OCR Text |
Show f3 L ..;S ace Jl. -:..y.i A FTER all wars, morals collapse and character takes a nose dive. For wars are destructive in more ways than In the matter of human life, human flesh and bone, and man-built cities. It was after the first world war that the Black Sox scandal developed. devel-oped. This was in 1919. But the Black Sox were not the only crooked offenders. offend-ers. There were many others on other teams. Everyone has heard recently of the 12,000 soldiers who were AWOL in France where every man was needed for 1 ' ? his job. Many of Grantland Rice these sold cigarettes and other front-line needs to the French black market. Only a few have been convicted and sentenced to death or long terms of penitentiary peni-tentiary labor. But here is proof of thousands willing to betray their own fighting mates for some form of profit. This is something far beyond throwing a baseball or a basketball game. Or a football game. It is the ultimate in infamy. So if this can happen to our army along the fighting fight-ing front, with over 12,000 betrayals, betray-als, some far lower than any Benedict Bene-dict Arnold, you can see what can happen to sport. The Brooklyn college basketball Imatter was only a small part of the picture. We all know that the average kid the average college student- is honest. We also know that we have had crooked governors, crooked senators and crooked congressmen. con-gressmen. But politics is accepted as at least a partly crooked game. Sport isn't. Must Be on Guard Once they blast the foundations of complete honesty from under sport, the entire structure starts to cave in. We have had too much dishonesty, entirely too much crookedness, entirely too much cowardice cow-ardice in politics. Everyone knows that. But sport can't be "almost clean." It can never reach the lower low-er level of politics, and still get by. It is for this reason that sport must be on guard through the remainder of the present war and through the postwar period on beyond. It isn't enough to say that most athletes are honest. This applies to baseball, football, basketball and boxing. In another way it applies to racing. We must go beyond this rating. In 1919 there were over 400 honest ballplayers yet there were eight players who came near wrecking the game. Judge Landis and Babe Ruth saved it. The professional gambler, as a rule, is smart, smooth and intelligent, intelli-gent, although there are exceptions. He knows human nature and its weaknesses. And he has cash to offer. Above all else, the pro gambler gam-bler wants the winning edge, the winning percentage, for his money. Too many of these would betray the souls of their mothers for a winning bet. Once again I honestly believe this applies to the minority. But the minority, with the playing minority in sport, can wreck any game whose main bulwark must be honest effort. Unless there is the strictest sort of control shown by sporting leaders lead-ers including coaches, college presidents and iron-hearted commissioners, commis-sioners, sport can wallow into more crookedness than it has ever known. To me, it isn't enough to say that most of these athletes are honest. Most people are honest. But there is still many a crook around who can at least come close to wrecking the whole works. Let's not be too gullible again. Who would have believed be-lieved in 1919 that almost an entire ball club could be bought at a cheap price to throw a world series including in-cluding two potential hall-of-fame stars? Who could have believed that 12.000 soldiers in France would betray their fighting mates at the front? Or who could have believed that a Brooklyn basketball team one of Brooklyn's prides would have sold out to cheap gamblers? The gamblers hardly count. They were barely ducking Sing Sing anyway. any-way. But the five kids are wrecked beyond all help. Their lives are over in any decent community. Sport today needs keen, alert, honest and fearless leaders more than it ever needed them before. For there is a tidal wave of dishonesty dis-honesty on its way, no matter what the optimists may tell you. Boxing Decisions Just why is it that referees, judges, boxing writers and the crowd so often disagree violently on the winner and the winning and losing los-ing rounds? I know practically every ev-ery boxing writer and official around New Yor. In a ten-round contest I've seen two able boxing writers disagree entirely on six or seven of the ten rounds, and both disagree just as violently with the three officials, who in turn were disagreeing dis-agreeing with on another. |