Thank you.

to clarify - i was using the term 'afro-carribean' probably wrongly to refer to athletes of west indian (or at a push west african) origin, and was referring to east africans (kenyans etc) as such, because i didn't know how else to differentiate them. And given that most carribean blacks are of distant west african descent... this made sense to me.

your post echoes exactly what i was saying.

as i said already......................................... i was throwing out an example of a real stereotype.

Jeeez.

People have a problem with it because at best it is simply naive generalisations, at worst racial profiling.
There arent differences in race and ethnicity, there are differences in individual people, there are some top quality white long distance runners, and some fat, lazy, kenyans.

There is even a clear fallacy in your examples. In sprinting it has been supposed that the 'fast twitch fibres' more prominent in people of West African descent mean those people have a natural predisposition to being better sprinters. The question I would ask is who was the last person from West Africa to win olympic gold?

If people from West Africa have a natural predisposition to sprinting, why out of the 14 men to ever run 9.85sec and below only one from Africa (nigeria) and 13 from North America? Why in Womens sprinting is there not one African in the top 11 fast times ever run, yet there are 8 north americans and 3 Europeans? Why in the 200meters are there as many Italians as West Africans in the 10 fastest times ever run? Why in the Womens 200meters are there 4 Germans but 0 West Africans and 6 north Americans? How have 2 Italians and a Greek won an olympic 200metre title and not one person from West Africa?

Why hasnt there ever been an African 100 or 200 metre Olympic Gold medalist in either mens or womens sprinting ever and only 1 silver medalist (in the 200 frankie fredricks came 2nd twice) yet we have had 6 European gold or silver medalists. The entire continent of Africa's medal haul in olympic sprinting is less than that of Britain.

Since 1972 there has been 5 white European olympic mens champions in the 100 and 200 metres, there has been 0 from Africa. Never mind west Africa.

The fact is, Sprinting is dominated by North Americans, North American isnt a race, it isnt an ethnicity. The reason North America dominates sprinting is because they have the best coaches, the best facilities, a great development programme which is often part of an academic scholarship programme and sprinting is a lot more popular there than it is elsewhere

I honestly couldn''t care less whether the players playing for my club are black, blue, turquoise or green. What I want to see is commitment to the cause, pride in the team, honesty with team mates and coaches. I'll give an example of how the argument doesn't stack up - who is playing in the best Warrington team of a long time, the short white and elusive Chris Riley, or a tall athletic and fast Kevin Penny?

RL is also a game of intelligence - how many of the great sides through the history of the sport have had a wily old fox that can turn a game. Most of them, and would you not have wanted the short fat puffing-billy that was Andy Gregory in his prime in your team in the late 80s/early 90s? Course you would because he could get players through gaps and points on the scoreboard.

Let's not get distracted from what makes RL special - guts, pride, and intelligence married with athleticism.

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.

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