It's an issue where I can really see both sides. If I run a company and I shell ut the big big dollars to be THE title sponsor I sure as heck didn't do that so all my competitors can then use MY event to advertise THEIR products. This isn't a charity, it's a professional event, with professional business relationships.
Now I can also see the athlete side of things. They get sponsored because these companies want to have Olympic and top athletes seen wearing their shoes, clothes, etc.. The athlete feels (and has a contractual) responsibility to get the name of their sponsor out there as much as possible.
In the end I tend to favor the "bad guys" in this debate because with out Coke, Nike, etc we wouldn't have these big events. Also the smaller companies know when they sign an athlete that IF this person makes an Olympic team Rule 40 exits. This isn't new information.
A middle ground would be nice, but with the money at stake and the very limited window in which these athletes are relevant, I don't see that happening.