It looks like it did yes, my apologies if these are not your views

you realise it is because of slavery - right? all the tallest, strongest, most muscular west africans were forcibly removed some 150 years ago. this left a gene pool composed of smaller people to produce the present generations of west fricans. in the carribean and the us however, the black population was almost exclusively descended from the biggest, strongest and fastest people that had ever lived in west africa.

money obviously is a big factor too, and until relatively recently, west african nations could hardly afford to compete in sports tournaments while the usa pours funding into training, facilities, coaching etc. the fact remains though, the us (and carribean nations) are working with a 'hand picked' (horrible to say) genetic group in the first place.

Its fairly racist to assume all black sprinters in north america are descended from slaves.

e
agreed. where sis I say 'ALL'?

and more to the point - are you disputing what i am saying? i actually thought people knew this stuff... i don't know why.

West african nations are now very strong at football. they are wealthier, they can afford to compete, and the global economy means european clubs sign a lot of west african players and develop them. the french league is full of players from cameroon, senegal and cote d'ivoire... all strong footballing nations now. their players tend to be strong, fast, explosive and powerful. the combination of west african genetics, and growing uo in wetern europe (france) means they benefit from the diet and medical care of a first wold natio, and possibly their parents and granparents did too. this quickly provides tangible benefits to the level of athlete who is representing the west african nations.

the same can be said of samoans 'benefitting' from being born or raised in wealthy new zealand.

Aaah, there we go..."racial profiling". Just couldn't resist, could you.



West African ORIGIN. As in, ancestry? A bit like...oh, I don't know...most Jamaicans?

And if it's simply North American coaching, facilities and development that make the difference - where are all their white 100m sprinters?

Taken from Wikipedia:
[iNearly all the sprinters who have beaten the 10-second barrier are of West African descent. Namibian (formerly South-West Africa) Frankie Fredericks became the first man of non-West African heritage to achieve the feat in 1991 and in 2003 Australia's Patrick Johnson (who has Irish and Indigenous Australian heritage) became the first sub-10-second runner without an African background. Frenchman Christophe Lemaitre became the first white European under ten seconds in 2010 (although Poland's Marian Woronin had unofficially surpassed the barrier with a time of 9.992 seconds in 1984). In 2011, Zimbabwean Ngonidzashe Makusha became the 76th man to break the barrier, yet only the fourth man not of West African descent. No sprinter of predominantly Asian or East African descent has officially achieved this feat.[/i

I think you may have missed a much more obvious reason why players from Cameroon, Senegal, Cote d'ivoire maybe in the french league, probably a similar reason that there are a large amount of brazilian and cape verde players in portugal.

I dont know why you thought everyone else was under the impression that Usain Bolt was simply a genetic engineered descendent of slaves rather than a unique wonderful athlete, whose specific physical attributes, hard work, skill, and the hard work and skill of his coaches made him into an unparalleled athlete.

That's fine, but I'm not arguing in defence of the OP, but some of Celt's statements, which some people seem to be disputing and belittling simply because the focus is race. Neither am I discussing intelligence or mental capacity.

Are you truly trying to say there are NO biological or genetic differences between races, or between some different ethnicities? None? Given the huge diversity of and ethnic variants and the range of climates and environments they have lived in for hundreds of thousands of years - we are all exactly the same? Agreed, there are environmental and cultural influences, but differences have been proven time and again.

Professor Claude Bouchard, mentioned in that article, took needle biopsies from the thigh muscle of white students and West African students. He discovered the Africans had 67.5% fast twitch muscle fibres, significantly more than their white counterparts at 59%.

The University of Glasgow and the University of the West Indies are currently researching the genetic, nutritional and sociological factors behind West Africa's sprinting success. Preliminary findings suggest that 70% of Jamaicans have the "strong" form of the ACTN3 gene, which produces a protein in their fast-twitch muscle fibers that has been linked to increased sprinting performance. The norm for whites is 60%.

Henrik Ln travelled to Kenya to study the Kalenjin tribe up on the Great Rift Valley. He conculded that the Kalenjin have a genetic advantage when competing in endurance running - in every race, from the 800 metres up to the marathon. The hypothesis is based on a long-term study carried out at the Copenhagen Institute of Sports Science in Denmark. The researchers believe that the Kalenjin runners have an ability to take on board oxygen in just the same way as fit Europeans, but their bodies are more efficient at using that on-board fuel. The Kalenjin can also run at higher speeds for longer than Europeans at the same fitness level. The theory is that the genes of the Kalenjin have mutated to adapt to living in hot, dry conditions at high altitude.

Professor Tim Noakes tested twenty elite athletes, each running a mile in less than 4 mins, 5K in faster than 14 mins, or 10k in around 29 mins at moderate altitude. He found that at a speed of 4:36 per mile the blacks runners lactate levels were a 24% lower than that of the white runners.

This subject has been researched by many people and these, and other differences have been found. They may not be huge differences but as I said, when the winning margin is 10ths of a second, those differences begin to count.

It's not racism. It's simple evolution and adaptation.

:2592kx2zWhat else would you like to call it? what phrase makes you feel comfortable to group together fairly loose racial groups and assign set attributes, both positive and negative to them?

:2592kx2zSo why not West Africans?

:2592kx2zThat is a question we should be asking, why do white Americans not progress in sprinting? Especially when they absolutely dominate sprint swimming. I can assure you however the answer isnt that white people cant run and black people cant swim.

Taken from Wikipedia:
[i:2592kx2zNearly all the sprinters who have beaten the 10-second barrier are of West African descent. Namibian (formerly South-West Africa) Frankie Fredericks became the first man of non-West African heritage to achieve the feat in 1991 and in 2003 Australia's Patrick Johnson (who has Irish and Indigenous Australian heritage) became the first sub-10-second runner without an African background. Frenchman Christophe Lemaitre became the first white European under ten seconds in 2010 (although Poland's Marian Woronin had unofficially surpassed the barrier with a time of 9.992 seconds in 1984). In 2011, Zimbabwean Ngonidzashe Makusha became the 76th man to break the barrier, yet only the fourth man not of West African descent. No sprinter of predominantly Asian or East African descent has officially achieved this feat.[/icorrellation does not prove causality. Whilst there is a correlation between those of west-african origin and sprinting, there is also the same correlation between north america and sprinters. In fact a lot of sprinters from from all over the world choose to train in north america.

Since 1968, all bar 1 of the men's 100m, 200m and 400m world record holders have been of West African descent....

Yes, sprinters from all over the world training in North America, because North America has the best facilities. But still, sprinters descending from a region of Africa dominate sprinting and have done for longer than I can remember, with little to no sign of that changing.

Perhaps the simple reason white sprinters can't match their counterparts of West African origin is because their bodies are marginally slightly less suited to that particular discipline. A bit like you don't see many Papuans tearing up the NBA.

Yes, we have already said that how fast you can run in a stright line is the most important part of playing rugby league

I'll see your assertion and raise you a Karl Pryce.

And so this clown eventually reveals his hate agenda.

It's interesting how easily the supposed salient factors affecting athletics are swapped and discarded to fit the outcome: when North Americans of West African descent win gold medals it's because of innate genetics, but when no West Africans themselves win anything it's because they can't afford the same training and facilities (unlike the Kenyans who are rolling in it, we must presume). It could never be cultural factors which affect the take-up, training and success of different events, could it? Why would the country with the best facilities in the world produce world dominating athletes who are predominantly black? The same reason a country where Blacks are disproportionately poor and are perceived to be better athletes utilise sports scholarships as a vehicle for social mobility.

This conversation would be so much easier if people recognised the difference between correlation and cause. Are we going to argue that the Chinese have a biological predisposition for ping-pong, or is it obvious that table tennis is culturally more important and popular in China (just like athletics is culturally more important and popular to Black Americans).

This was probably the case many many years ago when the little white guy had a natural sense of superiority born of empire and also was the only one with a secondary level education. That was a long time ago and has no place today, so I agree with you 100%.

Are you trying to say that white Americans aren't beating black counterparts because culture? That white people don't really want to sprint but black American culture wants them to?

I can understand team sports like basketball, or sports that require money for any kind of constant participation like tennis, swimming, etc. But not sprinting. You don't need money to sprint as a kid. Most sports require speed. A lot use sprint as a training method. They're all exposed to it regularly and pretty much have a great opportunity to go on to a scholarship for better training. I find it very hard to believe that sprinting (prevalent in many sports) is a cultural thing.

I hope the argument of "why haven't any Western African people been winning?" is dead as well. Top training facilities are hardly in abundance in Africa. Nature vs nurture and all that.

Indeed.

You are Tim Harford and I claim my £5.

So the Backs?............Broughton, Cudjoe, BJB, Watkins, Lawrence, George, Atkins, Walker, Pryce, Dixon, McGilvary, Sharp, Lyne, Williams, Blythe.... I think we have a fair share of Ethinicity in Super League, based on ability, dont see an issue!

Not forgetting another minority, the ginners, like Welham

I'm saying that there are structural and cultural factors which may lead to athletics or sports being dominated by Blacks:

a) sport offers a means of social mobility for members of poorer sections of society either directly, through a career in sports, or indirectly, through a college scholarship (which incidentally may be a persons last or only chance of such an education).
b) Blacks are disproportionately represented in poorer sections of society.
c) Blacks are perceived to have a better chance of success at sport.


You're kind of making my point. Sports which require little or no money to participate in return for a potentially lucrative career or education will have a higher take up by Blacks who are disproportionately represented in poorer sections of society. Sports which require a lot of personal financial investment will be more representative of the demographic at that socio-economic level (i.e. vast majority white). Of course this is simplified and there are many other factors at work as well, such as localised popularity, family traditions, etc, which will affect and even subvert the demographic of sport.


Why should it be dead. It demonstrates how people will pick up on a correlation which supports their preconceived idea and reject out of hand a correlation which doesn't.

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.