Publish date:



I was delighted to see your excellent article revealing the story about the dealings of the Jacobs family and Emprise Corporation (Look What Louie Wrought, May 29).

For the past two years I have closely followed Congressman Sam Steiger's efforts to clean up racing, here in Arizona and elsewhere. Perhaps now those who criticized Steiger will praise his relentless search for the truth.

Your cover story makes reference to a connection between Emprise and "...all the parks and downs in Arizona."

I would like to point out that Arizona Downs and Turf Paradise are not associated with Emprise in any sense, including ownership, concession or services. In the interest of factual reporting, I would appreciate your correcting the wrong impression.
Arizona Downs

•SI said that two of Arizona's three thoroughbred tracks had been involved with Emprise. Turf Paradise was the exception, and it is the track used by the Arizona Downs Racing Association.—ED.

My father, Tommy Richardson, was deeply involved with baseball for the majority of his 75 years; this included a long relationship with Lou Jacobs. If my father were alive today I know he would be shocked and dismayed by the ugly job you did on a fine man.

The charges you leveled at Mr. Jacobs seem spurious and loaded more with implication than with truth. Ordinarily, I might have read the article with some glee, the attitude exposes are written to elicit. However, knowing the man's reputation, I simply refuse to believe the particulars of the case as you presented them. If your article has done nothing else, it has warned me not to accept with perfect credulity anything I read in the press, and especially in your magazine.

Unfortunately, you chose to begrime Lou Jacobs posthumously, so your rumors cannot be verified at firsthand. I feel assured, though, that his dealings were as pristine as possible, under the circumstances.
New York City

John Underwood and Morton Sharnik are to be commended for their excellent expose on Emprise. It was a journalistic masterpiece.
Kenmore, N.Y.

For the past several years I have tried to explain Stanford to "outsiders" only to receive a courteous, "Yes, I know." However, armed with Ron Fimrite's article (Disciples of Another Creed, May 29), which truly captures the spirit of Stanford, my life among the armchair quarterbacks and armchair university presidents will be much easier.
Portland, Ore.

I enjoyed Ron Fimrite's article on Stanford, but as a University of Michigan student I hold some reservations. Fimrite casts Michigan as "old-line" and the antithesis of refreshing, new Stanford, partly because of what happened last Jan. 1. He mentions that the victories by Stanford's football team and band are claimed as triumphs of lifestyle. Stanford triumphed, but Michigan's "militaristic" band suffered no defeat, as it most certainly is no less popular.

Despite such things as support for an old-line band, there may be little difference in lifestyle between Stanford and Michigan. The "jock" image of the athlete, campus radicalism, diversity of students, academic quality and freedom, increasing minority enrollment, a large ratio of graduate students and a proud athletic history (e.g., Michigan defeated Stanford 49-0 in the first Rose Bowl game) are all part of Michigan life, too. And since the same abundant similarities that exist between Stanford and Michigan undoubtedly apply to other colleges, maybe Mr. Fimrite credited Stanford, in all its greatness, with a bit too much uniqueness.
Flint, Mich.

It was refreshing to read your article on the Cleveland Indians (Circle the Wagons, Indian Uprising! May 22). I have been an Indian fan for years, but I have been fairly quiet about it, until recently. The pitching of Perry, Wilcox and Tidrow may not be as impressive as that of Wynn, Garcia and Lemon of the 1954 Tribe, but the Indians are winning. And that's what counts.
Concord, Mich.

Anyone familiar with Cleveland baseball must have enjoyed Mr. Fimrite's article on the Indians. I doubt the Indians will emerge as the American League champs, but they have given their fans something to cheer about. Thanks to Mr. Nick Mileti and the new breed, the Cleveland Indians not only have a future, they have a bright one.
Minot, N. Dak.

While being quoted by SI reaches certain heights, being misquoted approaches the epitome. The quote on the prospects of cable television and sports (SCORECARD, May 29) attributed to me properly belongs to Robert Rosencrans, the progressive and dynamic president of Columbia Cable. Let me add that while Mr. Rosencrans and I may disagree on certain aspects of cable and sports—such as whether the karate championship would be worthwhile—we both see benefits to cable, sports and the viewing public in the long run.

As an avid fan of SI, which I feel is the best magazine in its field, I consider myself obligated to voice my displeasure at the feature story Out To Make a Killing (May 22) by Charles Willeford. I am a fervent opponent of its subject, cockfighting. Turning two animals into bitter opponents, outfitting them in battle gear—is this really sport in the American sense of the word? I sincerely think that while 80% of the public may read this story and be moved to take action against cockfighting, the other 20% will be aroused enough to try it. Works of this nature certainly do not belong in a publication of SI's caliber, and I hope others who share my opinion on the sport and the story will make their feelings known.
Stoughton, Mass.

I do not criticize your decision to publish the article, but I do hope it will serve some useful purpose. Our society today is slowly being destroyed because of the principles and attitudes which are glorified in it. The ultimate goal of cockfighting is simple: making money at all costs. This very same ideal is responsible for inferior consumer goods, the destruction of our environment and, possibly, war.

In order to achieve one's goal in a cockfight, injury and destruction are necessary. The cocks are programmed to hate and then are given man-made implements to carry out that hatred. Don't we have enough inhumanity, violence and hatred already? But maybe you have told it like it is. Unfortunately, the cocks in the cockpit seem to be a microcosm of man in his world. All we can hope for is a new generation whose ideals will be love, peace and brotherhood. If not, the same fate that came to Sandspur will soon come to each o us!
Canarsie Reformed Church

Your editor's comment concerning the low Dominance Index of the Lakers as compared to the Bucks in answer to the letter of Dennis M. Chodorow (May 22) may look good statistically, but if you take the overall picture of the NBA this season, you will have to agree with him that "the Los Angeles Lakers showed the basketball world that they were the greatest team ever put together for one season." The second-and third-place teams in this 1971-72 season had good enough records to bring the championship to either Milwaukee or Chicago. But it was the Lakers who clearly outplayed every other NBA club and captured the title. Their four-game sweep of the Chicago Bulls, their complete control of the "dream series" with Milwaukee and, finally, their ultimate victory over the Knicks easily show the quality play of the Sharman squad. The Lakers' overall season record of 81-16 was the finest ever achieved in NBA history. And, just think, they took eight out of 11 games from the "dynasty-bound" Bucks.
Los Altos Hills, Calif.

Your Dominance Index is a fallacious method of determining the greatness of a basketball team. It rewards a team for having weak opposition, while detracting from the performance of teams which succeed against stiff competition. The Milwaukee Bucks, whose high second-place average winning margin lowered the Lakers' DI, were conquered four out of five times in the regular season by the L.A. club. The Lakers also won 80% of their playoff contests against teams with high winning percentages. There is no doubt in my mind that they have completed the greatest season in the history of pro basketball.
Los Angeles

Address editorial mail to TIME & LIFE Bldg., Rockefeller Center, New York, N.Y. 10020.