WADA’s entirely expected decision to turn down the Russian Anti-Doping Agency’s appeal to be reinstated last week has turned the focus solely towards the IOC, whose Executive Board will meet to make a decision on December 5.

It marks a considerable change from the last round, before Rio 2016, when the focus and anger was largely directed at the WADA’s handling of the Russian doping crisis.

On that occasion, WADA President Sir Craig Reedie was the man taking the brunt of the flak. Firstly, having to fend off criticism of the organisation at the IOC Session on the eve of the Games, before spending time in the stocks at the Association of National Olympic Committees (ANOC) General Assembly later that year in Doha, when delegates threw a variety of rotten words in his direction about the organisation he leads.

While the noise died down in the months after the Games, it has ratcheted up in recent months as this round draws towards its close. But with every round of the hot potato game, it gets harder.

WADA, emboldened by the acquiring the key database consisting of all testing data at the Moscow Laboratory between January 2012 and August 2015, have merely been able to maintain their current position regarding RUSADA’s compliance.

On the other side, Russia have spent a further 18 months digging deeper into their trench of denial. No database or announcements about athletes being stripped of medals by the IOC’s Disciplinary Commissions is going to lure Russian officials out with their hands up.

After all (Dis)Honorary Russian Olympic Committee President Leonid Tyagachev claimed last week that whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov should be shot. A comment that would result in you losing your position in most parts of the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin claiming they will respond with a boycott should neutral participation be the IOC’s verdict.

As has been written in our columns over recent months, political pragmatism will probably be the driving force behind any decision that the IOC come to.

The heart of the decision should be the athletes. Who exactly has been speaking out for the athletes on the issue?

Three of the four IOC Athletes' Commission representatives on the WADA Foundation Board were unable to attend the organisation’s meeting last week. On what has been one of the keys issue affecting athletes and the confidence athletes have in sport, it was a poor signal to send out.

If I were an athlete, I would be half tempted to give the missing officials a ring to explain why they were not representing my interests at the meeting.

I would also be growing sick to death of hearing organisations utter the phrase “protection of clean athletes”.

It is something that gets trotted out again and again. The Olympic Summit focused on the “protection of clean athletes”, ANOC spoke about the “protection of clean athletes”, the WADA media release last week twice uttered the phrase.

Can anyone adequately sum up what this means?

It is very simplistic to say that any decision you take is to protect athletes, but what exactly are organisations trying to protect athletes from.

Is it about protecting athletes from unfairly being ruled out of competition and having the right to compete for medals? Or is it about protecting them from the potential to take banned substances.

Should the view be that you ensure every athlete who has not failed a test or been implicated in a scandal can compete, it seems logical that there should be some Russian participation in Pyeongchang. It would seem entirely unfair if an athlete who may have been 14 or 15 at the time of the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games was unable to compete at Pyeongchang 2018, despite potentially having had nothing to do with any doping regime.

In that case a blanket ban would seem wholly an unfair prospect, in my view.

If the aim is about ensuring that athletes cannot be brought into a culture where they might be persuaded or forced into taking part in a potential doping programme, then it seems obvious to me that strong action would be required.

It is all very well for people to deem it “individual justice” by punishing the athletes who are involved in cases, what protection does that offer those coming into the system?

What would stop athletes from being coerced or forced to take substances if they wish to be part of teams, with officials and coaches safe in the knowledge they would be able to shy away from the taking responsibility should the athlete ultimately be caught.

We have seen countless sporting examples of this. How many cyclists were caught for doping offences during the 1990s, but did handing out individual bans have much of an impact on tackling the wider problem? Have individual bans for athletes really had an impact on the number of positive tests in weightlifting?

The International Weightlifting Federation have now opted for the line of collective responsibility in a bid to tackle the issues which have dogged their sport, as they have dished out bans for a host of major nations. Of course, there will be weightlifters who will be clean and miss out on their right to compete. But in the long run, will those athletes missing out on competition force officials in the countries affected help to change the culture of the organisation.

It seems possible that a collective punishment could potentially be the answer, if you consider it purely from a welfare point of view.

In this respect, I think any idea about Russia competing neutrally would be a complete waste of time. It would be an unsatisfactory halfway house, neither a punishment which would have any impact other than to stir up tensions.

As my colleague Nick Butler previously suggested, perhaps sanctioning officials in charge of the Russian team or sporting organisations at Sochi 2014 could prove a more meaningful pursuit should the IOC wish to take a tough line on doping, but offer a fair opportunity for athletes who have not been implicated.