DENVER -- A proposal to create the most sweeping changes in the 25-year history of the U.S. Olympic Committee couldn't stop the bickering within the troubled organization.

An independent Senate commission issued a report Thursday that called for the USOC to trim its board of directors from 125 to nine and provide broader powers for the organization's chief executive.

The commission was created in March after three months of turmoil led to eight resignations and piqued the interest of Congress. The infighting didn't stop with the recommendations.

"It'll be interesting to see what happens," said USOC board member George Killian, who thought the changes were too drastic.

One person pleased with the commission's recommendations was USOC vice president Frank Marshall. That was no surprise considering he co-chaired an in-house task force that proposed essentially the same changes in April.

"I was gratified that there were so many similarities to ours," Marshall said. "I think it's meaningful that we independently went down these two paths and came to the same conclusions. It's clear that radical reform needs to be made to change the culture. That's the conclusion they came to and we came to, and I was very pleased that they didn't seem to succumb to all of the lobbying that has been going on by the vocal minority that wants a seat at the table."

Olympic gold medal wrestler Rulon Gardner liked the idea of holding the CEO responsible for the successes and failures of the organization, but he was concerned that trimming the board of directors so drastically might take opportunities away from the athletes.

"It's a good idea but the biggest question is, is everyone going to have a fair say?" Gardner said. "That was one of the good things about the 120 board of directors, everyone had a say and what was going on and how things went about. Now with nine of them, that's a lot a pressure on them to make sure that they take care of so many thousands of athletes."

Killian worried that having five independent directors on the board would leave decisions in the hands of people who don't understand the complex workings of the USOC.

"Those five outside directors, they don't have a clue," Killian said. "Where do they think they're going to get five outside directors that can really make good decision for the USOC? Some of those people think they know everything, but they don't know a thing."

Senior U.S. IOC member Anita DeFrantz said gutting the board of directors was needed to alleviate the political backbiting that has plagued the USOC, but she was concerned that parts of proposal might be in conflict with the IOC's charter.

The IOC's charter requires that each of its members have a vote on the national Olympic committee's board of directors, but the Senate commission's proposal calls for the three U.S. IOC members to share one vote with the speaker of the Olympic Assembly.

"There are several points where the charter does not seem to be addressed," DeFrantz said. "It's not just the IOC membership that is the issue. There are other parts of the charter that have to be respected. It can't supersede it."

Killian had similar concerns.

"They could put it into effect, but it's not going to do anything to help the USOC in the long run," said Killian, executive director of the National Junior College Association of America. "Once you start fooling around internationally and you start taking on the IOC, that means you're taking on everybody in the world. You've got to be careful when you do all of these things."