IT WAS astonishing this week to hear the self-serving cant from Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee. In a BBC interview he attacked the World Anti-Doping Agency, demanding its reform and promoting the view that the Rio Olympics were "a great success". This, despite a raft of criticism, not least the IOC's own abrogation of responsibility by passing the buck on the participation of doping-infested Russia.

Even with the benefit of hindsight, president Bach told the Beeb he has "no regrets" about letting them compete.

The timing of his attack is remarkable, coming as it does on the eve of a WADA executive board meeting today [Sat] in Glasgow, home city of WADA president Sir Craig Reedie, an IOC member and a man believed even beyond the lofty confines of Olympus to be a friend of Bach. It's even more astonishing because, on the one hand, the IOC has announced support for Reedie, who stands unopposed for a further three-year presidential term when the WADA foundation board meets tomorrow. [Sun] Yet, on the other, Bach said this week that he would endorse further funding for cash-strapped WADA only if it reformed – tantamount to a vote of no-confidence on the WADA leadership. With friends like Bach there seems little need for enemies.

I have been critical before of WADA, but compared to the Olympic movement it is a veritable paragon, and Reedie does not deserve the rough ride that he may face tomorrow.

Bach is a former Olympic fencer and his attack on the global anti-doping lobby is a classic tactic: go on the offensive when on shaky ground.

He said he wants "a WADA anti-doping system that is independent from the sports organisations". At present, the IOC contributes half of WADA's paltry $30 million annual budget. How independent does that make WADA? If a re-crafted WADA is to be truly independent, then its funding will have to come from national governments, for which Reedie has already lobbied unsuccessfully.

IOC willingness to invest more if WADA reforms is tacit acknowledgement that it has failed to fund it adequately. Yet this would be not spell independence for WADA. Lord knows, the Games bring the IOC enough money, but perhaps we should look at where this comes from.

Conspiracy theorists would have a field day analysing and considering why the IOC pursues its own agenda, blatantly kow-towing to forces whom it can ill-afford to offend.

Consider this: the USA is the headquarters of five of the 11 corporate worldwide sponsors who backed both London 2012 and Rio 2016, with each paying $100m for the privilege ($1 billion). The oldest link is Atlanta-based Coca Cola, dating back to 1928. On top of this is $4.38bn paid by the US just for domestic American broadcast rights to the 2014 and 2018 Winter Games, plus Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020. This covers all media platforms, including free-to-air television, subscription TV, internet and mobile, and all adds up to making the USA the single biggest source of Olympic income. So, protecting the brand and the movement's US profile is critical.

At Sochi 2014, the domestic Russian sponsorship programme alone raised $1.3bn, a record for a Winter Games.

One might observe that this dripping sponsorship roast, plus billions in other revenue, could fund a veritable nuclear arsenal of anti-doping deterrents. Why has it not already done so? This smacks of lack of genuine commitment to the war on doping to me. Consequently, anti-doping is left overly dependent on whistleblowers.

Does financial self-interest account for IOC leniency towards the US and Russia? In what amounts, I believe, to betrayal of the athletes they purport to protect and revere, they have become lap dogs, feart to bite the hand that feeds it.

The most prolific women's athletics medallist at a single Olympics was Marion Jones, with five (three gold) in 2000, after each of which she was dope-tested by the IOC – all reportedly negative. She enjoyed 167 negative tests in her career. The FBI finally exposed her as a cheat, but it was nine years before a reluctant IOC re-allocated her medals. Why did we have to wait so long?

Their willingness to protect clean athletes reached its nadir with the British 4 x 400m quartet in the 2004 Olympics. The US won gold, having qualified using an athlete in the heats (Crystal Cox) who later admitted to having used illegal drugs. She was stripped of her gold but, in contravention of the rules and opposing the wishes of the global athletics body, the US team was allowed to keep its gold medals. Had it been disqualified, the UK team including Scotland's Lee McConnell would have been upgraded to bronze.

Would the Russians who cheated their way to medals in London 2012 (also passing IOC doping controls) ever have been sanctioned without WADA intervention? Pardon my cynicism.

The McLaren report was a pre-Olympic bombshell. The IOC hated the inconvenient timing. Was Reedie supposed to hush it up, until release was more "convenient"? McLaren has a second part of his report to come. It's expected to be equally damning. Will WADA be the bad guys again?

Yet they forensically investigated claims that dozens of Russian competitors in a range of disciplines had doped prior to Sochi 2014, establishing that a state-sponsored programme existed across the "vast majority" of Summer and Winter Olympic sports.

As a result, 118 Russian athletes were blocked from Rio, but 271 arrived there thanks to the gutless non-intervention of the IOC, who then proceeded to operate a Rio test programme which independent WADA observers said had "serious failings". It's safe to assume that Russians in Rio were among those targeted for testing but could not be found, causing 50 per cent of planned tests there to be aborted on some days. More than 4,000 athletes had no record of any test in 2016.

Those are the facts behind IOC anti-doping. And Bach has the gall to brand Rio "a great success" and attack WADA.

Yes, WADA must up its game, but shame on Bach for betraying honest competitors, and with it the Olympic ideal.