To be fair to the IOC, I would be looking for divine intervention after the week they have had.

From the International Boxing Association’s decision to oppose all logic with their Interim President, to the scandal at USA Gymnastics. There is also the small matter of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s (CAS) verdicts on the Russian athletes concerning Sochi 2014.

The IOC must feel as though several plagues have been cast down upon them. Although rather than Exodus, its more an influx they are worried about, with Russian athletes taking every legal avenue possible to attend Pyeongchang 2018. 

It has been just three days since CAS laid down their verdict on the Sochi 2014 cases, although it has felt like three years, given the hysterical reactions from all sides of the argument.

Or both sides, if you are following the conspiracy theories about whether the IOC deliberately tried to impose life bans on Russian athletes, knowing they would fail, wasting several costly months of time and effort to prove a systemic doping programme.

Russia have celebrated the 28 athletes who have had sanctions overturned, declaring it as proof they were clean all along - conveniently ignoring the 11 found guilty by CAS.

The IOC have complained the CAS rulings could "have a serious impact on the future fight against doping" and have suggested the organisation, which it has put in charge of sanctioning cases at Rio 2016 and Pyeongchang 2018, needs to be reformed. 

CAS, which the IOC have repeatedly insisted as being the highest sporting court, may now have their decision appealed by the IOC to the Swiss Federal Tribunal.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have expressed their support should the IOC do so, once they have reviewed the reasoned decision from CAS.

While at the same time, WADA vice-president Linda Helleland revealed she planned to propose an "independent" investigation into the entire process, having deemed the current anti-doping system "untenable". 

This was almost certainly done without the support of WADA President Sir Craig Reedie, which should provide an interesting narrative in the coming months as Helleland appears to be trying to position herself to replace the Briton when his term ends.

Naturally, Helleland’s assertations have gained some traction with some of the more vocal National Anti-Doping Organisations, such as the United States, who tweeted their support to the Norwegian’s "call for change to return confidence in competing on a clean playing field".

In short, major changes are being suggested involving two of sports most important organisations. That is just in the last three days.

I am not sure anyone yet has got their heads around exactly what these changes should be. If anything, everyone needs to take a deep breath and assess. 

That, though, is understandably hard when there is genuine confusion around how many Russian athletes are set to take part in Pyeongchang 2018 with five days to go until the Games.

Amongst the deluge of reaction over the past couple of days, the ever quotable Richard Pound made an important point in my eyes.

While his "wrestling with a bowl of jello" was entertaining and his "when all is said and done, more is said than done" line hitting the nail on the head with regard to sports administration, his musing on athletes was the most on the money.

"Athletes’ should come out and say ‘every time someone in sports administration opens their mouth to talk about protecting clean athletes, we don’t think that is persuasive anymore'," he said. "I hope athletes groups around the world will stand up and call for more meaningful action."

Taking a step back and assessing the week, the voice of athletes has been painfully absent from the reaction to the Russian debate, other than the ones in Moscow celebrating their sanctions being overturned or vowing to pursue legal proceedings to force their way into Pyeongchang 2018.

How many current athletes truly displayed their delight or anger at the CAS decision publicly? 

How many athletes have spoken out at their lack of faith in the anti-doping system? 

How many athletes have either come out in support of or have criticised the IOC’s handling of proceedings over the last two years?

Ignoring the sporting administrator athletes on IOC and WADA Committees, not many really spring to mind immediately.

Britain’s skeleton athlete Lizzy Yarnold would be one, German discus thrower Robert Harting another. 

Of course, there was the finger wagging of Lily King towards Yulia Efimova at Rio 2016.

The problem with the latter was that it did not really achieve anything. It was one athlete wagging a finger to another. Just as fellow swimmer Mack Horton’s assertion that he had "no time for drug cheats" was made in reference to Chinese rival Sun Yang.

Invariably, athletes tend to make grand gestures about doping to television cameras having been beaten by a rival who is returning from a ban or having had their moment taken away when a retrospective medal is heading in their direction. The other example is when the athlete has themselves been caught and are protesting their innocence.

I can fully understand why athletes are not more vocal in criticising the existing anti-doping system or sporting organisations. Their focus is primarily on their careers, where training rather than taking organisations to task is their bread and butter. 

It would certainly be difficult to raise their head above the parapet and say potentially incendiary things, that could perhaps harm opportunities of sponsorship or anger people in charge of their own sport.

It athletes want change, though, surely, they have a massive part in making it happen.

I have struggled to think of examples of athletes taking a united stand on issues such as doping or governance of sporting organisations, which have made people take notice of their stance on an issue.

The most prominent in my memory, somewhat ironically, came from athletes protesting against organisation’s clamp down on drugs.

A series of sit-down protests, one led by Italy's race leader Marco Pantani, were stage during Tour de France in 1998, with riders at first refusing to take to the start. The sit-downs and instances of the peloton deliberately riding slowly came as a result of their annoyance at the treatment by the police and authorities, who had raided rooms and made arrests when searching for doping products.

Not sure I need to say too much more about that particularly period in cycling.

One does wonder, what would happen if a not to dissimilar show of disapproval took place against sporting organisations or the anti-doping system now.

Something that has been made clear by the gymnasts affected by the abuse by former USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, it is that courage and unity can force action to be taken.

In a jarringly different context, the premise remains the same.

If athletes are truly angry at the failings of the anti-doping system, surely the time has come for them to come together to highlight solutions and demand action, rather than words from sporting administrators.

Surely, boxers should go from hitting punchbags to banging their fists on the door of AIBA headquarters to demand the right action be taken by the organisation, given that their sport has been taken to the precipice of Olympic exclusion.

As much as sporting administrators pledging to turns words into action is not automatically going to fix problems, neither is athletes hashtagging clean sport and fair play.

If they want it to happen, then they might have to force organisations to make it happen.