Here is a letter in today's Chicago Sun Times with a rebuttal for Monday's editorial.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/600022,CST-EDT-ref12.article
Sun-Times owes an apology to marathoners
October 12, 2007
In this increasingly politically correct world, sadly, it seems the Sun-Times could not resist taking a cheap shot at the organizers of the Chicago Marathon for not "owning up to their mistakes" regarding last Sunday's marathon.
Congratulations on your indignant, empathetic self-righteousness. But as a Chicagoan, I don't need you acting on my behalf, since as far as I'm concerned, no apology from the Chicago Marathon is necessary. Especially since it's the unsubstantiated accusations you made -- and not the responses from Mr. Pinkowski -- that do not "hold water."
In your editorial, you assert that runners needed "far more water" than the "50 cups of liquid per runner" the marathon allocated. Based on what information, exactly? Who is your source, Dr. Sun-Times?
Just because the 50 cups was only 5 more cups per water than was allocated last year does not mean that when the temperature is in the 50s, 45 cups is how much runners need. In fact, it may be significantly more than runners need. Again, your lack of any reputable source gives you no credibility in this discussion.
Secondly, finding one anecdotal story of a runner (Mr. Clark) who could not find water hardly represents a statistically valid cross section of the 35,000 participants. It's also a bit silly since he's complaining about a lack of water two miles into the race. If this guy had prepared properly (drinking before the race had begun) he should have been able to survive without water two miles into the race. Sorry, but Mr. Clark is just looking for a shoulder to whine on, and he has found a willing enabler in the Sun-Times.
Before casting proverbial stones, did you think that maybe organizers had placed more water later in the race (say, beyond four miles) to assist runners when they needed it most? Did you check water stations throughout the course to see if water was available? Of course not. You were too eager to jump on this "big story" to do real research and present a balanced point of view.
Even more offensive, your idea of "balanced journalism" is to insult not only the race organizers, but the runners as well -- this "boastful bunch" whom you accuse of hubris for attempting to run in difficult conditions. Once again, your generalizations are at best assumptive and worse, insulting.
You make accusations about these runners' motives with absolutely no factual information. How do you know they didn't "listen to their bodies" and run slower?
How do you know they were obsessed with finishing "within a certain time frame?" You don't. Maybe they were just a group of people who, unlike 40 percent of our obese population, simply wanted to get off their butts and achieve a goal that would improve their health and give them a sense of accomplishment.
Your portrayal of runners as masochistic lunatics who brag about "losing toenails" and "wearing out expensive running shoes" is snide, catty and disrespectful. (By the way, what does the cost of running shoes have to do with anything?) It is you, Sun-Times, who owes the apology to these athletes, not the Chicago Marathon.
And while you're digging in the apology bag, you might want to pass one on to your readers, and another to the Chicago Marathon team and all the volunteers who have helped make this event one of Chicago's finest for years. Your lazy, lackluster, uninformed editorial was unfortunately a sorry punctuation mark on what was a difficult day for all involved.
Michael Doyle, Chicago