Official London Olympics Doping thread

Page 56 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
User Guide said:
Why dosent Nigeria dominate sprints and the like?
Keep hearing about fast twitch muscles and west african body shape (lower centre of gravity etc) surely a country with such a large population should be producing more world class sprinters.40-50 times as many people as Jamaica.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Most of what you "keep hearing" is nonsense with no scientific basis. All "racial" explanations of athletic performance should be treated with tremendous skepticism, and not just because there is a long and unhappy history of social and institutional misuse of such theories - also because there is not much science supporting them. The very notion of "race" in the human population is not well defined at all - skin color is about as meaningful, in a genetic sense, as is eye color or hair color. One should speak of the genes controlling skin pigmentation, rather than skin color, although there is more to it.

Although anecdotes prove nothing, I'll give the example of a child I know - he is the spitting image of his father in every single way except for one minor detail - the father is "white" (on any continent) and the son is "black" (on any continent). Obviously they are closely related genetically. In a scientific context, race in the colloquial sense is not a useful surrogate for genetic identifiers, and genetic and cultural variation do not correspond in sharp way with genetic variation.

Many of the sprinters that in the US are considered "black" would be regarded as "white" in much of Africa. There's no genetic marker that corresponds to "black" and "white", and a place like Nigeria is very diverse ethnically, so saying something like "west african body shape" makes no sense at all. The short-statured "pygmy" populations in parts of Africa are genetically distinguished from the rest of the human population - although how to characterize the distinction in genetic terms is still not well understood. This is just to say that there are definitely human subpopulations with identifiable genetic differences from other subpopulations. However, note that the Pygmy populations live among other populations which, while distinguished genetically, would also be considered "black" by unscientific racial categorizations.

Why are there so many Spanish cyclists and so few Spanish sprinters and so few Jamaican cyclists and so many Jamaican sprinters? It is not because doping is better in Spain than in Jamaica, nor is it because Spaniards are "white" and Jamaicans are "black" (two plainly ridiculous statements). It has more to with Spain being mountainous and dry and Jamaica being an island in the Caribbean, and other social/cultural factors (e.g. the availability to Jamaicans of US track and field programs and the long European tradition of cycling races) than to pseudo-scientific claims about preponderance of "fast twitch" muscles. Cycling sprinters must need fast twitch - they are almost all "white". Anyone who speaks of Ethiopians, Kenyans, Jamaicans, and Nigerians as all members of one homogeneous "black" racial group is just talking nonsense.
 
Jul 22, 2011
93
0
8,680
neineinei said:
The 4x400 relay was run August 10-11. It took a week before Nadzeya Ostapchuks case was finished and the announcement was made.
I believe Ostapchuck was still in The Olympics Village, so her case was dealt with quickly. With the teams now having gone home and with many individuals now on holiday it could be weeks before we hear of any more positive drugs tests.

Pete
 
May 19, 2010
1,901
0
0
Belarus is a dictatorship. For any official to not defend her would probably mean risking more than their job. Adams was robbed of her moment, but she doesn't have to live in Belarus.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
neineinei said:
Might just be the Crystal Cox case? Or it could be something from the retesting of samples from the 2004 Olympics? l
i think you are correct.

i just heard a clarification (and deleted my previous post that was incorrect) that the issue was the doping case in the same discipline but from the Athens.

the issue was stripping american 4x400 girls team of gold medals by ioc due to cox's case. it is currently being decided due to expiration of 8 year limit on 29 august.

the speculation about london appears incorrect. my apologies.
 
python said:
i think you are correct.

i just heard a clarification (and deleted my previous post that was incorrect) that the issue was the doping case in the same discipline but from the Athens.

the issue was stripping american 4x400 girls team of gold medals by ioc due to cox's case. it is currently being decided due to expiration of 8 year limit on 29 august.

the speculation about london appears incorrect. my apologies.
Speculation is definitely correct.

No positive is a temporary disappointment.

Dave.
 
Paco_P said:
Why are there so many Spanish cyclists and so few Spanish sprinters and so few Jamaican cyclists and so many Jamaican sprinters? It is not because doping is better in Spain than in Jamaica
Who are you arguing with. Everyone knows why cycling is popular in Spain and running more so in Jamaica. No one has ever suggested more people buy bycicles in Spain because doping is more rife (how would that even work?)

I do not understand what point you are trying to make here.
 
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Paco_P said:
Most of what you "keep hearing" is nonsense with no scientific basis. All "racial" explanations of athletic performance should be treated with tremendous skepticism, and not just because there is a long and unhappy history of social and institutional misuse of such theories - also because there is not much science supporting them. The very notion of "race" in the human population is not well defined at all - skin color is about as meaningful, in a genetic sense, as is eye color or hair color. One should speak of the genes controlling skin pigmentation, rather than skin color, although there is more to it.

Although anecdotes prove nothing, I'll give the example of a child I know - he is the spitting image of his father in every single way except for one minor detail - the father is "white" (on any continent) and the son is "black" (on any continent). Obviously they are closely related genetically. In a scientific context, race in the colloquial sense is not a useful surrogate for genetic identifiers, and genetic and cultural variation do not correspond in sharp way with genetic variation.

Many of the sprinters that in the US are considered "black" would be regarded as "white" in much of Africa. There's no genetic marker that corresponds to "black" and "white", and a place like Nigeria is very diverse ethnically, so saying something like "west african body shape" makes no sense at all. The short-statured "pygmy" populations in parts of Africa are genetically distinguished from the rest of the human population - although how to characterize the distinction in genetic terms is still not well understood. This is just to say that there are definitely human subpopulations with identifiable genetic differences from other subpopulations. However, note that the Pygmy populations live among other populations which, while distinguished genetically, would also be considered "black" by unscientific racial categorizations.

Why are there so many Spanish cyclists and so few Spanish sprinters and so few Jamaican cyclists and so many Jamaican sprinters? It is not because doping is better in Spain than in Jamaica, nor is it because Spaniards are "white" and Jamaicans are "black" (two plainly ridiculous statements). It has more to with Spain being mountainous and dry and Jamaica being an island in the Caribbean, and other social/cultural factors (e.g. the availability to Jamaicans of US track and field programs and the long European tradition of cycling races) than to pseudo-scientific claims about preponderance of "fast twitch" muscles. Cycling sprinters must need fast twitch - they are almost all "white". Anyone who speaks of Ethiopians, Kenyans, Jamaicans, and Nigerians as all members of one homogeneous "black" racial group is just talking nonsense.
Your view is based on outdated science. More recent population genetics/functional genomics research has rejected your view, in part also because of a reevaluation of the pace of genetic change. The current view acknowledges that human genetic variation is geographically structured, that many populations were partially isolated during much of their history, and that this is reflected in genetic similarity/distance correlating with geography. It does not justify the discrete race theory of bygone eras, but it does accept group-level differences as meaningful, which loosely cluster around traditional racial classifications (which actually play an important role in medicine) and the fact that some populations reflect genetic similarities that were selected for. See, for example, Genetic variation, classification and 'race' Nature Genetics, 2004.

The most compelling case (other than in medicine) are findings regarding the genes EPAS1, EGLN1 and PPARA and adaptation in high-altitude Tibetans.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
python said:
what is interesting about this doping case is not that she doped and got caught, but the olympic doping due process when compared to the claims of one rich cyclist currently charged with doping and who hired an army of lawyers to prove lack of due process.

the shotputter failed her last test on 5 august and pronounced guilty 12 august. note, the hearing already took place with all sides present.

swift justice indeed. of course she doped but she aint got millions to hire layers to obfuscate the truth for years.

lucky we the fans and the ioc.
Her hearing that you mention was in regards to the medal and removal from the Olympic Games. Any sanction from further competition has to come from her NGB. We will probably hear in 6 mos. that the NGB found it was accidental consumtion.:(
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
No, you talk nonsense.

We are not politicans, so no need for political correctness!

You tell me why sprint finals (even before the heavy dope age of now) are always filled with black men. Furthermore you tell me why 90+ % of WRS in the NFL* are black. And please don´t come up with the nonsense that sporting activity is their only way up. Because 90+ % of javelin throwers, billard players (BTW, african clubs are full of millions of billard players), NFL* OL-Men, etc. (more technique than "speed" required) are white. Funny, isn´t it, when we don´t look trou the glasses of political correctness like you do.

* And those guys are the "whiter" blacks than the "black africans", if you want to have that point (which i don´t think is true). Man, i hope you see your nonsense now completely. The fact remains: The blacks, no matter if from USA, GB, Africa or wherever, are faster than the white. Just look at reality. And pre late-60´s the white men still hold records in short sprints, won them, even sometimes dominated them. But when the black men around the world had the chance to take full advantage of their genetic advantage of "fast twitch" muscles, the whites had no chance anymore. After all, "User Guide" is right about Nigeria etc.! Conclusion: A small no testing land (Jamaica) takes full advantage of heavy doping, otherwise black "super" sprinters wouldn´t mostly come from their small country, but from around the world.

Paco_P said:
Most of what you "keep hearing" is nonsense with no scientific basis. All "racial" explanations of athletic performance should be treated with tremendous skepticism... blablabla ...
 
Aug 18, 2009
4,993
0
0
Paco_P said:
... All "racial" explanations of athletic performance should be treated with tremendous skepticism, ... because there is a long and unhappy history of social and institutional misuse of such theories...
This bit is right IMHO. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", people are always searching for generalisations to make about certain ethnic groups, unhelpfully. As Paco says it's important to be specific and accurate when making comments of this type. That said, the athletes at the top in sprint events will pretty much all have a West African connection, that much is undeniable. Biological and social factors will have a part to play.
One interesting question (not for here really) is wheter a mixed heritage has an influence, as opposed to a more narrow African or European heritage. But yup, not on this forum.
Anyway soon all this race talk will be moot if gene doping and other biotechnological advances are in the post.
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
the big ring said:
The difference between (albeit what looked like a) whinge of "THey come at 6:30am in the morning!" from some cyclists vs what the coach says here,
Anna Meares said something similar before the Olympics when she was in Europe - I remember it well because Contador had complained just 24 hours earlier about being tested in the morning after another test the night before.
 
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Cavalier said:
Anna Meares said something similar before the Olympics when she was in Europe - I remember it well because Contador had complained just 24 hours earlier about being tested in the morning after another test the night before.
A quick search shows too much post-race bruhaha, do you have a good search term or link to these?

Cheers.
 
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
While I was searching I found this ...


http://www.canberratimes.com.au/olympics/athletics-london-2012/powell-complains-over-dope-test-wakeup-call-20120803-23kyc.html

Powell complains over dope test wake-up call

Manager Paul Doyle said Powell, who will run in the 100 metres heats at the London Olympics on Saturday, was woken at 2215 local time on Thursday to undergo the test.

"We love the fact that they are testing but we wish they would be more sensitive to his preparations," Doyle said.
:eek:

Irony.
 
Jul 23, 2012
1,126
0
0
Paco_P said:
Most of what you "keep hearing" is nonsense with no scientific basis. All "racial" explanations of athletic performance should be treated with tremendous skepticism, and not just because there is a long and unhappy history of social and institutional misuse of such theories - also because there is not much science supporting them. The very notion of "race" in the human population is not well defined at all - skin color is about as meaningful, in a genetic sense, as is eye color or hair color. One should speak of the genes controlling skin pigmentation, rather than skin color, although there is more to it.

Although anecdotes prove nothing, I'll give the example of a child I know - he is the spitting image of his father in every single way except for one minor detail - the father is "white" (on any continent) and the son is "black" (on any continent). Obviously they are closely related genetically. In a scientific context, race in the colloquial sense is not a useful surrogate for genetic identifiers, and genetic and cultural variation do not correspond in sharp way with genetic variation.

Many of the sprinters that in the US are considered "black" would be regarded as "white" in much of Africa. There's no genetic marker that corresponds to "black" and "white", and a place like Nigeria is very diverse ethnically, so saying something like "west african body shape" makes no sense at all. The short-statured "pygmy" populations in parts of Africa are genetically distinguished from the rest of the human population - although how to characterize the distinction in genetic terms is still not well understood. This is just to say that there are definitely human subpopulations with identifiable genetic differences from other subpopulations. However, note that the Pygmy populations live among other populations which, while distinguished genetically, would also be considered "black" by unscientific racial categorizations.

Why are there so many Spanish cyclists and so few Spanish sprinters and so few Jamaican cyclists and so many Jamaican sprinters? It is not because doping is better in Spain than in Jamaica, nor is it because Spaniards are "white" and Jamaicans are "black" (two plainly ridiculous statements). It has more to with Spain being mountainous and dry and Jamaica being an island in the Caribbean, and other social/cultural factors (e.g. the availability to Jamaicans of US track and field programs and the long European tradition of cycling races) than to pseudo-scientific claims about preponderance of "fast twitch" muscles. Cycling sprinters must need fast twitch - they are almost all "white". Anyone who speaks of Ethiopians, Kenyans, Jamaicans, and Nigerians as all members of one homogeneous "black" racial group is just talking nonsense.
This is simply untrue. There is much science to support race as a biological reality. The issue has been the financial investment in "political" science (and propaganda) to claim that race is just a social construct and your entire post is the product of that investment. In reality, the science of eugenics is still practised but unacknowledged. For example, in WASP countries it is common for those who suffer from celiac's disease to be asked if they have Irish ancestry. Like it or not, eugenics is a respectable science, was so before 1945 and continues to have a role to play in medicine.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
Most black caribbean people have common ancestors, but most of the fastest men and women are from Jamaica! Seems difficult to explain by genes only.
Popoulation :
Carribean Islands : around 50M
Jamaica : 3M
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
buckle said:
This is simply untrue. There is much science to support race as a biological reality. The issue has been the financial investment in "political" science (and propaganda) to claim that race is just a social construct and your entire post is the product of that investment. In reality, the science of eugenics is still practised but unacknowledged. For example, in WASP countries it is common for those who suffer from celiac's disease to be asked if they have Irish ancestry. Like it or not, eugenics is a respectable science, was so before 1945 and continues to have a role to play in medicine.
Doctors unfortunately use ethnic identity as a surrogate for genetic markers. Certainly the genetic factors which predispose for celiac disease, or sickle cell anemia (to take another example), are more common in certain populations, and in certain cases these genetic factors are linked to others which result in some visible manifestation (skin pigmentation, in the case of sickle-cell anemia), and in other cases they are not. This however, is a far cry from saying they are linked to ethnicity or race, particularly when the only operational meaning that can be given to ethnicity or race are precisely such genetic coincidences, and there will in general be in the same population many other genetic markers indicating difference rather than similarity.

Eugenics is not respectable, and has never been a science, though perhaps there is in it the seed of an idea which became modern genetics (probably this is too generous). Modern genetics allows medical conditions and physiological traits to be linked to genes - and this is quite meaningful - but how those genes and the corresponding linkages to physiology are distributed among the human population is not well sorted out - although in particular cases (e.g. those mentioned above) a lot is known - but "race" has not proved to be a useful organizing principle. Notice that you spoke of the Irish, not of "white" people. Celiac disease is also more common in Iberia - of course Iberia, like Ireland, has a higher than usual percentage of Celtic ancestry. Speaking of "white" people means lumping together the Irish and Ashkenazic Jews, which has as much basis in genetics as lumping together Masai and Igbo, or Ashkenazic Jews and Igbo, for that matter.

I'd like to highlight the following:
"the science of eugenics is still practised but unacknowledged."
The reality, sad for some, is that institutionalized scientific research is the only game in science - too much is understood for those working on the fringes to make substantial contributions except in rare cases (e.g. amateur astronomers). That something is "unacknowledged" means there is a high probability it is crackpottery or worse.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
mastersracer said:
Your view is based on outdated science. More recent population genetics/functional genomics research has rejected your view, in part also because of a reevaluation of the pace of genetic change. The current view acknowledges that human genetic variation is geographically structured, that many populations were partially isolated during much of their history, and that this is reflected in genetic similarity/distance correlating with geography. It does not justify the discrete race theory of bygone eras, but it does accept group-level differences as meaningful, which loosely cluster around traditional racial classifications (which actually play an important role in medicine) and the fact that some populations reflect genetic similarities that were selected for. See, for example, Genetic variation, classification and 'race' Nature Genetics, 2004.

The most compelling case (other than in medicine) are findings regarding the genes EPAS1, EGLN1 and PPARA and adaptation in high-altitude Tibetans.
Actually my view and yours are about the same. I am trying to avoid entering into a technical discussion of modern genetics, and maybe I don't do it well. I am not arguing that there are not well defined human subpopulations - I am arguing that "white" and "black" are not two such subpopulations. I accept that it is demonstrated that there are subpopulations characterized by genetic affinity - and I cited an extreme example (so as to avoid debate), namely that of the so-called pygmy populations in Africa, whose genetic lineage is well established to have separated from that of the rest of humanity many tens of thousands of years ago (I am not more precise because I do not remember all the details, but in Nature Genetics and the like they can be found).

The point is that the conventional notion of "race" is not at all supported by modern genetics.

When folks holler than "blacks" are faster than "whites" they are not referring to subpopulations well defined by precise genetic criteria. Rather they are referring to vaguely and culturally defined notions - notions which moreover differ from culture to culture. In the US, anyone with any physiological characteristic identifiable as "black" - e.g. a certain kind of skin pigmentation (I do not say brown because it is not that simple) or a certain kind of hair (it is not as simple as just "black" and "tightly curled") - is identified as black. In much Hispanic culture such an identification is much less clear. Also these notions change in time. When I was a child in the US south, a dark skinned man from southern India was considered "black" and treated accordingly. Now he is considered "Indian" and treated as completely different from "black". This gets back to my original point - perhaps dark skin is a useful indicator of genetic affinity, perhaps not - the evidence seems to suggest that in and of itself it is not.

Finally, as I perhaps did not make sufficiently explicit - when speaking of "black Africans" many in the US and Europe seem to be unaware of the tremendous ethnic and genetic diversity of subpopulations within "black Africa". To lump Ethiopians, Kenyans, Nigerians, and Jamaicans together as one genetically identifiable mass is simply ridiculous, even given that these national groupings have little to do with traditional ethnic identifications (it is at least as unsupportable as identifying Irish, Ukrainians, and Italians). Even to identify "west Africans" as a group is to ignore all the subtleties of exactly the sort of geographic structuring of subpopulations of which you speak - this is like speaking of Western Europeans as a coherent mass.

The use in medicine of race as a surrogate for genetic markers is under increasing scrutiny. It has some sense - it is much cheaper and easier to say - this person is "black" so is more likely to come from a population with heightened probability of sickle cell anemia - but it is better to look for factors more directly related to the medical condition - or cultural factors that may be better indicators than "black". I know too many people who in the US would be considered "black" who have 3 of 4 grandparents from Europe, to think that this sort of thing is ideal, even though I'll accept that in certain contexts it has some basis.

In reference to sports, however, the linkage between "black" and the supposed traits, even in a likelihood sense, is not well demonstrated, as it is for certain heavily studied medical conditions. Is it even true that "blacks" are overrepresented in certain sports? Is it still true if we control for obvious cultural factors?

I'll give an example: what percentage of top tier sprinters come out of US university track and field programs? It seems to me it is quite substantial (I could be wrong). If this is the case, there will be a systematic bias towards those with access to these programs. This will favor folks from the US, which has a large "black" population, and it will favor folks from other countries near the US where track and field is practiced, e.g. the Caribbean or Canada. Such an explanation would tend to suggest that folks of Mexican ancestry should be overrrepresented as well - is this true? (it seems plausible, looking at distance runners).
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
No, you talk nonsense.

We are not politicans, so no need for political correctness!

You tell me why sprint finals (even before the heavy dope age of now) are always filled with black men. Furthermore you tell me why 90+ % of WRS in the NFL* are black. And please don´t come up with the nonsense that sporting activity is their only way up. Because 90+ % of javelin throwers, billard players (BTW, african clubs are full of millions of billard players), NFL* OL-Men, etc. (more technique than "speed" required) are white. Funny, isn´t it, when we don´t look trou the glasses of political correctness like you do.

* And those guys are the "whiter" blacks than the "black africans", if you want to have that point (which i don´t think is true). Man, i hope you see your nonsense now completely. The fact remains: The blacks, no matter if from USA, GB, Africa or wherever, are faster than the white. Just look at reality. And pre late-60´s the white men still hold records in short sprints, won them, even sometimes dominated them. But when the black men around the world had the chance to take full advantage of their genetic advantage of "fast twitch" muscles, the whites had no chance anymore. After all, "User Guide" is right about Nigeria etc.! Conclusion: A small no testing land (Jamaica) takes full advantage of heavy doping, otherwise black "super" sprinters wouldn´t mostly come from their small country, but from around the world.
I'll start with the NFL OL. In this case the claimed racial correlation isn't even clearly true.

Here are some of the best of all time: Anthony Muñoz, Larry Allen, Walter Jones, Randall Mcdaniel, Orlando Pace, Dwight Stephenson, Gene Upshaw, Art Shell.

Examples like Bruce Matthews, Russ Grimm, and Joe Jacoby to the contrary, it seems even possible that black and Hispanic men are overrepresented (relative to population) among the great OL players in NFL history.

"You tell me why sprint finals (even before the heavy dope age of now) are always filled with black men."

I think the explanation is largely cultural, the relevant culture being that of the US. Although anecdotes prove nothing, I'll give an example: in my high school there was a fellow who ran a hand timed 10.3 in the 100m, and later qualified for the Olympics in the triple jump, and there was a fellow who ran a 4:03 mile at the age of 16. The former's father was the school cook and his brother and sister were state champion sprinters (the sister got murdered later). He quit football, so as to avoid injury, and focused on track because it gave him a full scholarship to a major state university, which he parlayed later into a good "professional" job and a substantial increase in income. The latter (the miler) never trained very hard. His 200m speed was comparable to the other guy's. His family were already "professional" and fairly well off. His brother played basketball on a full scholarship at a state university. He went to a "fancy" university and became a doctor, and left running as a hobby which he could enjoy without having to suffer. The triple jumper was black whatever meaning you give to the word, and the miler was white. What seems to me more relevant is the cultural/family background. For one athletics offered a possibility to improve the material conditions of his family, which were difficult, while for the other, it offered the risk of diminished material conditions (which judgment was only confirmed by his brother's not very succcessful basketball adventure). What is relevant is not the anecdote, but rather that (in the US) one such set of conditions and expectations is more likely to occur in one cultural subpopulation than another. For this reason, one expects that more professional athletes will emerge from one subpopulation from the other, even if it could be supposed that the distributions of natural talent (whatever that means) are the same in the two populations (I do not discard that in certain genetically well defined subpopulations the distributions of certain traits are different from their distributions in other populations, as this is clearly true). As I indicate parenthetically, the latter supposition is perhaps not correct, but nonetheless it seems quite possible (likely?) that the cultural factors greatly outweigh the genetic factors.

As for all the malarky about black men taking advantage of their fast twitch muscles - this explains I guess why there are so many Kenyans doing well in distance running? What I mean is the following: let's be careful to keep in mind that running the 100m and running the 10K are as different as Igbo from Masai.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
The Hitch said:
Who are you arguing with. Everyone knows why cycling is popular in Spain and running more so in Jamaica. No one has ever suggested more people buy bycicles in Spain because doping is more rife (how would that even work?)

I do not understand what point you are trying to make here.
I come from that old US world where "blacks" are thought to be better athletes than "whites" in every sense. From such a standpoint blacks ought to be better cyclists and swimmers than whites as well as better sprinters and boxers. Of course it ain't so for reasons which you apparently regard as obvious.

My point is that the cultural factors seem to me to determine heavily which sports people play (who dominates in ping pong?). Later that in particular Spain among place where cycling is popular, and Jamaica, among places where sprinting is popular, are particularly dominant (if such a claim is even supported by the evidence) seems to me, in both cases (and we could throw in the example of Kenyan distance runners), a consequence of institutionalized doping. Consequently, we should not infer from the apparent dominance of Jamaican sprinters that black people are faster than white people, even if we knew clearly what such a statement means.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
No, you talk nonsense.

We are not politicans, so no need for political correctness!
It has nothing to with politics or political correctness that race is not a well defined concept.

Think of the example of Barack Obama. Culturally, in the US he is considered black, although his mother was considered white by that same culture. Exactly the same statement suggest that it is not clear from the point of view of genetics why he should be considered black rather than white.

Should Tiger Woods be considered black or Asian? The cases for one or the other appear to eb equally strong, from a genetic perspective, while, again, from a cultural point of view, he is usually, in the US, identified as black, although he himself does not make such an identification.

The cultural notion of race is real - and heavily dependent on what the particular culture is. On the other hand, the usual cultural notions of race share that they are not well founded on a scientific basis, e.g. genetics.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
poupou said:
Most black caribbean people have common ancestors, but most of the fastest men and women are from Jamaica! Seems difficult to explain by genes only.
Popoulation :
Carribean Islands : around 50M
Jamaica : 3M
Yer but did you see the men's 400m final? That sure was entertaining given what the IAAF said about testing (or lack of) in the Caribbean.


Rk Bib Athlete Mark +
1 2005 JAMES Kirani (Grenada) 43.94 NR +
2 1564 SANTOS Luguelin (Dominican Republic) 44.46 +
3 3044 GORDON Lalonde (Trinidad and Tobago) 44.52 PB +
4 1100 BROWN Chris (Bahamas) 44.79 +
5 1133 BORLEE Kevin (Belgium) 44.81 +
6 1132 BORLEE Jonathan (Belgium) 44.83 +
7 1108 PINDER Demetrius (Bahamas) 44.98 +
8 1060 SOLOMON Steven (Australia) 45.14 +
 
Aug 16, 2012
275
0
0
Expected much more failed tests by now. Maybe the dopers were just too good for the testers this time. Or maybe there was no sincere testing - with the Bulgarian shot-putt lady made the sacrificial lamb.
 
Dec 27, 2010
6,674
0
0
Bicycle said:
Expected much more failed tests by now. Maybe the dopers were just too good for the testers this time. Or maybe there was no sincere testing - with the Bulgarian shot-putt lady made the sacrificial lamb.
As **** Pound said, anyone failing tests during the Olympics also fails an IQ test. 6000 tests in July/August was 6 months too late.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY