Our concerns would lie in two areas. One, the lack of communication with an athlete who ultimately will be affected by the outcome of an arbitration, and two, lawyers arguing over medals 14 months after the games are concluded is not good for the Olympic movement.
It does matter. Not just to the U.S. Olympic Committee. It matters to the American public. It matters to our broadcast partners. Now, to us as an Olympic Committee, it is not the only thing that matters.
This is a significant step. Our interest in the short term is in preserving opportunities for athletes to train and compete. In the long term, we want to see a governance and managerial structure that better serves the sport.
We feel good about where we are. We're up there with perennial Winter Olympic powers.
It is in process and we are awaiting final approval from the organizing committee and the international federation.
The Olympic team is a reflection of our country and what our country stands for, and one of the most important ideals our country stands for is the ability to express yourself.
You move forward now to '05-06, and I think you're seeing a continuation of all of this, a continuation of the recognition of Winter Olympic athletes.
In the long term, there is a direct correlation between the strength of the N.G.B.'s and the strength of the U.S. Olympic team.
We have asked that those cities interested in bidding for 2016 to just basically not become too active at this point. We've asked them not to start forming committees, developing logos or spending lots of money just yet. We are not telling them they can't speak about it.
We have indicated to our athletes it is perfectly appropriate to wave the flag and when they do so they should wave it with pride and honor.
