This feels like the correct decision, but not one of much value. Jim Thorpe died in 1953, nearly 70 years ago. Their previous ruling was in 1982, nearly 30 years after his death. I'm not sure who gained from the ruling in either case, perhaps his family was made to feel better by it, although I doubt they were satisfied by the "co-winner" title? By now, they're a good chance his children have all passed, or are beyond the point of caring as well.