"FAIR PLAY."

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 230, 25 September 1908, Page 4

"FAIR PLAY."

When the American athletes who competed at the Olympic Games returned home we heard a great deal of their allegations about partiality and unfairness displayed by the British officials and judges in tbe Stadium. It was some consolation to learn that President Roosevelt had refused to be drawn into the controversy, and had advised the disappointed athletes to say no more about the matter; while at the same time several prominent members of the fe.titi, including the winner of the Marathon race, protested against the imputations of unfairness, and declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the treatment they had received. But it seems that this unpleasant business is not to be allowed to sink into well-deserved oblivion. The Irish-Americans who competed at the Stadium have addressed a circular to all the American colleges denouncing British athletic methods, and a public attack upon British sport and sportsmen has been made by some of the leading lights of the American athletic world. No one who is at- all familiar either with American athletic methods, the sensational incidents that marred the last Olympic uames. or the history of previous international contests of the kind, is likely to attach much importance lo these diatribe*. But it is much to be regretted that quarrels of this sort should disutrb the good feeling that now happily exists betwetn Englishmen and American-, and should tnus defeat the good purposes served by such international reunion.-. While the Olympic Games were in progress fhe American competitors and th_ir numerous official attendants and friends made frequent protests against the arrangements, and against the ruling of the British oili-iai.-; and the_o coi_pl_iuts were aai.wered el-early enough ai the time. One sufficient!, absurd charge \ia,s the statement th.v the Brii.L>_ officials arranged the divining of tho various hsats so that the American competitors -hould run against each other, and thus weed each other out ior the finals. This ' was m<:t by inviting an American official to draw the tics, iviib the result that he drew three Americans against each other in two consecutive heats—surely a sufficient justification of BritUn management. Mr. .Sullivan, who is president of the American Athletic Union, protested strongly agaktst i/hn boots worn by the Liverpool team which beat, the Americans; in the tug-of war; but it was shown that i ihe-e boots were entirely iv accordance with ihe regulations. The Liverpool policemen were so indignant that they | offered to pull the Americans in bare, feet or in bathing costume, the proceeds of the ma#h to go to public charities; but j the challenge was not taken up. Mr. i ,-ullivan and Mr. .lime? Connolly, the 1 ''American Kipling." also complained that in pole-vaulting the Americans were! not. allowed to dig a hole for their poles, I that in putting the weight they were not i allowed to stand on a bntrd. r-nd that in jumping they had no mattress provided to fall on: and in each case it was pointed out that the British athletic rules under which I he competitions were supposed to be carried on forbade the use of these special aid?, --md it is evident thit I these protests were due not so much to i any desire on of the Americans i to secure an unfair advantage, as to th-' i difference between tho athletic methods and practices prevailing in the two countries. | But. unfortunately, there was at least one incident, which aroused extremely j strong feeling, and which could hardly | be explained away as a mere d'fTcronoo of opinion. Tn the final nf the 400 i metres' race, Carpenter, one of the Ame- j rican competitors, ran into the. British representative, Lieutenant Ilalswell. and : elbowed him off' the track. The race was stopped by the judges, who. after considering the evidence of the officials and examining the footmarks on the tracks, disqualified Carpenter, and ordered the race to be run again. The in--1 terference during the race was so marked ' that. I bore were loud demonstrations of I wrath aud disapproval from the crow.l. and. fur the moment, there was danger of a serious riot. The American officials, however, declared that the dcci- > sion of the judges was "an outrage," and that, Ilalswell was fairly beaten. Carpenter asserted that be had never touched Hnlswoll during tho race, but., as a medical examination revealed tbe marks of Carpenter's elbow on Halswell's ' chest, wo can only assume that the Ami'- : rican was too excited to know what ho j was doing. And it- must, be remembered that this is not. the first time that complaints of this nature have heeu brought I against American runners. At the Olympic games held at Athens in IfiOfi Ilalswell was interfered with, and Nigel Barker, the famous Australian sprinter, I was so hemmed in by the Americans that he could not get near the American Pilgrim, whose time ho had previously beaten. The Englishmen and Australians present at the Athenian games declared that tbe interference was dclibernte; and il, seems thai, th:>se. tactic, by which several members of one team try to win the race for one of their own party by getting in the way of their most dangerous rivals, are encouraged in America. It is, of course, very difiiI cull, to draw the line between deliberate, ! ami accidental interference, and the ta=k i.- rendered harder in America by the lightness nf the penalties inflicted for "foul play." Thus, last year, Sheppard tho famous American half-mile '•_nil 1000----yard champion, who won these Vvmts nt the Stadium, while running aVi'in=t the New Zealander. Huskins. wh' )•:.:.- frequently beaten hi'ii. ilc-lilieiktcly "tackled" h\> riv.il. ami threw him bodily off the track. The .judges gave Haski;i> the race, but Sheppard was not otherwise punished: anil tho impunity which this sort of thing enjoys in America naturally tends to encourage sharp practices of the sort that led up to the sensational Carpenter incident, -which'We have describee!. So far as the specific allegations readby the Americans against the British,ape concerned, we are of opinion that every oae of them has been succes'-ully answered. And we uiav fairly tach

a great deal of weight to the testimony lof competitors and officials of other | nationalities, who have Strongly upheld j j the British reputation for "fair play." j i The foreign members of the International Olympic Committee, including representai tives from every European country com- ! peting at the Stadium, unanimously dejclared that there was not the least! I suspicion of unfa irness or favouritism I jin the treatment received by any of the I competitors, and expressed the" fullest confidence in tho British management of the games. Eut even when we have come to tho conclusion that the British officials fully maintained the high reputation of their country for good sport and j fair play, the fact remains that on other! grounds the visitors from oilier coun- i tries had some reasonable excuse for] the annoyance and disappointment which j were probably at the bottom of these j | charges Of unfairness. In the first place the arrangements for welcoming and entertaining the visitors were entirely inadequate; indeed, almost non-existent. Then, only British officials were allowed inside the enclosure; and even Mr. Sullivan, the leader of the American party, who bore a signed commission from President Roosevelt, was excluded from the sacred limits. The bad impression produced by this absurd bit of conservatism was confirmed by tho determination of the British management to carry out the contests strictly order the British code of rules, without making allowance for the methods in common use in other countries. The effect produced on j the Americans certainly was to ! strengthen their traditional prejudices .against tho "insular arrogance" and selfI sufficiency they usually attribute to England; and as British athletic arrange- ! ments are, in their opinion, twenty I years behind the American way of doing things, there was naturally a good deal of discontent. And we can well imagine that when they were beaten by British 1 runners in the sprint races, which they had regarded as certain victories for ' themselves, their disappointment was ! probably too much for their sense of ; justice. Looking at the matter from I every possible standpoint, we can thus ! understand how and why the Americans , came to feel so strongly, and to express | themselves so violently ; hiu wa are still •convinced that the .->jirei:i- charge- they ! have brought against th.-> British sport j and its leaders are entirely without I foundation. I i