Penn Relays ruling illogical
THE EDITOR, Sir:
Just when I thought I was hearing the last of the unfavourable news about Jaheel Hyde and Michael O'Hara, here comes the Penn Relays announcement to once again set tongues wagging.
It's a pity that these two young men are being punished because two companies decided to reward them for their hard work and talent.
So what if these athletes are getting assistance to start developing their careers from early? Isn't that a good for the athletes and the country? The athletes get to pump this investment into their careers because, certainly, gear, medical, travelling, coaching and schooling expenses are not cheap, especially for athletes who are leaving high school to attend university.
My next grouse is with the communiquÈ sent to ISSA from the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, which reads, "Both athletes are deemed to have received benefits related to their scholastic skills and performances that are not available to all students at their high schools."
Based on this quote, let us make a comparison: Kingston College (KC) and Calabar both have old boys' associations that pump a good amount of time and money into their school, particularly into their sporting programmes. Meanwhile, there are many other schools that do not have such backing. Should KC and Calabar, therefore, not compete in Penns because they "have received benefits related to their scholastic skills and performances that are not available to all students at their high schools?"
The rules make no sense and are not logical. There is a clear difference between financial assistance towards someone's career and financial assistance that goes to one's pocket.