WINNING BY A ROOS.

Harvard is entirely willing to leave the decision of Roos's eligibility to Yale, and the CRIMSON believes that Yale's sense of good sportsmanship will arrive at the only just decision--the disqualification of Roos, and the awarding of the meet to Harvard.

The simple facts are these. Yale admits that Roos has competed for four years he competed at Columbia; in 1913 he won the shot-put for Yale in its dual meet with Harvard, and in 1914 he won second place against Harvard.

Yale claims that no three-year rule exists between Harvard and Yale in track and that at any time in the past nine years, Yale could have used Freshman or graduate athletes against Harvard. The fact that Yale has not tried to use such men, until last Saturday, would lead to the conclusion that a three-year rule was recognized, even if no three-year agreement existed. That such an agreement does exist seems clear.

In 1906, Harvard, Yale and Princeton concurred in an athletic agreement, one section of which read:

"No student shall represent one or more universities or colleges in athletic contests for more than three years." Yale's own rules clearly state that no man may compete for more than three years, and that a year in a major sport at another college is equivalent to a year of competition at Yale.

Yale must conform to one set of rules or the other. Under either Roos is ineligible.

Harvard wishes to enter into no technical wrangle with Yale on this or any other question. It is putting the case of Roos squarely up to Yale and it will abide by Yale's decision.