BAN ON WAGE-EARNER

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 172, 17 April 1937, Page 2 (Supplement)

BAN ON WAGE-EARNER

Rowing Rule That Causes Trouble COMMENT IN ENGLAND A contribution to the discussion of whether the Amateur Rowing Association of England should have a rule debarring manual workers from entering in the races it conducts, which has been mentioned in the House of Commons and was discussed by a correspondent of “The Dominion” recently, was made several weeks ago by Conrad Skinner, rowing correspondent of the "News Chronicle.” The writer said that a conference would probably take place between the Amateur Rowing Association and the National Amateur Rowing Association to discuss the curious anomalies which keep them apart. The following, he said, w’ere the rules of ISS2 that would be up for discussion. In Rules 4 and 5 were the crucial words which led to the formation of the National Amateur Rowing Association in 1890 for those rejected by the exclusive Amateur Rowing Association. No person shall be considered an amateur oarsman, sculler, or coxswain, (1) Who has ever rowed or steered in any race for a stake, money, or entrance fee. (A later footnote adds —• since April, 1894.) (2) Who has ever knowingly rowed or steered with or against a profesional for a prize. (3) Who has ever taught, pursued, or assisted in the practice of athletic exercises of any kind for profit. (4) Who has ever been employed on or about boats, or in manual labour, for money or wages. (5) Who has or is being employed by trade or employment for wages, a mechanic, artisan, or labourer, or engaged in any menial duty. (6) Who is disqualified as an amateur in any other branch of sport. A further rule states that “an amateur may not receive any contribution toward his expenses in competing in a race or a regatta except from the club which he represents.” The hub of the conference’s agenda. I take it, will be Clauses 4 and 5 (wrote Mr. Skinner). Isn’t this just too ridiculous in these days, when undegraduates go stoking on tramps, tinkering in garages, working on the land, or acting as stewards in liners—and this for wages as well as for experience—and when, in fact, every man that is worth his salt can do something useful with his hands? Wliat Happened in 1852. This “menial” business must be wiped clean out; and I should go farther and rope in the whole of Clause 4; tor, why should it be competent for me, assuming I were a clever scientist and theorist on the subject of stream-lin-ing and all the rest of it, to invent and patent a special racing eight, still retaining my amateur status, while at the same time, if I can add sufficient manual dexterity to my mental equipment to build and sell those boats I am to forfeit my right to be an amateur oarsman. It looks as though it would be as reasonable to say that one may know how to row so long as one does not sully one’s hands by practising the game. The Oxford and Cambridge bo.at race was cradled in professionalism, nurtured as ■well as steered by professional boatmen. Thomas Selby Egan fought his fight nearly a century ago to free sport from business. Because Cambridge obstinately stuck to their own waterman coach, Egan in 1852 offered his services to Oxford as a protest against his own university. And that signifies an essential distinguishing factor that needs to be preserved.

Amateur rowing is still a game and not a business. When I take part in a race it should be as a sportsman and not as a financially interested party. •Rules 1 and 2 are thoroughly sound. Money degrades every sport it touches, and at the core of professionalism in sport, naturally, is money—the race is, In short, a business. (This notwithstanding the fact that many a pro. has the heart of an amateur.) Therefore I heartily endorse Rule 1, with its ban on stakes, moneys, or acquisition of entrance fees, to which I would gladly and logically append “and all bets laid by participants, backing themselves either to win or lose.” Logically, that is professionalism, but most of us have one blind eye. Anybody, then, whatever his normal occupation—boats or bricks—and whether he works for salary, wages, dividends or love, anybody should be eligible for amateur rowing events who consistently bars rowing for stakes and moneys and is content to take part in it for the joy of the sport and the honour of victory. Rulo Against Coaches.

Talking of blind eyes, however, surely rule 3 is a regular Nelson telescope. Is it never to be looked through, but always overlooked? It is: “No person shall be considered an amateur oarsman, sculler or coxswain, who has ever taught, pursued or assisted in the practice of athletic exercises of any kind for profit,” ’ Under this clause. I doubt if I personally have any right to the title of amateur. I have written for the Press regularly for nine years, and sporadically for nearly 30, as indeed have a good many more distinguished amateurs than myself, and for even longer Also a good many have written instructional and informative books on rowing from which royalties presumably have been derived. But I think it is no affair of the A.R.A. how I make my living so long as I don’t row for money.

If the clause be interpreted literally, however, the word “taught” is one of far-spreading ramifications, and there will be a fine clearing of Old Blues from the A.R.A.—possibly even including some of the investigating committee. for all I can tell. This impressive extrusion will be swollen by all rowing coaches at public schools, or elsewhere whose services in this direction are implicitly or explicitly recognised as part and parcel of their salary qualification.

Isn’t this ridiculous? It would be an almost parallel stupidity to say that if a lord chief justice mitigates the popular ignorance of British law by writing in the Press for n fee he should be disbarred; that a cabinet minister who does likewise in a political article should tie unseated; while a parson who writes a book of popular theology and accepts royalties for it should be unfrocked.

All are using in another medium knowledge and experience won in their several honourable callings, and even if financial gain be not their primary object, it yet remains an acceptable by-product. This splendid- purge duly accomplished. the entire instruction of the public could be committed either to those who know nothing about the subject, or to professionals. Sensationalism would be rampant at the expense of sober

truth; and bow would either the game or the public be thereby benefited? What a degeneration of sporting standards would hereto accrue 1