LETTERS: M.X.-Country vows to let feet do the talking

To the Editor: It is unfortunate that despite the hard work we have put in over the last seven years of our lives to become quality athletes, you decide to draw your own conclusions about the quality of our team -- and our top athletes in particular -- after questioning two people within the program Coach Charlie Powell along with myself as team co-captain were asked to contribute to this article. In between our honest assessment of our team's outlook, you find room for unfounded opinions. You quote Powell as saying "We have three very good seniors on the team? Scott Clayton and Sean Macmillan are two of the best runners in the country and Mark Granshaw just won the first race for us at Lafayette." Then, you followed up this assessment by calling Powell's praise "optimistic." Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for something to be optimistic, does there not have to be speculation involved, or at least some kind of predicted outcome? Powell intentionally refused to comment on the outcome of our season so I cannot see what you considered to be optimistic. Certainly you cannot debate the fact that Granshaw won the season's first race at Lafayette. The Ivy League's best in cross country consistently rank with the nation's best, regularly sending its top two men's and women's teams to the NCAA meet. So, considering that Sean and myself are, respectively, the second-fastest returning steeplechaser and miler in the Ivy League, as well as two of our league's top five returners in cross country, Powell's praise is not far-fetched or "optimistic." Facts in our sport are hard and non-negotiable, so I should simply let my actions speak for themselves, but I strongly resent having to answer to your unresearched opinions. I hope it will not continue to be the policy of The Daily Pennsylvanian to knock a team whose season has only just begun. Scott Clayton Men's Cross Country Co-Captain Wharton '00 Malmros is right on target To the Editor: When I saw the headline "Female athletes lose interest" in today's sports section of the DP ("Female athletes lose interest," DP, 9/15/99), I feared that the column would portray female athletes as fickle competitors and cast a negative light over Penn's women's athletics. However, I was pleasantly surprised by Kent Malmros' column. As a female athlete who, for lack of a better term, is on "sabbatical" from the women's soccer team here at Penn, I have a strong opinion about the obvious inequalities within our athletics program. Malmros was right on the money when he touched on the lack of "glamour" in women's' athletics. The inequality was painfully evident during this preseason when the women's soccer team was forced to practice on fields that did not come close to passing as regulation soccer fields while the football team was, as usual, put up in a hotel and able to utilize whatever facilities it needed. Don't get me wrong. I believe that the football team should be offered such accommodations; they all work incredibly hard and put a great amount of time into their sport. However, there are plenty of other teams that put just as much hard work and time into their sport and those teams are forced to deal with less glamourous conditions. I would suggest, to elaborate on Malmros' column, that there are inequalities between men's and women's athletics at Penn, but I would say that more importantly, there is a huge discrepancy between men's basketball and football and the rest of Penn athletics. As I said before, with their dedication and continual pursuit to be atop the Ivy League, the basketball and football teams deserve every bit of funding and support given to them. However, it is essential the Athletic Department re-evaluate it's current system so as to not leave so many hard-working Penn athletes feeling disatisfied with their collegiate athletics experience. Emily Goodman College '01