utter nonsense. Blacks are typically more explosive 'power' athletes as they have a higher proportion of fast twitch muscle. White europeans tend to have a higher amount of slow twitch muscle - allowing more absolute strength, but less explosive power.

If you honestly believe that all ethnicities are athletically equal, then ask yourself this:
why is the nrl (and super rugby, all blacks etc) full of polynesians? Why has the tiny island of american samoa seen some 60 players to the nfl.... more than many american football heartland areas with 100 times the population.???

Simply put, samoans (and tongans, cook islanders, nouvelle caledoniens etc) are blessed with an incredible ability to put on muscle, as well as a natural explosive power. they typically are big, but with a relatively low centre of gravity... ideal for rugby league (and union, nfl etc). They are rarely taller than about 1.92-1,93 metres, so no big gangly blokes. (unlike fijians... melanesians... who can be taller)

these guys have evolved over centuries, whereby their diet (heavily composed of taro) allows them to assimilate this carbohydrate based food in a way that westerners cannot.... they effectively process root vegetables in a way that we process protein.

if you honestly believe that your average pasty white, skinny 5 foot 7 northener... (or glaswegian, londoner... etc) can match these guys in terms of natural athleticism, then you are having a laugh. they can train hard though, and improve their physique, strength, power, pace. But... the polynesians (and often afro-caribbeans too) have a big natural advantage. who was the last white bloke to win the 100m olympic gold? scotsman alan wells in 1980. 32 years ago.

in the previous 4 nations (the one down under...) englands backline looked totally outsized, outmuscled and outpaced by a bigger, more athletic, stronger more imposing aussie 7. The gap closed slightly this year (2011), but was still noticeable - right across the park.

I'm afraid that reference is lost on me.

Maybe young white sprinters are ignored or have less focus put upon them or encouraged to focus on other sports because of a preconception that there is a limit to their ability because of their race, maybe coaches consciously or subconsciously see more talent in black youngsters because of a preconception that white sprinters are inferior and so they are more likely to be picked up and developed and so to progress in the sport . The same as some would argue that the larger amount of black wide receivers and running backs and disproportionate amount of white quarterbacks in the NFL isnt necessarily because those races are naturally predisposed to those positions but because black wide receivers are thought to be naturally predisposed to those positions so at youth level they are encouraged toward them at the expense of other positions.

As for the why havent any Western African people been winning medals isnt dead, its a clearly pertinent point. It is impossible to realistically attribute natural predisposed genetic talent to the fact people are of West African descent when West African people themselves dont show this same attribute.

The Undercover Economist and presenter of More or Less on Radio 4; their mantra is 'correlation does not imply causation.'

I live on the edge.

Slaves were taken from West Africa to America. The biggest and strongest slaves were bred together (and a bit of plantation owners sons DNA thrown in here and there) to make bigger and stronger slaves. Bigger, stronger offspring bred with the offspring of other bigger, stronger slaves to eventually create what we have today. Blacks in the USA who are bigger, stronger and faster than their African 'brothers'. Same can be said for blacks in the Caribbean.