The eagerly-awaited Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) verdict, which saw sport's supreme court uphold 28 of the 39 Russian appeals against the sanctions handed down by the IOC, has only fuelled that particular fire.

In contrast, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has been through a similar period with a far greater degree of success.

Their decision to allow Russian athletes to compete as neutrals at next month's Winter Paralympic Games in Pyeongchang, providing they meet a series of "strict conditions", was no different.

While the IOC were castigated and condemned for allowing 169 Russians to take part at the Winter Olympics - that number could yet still rise due to the CAS verdict - the IPC were deservedly praised for the path they chose.

It is not difficult to understand why words such as "approved" and "support" gushed from organisations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Institute of National Anti-Doping Organisations after the decision was announced.

From the outset, the IPC has taken the collective sanctioning route instead of the horrendously-managed individual justice method of their counterparts at the IOC, and the global governing body for Paralympic sport is now reaping the rewards.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course, but the IPC have clearly thought this through in a much more strategic way than Thomas Bach and the IOC.

Their choice to pursue a collective sanction right from the very beginning has allowed them to shape the future direction of their decisions when it comes to the Russian doping scandal.

Amid the confusion following the fall-out to the McLaren Report, the IPC knew they would be dealing with an identical problem before Pyeongchang as they did prior to Rio. They saw it coming.

A neutral team competing on the IPC's World Cup circuit for the past few months is a case in point. After the Russian Paralympic Committee (RPC) was suspended, the IPC sought about finding a way to allow athletes proven to be clean to participate in their major competitions.

They established a recognised testing pool from which the neutral competitors would be chosen to ensure they could "guarantee" that any athlete approved to compete was clean.

This has formed the basis of their decision to clear those who meet their stringent criteria to compete as part of a Neutral Paralympic Athletes (NPA) team at Pyeongchang 2018. Unlike the IOC, their methodology has been largely understandable, and they have followed a clear, concise process throughout.

"We have implemented an NPA team since September and it has worked really well over the winter season," IPC President Andrew Parsons told insidethegames at the Russia announcement in Bonn earlier this week.

"We are sure and confident that the NPA will be clean. Russian athletes are among the most scrutinised in the world.

"The criteria is strict so we think we are providing a level playing field for the athletes."

The CAS verdict, announced in Pyeongchang on Thursday (February 1), has cast doubt on whether that will be the case at the Winter Olympics, which begin with the Opening Ceremony on February 9.

While the IOC allowing Russians to participate as neutrals at the Games made sense, it is the way in which they have gone about it rather than the decision itself which rankles most among their growing chorus of critics.

The use of the country's name in the "Olympic Athletes from Russia" team was seen as a concession to the Russian Government but it highlights the obvious differences in the stances of the IOC and IPC.

There will be no mention of Russia anywhere near the Paralympic Games. They will simply be known as NPA.

The IPC have also vowed to ban all Russian flags from the Games and their kit will be similar to that of the neutral athletes who have been competing at the World Cups - basic with no emblem, flag or reference to the country in sight.

This is how it should be. After all, we are talking here about a country which orchestrated and initiated an "unprecedented attack" on sport.

Despite the allegations and evidence, the Russian Olympic Committee have been given a chance of reinstatement in time for the Closing Ceremony on February 25. This does not ring true for the RPC, although this in itself represents one of the IPC's key challenges on the path to Pyeongchang 2018 and beyond.

With no acceptance of the McLaren report forthcoming and the Russian Anti-Doping Agency remaining non-compliant with WADA, it is difficult to see a time where the RPC is welcomed back by the IPC.

Yet even this shows how the IPC has, by and large, got it right on Russia.

The IOC have made it up as they've gone along and at the same time, the IPC has followed a strict set of criteria the RPC must adhere to in order to be reinstated.

If they do not meet it, they will not return. Simple.

"Of course we are concerned and it is a situation that we do not like," said Parsons.

"It is not up to the IPC. The ball is not in the IPC's court.

"It is a situation that could go on and on and on but it is up to the Russian Federation to make the next move to solve it."

Of course, you cannot please everyone. The IPC's decision on Russia was not totally supported within the Movement, with Germany claiming it was "incomprehensible" and that the entire team should have been excluded from Pyeongchang.

The German Paralympic Committee went on to cast doubt on the IPC's thought process, hinting they had succumbed to exterior political pressure and that allowing any Russian to compete was "a slap in the face of clean athletes and tamper-free sports structures".

In response, the IPC pointed to the progress which has been made in Russia - the RPC has met three of the five remaining reinstatement criteria in recent months - as their reasoning behind choosing the NPA route over the blanket ban they placed on the nation before Rio 2016.

Credit where credit is due, certainly, but the IPC are not completely in the clear just yet.

Sanctions may still be brought by the IPC against Russian athletes implicated in doping, although a spokesperson for the organisation told insidethegames this would not happen prior to Pyeongchang, and we are waiting verdicts on whether those involved will be stripped of their Sochi 2014 medals.

"We are currently trying to bring the data together and are waiting to study the reasoned CAS decisions into the IOC verdicts," IPC communications director Craig Spence said.

While the future remains uncertain given the CAS verdict, the IPC can point to how their decisions thus far have stood up to every legal challenge possible as a reason for optimism.

There may even be renewed hope of success in Russia against the IPC now the CAS has made their move.

But one thing is for sure; you would rather be the IPC than the IOC at this moment in time.