A most interesting relic has fallen into my possession.
Printed on rather garish green paper and dated 28 April 1987, it is an International Olympic Committee (IOC) circular which shows the body just starting, a quarter of a century ago, to grapple with the problem of harmonising the fight against doping across different sports and countries.
Since the World Anti-Doping Code was the eventual fruit of such efforts, the occasion of the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg expected to bring approval of a new version of the code seems an appropriate moment to reflect on the state of thinking 26 years ago and how it compares with today.
Signed by Prince Alexandre de Mérode, the distinguished late Belgian administrator, whose family line stretches back centuries and who acted as chairman of the IOC's Medical Commission for more than three decades, the document - just two pages long, four if you include the French translation - deals with the question of harmonising sanctions for doping transgressions.
Addressed to international sports federations (IFs) and National Olympic Committees (NOCs), it includes a text proposing the "possible unification of sanctions for positive dope controls" and solicits responses.
This text is just 170 words long, including its title, "Recommended Sanctions for Positive Cases".
It says:
"Due to the fact that the sanctions applied by the International Federations for positive doping cases vary considerably, the IOC Medical Commission feels it's necessary to recommend a harmonisation in this field.
"The IOC Medical Commission recommends that a decision by the appropriate authority is made in order to protect the right of the athlete to a fair hearing before sanctions are taken.
"Based on the experience of more than 20 years in doping control activities, it seems to the IOC Medical Commission that a differentiation between "deliberate" and "inadvertent" use of prohibited substances should be made.
"Therefore, a certain flexibility is necessary in decisions regarding sanctions.
"Sanctions for deliberate doping:
eg Anabolic steroids, amphetamine type stimulants, caffeine, cocaine, narcotics and designer drugs:
"3 years for the first offence
"Life ban for the second offence.
"Sanctions for inadvertent use of banned drugs:
"eg ephedrine, codeine:
"3 months for the first offence
"2 years for the second offence
"Life ban for the third offence."
What I find most striking is the air of touching innocence that the statement exudes, in comparison with the corrosive cynicism that quickly surfaces in almost any discussion of the issue today.
This is clearest in the distinction between "deliberate" and "inadvertent" recourse to a prohibited substance.
To me, that distinction is eminently just: it seems self-evident that an athlete who has broken the rules by accident should be treated far more leniently than one who has set out in a calculated manner to try and give herself an illicit edge.
The trouble is, a disciplinary system based on that premise risks opening the door for any offender with a half-decent defence counsel to plead mitigating circumstances and escape with a light sanction.
This has led us down the path to the doctrine of strict liability, which holds that if it can be proven that a banned substance is present in an athlete's system (or present at a higher-than-permitted concentration), then the burden of explanation rests with the athlete, who is unlikely to get off any more lightly than an acknowledged doper without hard evidence to support his claim.
And then there is the profoundly unconvincing use of the phrase "the experience of more than 20 years in doping control activities" to try and vest the text with an air of authority.
Yes, the first Olympic testing had taken place at the Grenoble Winter Games in 1968, but the issue was only just starting to ascend the financially-challenged and boycott-plagued Movement's order of priorities.
Doping was plainly rife in a number of sports, the blood-boosting drug Erythropoietin (EPO) had only just appeared on the scene and the crisis of Ben Johnson's positive test in Seoul was still more than a year away.
That, of course, was the moment when the full extent of the problem started to be exposed and the attritional battle still being waged today truly got under way.
And that is why the Belgian Prince's letter on green paper reads as quaintly 26 years on as a cavalry charge in the age of mechanised warfare.