Evening star., 1908-01-11
STAND BY GEORGE
WASHINGTON ATHLETICS

The statement given out exclusively in
yesterdays. Star by the Athletic Council
of George Washington University. relative
TO the situation arising from the Yale
George Washington basket ball game De-
cember 80 last is being much discussed by
the students of the Hatchetite institution
and the consensus of opinion Is that the
statement. while dignified. does not fail
to make it plain that the ruling body in
athletics at George Washington altogether
ignored the Amateur Athletic Union In
handling the question.
A prominent student in the university
said ..'he had talked to many undergrad
yates in regard to.the statement and all
agreed that while the action of the coun-
ell as given out appeared conservative. yet
a closer study of the statement. reveals
that the council drew the line Sharply on
several salient points
Referring to the statement said the
UNDERGRADUATE, lit will be noted that the
portion which expresses disapproval Of the
conduct OF Manager Biddle. bases that
disapproyal solely on the violation of the
eligibility rules of the university.-Ne men,
tion is made of Manager Biddle s action at
Convention Hall the night of the game in
deliberately ignoring the effort of the
Amateur Athletic Union to influence him
not to play a member of his team. To
say the council did not consider this par
ticular act on the part of the manager
would hardly be good guess. 1t would
be better guess to hold that the much
buffeted Biddle was sustained On this
point, and a precedent as to the rights OF
a manager of college team in a closed
intercollegiate contest clearly established.
.'The council will probably be subjected
to considerable criticism for not prevent
ing a vioIat ton of Its eligibility rules. The
circumstances. however, in this particular
instance were peculiar. Because of the
inability TO get place for the team to
practice, actual work did not begin until
after the beginning of the Christmas re-
cess. and the game itseifwa played during
such recess. During this period the men,
bers of the council were scattered, the
university was closed. and it was impos-
sibie for those in charge to keep in close
relation with the basket ball team. They
were therefore, placed at a disadvantage,
and il was because of said disadvantage
that the violation OF their eligibility rules
was made possible
..Another point in the statement" con-
tinued the undergraduate, where the
council has marked the boundary in no
uncertain terms. will be found in that
norton which says, AS the two persons
versity the council felt that it had no
Jurisdiction TO inquire into their profess
sionalism' 1t regretted extremely that II
did not have jurisdiction. in order that it
might investigate the question of profess
sionalism of the two players referred to,
and if proved, take such disciplinary
action as its rules prescribe. 1t is per-
| fectiy clear to me. from this statement
| that the council would. demand proof sat
| isfactory to itself before it would deny
| the right of student to participate in
university athletics. / am further con-
vinced by the paragraph quoted that the
unsupported statement OF the Amateur
Athletic Union charging student in this
not amount to a hill of beans with oui
athletic council.
"The position of the council as TO pro-
| fessionalism. based upon the rules OF the
/ intercollegiate Athletic Association of ,.it
| United States. the foremost organization
of its kind today, is all that can be de.
sired by any ,honest supporter Of amateur
sports" - :