🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
> 3) The genetic argument for athletic performance is old, but quite weak.
>    At this point there is an enormous body of evidence which suggests that
>    athletic performance has no racial component.  I would point out
>    that the genetic variation between individuals in one of these groups is
>    statistically as great as the variation between individuals of different
>    groups.


 I have read the Runners World article and was surprised by several of their
conclusions.  However I would like very much to see this 'enormous body 
of evicdence' which states that there is no racial component.

 
> 4) Their argument is inherently racist.It is racist because we wouldn't even
>    be having this discussion if the athletes involved were not African.

	This is probably not true. Just to ask  the Question 'Are there
differences between groups of humans?' is not racist although it certainly is
not politically correct.  The observation that certain groups are, on the
average, taller, shorter, heavier, and perhaps faster, is also not racist.
Trying to answer why this might be, whether cultural or biological is also 
not racist, though perhaps the interpretaion of the answers could lead into 
racism.  The answers themselves are just right or wrong.

>  Yet there is an equal genetic distance between the
>  French and the Germans as between the East Africans and West Africans.

 If this is true it is very interesting. Runners World certainly missed here!



Other points that The Article seemed to miss:

	1) that almost all the top sprinters from the world for the last 15
	 years come from or train in the sunbelt states of the US (CA,Texas,etc)
	 (this includes many forgein runners). In other words there seems to be
	 an environmental factor at work here.
 
	2) I think there have been less than 5 whites ever to run under 10.0
	  for 100m (if any).  And I've heven't seen any whites run under
	  44.2 for 400m
	
	3) What about asian runners???

	4) One thing I have noticed watching world class runners the last 
	 several years is that most have a very pronounced curvature in their
	 backs.  I don't mean big buttocks,  but a curvature that thrusts
	the chest forward and hips back, it doesn't seem to matter how
	muscular the person is.  This crosses all racial/cultural groups 
	and is true for both sexes.  (It's sort of like the new dynamic 
	way they've depicted 2-legged dinosaurs, with the hips high and
	the chest forward).  Is this curvature a prerequist to being a top
	runner or do the top runners develop the curvature.  Or is the
	curvature irrelavant, and I'm just babbling?

These are just some questions.  And observations.