Question:

During the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, one of the French judges on the judging panel for the pairs ice skating competition voted for the Russian team to win the gold medal. When confronted immediately after the event, the French judge indicated that she felt pressure to vote for the Russian team, which was awarded the gold medal for the competition. She initially stated that she voted the way she did because she was told by members of the French team that there would be a quid pro quo, that is, the Russian judge would then vote for the French team in the ice dancing competition.

Following the award of the medal in the pair's competition, there was international outcry because the silver medal Canadian duo had skated flawlessly whereas the Russian team had several flaws in its performance and this arrangement was publicized. After her initial statement, the French judge subsequently retracted her admission and stated that she truly believed that the Russian team deserved the gold medal.

After learning of the possiblequid pro quo, The organization in charge of the Olympics and responsible for the judging, the International Olympic Committee ("IOC"), launched an investigation. However, the IOC realized that it would be unable to fully establish whether or not any actual rules had been violated after the French judge retracted her initial statement and refused to cooperate with its investigation.

The IOC is now contemplating whether it should implement a change to the medals awarded and grant the Canadian team a gold medal. If this action is taken, then the outcome of the event would be two gold medals, no silver, and a bronze medal awarded instead of the traditional gold, silver and bronze medals.

a. What category/categories of ethical dilemma is found in these facts for the IOC?

b. Provide an overview of the Laura Nash Model and then use it to evaluate the identified dilemma(s) and state what you think the proper course of action should be for the IOC.