Better late than never is doubtless the way that British athletics team captain Eilidh Doyle and her compatriots are viewing the award of medals they are receiving as a result of rivals having been adjudged, many years later, to have been doping cheats.

Robbed of their big moments at the time the British contingent of belated medal recipients will at least receive theirs in front of a home crowd at a major occasion when they are presented with them during next month’s World Championships at the Olympic Stadium.

Lee McConnell, Doyle’s fellow Scot, is another of the 11 British women who will receive World Championship medals during the first few days of the forthcoming championships and Sebastian Coe, the president of world athletics’ governing body the IAAF, was surely right yesterday when he declared: “I’m delighted that the athletes are properly honoured for their achievements and what better way than in front of passionate athletics fans at a major championship.

“For those receiving gold medals their moment in London will be all the more special as they will hear their national anthem played. Whatever their nationality clean athletes worldwide will celebrate with them.”

Whether or not it will be quite as special for the United States women’s 4x400m team who will receive the gold medals they are now deemed to have won at the World Championships in 2013 is probably doubtful or, indeed, those who receive theirs at more modest gatherings.

In total 11 individual athletes and five teams from across 11 events at four previous World Championships have accepted invitations to receive their reallocated medals in London we are told, while the IAAF says that in the case of those athletes who will not be presented with their reallocated medals in London, they have been “in contact with their national federations” to find other times to award them.

There is no doubt that however their place in history is achieved the athletes in question will always be proud of their achievements but retrospective medal ceremonies have sadly become a recurrent feature of modern athletics championships.

How much importance should be placed on them is another tricky issue when it comes to those, like Doyle, who are still competing since, by definition, there is a desire to make them as grand as possible for the recipients, but on the other hand they cannot celebrate as they would have if they had received them at the right time.

Martyn Rooney, a member of the British 4x400m men’s relay team who were recently upgraded to Olympic bronze medallists made a useful point when he observed: “I don’t want to be distracted. I need to go to the World Championships and focus on that, so if we could get it done at the Diamond League, I’d love that. There’s no way of getting back to Beijing and doing it that way, but if we can go to an Olympic stadium and be in front of a British crowd, that would be amazing.”

Rooney’s wish was granted when he and his team-mates received their medals earlier this month during the Muller Anniversary Games Diamond League meeting rather than at the World Championships.

Of rather greater concern than where medals are awarded, though, is the apparent inconsistency of the way retrospective regulation is applied. The Olympic 100 metres final in 1988 has been dubbed ‘the dirtiest race in history’, yet for all that Ben Johnson’s near immediate disqualification is among the notorious of doping cases, no retrospective action has been taken against any of his rivals in spite of some compelling evidence having been submitted.

Meanwhile, look through the past winners of the Tour de France and there is a seven year period between 1999 and 2005 during which there is no longer an official winner’s name recorded, yet in the five years after the last of Lance Armstrong’s illegal victories, two more ‘winners’ have had their titles stripped from them Oscar Pereiro, in 2006 and Andy Schleck, in 2010, are both deemed to be champions after Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador were both stripped of their titles for doping offences.

In Italian football we have the even more curious case of Juventus being stripped of titles in 2004/05 and 2005/06 for similar offences, yet while no alternative champion was named for 2004/05, Inter Milan were retrospectively granted the 2005/06 title.

Sticking to football it is inevitable that the timing of these observations will also invite some comments on the decision announced by the Scottish football authorities yesterday, that they believe they have no legal grounds on which to strip Rangers of past titles.

For all that there are often as many different interpretations of laws available as there are interested parties who are prepared to employ lawyers it seems that those who would have preferred a different outcome must satisfy themselves with occupation of moral high ground rather than any change to official sporting history.

If we are to make sense of any of this what would appear to be required is some sort of globally agreed position on whether the stripping of a title or medal from one man, woman or team should mean that the next in line claims the prize they were deprived of, or whether it serves a greater purpose to have the position left vacant. Such apparent arbitrariness would appear to be an area in which the Court of Arbitration for Sport really should get involved.