Australian International Olympic Committee member John Coates has been singled out for criticism by the New York Times over the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision to overturn the life bans of 28 Russian athletes accused of doping.
The CAS said there was "insufficient" evidence to prove doping offences at the Sochi 2014 Games for the athletes.
In 11 other cases, CAS confirmed doping but reduced the bans to just the upcoming PyeongChang Winter Olympics.
But the New York Times says Coates - a long-time IOC member and a former member of the CAS board - should have been able to forsee the court's ruling.
"The outcome raises yet more troubling questions about the lengthy and complicated process that defined the IOC's treatment of the affair, and why experts in sporting jurisprudence, including IOC president Thomas Bach, failed to predict Thursday's outcome," the paper said.
"Bach once led the court's appeals division, and John Coates, a longtime senior IOC member, is president of the court's top board."
The IOC has expressed fears of "a serious impact on the future fight against doping", insisting the athletes would not be going to South Korea because Russia's Olympic Committee is suspended.
"The result of the CAS decision does not mean that athletes from the group of 28 will be invited to the Games. Not being sanctioned does not automatically confer the privilege of an invitation," the IOC said.
The Australian Olympic Committee has welcomed the IOC's stand, confident its athletes would not be distracted by the saga.
"I share the IOC's disappointment and I agree with the stand they have taken," Australian Chef de Mission Ian Chesterman told AAP.
"We must continue to send a strong message that doping cannot be tolerated in Olympic competition."
The IOC last year banned 43 Russians for life from the Games and disqualified them from Sochi 2014 due to organised doping practices there, including the tampering with samples and sample-swapping.
Forty-two of them appealed at CAS and hearings were conducted for 39 last week in Geneva, with CAS making it clear that it was looking at each case individually and not at organised practices.
