THE ERA OF POLARIZATION chance to row in the Boat Race again, whereas the other likely candidate to be replaced by Jones was in his last year. “By standing down, Ward made a moral stand which the rest of the squad respected, and also a gesture which many felt should never have been necessary. Topolski, it seems, lost a lot of face with that crew for his decision to put Jones in the boat.”7500 The fate of Tony Ward would resonate again mightily less than a year later. Conflict of Interest According to Kiesling, throughout the mid-20th Century, Americans who came to Oxford or to Cambridge found a system where they perceived that “seats in the Blue Boat could be inherited, earned by friendship, or won by election to the presidency.”7501 But this suspicion was nothing new. The accusation that selection of boats at the two Universities was biased had been a perennial one of long standing. In 1898, the leading British rowing manual of the day already felt the need to address the issue at great length.7502 Rowe & Pitman: “The rather prevalent idea that personal favouritism plays some part in the choice of ‘Varsity oars is entirely erroneous . . . ”7503 and on and on for several pages. But while it is true that occasionally a President of the Oxford or Cambridge University Boat Club has not selected himself for a seat in the Blue Boat, such instances are remarkable for their rarity in Boat Race history,7504 and so the prevailing assumption has always been that election to 7500 Ibid, p. 28 7501 Kiesling, op. cit, p. 90 7502 Rowe & Pitman, pp. 177-80 7503 Ibid, p. 177 7504 Topolski, pp. 62-3 the Presidency virtually guarantees a seat in the final boating. Dan Lyons: “The fact was that President Macdonald controlled everything that was going on that year. He was in charge of hiring and firing coaches. He was in charge of the budget. He was the dictator. He could do anything he wanted, and he was going to row in the Blue Boat no matter what. “We didn’t understand that at first.”7505 In the sport of rowing, putting together a winning boat lineup from a group of candidates has traditionally required firm, unquestioned authority because the decisions are so difficult and because personal emotions run so high. Coach Mike Spracklen has “stressed that the process can never be absolutely clear-cut on paper because there are three major factors involved with each oarsman – 1) Technique, 2) Fitness, 3) Psychological make-up.”7506 Without a decision-maker possessing unassailable authority, such subjective evaluations could be open to interpretation . . . and to strong disagreement. In British and U.S. rowing history, there are several instances of successful boats put together by consensus among the athletes. The career of the elder Jack Beresford7507 and Lake Washington Rowing Club under Stan Pocock7508 come to mind. Nevertheless, the norm for two centuries on both sides of the Atlantic is for supreme power to be vested in a coach or some other authority figure, and that athletes must abide by the decisions from on high. For most of its history, the occasional serious challenges to American national coaches have been dealt with harshly, for example the so-called American mutiny of 7505 Lyons, personal conversation, 2009 7506 Topolski, p. 216 7507 See Chapter 23. 7508 See Chapter 83. 2091
