Athletes Argue for the Freedom to Train

To the editors:

“Let the Athletes Take a Break,” by Luke Smith ’04, haphazardly quotes a few indiscrete, heated remarks from athletes to present an absurd, monolithic picture of the athlete at Harvard (Op-Ed, Oct. 30). Smith’s own remarks about athletes are far more contemptuous than any remarks he quoted. When men’s heavyweight crew captain Michael J. Skey ’03 observed that athletes won’t stop training for seven weeks to join a cello group, he was neither saying that music is inferior to athletics nor that athletes are uninterested in other activities. Skey’s comment meant only that no one could become an active member of an orchestra in a mere seven weeks.

This comment arises from a profound respect for the time and commitment required of non-athletic extra-curriculars; supercilious contempt for non-athletes has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, no one is requiring any of Harvard’s world-class musicians or hard-working newspaper editors to take time off from their favored activities to spend seven weeks running or lifting to better appreciate campus life. In fact, I doubt anyone on this campus could take such a proposal seriously.

Smith further misinterprets the protests of athletes who promise to openly flout the seven-week period by training throughout it. When endurance athletes continue to train individually during the mandatory off period, it will not be with any thought for making a statement of protest to the University’s administration but instead with great concern for the organized efforts of our top non-Ivy League rivals wishing to gain an advantage over us. One simply cannot stop training for almost two months and retain elite-level fitness. Thus, the seven-week rule threatens to undermine what athletes work so hard for without offering them a sufficient opportunity to do anything nearly as meaningful as their sport in return.

Jordan D. Sagalowsky ’04

Oct. 30, 2002

The writer is a member of the men’s heavyweight varsity crew team.