Perhaps due to the fact that the Holder Rule did not imply specific sanctions, OIC members and SLOC overlooked the value ruling.
In its conclusions, presented to the IOC executive board on March 11, 1999, the SLOC acknowledged that some members had violated the Olympic charter by engaging in conduct (incompatible with the status of an IOC member), while others had acted in a way that created (the appearance of improper conduct). The IOC noted, however, that in many parts of the world, business dealings were expected to include a certain amount of gift giving, and many IOC members lived in societies that operated this way. Some believed there was a culture of improper gift giving in the Olympic movement that was made possible by the closed nature of the IOC and by the absence of ethical and transparent financial controls in its operations. The Salt Lake City organizers did not invent this culture. They joined one that was already flourishing. .
The SLOC provided their own report criticizing the IOC for not providing "clear and explicit guidelines" for bid cities to follow and "mechanisms" to ensure that the guidelines were enforced". Contrary to this statement, there were rules in effect that were broken by the SLOC. The SLOC was more concerned with the issues and rules that are being strictly enforced rather than obeying all the rules that are in place. The SLOC also stated that, "The IOC did nothing to protect bidding cities from the pressures exhibited by certain IOC members". Robert Garff, an SLOC member, stated, "I can't say our hands are clean, but the system has been flawed for years. So in some sense, we're the victims."" The commission concluded that most of the blame for the scandal belonged with the IOC. .
The expulsion of six members of the IOC was an effort to reestablish the prestige of the Olympic site selection process. IOC president Samaranch stated, "Our main goal is to take the necessary steps to be absolutely certain that this very sad episode never happens again.