Clearly answer the questions asked;

Explain your rationale behind your answer; and

Provide example(s) that justify, or further explain, your answer to the question where applicable.

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 aquid 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. The IOC could also nullify the entire results and declare no winners, or decide to leave the results undisturbed.

1. Please explain what an ethical dilemma is and discuss what category/categories of ethical dilemma (besides quid pro quo) is found in these facts for the IOC from those listed in the text?
2. Provide an overview of the Laura Nash Model (as discussed in the text and lecture slides) and then apply it to these facts and use it to evaluate, and determine potential course(s) of action for, the identified dilemma(s) that IOC faces; and
3. state what you think the ultimate proper course of action should be for the IOC and why.

When making your evaluation, please discuss the relevant facts and assumptions that you find important and ensure that your answer shows that you considered the situation from more that one perspective and more than one alternative course of action.