Is it wrong to note 100m winners are always black?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Every winner of the 100m since the inaugural event in 1983 has been black, as has every finalist from the last 10 championships with the solitary exception of Matic Osovnikar of Slovenia, who finished seventh in 2007.

You have to understand, that in my country you're faster somewhere by running than by train Lots of practice

[BossMark]

I wonder why this is then

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Betonov

You have to understand, that in my country you're faster somewhere by running than by train Lots of practice

Honor to, Matic Osovnikar.....and of course to anyone who carries out the sport with respect, regardless of costume and color,

[CaptainMattJ.]

people think stereotypes are just stereotypes.

Some are just that. alot, however, are true. Like the amount of bad asian drivers in minivans. Ive seen enough to see where the stereotype came from. There are a bigger pool of good black athletes in basketball and sprints . Also very true. The stereotypes of the typical idiotic Californian, are alarmingly true.

Stereotypes arent always false. Stereotypes are no way to judge a person, racial group, ect., but they arent all completely false.

[Betonov]

And no, it's not wrong to note 100m winners are almost always black, it's a compliment to the race

[Skybird]

It could be that skin colour forces people in certain social subculturees or regions of the world to focus more on a given sport, than on for example intellectual education. And if this gets done systematically, a system that is tailored to produce excellent atheletes in a given sports discipline may be the result, and an impression could emerge that the dominance of a given skin colour in that sport is due to genes, and not due to any other (sociological, cultural, tradtioinal, environmental) factors.

However, that this could serve as an explanation does not automatically mean in reverse mode that genes do not play a role. There are differences between races. Obviousdly the visible visual diferernces: statue, leg length, skull form, eye form, skin colour etc etc etc. But there is more genetically determined differences as well. Some of them have serious medical consequences: some drugs that get subscribed for white people, possibly could kill a black person, or are without use. Physiological tolerance for alcohol is greater for white people than for many Asian people. White people hjave an encym that allows them to digest milk - to which most Han Chinese have a genetically determined physiological intolerance for.

The way the body stores and burns oxygene and carbohydrates, also is a difference betweneb people. Some of these effects can be influenced by living at different altitudes above sea level.

The dominance of certain people in some sports, cannot be denied. There are many facvtors deciding it. One of them can be genes, amongst others. It can even be genes exclusively - but must not be in every case.

The argument in the original article, is flawed, btw. It should be clear by now why that is so.

What is not object to social and cultural and gentical predispositions and preconditions, is the use of technical surrogates for ampoutated limbs. Oscar Pretorius has done his first race on his carbon-legs today. But he cannot be compared to the performance of runners without carbon springs. He has disadvanatges with these thing sin some areas, and advcanatges in others. And nobody knows hoqw this could be calculated against each other. The question also is what it has to do with sports spirit if c ompetiton needs such calcvulatiosn at all. Doi we see more of this in the future? Or bicycle riders competing versus swimmers, both group's performances object to standatrdiuzing calculations being done? Pretorius' movement patterns have been thoroughly analysed and studied. He runs different, and his race rythm is different to that of runners with two biologic legs. For the first 80% of the race he is slightly slower in the mount-up of speed, but in the last 20% of the distances he becomes tired much slower than full-biologic runners. Then there is the psychological issue. Imagine an athelete collidiujng with Pretorius by accident. Even if it would have been Pretorisu causing it, the other guy would need to fight against ressenti,ments of that he had dumbed the poor little thing inentionally. And how will this effect competition? Will the regular runner subconsciously be careful to not collide with Pretorius , will he maybe pull back a little back in fear of what would come if collides with him?

It'S okay for Pretorius to compete in sports, if he likes. But for the sake of reason, lets keep the cpompoetetions separated. We already have a massive doping problem. And now we open the entrance for techniucal assistances? If it becomes evident that somebody has an advanatge by doing his sport with this special prothesis or that mechaniucal repalcement in his body - will fully healthy athletes next start to cripple themselves to make use of these gadgets as well - for the sake of their personal chnace, and the promise of glory and fame?

Do we want sports event - or roman circus games? Basis of sports competitions is the comparability of performances. And this is no longer given if biological legs run side by side with mechanical prothesis. Fpor the same reason the bars of high jumpers must all be the same and are organsied by the organiser of the compoetetion,l according to standards rules by inernational sports bodies. No athlete is allowed to bring his own bar from his own materiual researech lab, and with good reason.

But carbon springs with their very different energy management suddenly are the exception...?

The dominance of skin colkopurs in certain discipline is not worth to be discussed. But the example of Pretorius - this is worth to be discussed. - On the issue of doping, since I mentioned it, I think the battle is lost. Chances can be equalised again there - by legalising doping. If athletes are stupid enough to risk their heart's health or to shorten their life for some moments of fame, so be it. I grant everybody the freedom to kill himself, if that is what he wants. The doping battle is lost, I think. The battle for separating Olympic amateurs from payed professional got lost, too. The battle for legalising technical assistances in regular "full biologic" sports still could be won since it just has begun - and it could be won by shutting the already opened door immediately.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Betonov

And no, it's not wrong to note 100m winners are almost always black, it's a compliment to the race

Careful now. Most Nobel prize winners are white. Is that a compoiment to the whole "white race"? Think of the implication - do have non-white races have intellectual deficits that derive from inferior genes?

I have niot chekced it, but I am certain that most Nobel prize winners also are males. If that is a compliment to the male gender, do females then have a stupidity-gene, or males a superior intelligence-gene?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Careful now. Most Nobel prize winners are white. Is that a compoiment to the whole "white race"? Think of the implication - do have non-white races have intellectual deficits that derive from inferior genes?

I have niot chekced it, but I am certain that most Nobel prize winners also are males. If that is a compliment to the male gender, do females then have a stupidity-gene, or males a superior intelligence-gene?

Best post of the thread.

[Jimbuna]

Agreed

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Careful now. Most Nobel prize winners are white. Is that a compoiment to the whole "white race"? Think of the implication - do have non-white races have intellectual deficits that derive from inferior genes?

I have niot chekced it, but I am certain that most Nobel prize winners also are males. If that is a compliment to the male gender, do females then have a stupidity-gene, or males a superior intelligence-gene?

I get your point, but just for the record, there is a 3rd possibility that I've actually heard suggested in case of females - the average is more or less the same, but there is more deviation from the average in males, so the brightest (Nobel prize winners, if the system is run right) and dumbest will both be males.