thoughts at the Session in June.

This could clear a way for any necessary amendments to be formulated and approved ahead of next year’s Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics.