I think our concern is that we're changing the rules for access to the courts for interlocutory injunctions. The necessity to show irreparable harm is one of the special requirements, because an interlocutory injunction is, as I mentioned, a special remedy.
Our proposal is a midpoint between what is in the act and the current state of the law. That would be that activity that, on reasonable evidence, is contrary to paragraph 4(1)(a), which is the section that prohibits unlawful affiliation, would be deemed to be evidence of irreparable harm. There would still be a necessity for any party seeking an application for interlocutory injunction to show that it has a stronger prima facie case, and similarly, they would still have to show that they meet the balance of convenience test, which is the second of the third requirements for getting an interlocutory injunction.
I think the timing issues are probably more importantly dealt with under the balance of convenience tests than they are under irreparable harm. In order to access the court for a request for an interlocutory injunction, the party seeking the injunction has to show that the balance of convenience rests with it rather than the other party. In a situation where there's a very tight timeframe, the balance of convenience would normally rest with that party. So we think, given that particular background, changing the rule with respect to irreparable harm will meet the interests of the Olympic organizations.