But in recent years, something has become clear regarding the Olympic programme - the 28 core sports are safe, irrespective of the crises their International Federations find themselves in at any given moment, and it would take a lot for that to change.

Federations have been able to wilfully ignore governance standards trumpeted and championed by the IOC, safe in the knowledge that the IOC will, in most cases, refuse to take away their cherished Olympic place because of concerns with the way they are run.

Save for withholding Olympic funding - a severe punishment for those who are particularly reliant on income from the Games, it must be said - there are little deterrents for Federations.

It has meant those accused of everything from poor governance to covering up doping cases and of full-blown corruption have been able to do as they please while retaining the prestige that comes with being part of the Olympics.

To date, no sport has been thrown off the Olympic programme for any of those reasons. In fact, barely any have been for any reason at all, and those that have, such as baseball softball, have since returned.

The last of the core sports to be cut from the Games was wrestling, which the IOC axed from Tokyo 2020 in February 2013 due to concerns over a lack of universality and gender balance, before it was reinstated seven months later.

Since the U-turn on wrestling, there have been numerous issues and scandals in several Olympic sports - most notably athletics, boxing, gymnastics and weightlifting - but all have remained on the programme, despite the fact that in certain instances, we have seen athletes extorted for money, doping cases covered up and competitions at the Olympics fixed based on a pre-determined outcome.

This begs a pertinent question: How bad does a sport have to get before its position at the Games is plunged into doubt?

A reluctance from the IOC to sanction Federations by removing their sport from the Games is understandable in some ways.

Under President Thomas Bach, the IOC has demonstrated a favouritism for individual justice over collective responsibility, a trait carried over from the Russian doping scandal.

Put simply, the IOC and other Olympic officials do not feel it is fair to sanction athletes for issues with their respective governing body. As Association of Summer Olympic International Federations (ASOIF) chief Francesco Ricci Bitti said last week, "athletes cannot pay for bad management or bad governance".

While there is certainly merit to that argument, there is a precedent. In football, for example, English league clubs who fall foul of financial rules are penalised with points deductions, in some cases effectively relegating the team in question.

Despite that being of no fault of the players, many are forced to either find a new club or face an uncertain future in a lower division, probably with a considerable pay cut to boot.

Applying this principle to the Olympic programme would represent a sizeable threat to Federations and could, in turn, spark the change that is needed at so many of them, even with the collateral damage that it might bring.

The IOC, to its credit, avoided such a scenario when it took over the running of the boxing tournament at Tokyo 2020 following the suspension of the International Boxing Association (AIBA) as the Olympic governing body for the sport because of issues with its finances, governance and refereeing and judging.

The IOC’s boxing model ticks both boxes as it punishes the Federation for its misdemeanours by removing vital funding, while simultaneously allowing athletes to pursue their Olympic dream.

Not only that, but it is very much a test case for the IOC. Should Tokyo 2020 go ahead in its rescheduled slot next year and the boxing event be a success, it will embolden the IOC and could see the organisation use a similar mechanism for other sports governed by troubled Federations in future. It would also deal a blow to AIBA, which will not be reinstated until after Tokyo 2020 at the earliest.

Weightlifting, whose place at Paris 2024 is by no means confirmed, could be next.

More generally, instead of acting against the sport itself, the boxing example - and possibly weightlifting not too far down the line - shows the IOC will always look to punish the Federation rather than the sport or its athletes.

While a sensible move, this comes at a time where the IOC is expanding, rather than constricting, the number of events on the Olympic programme.

The IOC has consistently spoken of the need to keep the size of the Games in check but added five sports – baseball softball, karate, skateboarding, sport climbing and surfing - to Tokyo 2020, set to be the largest edition of the event in history with 33 sports, 339 events and more than 10,000 athletes.

Such a mission is impossible if sports are not removed from the Games as space has to be made somewhere for these supposedly hip, more youth-oriented disciplines the IOC so covets. Yes, the IOC has opted to reduce the number of events and athlete quotas, but, with the core sports seemingly secure, the programme will only keep growing.

There are also not any distinct parameters used to determine whether a sport should lose its place at the Games, and there really should be.

As past examples have shown, the IOC seems to pick and choose when it takes action against Federations and sports, often with a political motive. For example, few would argue the problems with wrestling when it briefly lost its Olympic place in 2013 were worse than, say, those in athletics or weightlifting.

Might the ASOIF’s governance review, which scores Federations based on 50 indicators divided across the principles of transparency, integrity, democracy, control mechanisms and development and solidarity, be used to help the IOC decide which sports stay and go?

While an intriguing document to read for those of us who cover the Olympic Movement, the review is not accompanied by any sanctions or punishments for the Federations who score lowest. Measures are recommended, but again there are no discernible consequences for those who choose to ignore them.

The IOC’s lack of action in this area has created an environment where Federations are no longer fearful of losing their Olympic berth.

Perhaps this is what the IOC was trying to address when it suspended AIBA while retaining boxing’s place at the Tokyo 2020 Games - don’t be surprised if AIBA is not the last - but it has nonetheless made it unlikely that any core sport will be booted off the programme any time soon.

On the other hand, some feel the only way to enforce change at Federations who have wilfully disregarded rules, regulations and even athlete safety is to threaten a sport’s very existence by wielding the axe on its Olympic spot, even with the damage it would cause to athletes.

After all, as American rock band The Fray once sang, "sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same."