Wait...using race to explain real differences between humans is something other than scientific? Hmmm..how does one explain the sickle cell, or Tay Sachs, or the fact that forensic pathogists can identify the race of skeletal remains? If it's established that those of west-african descent dominate at certain sports, how should we explain that observation using science? If genetics is forbidden to be discussed all we are left with is cultural differences. Mr. Syed is it your argument that west-african descendants train harder? or that non-west african's are lazier? How do you explain west-african dominance at running fast and jumping high Matthew?

In my opinion, sure some racists will attempt to use "science" to rationalize their hatred, just like others will refuse to examine the issue using the scientific method to confirm or refute a hyptothesis that there are genetic differences among races that predispose dominance at certain athletic endeavors. Who is biased?

Sean , Pittsburgh, PA

It is clear thatwestern africans are better athletes. Look at the NBA which is 85% western african or the NFL which is 70% western african. Why won't you admit nathan. If the fastest man of any race besides western african only ran a 9.93 in the 100m that means that out of the top 50; 1 is any other thing besides western african.

Bob, Chicago, Illinois

Athletic ability is more based on your body shape and musculature, in which race is a factor but not the biggest factor. Jeremy Wariner is dominating the 400 meters, he is an Anglo-Saxon. Jeremy Wariner will own the 400 meter world record, if his career isn’t ended by an injury. Why does the so called black dominance not cross over to women’s athletics the same as it does in men’s? How can a 5 foot 11 inch Swedish white man high jump 7 foot 10 inches? I’m taking about Stefan Holm in the high jump. Patrick Johnson has broken the 10 flat barrier, he ran a 9.93 and he is Australian aborigine and Anglo, and has no Western African ancestry. Hitler also tried to make sports a racist competition. Get over yourself; race is only a part of who you are!
We are all different, with different genetic abilities. But Western Africans are a broad group with many tribal groups.

Nathan Hudson, St.George, Utah

Athletic ability is more based on your body shape and musculature, in which race is a factor but not the biggest factor. Jeremy Wariner is dominating the 400 meters, he is an Anglo-Saxon. Jeremy Wariner will own the 400 meter world record, if his career isn’t ended by an injury. Why does the so called black dominance not cross over to women’s athletics the same as it does in men’s? How can a 5 foot 11 inch Swedish white man high jump 7 foot 10 inches? I’m taking about Stefan Holm in the high jump. Patrick Johnson has broken the 10 flat barrier, he ran a 9.93 and he is Australian aborigine and Anglo, and has no Western African ancestry. Hitler also tried to make sports a racist competition. Get over yourself; race is only a part of who you are!
We are all different, with different genetic abilities. But Western Africans are a broad group with many tribal groups. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Nathan Hudson, Saint George, Utah

Athletic ability is more based on your body shape and musculature, in which race is a factor but not the biggest factor. Jeremy Wariner is dominating the 400 meters, he is an Anglo-Saxon. Jeremy Wariner will own the 400 meter world record, if his career isn’t ended by an injury. Why does the so called black dominance not cross over to women’s athletics the same as it does in men’s? How can a 5 foot 11 inch Swedish white man high jump 7 foot 10 inches? I’m taking about Stefan Holm in the high jump. Patrick Johnson ran a 9.93 in the 100 meters, he is part aborigine and part Anglo.Hitler also tried to make sports a racist competition. Get over yourself; race is only part of who you are!
We should realize how non Homo Sapiens would dominate athletics, i.e.: cats.

Nathan Hudson, Saint George, Utah

What I would like someone to research is how Jamaica, a nation of 2.7 million souls can win 10 medals (behind USA 26, Russia 16 and Kenya 13 )in the IAAF 2007 Osaka competition. Consider further that the USA's Sanya Richards was born in Jamaica and lived there until age 12, and men's IAAF 100 metres Silver medalist Derrick Atkins of the Bahamas is a cousin of world record holder Jamaica's Asafa Powell, and the fact that there are other leading USA and British athletes with strong Jamaican connections. Certainly worthy of research.
Jeffrey Cobham

jeffrey cobham, Kingston, Janaica

"None of this will be of any surprise to those familiar with genetics, which tells us that most genetic variation (around 85 per cent) is to be found within groups rather than between them."

Most variation in athletic ability is found within groups rather than between them. Can we therefore conclude that there are no important differences between e.g. men and women so far as athletic ability is concerned? Not at all: the differences are hugely significant and mean that the best women cannot compete with the best men. The same goes for differences among and between races in intelligence, creativity and criminality.

Lesley Davies, Manchester,

I found it difficult to continue reading this article when I got to point where it says there is probably "no human races at all". This is as fallacious as the notion the author is attempting to criticise because only a fool would say that Blacks, Whites and Asians are physically the same! That all human beings share the same humanity does not mean that there are no races. I know that some self righteous white men like to say that because they want people like me to feel good, but the fact is obvious that the concept of race is fixed and unchangeable (e.g. Michael Jackson could not change his race). Accepting that we are different is not the same as promoting the obnoxious notion that some races are superior to others. Our behaviours are largely influenced by our physical and social environments. Of course biology plays a role in terms of the physical fitness for running, but environments and conditioning by western media play crucial roles.

John Iteshi, London, UK

This argument is pathetic. Of course blacks are better athletes than whites, and where is the harm in admitting that.

There is nothing racist about this comment, and I defy you to show me a black man (or woman) who is offended by my statement. It's actually racist to try and find excuses NOT to admit that blacks are better athletes.

Also, it's not racist to say that white people are better at some tasks than black people, it's just an honest thing to say. Every group of people, either grouped by ethnic origin or cultural upbringing has strengths and weaknesses when compared to other groups, such is the diversity of the human race.

Andrew, Bedford, United Kingdom

If we have a great British sportsman we narrow it down to say Irish footballer (such as George Best) or Jamie Murray, the scottish tennis player. They are never refered to as white or British. In other words their 'ethinticity' is narrowed down to a specific birthplace and not a colour.

To say that there are just black, white and yellow people in the world really is stupid and as Matthew Syed says an agenda is being set up.

Kim, London,

one aspect of the issue that's being overlooked in some of the comments is the failure to situate these generalizations in the context of time and environment.
just by going with the physical characteristics of the finalists in olympics 100m race and the records, around say 1900-24,one could conclude that europeans are better sprinters than africans.similarly a look at the US basketball teams of the 50s would lead one to conclude that european-americans are better at the game than african-americans. of course, these and the reverse conclusions would not be, inherently, true.
the difference between then and now, is opportunity or a change in the environment.
so these generalizations are not inherently valid but are observations based on the available knowledge and prevailing conditions

joe, phila, us

Does drugs not play a part in all of this?

I remember Johnson beat Carl Lewis using drugs.

Mohammed, London, UK

A Sergio Pena, professor of biochemistry at the Federal University of Belo Horizonte says in BBC news online 4 August "Only a few genes are responsible for someone's skin colour, which is a very poor indication of ancestry. A white person could have more African genes than a black one or vice-versa, especially in a country like Brazil,"

I will never be a great sprinter, not because I am white Anglo-Saxon, but because my DNA indicates an East African origin. Perhaps that's why I love cross country running?

John, Sussex,

Possibly the best thing I've seen written on the subject. I have long questioned why people refer to 'black' athletes as being naturally faster when it only appears to be men from a certain part of West African who dominate in that field. Are Ethiopians, Kenyans and East and South Africans in general not considered 'black'?
The concept of 'race' as we use it and know it is a social invention. As Matthew Syed it cannot be defined in real, strict biological terms. Population groups (which is not the same thing as 'race') is a far more accurate description and refence point.
I would say the conclusion however should state that those who invoke race as an explanation of differences either have an agenda (as comments about crime in London demonstrate) or are lazy. For example those who speak of race specific diseases when such diseases are actually linked to geographical factors. Or propensity to illnesses whilst ignoring, poverty and dietary factors. Very good article.

Natalie Thompson, London, UK

it seems to me that the ones pushing the agenda are those who absolutely insist that are no differences between the races despite overwhelming evidence to the contary. not the other way around. chill out liberals. there is nothing to be afraid of by admitting our differences.

j, enfield,

This is a fine and well-though out article. However, I posit the following:
All of the elite sprinters for quite a while have been black.
Most of the elite distance runners for shorter period have also been black.
To say that the GENERAL conclusion "blacks are better than whites at running" could not be drawn from the above premises is, while I'm sure quite politically correct, disingenuous and illogical.

If, like Mr Syed, one cares to enter into the specifics of which geographical areas produce better runners, that is all well and good. However, there is nothing wrong with stating, again, generally, that blacks are naturally faster than whites, because, as many have pointed out, no one seems to recall very many white 100-meter dash champions.

Alex Black, Chicago, IL, USA

Hello?
So Black runners are naturally faster. Wrong!
Yet the the conclusion is - Right!

The article says wrong then boils down to a long winded way of saying blacks are better than whites at sprinting!

Is it 'racist' to say that, just because its not true of all blacks.
No!

A sportscar may not always be faster than my mini metro, but saying a sportscar is naturally faster is correct!

todger, Liverpool, UK

Chris from York sums it up perfectly. If you can't tell form observation what somone's biochemistry is like (in terms of running aptitude), but you know statistically that it correlates well with somthing you can observe (like skin pigmentation) then there is nothing wrong with the statement: "The best sprinters are more likely to have black skin than any other colour." This is a scientifically verifiable fact and anyone who clains the person who says it is racist is wrong. The person who says this is actually being perfectly impartial and balanced.

Will, Cambridge, UK

The historical myth of Afrikan genetic inferiority is used to justify racism / white supremacy, apartheid / segregation, colonialism and, now "helping" Afrika. Hitler's Europe thought so until Jesse Owens proved otherwise in Berlin 1936. The scientific reality is that melanin (which makes brunettes darker than blonds) is a dominant gene marker i.e. brunettes are genetically dominant over blonds, as evident in the children of mixed hair (sub-race?) couples. Afrikans have the most melanin... The IQ test and number of scientists red herring may (not) prove that said IQ testers or scientists are genetically superior to their own parents. What passes for crime is often success in business that is not sanctioned and taxed by the state. Discrimination forces some social groups into such businesses more than other groups. History shows that no social group commits violent state-sanctioned crime, to perpetuate discrimination, as thoroughly as Europeans.

Remi, uk,

i think no one would dispute that there are genetic differences among groups of people, even as there are among individuals within a family! the issue is how this fact is used as a basis for rather broad and absurd generalizations and actions against groups of people based on their physical characteristics Some here have suggested that it may be more touchy to use intelligence to explain differences among these groups,referring to 'inventions' of our recent history to justify the supposed proof of the superior intelligence of europeans. Actually, what it comes down to is taking a snap shot of a period of time in the continuum of human history and
proceeding to draw conclusions from that and applying it to all peoples across all times. Various inventions and progress in human endeavors have arisen in various parts of the world among different groups of people at various times. So no particular group of people are inherently more intelligent than the
other (contd

joe, phila, us

Great article.

People groups based on skin colour are an irrelevant and absurd classification when we think about the history of genetic movement and mixing across the globe.

People who consider that intelligence or aptitude is anything to do with the spurious classification of so called 'race' (which incidentally is a social construct) do not know thier history.

my multiple heretage children are what race?

Tracie , Somerset, GB

I agree with Matthew of Stuttgart. The conclusion in the last paragraph is a non-sequitur - it doesn't follow from the article, which is a speculative but interesting exploration of selected facts and figures.

Neil, London,

(contd)
Current 'inventions' have been
built on the inventions and
contributions of earlier
civilizations.
So if recent technological advances
have been spearheaded by europeans,
they have largely been based on
inventions and advances made by other
peoples of non-european stock.

i sure hope the egyptians,the
mohenjo-daroans,the babylonians,the
zimbabweans,the moors,the
chinese,arabs,the aztecs, the
sumerians etc didn't think they were
genetically more intelligent than the
'europeans' of their times.

joe, phila, us

I've no objective evidence for this but I've always imagined that if people were roughly of the same build and had equal access to diet, then sporting success, in whichever field, came down largely to motivation. Motivation is often driven by background and perceived reward. Where a person comes from or what achievement might offer in terms of status or finance strike me as more significant. Race, whatever that means, seems to be such an unlikely basis for sporting success in comparison.

Gerry, Clydebank, Scotland

A lot of complex answers---- surely if my distant ancestors had been from a part of the earth where Lions and other predators would eat the slowest, instead of from the Viking parts of the world. Then I might be faster too! More likely I wouldnt be here.

DAVID VINTER, Louth, Lincs., UK.

Shiva Naipaul said in 1977 - "No Aid project devised on earth – or in heaven – can ever lessen the terrifying gap of intellect between a race of men who can land on the moon and another who, if left entirely to themselves, would, in all probability, be unable to manufacture a bicycle pump." It's obvious that the races are different, just as animals and plants are different, one from another, with huge crossovers. So what?

Alexander Fircks, Cape Town,

Reasonable article, horrible, horrible conclusion. To say people making this claim "have an agenda" is, rather ironically, a huge generalisation. I would reckon that most people say this because it is what they see when looking at the evidence that is laid before them in sporting competitions, rather than because they have sinister motives of some kind.

Shaun Lazzari, Nottingham, UK

Whoa! Some ultra right winger in disguise has hi-jacked The Times website
Stuff like this leaves you kind of speechless. Thirty years ago maybe, but life does in fact move on. So what if a dedicated black athlete can leave a white one standing at the starting gate?
Fact is it is a black man showing a white man that he's better on his own merits. And that is all.
I wonder what the real gripe is here?

K Sheridan, Cape Town,

Who has the agenda here? This journalist has it wrong and he is reading too much into the 'racist agenda' of folks who correctly point out that there are physical differences (and who knows what ecological conditions caused them to evolve) between populations. I have often thought black sprinters dominate for genetic reasons, as I have thought that Arab bloodstock dominate Dartmoor ponies on the racecourse. Its stating the obvious, I don't resent it and it doesn't make me a racist. Political Correctness gone mad - so now I have to think that its just the sprinters with a specific tribal heritage from West Africa that have this genetically selected ability? Piffle.

Bruce, London,

I have noticed a few people have referred to Chinese and Indians as examples of a racial group that excels in academics but does not stand out in the area of athletics.

Both groups of people are not monolithic populations. China and India have distinct ethnic populations spread across both continents. I'm sure that Chinese and Indians have opinions about who among their own is the smartest and most athletic, and those opinions are based on cultural biases, and social/economic strata.

Here in the US we are starting to see our major sporting leagues go farther abroad to recruit talent. It is no longer unusual to see professional basketball player sfrom China or Baseball players from Korea or Japan. They are equal or superior to their Black and White teammates.

Have a UK sports agent dig up some Chinese kid from the sticks who can excel on the pitch at Man U or Chelsea and this argument will go away. And yeah, he's out there - just waiting to be discovered.

Michael in Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California/USA

This is a disgrace, the government should surely spend a few million on promoting 'white inclusiveness' in sprinting

D'neil, the bronx, US

Great article and very interesting talk back, though I must say some people seem unable to grasp what the Mr. Syed is saying. Asking why certain races are more likely to be cornershop owners, or have higher IQs ignores one of the points made by Matthew Syed and many other scientists; the effect of nurture rather than nature on such attributes. I also think Mr. Syed is unduly harsh on "scientists" seeing as the vast majority would agree with this article.

I am inclined to respond to those who have written in that it is racist not to recognise differences. I agree with this statement but it is nevertheless dangerous. Most of the public are unable to dissociate averages/ trends from rules. Hence, should we quote that a certain race has a lower IQ on average than others, people will automatically expect a member of that race they meet in the street to be stupid. Hence, daft comments such as Chinese people are good at table tennis or black people are good at dancing.

J Curayat, London, UK

The article says that most genetic variation (around 85 per cent) is found within racial groups rather than between them. However, this ignores the FUNCTION and IMPORTANCE of the 15 percent that differs.

Some genetic functions in the 15 percent may play an important part in intelligence and creativity. Perhaps that is why only the white race has created the knowledge on which advanced civilization is based.

What great science, great engineering, great medicine, great art, or great music has been created by nonwhites?

To give a concrete example, in Silicon Valley (where I used to work) black engineers are practically nonexistent in electronics firms. Yet, blacks in America have full opportunity to study electronics engineering in the colleges. Radio, TV, computers, cell phones, and the internet were created entirely by whites.

The opinion that there is no important difference between races is leading to inter-marriage. That will corrode and end advanced civilization.

John Wilson, Santa Cruz, California

Your biggest concern should be Czechs and Croats taking over alpine skiing and Russians taking over tennis, the gentile kinds of sport :)

Igor, Moscow, Russia

British political correctness at its best....

Forbid tin tin, make "three little piggies" to "three little puppies" and deny the (obvious) fact that there are differences between ethical groups (as a german i might not use "races" on a british site :) .
No seriously, i still cant see the problem to admit that people of western african origin are blessed with a much better physiognomy than we beer bellied northern europeans

Florian , Cologne, Germany

Maybe natural selection is the reason for West African sprinting success. One remebers the impi warriors who either ran all day long or were culled (remeber Shaka Zulu). This emphasis on running in West African armies perhaps had a very long tradition.

greg starr, oslo, Norway

Why are white people masters at playing snooker and world champion swimmers?

Mohammed, London, UK

I grew up in Nairobi Kenya, and went a mixed race international school, the native Kenyans were far better long distance runners than the "White Kenyans" and other races. Why is this racist to say that, it it too racist to say the Japanese are good at techology ?

Some scientists have proved European, Africans and Asians are genetically different, is that so bad, so what if we are different, that is what makes us all so interesting, it would be boring if the world was full of one type of people.

James, London,

JW, you are missing the point of Syed's article. He is saying that while all the top sprinters these days are black and all the top distance runners are black, each group comes from a specific subset of blacks wth a particular geographic origin. There are no top distance runners of coastal West African origin, and no top sprinters from the Rift Valley.

Thus those top athletes are genetically untypical of blacks as a whole, as much as they are untypical of human beings as a whole. That makes generalisations such as "blacks are good sprinters" or "blacks are good distance runners" meaningless.

There *are* reasons why the top sprinters come from where they do (or have ancestors who did) and it happens that those are also areas where the people are black, but the two issues are independent.

JK, Reading, UK

Even In professional soccer you will see relative many African players. Race might not matter much in sport on amateur level, but in modern sports, with so hard competition, it might be the last factor that decides who is the best. Especially in sports like running of course.

I think the article does a great job explaining the difference between skin colour and race and why skin colour shouldn’t be used to invoke differences.
Unfortunately I think the conclusion goes a bit too far. Although "there are probably no human races at all as the term is used in the biological sciences", the differences are still there. It should be more like "the way race have been invoked as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans, is caused by an agenda that is other than scientific".

Of course there should also be some references to where these racial theories, i really missed that.
Great article anyways, nice one!.

Kasper, Svenstrup J, Denmark

Anybody want to explain to me why the All Blacks most recent and successful players have mainly been of Pacific Island or Maori origin? Nothing to do with the fact that they grow, big, fast and powerful (with training of course) and are therefore ideally suited to the modern game. Where are the 18st, 10.5 second white kiwis? There is quite clearly a genetic difference. To deny it is to be PC in the extreme.

matt, london,

These are good points. The danger is you start on a slippery slope. If its OK to say pygmies are better at walking under low ceilings, why is it not OK to point out that Japanese are better at IQ tests than Europeans.

The tricky bit seems to come when the claim is overly generalist. So to say West Africans tend to be better sprinters then Europeans, or Japanese tend to do better in IQ tests is an observation of fact. To generalise and say Blacks are better athletes and Japanese are clever is not accurate.

By the way, most top sprinters are actually from the Americas, of East African origin. Is this because of the higher levels of wealth in America, or because of extreme selective breeding during the times of slavery?

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

Let"s suppose that one race surpasses all others IN ONE SPORT, or two.

So what?

Eugene, Heidelberg, germany

It's true, and we are much bigger than ruddy people as well.

Knowledge, 63701, Mizzouri

You could have saved yourself the trouble and simply written 'there are diffferent types of people with dark skin.' What you don't grasp, because it doesn't fit your own agenda, is that within the USA and UK the term 'black' usually refers to Afro-Americans or West Indian immigrants and their families. These groups are precisely those people who are better at spriniting, on average. So, if an American athletics coach says 'the black kids are faster' he doesn't have an agenda, simply a job to do. People from Africa, we call Africans, dark-skinned people living in western countries we call black.

MDHinton, Sieradz, Poland

Are we still banging on about this race stuff. I'm 47 and remember hearing this when I just started high school; more than 35 years ago. Of course the more intelligent, liberal and educated amongst us would immediately argue against it, an walk of into the distance under a barrage of congratulatory pats on the back for being good eggs. Race in human beings is a misnomer, biology tells us that a species is a collection of living beings with the abilitiy to reproduce with each other - I won't spell out the details as this is a family show. Why can't black people be better at something because they simply work harder at it and because the culture rewards them for that kind of effort. I'm sure the other cultures could - I believe there is a chinese 110 metre hurdler who is world class, unless his alleged superior intellect assists him in developing superior hurdling technique. Give it a rest and leave us alone. We're just folk!

Bernard, Birmingham,

All very well, but you completely fail to explain why black sprinters have dominated 100/200m for decades. Apart from Borzov, Menea, Wells and Kenteris no white has been in the medals and there were drug allegations against all of the above.

It is only at about 400m that white athletes begin to make par with negroes. Conversely, heavily muscled negroes have not done well at 800-1000m where explosive power is not required and extra weight is a disadvantage.

It is a surely physiological matter, the difference between success and failure in the sprints can be 0.1 second, therefore if blacks have even a tiny amount more explosive power than whites then they will win.

What IS wrong is linking talent to racial groups. The decathlon has had both black and white champions. So one cannot say that one race is more talented than another.

Why is it wrong to say that because of fast twitch muscle fibre black athletes are likely to be more powerful but have less endurance than other races.

JW, China,

"I am still unclear as to why the Scots are rubbish at football."

I am still at a loss as to how the English continue to go on about 1966 as though it were yesterday.

PS Perhaps you missed the Scots beating the French at football a few months ago?

PPS We are happy with having invented almost everything that has bettered life as we know it.

Graeme, Edinburgh,

An ideological attempt to promote skepticism of the process of establishment of basic Truth in human experience. William James in his lectures on Pragmatism in 1903 said Man's economy of thought mandates generalizations. These instances of generalization are subjected to the same survival process which Darwiln pointed out in Biology.

Let the generalizations which are fittest survive; but, let's stop the doublespeak. If we don't, the ongoing process of deconstruction of Western Civilization will be successful.

Bill, Selma, Alabama, USA

Any prejudice that comes out of scientific research indicating a general or slight trend, is the falt of a scientifically illiterate population not a scientist publishing dispassionate data.

b Hensher, birmingham,

Whilst this article is interesting, It appears the word 'categorisation' is almost being adopted as 'racism' - surely this is how (mental model) humans deal with complexity - no bad thing. Judge people by intentions not by outcomes, most observers intentions are to simplfy this phenomena......hence categorise. I struggle to see the 'so what' element of this article in truth

Noel, Nottingham, UK

Great responses to a good article - everybody supportive -
It is hardly surprising that there is family likeness in human groups, and that at some divergent point(s) in history familys became separated and retained their strengths and weaknesses (e.g. muscularity and sickle cells). Let us take from this article the FACT that we are all human and morally EQUAL - all the rest is happy human diversity.
I must say - I really loved
"I am still unclear as to why the Scots are rubbish at football.
Grouchy, London, "

STEM, Ramsgate, Kent

Your argument is illogical. Everyone knows that what might be observed in any particular group can't be expected to apply to all members of the group. Your construction of a transparently false argument for subsequent refutation by left wing dogma showed little insight or originality. Improvement is required, preferrably by more thorough research.

Aziz Jaras, London,

Maybe the West Africans need to sprint as quickly as possible into the nearby jungles to escape slave traders.
The East Africans need to have the endurance to run out of sight as they have no jungles to hide in!!!
But, seriously, I believe each genetic sub-group enables us to have specific traits and advantages.
Let us acknowledge and celebrate our differances and not use them for any agenda racial or whatever.

Seah Jin Chuan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

The truth is always in the numbers, because numbers can't lie, only the people reading them can. In both ways.

Look at the crime rates. As fast as they run, they can't run away from that one.

Bob S., London, UK

Good article. Scientific concensus is that all human beings origionated in Africa; thus our differences in physical charactersistics are simply due to adaptation to environment over thousands of years.

Historic global movement of people and a factual history of people groups mixing their genes, means that racial purity is a myth. The only thing we can speak of here with any certainty is physical appearance (which is not a reliable indicator of genetic inheritance).

Race is socially constructed, melanin just a continuum of human diversity. Intelligence is nothing to do with race and those who think it is do not know their history.

Tracie , Somerset, GB

I think without doubt black people are better at certain sports,like sprinting and boxing .Yet why is it racist to ask why are there no black classical music composers of the stature of say Mozart,Bach or Beethoven,and so on.Would it be sexist to ask that same question about women.Similarly, why have so many of the great scientific discoveries been made by white men.I don't think it's racist or sexist to ask these questions,but I dare say many will interpret them as such.

Mike, Dunstable, England

Whats wrong with saying black people are better at more explosive sports like 100m running than whites?. Its obvious most young black men (of those I see in London) are naturally athletic and powerfully built. Whats the issue?. I am white but would love to have the build of some of these guys. Whats racist about that?. I swim alot, I don't see many black people in the pool, if white people are better at swimmimng because of their build then so what?. The last paragraph the author writes is pants. He's the one with the agenda, most people
aren't concerned, enjoy watching Kenyans run, Chinese people play ping pong and get on with their lives.

adrian, London, UK

"Those who invoke race as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans have an agenda that is other than scientific." Yes they do, it's called the truth

Gavin Smith, London,

None the less one can say with statistical certainty that no white athlete will win the 100m and that a white person is less likely to get sickle cell anemia than a black person. These are useful things to know and these sorts of genralisations can be valuable and helpful.

Howard Hilton, Sydney, Australia

Fast twitch, slow twitch muscle fibres. Syed doesn't even mention them. He should stick to ping pong and slathering homoerotic thoughts about David Beckham.

wilson, London,

The answer is slavery surely

If any society ( Black ,White or Asian ) creamed off the most athletic specimens ( as slavery did) shipped them half way across the World and let them interbreed for 250 years, is it any surprise that what has emerged is a superior athltic being ?

Bruce , Tunbridge Wells, UK

One of the reasons that those in malarial regions in Africa are disproportionately affected by Sickle Cell Anaemia is that the disease offers protection to malaria. Therefore, whilst you suffer from Sickle Cell, you are immune to malaria, and therefore your prognosis is different.

Amit, London,

"The conclusion is unavoidable: those who invoke race as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans have an agenda that is other than scientific."

Therefore those who do not invoke race as an explanation ....have an agenda that is scientific?

Hmmm............

Peter, Sittingbourne, Kent

Dear Matthew,
In an otherwise well balanced and presented piece you have unfortunately been guilty of the same generalisation you draw attention to. All of the people who draw attention to the differences in populations based soley on skin colour may not have an agenda. Some may merely be wrong! Not quite as sinister as an end comment though I suspect!
Cheers.

Rohan Davies, Brisbane, Australia

Pete, Sheffield, UK

I wondered how long it would take for some idiot to say something like this... Please we can do without racist stereotyping.

FT, Cambs, UK

Have I missed something here?
West Africans and their descendants are naturally faster at sprints.
East Africans are naturally faster over distance.
White people are better swimmers.
These are simply facts that can't be argued with. Surely there can be no agenda when stating all this. What's the issue here for the author of the article? Is it that people aren't being clear enough about which black people they are talking about?

C. Wickstead, Liverpool,

There is nothing racist when somone says that csome ethnic groups have natural or unique qualities. Only the politically correct or naive will deny that.

Subramaniam, Paris,

I did read - and it sounds plausible - that the genetic variation amongst black Africans is WIDER than amongst all the rest of the world's population, from Scots to Japanese, put together. The reason is that the rest of the world all descends from a population that left Africa far in prehistory. But East and West Africans split from each other even FURTHER back before then.

So categorising people as "black" makes no real sense at all from a genetic point of view. The only thing "black" people really share is the stereotypes placed on them.

Dave , Leeds,

"yellows are better ping-pong players"

Hahaha- That's the most ridiculously stupid statement I've read in the Times ever. Yeah - why don't we start testing for that elusive ping-pong gene? How is it that former champion Jan Owe Waldner had it for so many years?

Alfonso Parelli, London, UK

Strange that you chose to look at sport; I wonder what conclusions you might have arrived at if you looked at science. Whoops!! Better not go there.

Stephen, Ipswich,

Articles like this stoke unconsciously race issue. Otherwise, race is not a major issue as I noticed in my two decades stay in the US. There may be some stray incidents. However, correct replies shut the mouth of so-called "racists."

Lastly, wherever one stays, one has to be a productive member of any society. One should not get the impression that one is misusing the freedoms and facilities provided!
Regards,

Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India

Matthew Syed has set up straw men which he then attacks. The straw men are the scientists who have made the assertion that "blacks are better runners". I don't think that there are any. There are certainly genetic differences between ethnic groups that can be identified using genetic tools. There are differences in their disease patterns that it would be foolish to ignore - eg Askenazi Jews are more likely to be prone to Tay-Sachs syndrome and so before they get married and have children should have genetic testing. This is a very foolish article as it attempts to manufacture consent against a genuine line of scientific enquiry.

Gerard, London, UK

What a load of nonsense! Of course black athletes dominate athletics. There is nothing racist about saying it. Obviously not al black people are good sprinters or long-distance runners. It is also obvious that classifying someone as "black" is simplistic, as simplistic as using the term "white", when a "white" person could be ginger, blonde or dark, from Scandinavia or from Italy. What exactly are you afraid of Mr Syed?

P. Fernandez, London,

"Remember when people used to argue there were no significant differences between men and women? Absurd. There was the phase when it was argued women could do everything men could do. Then it was argued special allowance should be made for PMT and etc. Finally, understanding has become a bit more balanced and differences can be recognised."

Yet they receive the same prize money at Wimbledon. Standard 2 set matches = less court time = equal prize money = absurd. It's obvious when women don't get the same sponsorship deals that less people watch and so in turn the prize money should mimic this. One big difference between men and women is sports, to argue otherwise is a nonsense and yet they receive equal pay for less "guaranteed" court time and a smaller audience...

Political correctness has gone mad and is ruining Britain (can I call it Britain? Maybe that will offend some minority somewhere... can I say minority?... oh dear)

Graeme, Edinburgh,

So what you are really saying is that black athletes do actually run faster after all - admitedly in a very roundabout fashion.

Richard Warwick, London,

Thanks for the piece, as a black man i hate it when people say black people are more athletic, it is just plain ignorance or illiteracy that makes them say so.

dave, stillwater, USA / Oklahoma

The problen with the argument is that people have used race to exclude or discriminate aganist others. Having a propensity for a paticular characteristic does not mean you can generalise across a large population (west africa) In my immediate and extended family (ie first cousins ) who are west african have a doctors, pharmacists lawyers (a disproportionate over 6 as of last count) architects engineers (about 3) accountans etc and not one athelete or musician. But there are stories of west african kids in the uk people asking for career advice in secondary school in the UK and the suggestion were sports (although some were good at sports like other kids) , then music then no other advice. The eugenics problem in america/ germany is well documented. recognising generic characteristics is one thing but scociety is not mature enough to think outside stereotypes.
and I am sure there are naturally gifted non west frirican kids being discouraged from becoming sprinters etc.

stephen, london, uk

Some very fine points made.

In the States, the race lords (Jackson, Sharpton, Rangle, et al) would still demand to generalize racial classifications so that their constituencies are not divided. It is they who continually utilize race as a distinction and actively reinforce the common simplistic stereotypes, all to the unfortunate detriment of their followers and the larger society.

It is unfortunate that race plays a role in forming impressions of others, that is is used to discriminate, or that it may be used as a crutch. However, all human beings are tribal in nature and tend to form groups along lines in which racial and cultural similarities and differences between one another have strong influences in bonding. Is this a natural evolutionary adaptation? Maybe so, but it is evident that it takes work to overcome these prejudices especially when they are continually and loudly reinforced on television by politicians and other demagogues every day.

Just look at Darfur.

Scott, Durham, NC, USA

The central point concerning race is an obvious one, albeit one that is not repeated enough. That said, the author does not directly address the observation at the start of the article - why is it that only male athletes with a black skin colour have run under 10 seconds - but rather segues into a position of moral smugness. I agree with a couple of previous posters that to deny genetic differences is similar in effect to putting them forward as the only explanation. Rather, it seems that genes are like the basic tools, without which you can't do well; however, there are a whole host of other attributes that are needed in order to become a top athlete. Indeed, I was listening to an interview with Maurice Greene the other evening, in which he claimed that every athlete in the sprint finals were roughly equal in ability but that it was the mental aspect of competition that gave him the edge. I think genetic differences can be acknowledged but only within a wider context.

Peter, London,

The central point concerning race is an obvious one, albeit one that is not repeated enough. That said, the author does not directly address the observation at the start of the article - why is it that only male athletes with a black skin colour have run under 10 seconds - but rather segues into a position of moral smugness. I agree with a couple of previous posters that to deny genetic differences is similar in effect to putting them forward as the only explanation. Rather, it seems that genes are like the basic tools, without which you can't do well; however, there are a whole host of other attributes that are needed in order to become a top athlete. Indeed, I was listening to an interview with Maurice Greene the other evening, in which he claimed that every athlete in the sprint finals were roughly equal in ability but that it was the mental aspect of competition that gave him the edge. I think genetic differences can be acknowledged but only within a wider context.

Peter, London,

So what this article actually says, is that there are differences between the descendants of certains tribes who were originally isolated from each other. Exactly what you would expect given that genetic mutation can only take hold in isolated small populations. These differences do exist and there is nothing racist about the truth. Only when we fully understand these differences will we be able to solve the problems facing some ethinc minorites.

Nick, Melbourne, Australia

Matthew isn't denying that race and certain characteristics are linked, just that our concept of "race" is a simplistic one based on skin pigment rather than genetics. The Kenyans who won so many long-distance medals all belonged to two particular tribes so it can be safely concluded that these two tribes have unique abilities. To extrapolate from this fact that all people with a simliar skin pigmentation to the Kenyans, or even that all Kenyans, are brilliant long-distance runners is where everyone goes wrong.

I find it equally frustrating when people refer to "Europeans" and colonialism as if all Europeans had empires and colonised and exploited other races. In reality it was mainly Britain, France, Spain and Portugal that had empires abroad - it's a little unfair to tar Finns, Poles and Irish people, for example, with the same imperialist brush.

MB, Edinburgh,

Matthew from Stuttgart, Germany said, "It was not however because I had any "agenda" but rather because I was ignorant of the facts."

Matthew, given the clearly unscientific conclusion drawn by the author in his final paragraph, perhaps it would be advisable to exercise caution and ask a couple of questions.

Is the author - Matthew Syed - a scientific authority on this topic?

Are there real scientists out there who would disagree with the article?

I would suggest the answer to the first question is no and the answer to the second is yes.

Charles Maxwell, Edinburgh, UK

This is just plain silly - it's not racism, there's no reason why anyone would be offended, and genetic makeup does, on certain levels, affect matters such as physical characteristics and abilities - to dispute this is idiocy. The sooner this 'crass sensitivity' around race is forgotten the better - what matters is people are treated the same, not that they are the same.

Andy Iddon, London, UK

I remember that Sir Roger Bannister was castigated for writing a scientific paper on physiological differences correlated with sprinting ability in those of west african ethnicity. In that case it was the critics who had the agenda - a social one. Bannister had none other than to attempt to explain observed patterns, the job of the scientist, and was treated very unfairly.
To those who say that these trends are caused by black athletes seeking a route out of poverty or seeing role models of their own skin colour: thats absurd and rather patronizing. Athletes of all ethnic backgrounds would dearly love the glory and wealth of being a world class sprinter.

Steve, Oxford,

The very current Intel Advertisment scandal resonates the argument that Mr Syed makes in this piece.

Muhammed Lawal, London, London

Thank you for an insightful , perspicuous and provocative piece that is sure to ruffle the feathers of a few as it forces a certain measure of introspection. Judging by some of the responses here, fait accompli.

Thomas, Mooresville, NC

I think the point to be made is that saying "a lot of fast runners have dark skin" is different than saying "dark skin people run faster". Of course to get paid for saying that I'd have to expand it by a thousand words or so.

KH, Boston,

"Socio-economic reasons and role models are the two most important facotrs" -Kevin, London

How the, do you explain, how the Chinese and Indian diaspora are so successful in the UK, the US, and particularly, SouthEast Asia? (The ex-Thai PM was an ethnic Chinese, and the richest man in Malaysia, population 26 million, is a Chinese man). Even the ethnic Japanese are wildly successful and wealthy in Brazil and other latin American countries.

When their ancestors first emigrated from their country of origin, who was their role-model?

Pete, Cov,

The first person to 'have his say', above, was jimroland who asked which scientists and writers have made such generalising claims. To that, I would add that I doubt racial (does this mean genetic?) scientists would make such claims. Af few minutes ago I would have agreed that black Africans can run faster but I would not have put two and two together and realised that the Kenyans and W. Africans excelled only in different aspects of running. But I'm not a genetic scientist. This difference is pretty simple and obvious but it changes nothing in the overall discussion. Any sensible person knows that the right thing is to appreciate individuals for their personal attributes and not make generalisations.
The significant differences between people are not genetic, but cultural and, in that case, the right approach is to say; 'But for the grace of (whatever), there goes I'
John C, Cork

John Cullen, Cork, Ireland

So how come Eastern European Jews have on average the highest IQs?

Leon, Zurich,

I am a geneticist and in my experience those with an agenda outside of science / truth are in fact those who refuse to acknowledge physical differences between ethnic groups, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, because it conflicts with their social mores. I remember the great Sir Roger Bannister being viciously attacked as a racist because he dared to publish a paper exploring physiological reasons why sprinting is dominated by West Africans. I hope that in the future we will be able to celebrate the diversity of our species, instead of denying it.

Steven S, Oxford,

Interesting article,but just subjective.In the real world it is virtually forbidden to make a serious study of genetic differences between different peoples.For mthe usual reasons.

Joe Dignan, Warrington, England

I'm sure I'd heard (although possibly at the pub) that some afro-caribbean success as sprinters could also be attributed to the slave-trade, that is - traders would take the healthiest looking men and women for slaves, thus improving the average physical attributes of their decendants.

Any scientific investigation of this subject is fine in theory, but in practice will just not work:
1. Science needs funding, and funding will only come from organisations who already have a conclusion in mind.
2. Even truly independant research will be seized upon by some political group, who will then drag the science down to their level.
3. Todays media will turn a complicated, thoughtful conclusion into a one-sentence 'soundbyte', thus upsetting many people who will never actually read the research.

Mark, Sheffield,

Scientists should be free to investigate anything and everything, including racial similarities and differences. What's a pain is the huge sensitivity around all things race & the highly-developed raw nerves, often by the race rels. industry, which push people to polarise/politicise discussion. Where differences or similarities are proven it doesn't follow that there must be negative consequences. Social consequences are separate from science. Gender questions have become much less senstiive than they used to be. Remember when people used to argue there were no significant differences between men and women? Absurd. There was the phase when it was argued women could do everything men could do. Then it was argued special allowance should be made for PMT and etc. Finally, understanding has become a bit more balanced and differences can be recognised. It certainly seems proven that racial differences aren't very significant. OK. But science must be free to ask whatever it wants.

cath, london, uk

The conclusion is wrong. There are real differences between people from different gene pools. Some people are genetically encoded to be good athletes (good at specific types of event most likely) and some are not. This obvious. It is not racism. If we were a truly intermixed gene pool then there would be only variation about a single mean. However, there is variation around multiple average characteristics (e.g. height, strenght etc), due to the fact that there is still some genetic isolation (which is also not due to racism). Nurture can play an important role in determining the application of a person's genetic inheritance.
Of course, the different gene pools overlap to a degree in their characteristics. Whilst visiting Chile I was struck how short the people were. A few were as tall as me, but not many (I'm not tall for a European). Their gene pool encodes on average for low height (albeit with some variability). In Europe, you are likely to inherit genes that will make you taller.

David, Cambridge, UK

I agree with the author on the notion of Race having no clear boundaries, the phrase "smokes and mirrors" spring to mind. However, does this imply we don't know enough about it? There are however, localised, whether regionally or nationally or even greater collections of populations who share the same or vastly more similiar traits than different. Often educated physical stereotypes can give a good indication of this to someone who lacks this understanding.

I feel the conclusion from the author however, asserts that these differences, just because we can't fully define them, aren't important, which is where I disagree with him. They are for the most part, environmental adaption, and thus all humanity has evolved into seperate groups according to the geography, climate, environment and lifestyles they endured.
This shouldn't be politicised to infer superiority or inferiority - but should be recognised as part of the diversity of humanity.

Michael James, London, UK

Excellent article. I am a bit uncomfortable with the reference to the human genome as being clour blind. Our knowledge of it is far from extensive and and it is not impossible to envisage that we might just find a difference along racial lines. Saying we are all humans is a moral position and does not need DNA evidence to support it. Indeed, Down Syndrome people have a markedly different DNA make up but nobody denies that they are part of the human family.

Loved the bit about Pygmies. It does highlight the nonsense of it all.

John, London, UK

"The reason why racial scientists are able to get away with crude and statistically dubious generalisations is because they chime with our natural inclination to regard “black” as a genetic type distinct from “white” or “yellow”."

The reason why you are able to get away with palming off this notion of equality between all human beings, that we are all in fact brothers and sisters to one another (ahh group hug), is because socially debilitating political correctness has somehow become accepted as the norm.

Let's celebrate the differences. I'm actually quite jealous of those who have fast-twitch muscles; sometimes I find it so difficult to drag my gravity generating butt off the sofa to drive to Mickey D's.

Vic, London, UK

One of the reasons that people find it difficult to talk about genetic differences is that intelligence is also highly influenced by genetics.

The Genetic advantage in sprinting that West Africans have is undeniable, to argue against it is absurd.

But if you were to talk about genetic differences in intelligence you had better watch your back.

The Chinese and the Indians dont produce that many world class sprinters or footballers, but they seem to excel in UK schools. Why is that?

Dave, Leicester,

And this leads us on to a more thorny question. It is easy to initiate a debate based on what is a black man's superiority to a white man in relation to sport. And I agree that this is in fact lazy generalisation, given the diversity amoungst tribes in Africa - as well as the obvious fact that most black american athletes can probaly trace a significant amount of their genetic ancestory to eurpoe.

But, if it is ok to to categorise/generalise at a tribal level (your pygmy point is noted), let us now look at scientific progress over the last thousand years, and make generalisations based on the races (and of course tribes) of the main contributors. Here we get onto intelligence - which as I said, is a lot more thorny an issue, and totally non-pc.

Shane, Guildford, England

I am a GP working in a multi-ethnic inner city area in England. There are biological differences between races and these include a propensity to hypertension in Caribbeans and West Africans and diabetes mellitus in Indo-Asians.Failure to recognise these differences in the systems of health service delivery in the NHS and, perhaps, adhere to a perceived politically correct agenda is causing continued harm, including early death, to minority popultations. There are differences between racial groups that are not just skin deep and, for the example cited in the article above, include a larger proportion of fast-twich muscle fibres in peoples of African ancestry that do make them better sprinters.
There are instances where political corectness can kill; please stop it.

Jonathan Allcock, Birmingham,

Whilst ther may be no such thing as race and that generalisations based on skin colour are a mistake, that does not mean that genes do not powerfully influence abilities. Any parent of more than one child will tell you that some kids are born different to others. My father was a sprinter, so am I but my brothers follow their mother and are not. Build and fitness runs in families and not just via diet and training. More generally, we could not miss the build of Rift Valley Africans that look better suited to distance running nor Maoris to rugby with their strength, size and athleticism. Whilst you do not like the idea that genes powerfully influence abilities you and many others need to face facts and learn to live with them. Vive la difference!

R Mason, London, UK

seems to me you're not really saying we shouldn't invoke race to explain natural characteristics, but rather that we should be more specific about terms of reference than merely black, white and yellow (which is actually a good thing). surely, multiculturalism (per janet's accusation) should allow for and be accepting of natural differences, rather than trying to hide them? it is multiculture, not monoculture.

there may also be some truth in the idea that both the relatively high percentage of "black" athletes and the relatively high percentage of "black" criminals is more to do with cultures and economics than the colour of their skin. I can't help feeling that pete from sheffield is trying to make a deliberately provocative racist comment, rather than a serious point, and I wonder why you would give space to someone who appears merely to be trying to cause conflict.

jem, london, uk

"The conclusion is unavoidable: those who invoke race as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans have an agenda that is other than scientific."

good article ruined by moralistic ending. we do know that there are race specific diseases which suggests colour may also determine other characteristics.

gim, toronto , canada

Excellent piece of journalism this. The sawn off conclusion rather lets it down.

alex cummins, london,

The author mixes up political, legal, moral, social, and biological issues of race relations, perhaps deliberately. People of all races are equal and must have equal rights and opportunities, what does not indicate similarity in everything. Individual differences between people are attributed to both social and biological factors, e.g. inheritance. It would lose its significance when interracial marriages would become regular all around the world.

Boris, Budapest, Hungary

Whilst generalising about the physical differences with respect to race - or skin colour - is a mistake the influence of genes on physique is obvious. Height amongst the well fed is almost all genetic. Thus the running physique of East Africans, the muscular West Africans the tall Dutch and the athletic Maories. It is merely a fact of life that a lot of human differences are due to genes. Vive la difference!

R Mason, London, UK

It would have been more precise to say that people of Western African descent have an innate advantage in sprinting because of TWO facts: a biochemical one, having to do with actin-myosin function, and a structural one, with longer, i.e. more elastic, Achilles tendons and subsequently more efficient leverage in the lower leg. Both are, of course, fundamentally unrelated to skin melanin content.

C. Oach, Athens, Greece

Agreed those who tell stories of black, white, brown, yellow, red races do have an agenda and that agenda is all about low self esteem, power and money

Poker Knave, london, UK

In articles like this it is important to get your facts right. One person who is not of West African descent has run under 10 seconds for the 100m, Patrick Johnson of Australia who is, I think Irish on his fathers side and aboriginal on his mothers.

Paul, Birmingham,

I am still unclear as to why the Scots are rubbish at football.

Grouchy, London,

"Would it be legitimate to extrapolate from this that blacks [pygmies] in general have a natural advantage at walking under low ceilings"

Stupid argument in an otherwise interesting article. The question is would the pygmie be physically superior in some way to a similarly sized white, asian etc, - pygmies sure as hell aren't adapted the way they are so they can avoid bumping their heads on ceilings!

Homer, London,

Very good points made and I have been enlightened. But you too seem to have agenda and I am now suspicious that you have been as selective with the facts as those you accuse.

Maybe the violence that black people in London commit (see Operation Trident) is isolated only to a subset of black people that are descended from the immigrants of the sixties. But when someone says London blacks are more predisposed to violent crime than those from a remote tribe in the congo who are very peaceful, should that information make me more trusting of the blacks that live here in London?

J Wilson, London,

I agree with pretty much everything yiou say in this article other than your wording of the conclusion. Having made the point earlier in the article that small localised populations (which may or may not be racial groups) have differing characteristics from people of a similar skin colour from elsewhere, you still manage to confusedly use the word race where you mean pigmentation. What you mean is that those who invoke skin colour have an agenda, surely?

Dan, London,

why stop at running? walk down any street. Which races are running corner shops? Which races are doctors, dentists, accountants, scientists? Diamond traders, stock brokers, drug dealers? Denying racial difference is THE worrying agenda, sticking our heads in the sand. Matthew Syed clearly hasn't been to the Caribbean...or Hackney.

Graham Paulton, Hackney, London

So would it also be sexist to say that males are naturally taller than females?

This article only makes sense if one is trying to make the claim that it is a black skin that makes one faster ... and nobody is. On the other hand if you are arguing that there are a multiple of (unobserved) factors affecting speed, which are also correlated with observable skin colour, then taking skin colour as a proxy for all those unobserved factors, then it is perfectly reasonable and correct to state that black runners are naturally faster.

Chris, York,

Sport has always offered a pathway out of poverty. "Fame is the spur" and the enviroment makes a virtue out of necessity.
Alas, the rewards, are mostly ephemeral - its the Achilles syndrome.

Peter Bolt, Redditch, UK

What you are really objecting to is the use of the word 'black' to encompass all racial types with African origin. Fine. It does not detract from the observation that certain sports are better suited to people with certain genetic characteristics. The horse-racing world and pigeon fanciers have always known this. Alan Wells was a good example of a 100 metre runner who had pale pigmentation, and Valerie Borzov was a another - unless they had chemical help to overcome their genetic deficiencies, and I am sure they would deny it.

Terry Hamblin, Bournemouth, UK

As a runner I looked forward to reading the article. I thought that the article was going to explain why there are differences between the good sprinters and the bad. As it turned out he was just trying to make it a racist issue. Shame. I have often thought that black people are better sprinters. I didn't realise that in some peoples' opinions I was being racist when I thought that.

Bob, Basingstoke,

But which scientists and writers have made such generalising claims as described in the second paragraph?

jimroland, London, UK

There is some truth in this idea.

However, you also need to consider the differences between the East African and West African blacks. Those from West Africa (or from the same stock who were transported to the New World as slaves) are noticeably more muscular than the average white man, and of a totally different physique to the East African male.

Thus, the West Africans tend to dominate the strength events where explosive power is needed such as the short sprints, but East Africans dominate the distance events like marathons etc etc.

It's arguable that this is a response to the environment in which they developed.

I don't think anything else matters. None is 'better' than the other, simply more suited.

And it's no different when comparing male and female abilities. Lots of overlaps but some striking differences. Some down to physique, and some to the very real phenomenon of gender dimorphism in the human brain.

Chris Palmer, Southampton, UK

I was a high school and college wrestling coach for 30 years.I must state that the black kids who came out for wrestling were stronger and faster. I will never forget the very fisrdt black who came into the wrestling and tried out. After a few minutes, I asked him if he had done weight lifting. He said no and I then asked him where he got those muscles and he said he had always had them. That is no disgrace. but a fact pf life.

B. Hiller, Sarasota, fl

This is a fascinating article, very enlightening. It is only let down by the final paragraph.

"The conclusion is unavoidable: those who invoke race as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans have an agenda that is other than scientific."

I would put myself in this category (until I read your article). It was not however because I had any "agenda" but rather because I was ignorant of the facts. I suspect most educated people feel the same.

Matthew, Stuttgart, Germany

Ignoring natural differences is as inappropriate as the actions of those who are thoughtlessly racist. Different people have different skill sets and natural ability. We must recognise this rather than force people to go against natural intuition!

D, Mumbai,

One might just as well assert that those who deny racial differences have an agenda - a multiculturalist one. People interpret scientific data according to their own beliefs.

Janet Davis, Sydney, Australia

Your conclusion is harsh.
Those who invoke race as an explanation of real and perceived differences between humans are probably just lazy.
Good article, good journalism.

Jonathan, London,

pssst...pass it on!

Eugene, Alicante,

Racial types have unique characteristics. Some of those characteristics are naturally conducive to athletics. What is racist about that?

Bobby, Maleny, Australia

An excellent write up to ponder and introspect about the human race and its ethinic traits. Why are black runners naturally faster and Black athletes more sturdy, be it Kenyan , Ethopians, and others coming from African countries and Afro-American origins.

Let us not put this as a thumb rule or some generic statement. A study of human gene-pool and eugenics, show that human races evolve from a group or segment of DNA clusters , coming from different parts of the world. Needless to mention the greatest proponent of genetic studies like Charles Darwin, and Galton whose research and studies became the foundation for further explorations in the field of eugenics.

The human races coming from the continent of Africa, were sturdy, very compatible to natural ambiance and had suitable and supple bodies to walk or run long distances, either hunting or looking for shelter. They got acclamatised to harsh and brutal environments, and in process became naturalised marathoners, and runners.

sandy, New Delhi, India

Race doesn't play a particularly important part in why people are good at sport. Socio-economic reasons and role models are the two most important facotrs.

If a kid sees someone from a similar background achieve success in a particular field of sport then it's highly likely that they will themselves be propelled to try and emulate them. A good example of this is Brazilian football. Brazil is an incredibly diverse place but they are recognised as the best footballers.. The City of God + Pele, Zico, Ronaldo et al = World Cups

Kevin, London,

In a special issue on race published by the journal Nature Genetics in Nov. 2004,, several geneticists wrote that people can generally be assigned to their continent of origin on the basis of their DNA, and that these broad geographical regions correspond to self-identified racial categories, such as African, East Asian, European and Native American. Race, in other words, does have a genetic basis, in their view.

Races, Mr. Syed to the contrary, do exist and should be thought of as rather large extended families.

Frank Messmann, Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA

Thank you for a thoughtful, thought provoking and well argued article.

Robert Grundy, london,