"GREETINGS citizens of the world. Allow us to introduce ourselves. We are Fancy Bears international hack team. We stand for fair play and clean sport."

So, like Spectre, Smersh or any other international espionage group you would care to name, begins another novel contribution to the Anti-Doping debate in sport. For all the cartoon bears cavorting about on their web page, those whose medical files have been hacked and made public thus far may not think find these characters too cuddly. Thought to be linked to Vladimir Putin's government in the Kremlin, the Fancy Bears have bypassed the firewalls to access World Anti Doping Agency files to create all kinds of merry hell.

That lofty claim to stand for fair play and clean sport, of course, doesn't stand scrutiny. In fact, their intention seems to be equating certain high-profile US and Western athletes being granted Theraputic Use Exemptions (TUEs) - a certificate which for medical reasons, allows an athlete to take a prescribed substance or have treatment that is otherwise prohibited - with the kind of state-sponsored programmes which saw many Russian athletes banned from the Olympics this summer. The technology which lies behind their cyber crime may be highly sophisticated, but the morality behind it is utterly crude. But is it just possible that they are helping to shine a light on something which could make sport a more transparent place in the future?

That the Fancy Bears are agenda-driven is clear from their list of priorities. "We will start with the U.S. team which has disgraced its name by tainted victories," their mission statement reads. Of course they will. "We will also disclose exclusive information about other national Olympic teams later. Wait for sensational proof of famous athletes taking doping substances any time soon. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us."

So far, their scattergun has alighted on some of the usual suspects and a few unlikely ones too. If Serena Williams and Mo Farah come into the earlier category, even if there was little new information in their claims, Callum Skinner - the first Scot to come into the group's crosshairs - can be put in the latter box.

Two TUE certificates allegedly belonging to Skinner, a Glaswegian who returned from Rio with a gold and a silver medal in track cycling, have entered the public domain. One is for anti-inflammatory drug prednisolone, during the London Track World Cup in November 2014, and one for using a salbutamol asthma inhaler for two days in late January this year.

While the Scot has yet to hold forth on the subject, what is he expected to think when he finds his achievement being opened up to such innuendo? Being granted a TUE, after all, is a sign that one is abiding by the rules, not an indication of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Mud sticks, though, and it is precisely BECAUSE of the possible reputational damage caused to someone who is innocently caught up in this affair that all this data should be out there in the first place.

Athletes are, of course, entitled to expect a measure of confidentiality when it comes to their medical history. But the public is entitled to clarity when it comes to the matter of which performance-enhancing substances are being used and why. TUEs may not be, as Fancy Bears call them, 'licences to dope' but questions about exactly how and why they are granted are becoming louder and louder.

UK Anti Doping insists it has "robust controls" in place to stop athletes abusing the system. The criteria at work insist that the athlete would suffer significant health problems without taking the substance, that it would not be significantly performance-enhancing, that there is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to its use, and that the need to use it is not due to prior use without a TUE.

But Skinner's Olympic cycling team-mate Bradley Wiggins is one man already on the defensive as a result of the Fancy Bears allegations. The data leak detailed three TUEs obtained by Wiggins for using triamcinolone for the treatment of asthma and allergies between 2011 and 2013 – each before his major target race for that season. Again the rules have been adhered to, but is it appropriate to be granted a TUE in these circumstances?

Not according to Scottish cyclist David Millar. A former user, he is speaking from experience. "If it’s that strong we shouldn’t be allowed to take it unless there is a serious issue. And if we’re suffering from that serious an issue, we shouldn’t be racing. I don’t know how a doctor could prescribe it. I can’t fathom it.”

Then there is Spanish tennis star Rafa Nadal, another man facing fresh questioning after it emerged that he was granted a TUE in August 2012 for taking intramuscular injections of Tetracosactide, another drug named in several doping cases involving cyclists.

“It’s not news, it’s just inflammatory," he said. "It would be much more beneficial for sportsmen and women, spectators and media that when a drug test is taken the news is made public and two weeks later there are the results. Sport has to take a step forward and be totally transparent. I have been saying this for years.”