'The USOC has been stabilized from a state of mass confusion'

Q: What has been your most significant contribution to the USOC in four years as chairman?

A: The USOC has been stabilized from a state of mass confusion, and that is to the credit of the other volunteers and the other professionals involved, not the chairman.

Q: Even though you had a high profile, the new board became almost invisible. Was that by design?

A: One of the first goals, for the 2004 Games in Athens, was to do away with the practice of the board marching in with the team and being part of the celebration when they are really volunteers who should provide some governance. It has been an understated board to make the organization stronger and serve athletes better in the future.

Q: What surprised you when you were asked to be chairman?

A: When I came back to the Olympic movement after 20 years, most of the people in important positions were people I had met in 1984. Over the past five or six years at the USOC, there had been four or five volunteer leaders and CEOs. It was very unstable and in considerable debt.

Q: What kind of debt?

A: The USOC owed a substantial amount of money to the banks. A not-for-profit should have assets, not liabilities.

Q: How was it eliminated?

A: Downsizing operating costs, cutting waste and raising revenues.

Q: Where was the USOC globally in 2004?

A: We had virtually no international ties since back in the early 1990s. We were kind of an orphan.

Q: International relations are critical to Chicago's 2016 Summer Games bid. Where does the USOC stand now?

A: The USOC is re-engaged. And now we have all the languages [spoken by USOC staff members]: Russian, Romanian, French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Arabic, so we can communicate with the world.

Q: Given that the Chicago 2016 Summer Games bid needs a developer for its $1-billion Olympic Village project, how does Chicago guarantee that before the Oct. 2, 2009, vote when it doesn't have full government backing and there is a global financial crisis?

A: I have made it a point not to have too many voices speak for the bid. I have listened to this subject, and I may from time to time offer advice, and I think Chicago will solve this issue very clearly before the vote.

Q: Isn't it critical for Chicago to get assurances about the Village, since its downtown lakefront location is a major selling point for the bid?

A: That has been an attractive part of the Chicago bid without question, and I think it will continue to be. The truth is the voters will all know without question that Chicago can put on a terrific Olympic Games. I don't think one thing is a vote swayer. The voters take a full measure of the people in front of the bid and the community.