I have long argued the scholarly analysis that situates public diplomacy in one way or form or another has long been defective. (That this scholarly literature generally disregards the realities of implementing a program, employs absurdly broad and intentionally prejudicial terms, and is largely ignorant of the relevant history is for a different thread.) As I noted, it's highly contextual: seemingly benign "public diplomacy" may be interpreted quite differently based on the setting. That said, re-reading my comments and what you wrote, I want to clarify my comments. I agree that the current WADA and IOC activities are not "public diplomacy" since there is no indication (at least not from what you wrote and the limited discussions I've seen elsewhere... ok, one other place) the IOC intended to operate behind closed doors. Whether or not what the IOC is attempting to blackmail is irrelevant to whether it is "public diplomacy" since the method is the primary criteria with any interpretation by the target or an observer being possibily irrelevant (i.e., whether it is seen as blackmail or political warfare can be in the eye of the beholder and could be accurate or inaccurate). If the IOC, or WADA, move(d) this conversation out of the proverbial backroom, then it's arguably PD because they shifted to this method or means of influence to achieve their objective.