I found myself not only enlightened but also appalled over the makeup of the IOC. Speaking only in the realm of track and field, I do not understand how most of those individuals can relate to or empathize with the life-style and motivations of today's "amateur" athlete. It is easy for Mr. Brundage to stand by the precepts of the Olympic movement when he has $25 million in the bank.
My hope is that more publications will explore the phenomenon of the IOC and, in so doing, generate some changes from within. We need people who can identify with the "poor folks."
The most thought-provoking point in your series of articles on the Olympic Games was Mr. Brundage's definition of sport as play: "Sport is a pastime and a diversion...opposed to work—free, spontaneous, joyous—for recreation."
Mr. Brundage has brought into focus a fundamental difficulty in keeping the Olympics closed to professionals. To win a gold medal in the Olympics today, a competitor must devote his life to the development of his talent. Even if the competitor considers his preparation a joy, such total dedication is more than mere recreation. It is work, not sport. Keeping the Olympics closed to professionals may be desirable, but it is hardly conceivable.
So Jim Kilroy says we had the "right people" talking to the IOC. From the results, we obviously did not. Perhaps one of the reasons for Los Angeles' defeat in its bid to host the 1976 Games is the air of pompous superiority Kilroy conveys in his remarks. Jesse Owens "can't sit down...and talk with the kind of men who are on the IOC.... We had blacks on our committee, and we were going to let them speak. We had an Administration man, and he was going to talk about Kent State."
Jim Kilroy comes across as being much stuffier and more self-righteous than Avery Brundage.
BY THE BOOK
I was very disappointed to read Tex Maule's article concerning the attempt to sell the Los Angeles Rams' playbook to Saint Coach J. D. Roberts (Would You Buy a Used Playbook from This Man? July 24). Apparently Tex Maule and Paul Brown feel that it would be better to forgive and forget, without letting the NFL front office know, rather than to follow the course of action taken by Roberts.
The criticism of the New Orleans Saints for contacting the FBI is uncalled for. Roberts did not call the FBI, he called the NFL front office. So, in all probability, Pete Rozelle was the one who had the final say so far as contacting the FBI was concerned.
In my opinion, Pete Rozelle has done more to uphold the dignity of professional football in the last 10 years than 10 Paul Browns. How could the integrity of the game be upheld in full view of millions of fans—including very impressionable youngsters—if a matter such as the illegal selling of a playbook were brushed under a rug? I think Pete Rozelle and the NFL had adequate reason to call in the FBI. The exposure which professional football is subject to warrants the strict policing of the sport.
ROBERT M. CISNEROS JR.
Why make a federal case over Quarterback Karl Sweetan's attempted sale of a play-book to Saint Head Coach J. D. Roberts? Because that's the way it should be!