[We invite all men in the University to submit communications on subjects of timely interest. The Crimson is not, however, responsible for the sentiments expressed in such communications as may be printed.]

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON yesterday morning in an editorial of considerable ambiguity calls attention to an absurd rule passed last year by the Athletic Committee. This rule excludes Harvard athletes from representing the University in more than two of the periods into which the athletic year is divided. It is difficult to see what cap be said in defense of this rule. I have heard it argued that it was propounded because it is physically unwise to remain in training throughout the year. I contend that this is not borne out by existing facts. I have talked with several medical men on the subject and their opinion is unanimous in declaring that there is no physiological reason why constant training should be injurious. The English athlete keeps in training throughout the year. True, he does not sit at a training table and gaze with ani mated longing at a cigarette. He does, however, train his body to the best of his ability. If we have sensible training a man can keep in training a life-time without physical harm. The healthiest men I have ever known have been professional athletes in constant training. If every athlete here at College is sensible and looks after his own training, he can train every moment of his life without physical injury.

Now this rule restricting athletes to only two periods of sport affects, as the CRIMSON says, only a few men. These are the athletic "cream"--the natural athletes. They are the men who enter intelligently into athletics. Do you suppose that any man who is physically capable of representing the University in three periods of sport, has not enough sense to look after his own physical condition? Such men cannot be injured by too much exercise. They thrive on it.

The argument that constant sport turns a man from his studies is equally absurd. If a man wants to study, there is plenty of time to do so; and if he doesn't wish to study more than the minimum required, no restriction of the kind that this rule enforces will compel him, or even incline him, to study more. There is plenty of time for a man to play on three University teams and get a degree "cum laude." It is merely a personal matter.

The net result of this rule is that certain exceptional men of great athletic ability are prevented from giving the full use of their abilities to their University. They take just as much exercise. They do not one whit more studying. They are merely restrained by this rule from the personal triumphs that are their right.

Athletics at Harvard are undertaken amidst a mass of petty restrictions and constant and oppressing difficulties, but none of these restrictions stands out with such a pitiful emphasis of bottomless nonsense as does this idiotic enforcing of a fossilized theory.  SENIOR