Publish date:

The Question: Should the U.S. go all out to build an Olympic team that can beat Russia in 1956? (Asked at American Newspaper Publishers Assn. convention)

The News
Executive Editor
"Your question implies that the U.S. should frankly subsidize its Olympic team. That would be a very great mistake if we are to observe the amateur standing of our athletes. Once subsidized, how could these athletes compete after 1956 with Simon Pures in this country?"

Denver Post
Editor and Publisher
"I sure do. We are an athletic nation. The Russians are making it a government project. We should comb the country for our best athletes. What's wrong with going all out? I've always thought we could field a better Olympic team than we've done in the past. We seem to do it as a side line."

RICHARD W. SLOCUM, Philadelphia
"Yes, but I don't think the U.S. government should subsidize our effort or our athletes. We should have an Olympic committee in each state to encourage and train athletes from the town level on up. The Army and Navy can make it easier for their athletes to train in weather resembling Australia's."

Journal and Constitution President
"Yes, but there's one thing I can't understand. If the Russians are allowed to change rules of the International Olympic Committee, why can't we? If they use pros why can't we at least use our semipros? We should play the same rules and not be beaten by professionals."

CHARLES F. McCAHILL, Willoughby, Ohio
Cleveland Plain Dealer
General Manager
"Yes. Newspapers throughout the country should take the lead. One thing that people everywhere understand is sports. If we send an Olympic team strong enough to hold its own, the Russians will respect us more and there will be better feeling in both countries."

PHILIP CHANDLER, Pasadena, Calif.
Los Angeles Times
General Manager
"Yes. We should build the best possible Olympic team, but only on a strictly amateur basis. Money means a lot. With enough money, the boys and girls can be given proper training and plenty of it. I'm sure there are lots of them we don't know about who would make good competitors."

FRED I. ARCHIBALD, Baltimore, Md.
News-Post & American
"Yes, everything ethical and honorable to win and leave the impression that the American way of life is a good way to live. The newspapers in each state should raise money and stage eliminations. If Russia cleans up, it will be a great face-lifting for them in the Far East."

ROY HOWARD, New York City
Scripps-Howard Newspapers
Chairman Executive Committee
"I don't think we should make a greater effort than we've made in other Olympics. These are just games, for fun. Let's play them as we've always done. To go all out, just to beat the Russians, would make it a contest between Russia and the U.S. How would other competing nations feel?"

ALICIA PATTERSON, Port Washington, N.Y.
Editor and Publisher
"I don't think we should alter our amateur standing just because the Russians have corrupted theirs. But I think we should go all out in the Olympics. Whether we win or lose is unimportant. What is important is that we make the most of this opportunity for a mingling of minds."

WILLIAM DWIGHT, Holyoke, Mass.
Vice President
"Yes, but not just to beat the Russians. Sports give a terrific spur to national pride. This the Russians well know. If we lose we will take it in stride, but defeat for us would give the Russians a big propaganda lift. For us it's like Yale beating Princeton. I'm a Princeton man."

JOYCE SWAN, Minneapolis
Minneapolis Star & Tribune
General Manager
"No, not in the way the Russians are preparing. Theirs is a continuing program of athletics under government subsidy. I believe we should intensify our efforts and the training of athletes in the American tradition. So, if we lose to professionals, we will lose as amateurs."




What is the basic appeal behind professional wrestling?