THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION VOLUME 5 l NUMBER 4 APRIL, 1968 USTFF,NCAA Reject Arbitration Board Decision Crowley, P/mat Notify Sen. Mugnuson; Cull Report Vundumentcrlly Deficient” 11 Basic Reasons Given PROMISENO ACTION PRIORTO 1968 OLYMPICS The NCAA action is based upon 11 basic reasons, which are listed in The United States Track and Field Federation and the National columns one and two. The complete text of President Plant’s letter to Senator Magnuson is on page two. He wrote, in part: Collegiate Athletic Association have rejected the recent Decision “The fundamental deficiency of the Decision is that, by its own terms, it of the Sports Arbitration Board, headed by Theodore W. Kheel. covers only one of the problem areas that have existed for many years and Rev. Wilfred H. Crowley, S.J., president of the USTFF, and that continue to exist. It covers only ‘jurisdiction’ and sanctioning. Prof. Marcus L. Plant, president of the NCAA, notified U.S. Sena- “It does not purport to touch upon any of the other numerous issues that precipitated the dispute in the early 1960’s. While jurisdiction and tor Warren C. Magnuson of their groups’ position April 3 in sanctioning are important and dramatic phases of our differences, they are Washington, D. C. not the only sources of trouble.” Magnuson is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which Coordinating Committee Not the Answer has held hearings on the continuing dispute in track and field and at The suggestion that the Coordinating Committee (established via the whose urging Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey appointed the Sports SAB Decision) will deal with them is not an adequate answer. The solu- Arbitration Board. tion proposed is at best a limited one in the nature of a temporary ex- pedient, Plant stated. While rejecting completely the SAB Decision, Rev. Crowley and Presi- “The policy on event sanctioning would be left for the Coordinating dent Plant emphasized that every effort will be expended on the part of Committee, which will take past practices into account. I simply cannot both the USTFF and NCAA to see no action is taken by either group recommend agreement to an arrangement that leaves so critical an ele- which will run counter to the Board’s Decision between now and the 1968 ment in such uncertain posture. Olympic Games in Mexico City. ‘It 1s puzzling that the SAD, after such lengthy hearings. could not The USTFF decision was made by that group’s Executive Committee. reach a definitive decizton on such a clear issue as event sanctioning.” Plant Cannot Recommend Plant called the Board’s Decision the kind of partial, patchwork solution For the NCAA, President Plant replied that “I cannot recommend to which has always failed in the past. He added that what is needed is a fundamental reform through the creation of a single-purpose organization our Association that it (the report) be adopted.” to govern track and field. This response was in answer to Senator Magnuson’s request that the Track Coaches Reviewed Decision president of each interested organization notify him of that group’s deci- While the SAB Decision and Prof. Plant’s action have not been pre- sion regarding the SAB report, or of the president’s anticipated recom- sented to the NCAA Council-the deadlines of the Commerce Committee mendation to his organization. prevented such action-it certainly was not his decision alone. President Plant will report to the NCAA Council and Executive Com- Rather, a representative segment of track coaches met recently with mittee at its April 29 meeting in Denver. Continued on page 3, col. 3 and 4 THE REASONS.. why the Sports Arbitration Board’s decision in the track and field dispute is unsatisfactoryand unacceptable. 1. It fails to provide for the true solution-a new single-purpose track g. Illegitimate extensions of AAU authority; e.g., barring athletes from and field organization-which the Board unanimously agreed was the international competition unless they compete on AAU tours. best solution and which all major organizations except the AAU en- dorse. The Board simply stated that this couldn’t be done. h. AAU attempted sabotage of developmental meets. 2. The Board failed to decide critical disputes presented to it as concrete i. Multiple examples of AAU inadequacies and mismanagement in problems during two years of arbitration. For example, the Board many detailed facets of track and field administration. failed to require the AAU to secure recognition of Jim Ryun’s half- Furthermore, these problems cannot even be decided by the Coordi- mile record; the Board failed to prevent AAU blacklisting of individ- nating Committee established by the Board since the Board’s decision ual competitors (some are still ineligible at this moment) simply for specifically limits the Committee’s authority. having participated in USTFF domestic competition not sanctioned by 4. The decision fails to protect the educational responsibility of the the AAU. school-college community to certify the conditions of outside compe- 3. The decision fails to say anything about most of the major problems in tition in which its students are invited to participate. track and field except to note that they remain unsolved. These prob- lems are fully documented in the transcript of the Board’s two years of 5. The Board’s decision fails to give consideration to new developments in track and field in recent years; it simply reaffirms a jurisdictional de- deliberations and in the 10 days of hearings conducted by the U. S. cision of General MacArthur’s in 1962, which failed even then to solve Senate Commerce Committee in 1965. They include: the problem. a. Mishandling of athletes and competitive arrangements on foreign trips. 6. The Board pretends ut times that the dispute is between the AAU and the NCAA, but udmits at other times that the real di#erences are be- b. AAU’s pigeonholing of invitations to foreign athletes to compete in tween the AAU and the USTFF (as the Board’s chairman udvised the America and vice versa. Senate Commerce Committee, August, 1967) Much of the AAU-USTFF c. Barring of amateur athletes from television appearances unless fee jurisdictional problem could have been resolved within the scope of the is paid to AAU. Bourd’s decision had the Board dkected that USTFF competition lim- d. Coercion of athletes (including embargo on legitimate record per- ited to its members be treated as “closed” by the AAU. The Board re- formances) . fused to do so und further enhanced the AAU assertion of jurisdiction e. AAU two-faced justice; i.e., penalize the athlete but not the pro- by stating that virtually every meet has potential international signifi- moter for violations of amateur rules. cance and must be sanctioned by the AAU unless the AAU decides to f. AAU patronage system in selection of coaches for international as- treat it as “closed.” signments. Continued on page 3, col. 1 and 2 ing United States organization by pinning such o badge upon it. Such a private THE EDITOR’S VIEW international organization con choose, of course, to correspond only with its member organization in the United States, but this country and the Congress cannot consider that they ore bound by any such private foreign choice. Yet that is a fundamental The action of the USTFF and NCAA rejecting the Sports Arbitration premise of the Board’s Decision. Board Decision April 3 is of such significance that everyone associated with intercollegiate athletics, or interested in intercollegiate athletics, should be fully briefed on the reasoning of President Marcus L. Plant of NCAA Cannot Accept Board’s Reasoning the NCAA. The difficulty is not cured by saying that the IAAF has mode the AAU the “sole Consequently, the NCAA NEWS below prints the complete text of the . governing body” in the United States only “for international competition” be- letter from President Plant to Senator Warren G. Magnuson in which cause the Board uses the term “international competition” in such a way that it em- the Decision is rejected. braces practically cdl competition in this country. It expands the scope of the term for beyond even the claims of the AAU or the IAAF. It would, for example, include April 3, 1968 therein competition between q team representing a foreign university and one rep- The Honorable Warren G. Mognuson, Chairman resenting o United States university. At one point the Board states that there is in- United States Senate Committee on Commerce ternotionol significance not only q s to meets in which othleter of international stot- Senate Office Building ure are involved but in which there are athletes “who may rise to that level.” It is Washington, D. C. difficult to conceive of a dome& meet that is not thereby brought within the gombit of AAU authority. The NCAA simply connot accept the Board’s initial premise re- My Dear Senator Magnuson: lating to the so-called “sole . governing body,” nor the consequences that follow This letter is my response os President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association to the from the Board’s associated reasoning. Opinion and Decision of the Board of Arbitration on Track and Field. It has been delayed 5. One of the questions raised in my letter of February 9, 1968, requested clorificotion pending receipt and study of the replies of the Board to sever01 questions about crucial parts of the Board’s intent on the practice of “event sanctioning”; i. e., sanctioning only those of the Decision that seemed indefinite and uncertain to me and my colleagues. We ore grote- few events in o meet in which the sanctioning organization has competitors.