Nor was the fact that all of the finalists trace their ancestry to Africa—specifically West or South Africa—a familiar phenomenon to anyone who even vaguely follows elite running.”
The 100 meter race was contested by 8 Africans—with different nationalities: Usain Bolt (Jamaica); Justin Gatlin (USA); Andre De Grasse (Canada); Yohan Blake (Jamaica); Akani Simbine (South Africa); Ben Youssef Meïté (Côte d’Ivoire); Jimmy Vicaut (France); and Trayvon Bromell (USA).
As Entine points out, when “it comes to opportunity, running is the most egalitarian of global sports, a natural laboratory.”
Unlike the props and costumes required for, say, professional football or ice hockey, or the intense coaching demanded of gymnastics, swimming or golf, anyone can just lace up and go for a run.
With regard to the 100 meter event, Entine goes on to say that
One thing has been clear about this race for decades: it is not an event for Asians, Caucasians or any other racial group other than athletes who trace their ancestry to West or South Africa.
And if there is anything we can be sure, the athletes that make the finals in the top sprinting events won’t always be the hardest working or the best coached.
At the most elite level, the victory is contested by only those with the best genes—and that’s determined by tens of thousands of years of evolutionary selection.
He goes on to mock those liberals who might demand that for the sake of “diversity” the medal winners at the Olympics should represent all races, pointing out that running has become obviously segregated by race:
Those who do not understand the power of genes might argue that the medal podium for runners should reflect a rainbow of diversity, as no country or region should have a lock on desire or opportunity.
But just the opposite has happened in track and field: running has become almost entirely segregated by ancestry.
The trends are eye opening: Among men, athletes of African ancestry hold every major running record, from the 100m to the marathon … But still journalists, unschooled in genetics 101, who bow to political correctness, attempt to persuade us that environment and culture are what matters most at the elite levels of competitive sports.
The cultural arguments pale against the hard science . . . Evolution has shaped significant physical and physiological differences . . . We have no choice but to face this third rail of genetics and sports.
The reason for West African dominance in field events is, according to Entine,
Genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, the distribution of muscle fiber types, reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency, and lung capacity . . . [which are] not evenly distributed among human populations.
He then goes on to list racial ability in sports:
Asians, on average, tend to be smaller with shorter extremities and long torsos. . . China, for example, excels in many Olympics sports, for a variety of reasons.
One of those reasons, according to geneticists, is that they are more flexible on average—a potential advantage in diving, gymnastics (hence the term “Chinese splits”) and figure skating.
Whites of Eurasian ancestry are mesomorphic: larger and relatively muscular bodies with comparatively short limbs and thick torsos. No prototypical sprinter or marathoner here.
These proportions are advantageous in sports in which strength rather than speed is at a premium. Predictably, Eurasians dominate weightlifting, wrestling, and most field events, such as the shot put and hammer.
At the Olympics, with the exception of some competitive Koreans, the top lifters come from a band of Eurasian countries: across Eastern Europe and through Russia, Ukraine, China, Kazakhstan, Iran and Turkey. Despite the image of the sculpted African body, no African nation has won an Olympic lifting medal.
Blacks in general have heavier skeletons and less body fat—key genetic hindrances when it comes to such sports as competitive swimming.