On the day the Olympics started the headlines in one of the competing nations were very ugly.

It’s out-going Premier was accused of behaviour that a discarded former member of his inner sanctum described as “a symptom of a wider problem: our corrupt and decaying democracy”.

A former political ally now out in the wilderness and devoid of any sort of power reckoned it would “embarrass a medieval court.”

Another opponent said it was a demonstration of a system that “is rotten to the core.”

A body charged with overseeing the democratic process meanwhile claimed that what had happened would see unelected politicians “cost the taxpayer millions over the long term.”

Elsewhere protesters were being arrested for chaining themselves to roadways blocking major thoroughfares as part of a protest against the treatment of racial minorities.

Meanwhile one of that same country’s athletes taking part in the Olympic Games was tearfully proclaiming how tough it was on her that she would always be branded a drugs cheat in the eyes of some.

Competing in the world’s most notoriously drug-infested sport she proclaimed her innocence on the basis of naïvete, yet as a member of a programme that has received more than £30 million in public funding, felt she was entitled not to reveal why she had failed to be available for one of three drugs tests she had missed after being allowed to compete in Rio on a legal technicality.

Given all the focus placed on it in the build-up to these Games it might seem reasonable to deduce we are talking about Russia here, but no, this was good old Great Britain.

The same broadcasters and media pundits who spouted their moral indignation at the involvement of any Russian competitors were once again only too ready to accept that our Lizzie just isn’t that sort of a gal.

There is, of course, a complicating factor in Russia’s case with the assertion by WADA, which is chaired by Great Britain’s Craig Reedie, on the basis of as yet unrevealed evidence, that there is no question that state sponsorship of doping programmes has taken place.

Those who believe that should have been sufficient to see all Russians thrown out of the Olympics duly welcomed the pronouncement from the International Paralympic Committee that they were taking precisely that action and there was something approaching glee in response to the bluntness of the accompanying message from its also British chairman Philip Craven who stated: “I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals over morals mentality disgusts me.”

Strong rhetoric indeed, but his sentiments should surely be applied to all nations which brings us back to his home country and its sports investment policy as executed by the government’s funding arm UK Sport, a body which has made no secret of seeing its priority as medal acquisition.

With controversy raging on that issue a couple of years ago its attitude was spelt out in an article on the ‘Inside the Games’ website which quoted UK Sport’s chief executive Liz Nicholl as re-stating her organisation’s medal obsession, claiming: "Our decision to invest on a 'no compromise' basis for winter sports, in the same way as we do for summer sports this past four years has really paid dividends.

"What this shows is getting the right investment to the right athletes for the right reasons is key to delivering medal winning success… UK Sport is committed to supporting every athlete who can demonstrate the realistic potential to win a medal."

The author of that piece, Alan Hubbard, went on to observe in the same article: “British Basketball, whose funding has been cut to zilch because of this medal-fixation, has been treated at best regrettably and at worst shamefully.

“Basketball, in which 70 per cent of participants are under 25 and half come from black and minority communities, is hardly an elitist sport. Unlike fencing, which astonishingly has had its funding increased by almost 30 per cent to just short of £4 million despite never having got a sniff of an Olympic medal since 1964.

“And how about sailing, the biggest recipients of all. Does it really need an extra bung of £25.5 million? Isn't the Royal Yachting Association wealthy enough to ensure the sailors a few extra home comforts?

“By coincidence the new chairman of UK Sport is Rod Carr, a former chief executive of the RYA. Of course, we totally accept assurances that he played no part in the funding process.

“As the aggrieved slam-dunkers point out, UK Sport say it is all about winning medals. ‘That seems crazy’ they say. Agreed.”

We may do things a bit differently to the Russians but it was also, in relation to the aforementioned criticism of the British government, Steve Hilton – David Cameron’s one-time strategy guru - who made reference to the ex-prime minister’s retirement honours list as representative of “an even more serious type of very British corruption.”

Dangerous terrain this moral high ground.