It seemed, in the aftermath of Dick Pound’s report into athletics and the IAAF which uncovered state-sponsored doping within Russia and systematic corruption within the governing body, that the only way was up for the IAAF. Because after all, there’s only one place to go when you’ve hit rock bottom, isn’t there? Yet we have all been proven wrong; Pound’s findings were not, it seems, rock bottom after all.

The bad news has continued to flow for athletics with a recent claim by a former Chinese athlete that she was administered performance-enhancing drugs. This was followed by yet more revelations of doping in Kenya. And last week, Nestle announced that it would be terminating its sponsorship deal with the IAAF one year early, with their move coming just weeks after Adidas terminated its sponsorship deal with the governing body four years early.

Nestle supported the IAAF Kids’ Athletics Programme and the company said that it had come to the decision to end the partnership as it feared that the doping scandal currently engulfing athletics may damage the Swiss company’s reputation. So, in stepped athletics’ night in shining armour, the IAAF President, Lord Sebastian Coe, to rectify the situation. El Presidente’s answer to this worrying development was to go on the attack. He called Nestle “hypocritical”, citing the company’s support of the Tour de France as supporting evidence for his anger. He added that the IAAF would not accept Nestle’s decision as “we see no sensible rationale and we don't believe this is simply about reputational damage.”

Well done Sherlock, it’s not all about reputational damage. It’s about money. There are few multi-million pound companies in the world who care about their reputation over hard cash and if Nestle believed that their partnership with the IAAF would continue to benefit them financially, they would, more than likely, not be running scared. This is why Adidas are continuing with their sponsorship of FIFA, despite football also being proven to be riddled with corruption.

Coe is a smart man - a fact that he has made a good fist of disguising in recent months- but his judgement has proven, yet again, to be spectacularly poor. Someone needs to have a quiet word in Coe’s ear to let him know that this kind of reaction, just like his “declaration of war” and his “so-called experts” reactions, makes him look just a touch defensive. He must remember that he holds the moral high ground over no-one at the moment.

Coe has talked regularly of the difference between perception and reality and how the two had become confused. Well, to sponsors, the reality matters not a jot, only the perception of the sport to the paying public. It’s why football has not been damaged nearly as severely as athletics by their respective scandals; football may have been run by a group of corrupt, dishonest rogues but, and this is the only thing that really matters, the football itself was never affected.

As bad as it is that the sport’s top brass were allegedly taking back-handers in return for making particular boardroom decisions, when it comes down to it, nobody really cares what the blazers say and do. However nefarious Blatter and Platini and Warner’s behaviour was, it makes no dent in the allure of the game to the fans.

Whereas athletics’ problem lies with the fact that the sport itself has been so catastrophically damaged and this is why sponsors are fleeing so rapidly. Let's not pretend that Adidas and Nestle and others want to take a moral stance on these matters; if they can make money out of the sport then they will be involved. If companies wanted to take the moral high ground then Nike would not be sponsoring convicted drug cheat, Justin Gatlin, Burger King would not be sponsoring convicted wife-beater, Floyd Mayweather, and Adidas would have dropped Luis Suarez after his delightful biting escapades.

For all of Coe’s pronouncements that he is the right man for this job - which, incidentally, is exactly what someone who wasn’t the right man for the job would say - the companies who plough money into athletics seem to disagree. And paradoxically, this may be the best thing to happen to athletics. As much as there have been repeated proclamations from those at the top of the sport that there will be changes and the trust of the public will be won back, history suggests that change only happens when it is unequivocally forced. And the only force that is really effective, is financial force.

Just as anyone who wants to be an MP should be automatically disqualified from becoming one, it’s starting to look like anyone who wants to run a sporting body should have an automatic ban placed upon them. I’m not convinced that any individual at the top of any governing body has a wholly altruistic approach to running their chosen sport and so coercing them into good behaviour as a result of the constant threat of financial hardship may be the best, and only way, to sort out this horrific mess.