# Fisher DeBerry and the Elephant in the Locker Room (sports and race related) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2005, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023 "2005-10-26T17:35:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/61 "2005-10-28T01:52:50Z")
> [@](#): > > The problem is you made the carte blanche statement that DeBerry explicitly said black players are faster than white players, you even used quotation marks trying to ascribe a direct quot to him. And he never said that, I think you owe Fisher DeBerry an apology. Fair enough. I forthwith apologist to Mr. De Berry for any pain or loss of esteem he may have felt. I guess I did imply that De Berry used those exact words. That was never my intent. > [@](#): > > We may be able to rehash the above statement a dozen different ways, personally I think it’s quite reasonable to say it means “Blacks tend to be very fast runners” he isn’t specifically saying that whites CAN’T be fast runners. No. But the exception proves the rule. If I say Horses can run fast, not to say that mice can’t run, but horses can run fast” I doubt if we’d have too many different interpretations of what that means. Yet when de Berry says blacks can run extremely well, not to say that whites can’t run, but blacks can run extremely well we suddenly get these different interpretations. Seems like a lot of twisting and squirming simply because we’ve replaced the two species with two different races. If De Berry hadn’t meant that whites are slower than blacks then it hardly seems like it is worth making a statement about the running ability of blacks. After all, nobody would say “Blacks have two arms. Not that whites don’t have two arms. But Blacks sure have two arms.” You really believe that two categories are equal and then say it at some length. Like I said, if we substituted in two animal species or two makes of car instead of two races I’d almost guarantee that nobody would interpret it other than the way I have. But anyway, it has become purely semantic and not really open to any more discussion. You interpret it one way, I another. > [@fetus](#): > > You do indeed appear to have given the option to substitute another negative trait: > > I, in a fashion reminiscent of a Houston Astros batter, completely whiffed at this one, missing that statement entirely. How I didn’t read it at first, I can’t explain. But you’re right, and I apologize. Good, now can yo actually address the argument I made? Or are you, as I strongly suspect, totally incapable of such substantive input? You were quick to latch onto the Red Herring and you have numerous calls for reference. Now how about a little substance? How about pointing out what you think are the flaws in my actual argument rather than pointless gainsaying? ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/62 "2005-10-28T02:02:35Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Who else is sick of this strawman? For the final time, I never made any such claims. Everyone reading this thread knows it. Mention them again and you will be ignored at my discretion. You don’t contribute enough of substance to make it worth even acknowledging you otherwise. As noted, I missed your statement that the supposed claims were irrelevant and that any other prejudicial belief could be substituted for them to reach the same end. Apologies again. > [@Blake](#): > > Good, now can yo actually address the argument I made? Having drawn my mis-reading out as far as I have, I think my best option at this point is to withdraw from the thread entirely. Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/63 "2005-10-28T02:18:07Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Does it really? Can we see this evidence that allows us to conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes? Not that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster on average. I want to see this evidence that led you to believe that DeBerry is factually correct when he claims that “black athletes … are faster”. [Here](http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/daily_press.htm) is another cite, in addition to the facts that have been presented thus far. To quote the article. > [@](#): > > Entine, who first explored this topic in a 1989 NBC documentary narrated by Tom Brokaw, believes blacks’ dominance of athletics, especially the core sports of football, basketball and track, is rooted in genetics.\*\* He outlined patterned physiological differences that some scientists say explain why athletes of western African heritage excel at sprinting and jumping, while athletes of eastern African heritage excel at endurance events such as the marathon\*\*. > > “The basis for the success of black runners is in the genes,” Bengt Saltin, a physiologist and director of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Institute, says in Entine’s book. “There is no question about that.” > [@](#): > > Naturally, there are exceptions. Jason Sehorn is the NFL’s only white starting cornerback. Brent Barry is the only white to win the NBA’s slam-dunk contest. Tiger Woods is the only golfer of African ancestry to win a major championship. Venus and Serena Williams are the first black women since Althea Gibson in the late 1950s to win major singles tennis championships. > > But the numbers are overwhelming. **More than 70 percent of the players in the NBA, WNBA and NFL are black, and blacks own every world outdoor running record, from 100 meters to 26.2 miles**. Or this [cite](http://heismanpundit.com/?postid=350), showing the fastest college football players in America. Guess how many of them are white? None. What more proof do you want that black athletes tend to be faster? That’s not to say it will be that way forever, or that there isn’t another Don Beebe out there, just that a good coach must play the odds. > [@Blake](#): > > Can we please see the definition of ‘racist’ that precludes a statement if it refers to only a limited subsection of the population? It’s not that talking specifically about black athletes precludes a statement from being racist. It’s that he is talking about a specific characteristic in a subset of people that can be measured. We have no idea how fast the average none athletic black guy is because we don’t go around testing people. These football players are tested, and the results are factual, and without bias. > [@Blake](#): > > By this reasoning if I claim that “Black Californians are criminals” or “Black college students are cheats” what I say is not racist because I am not talking about the general population. Perhaps that would be logical if that were the reasoning I’d employed, or if such claims could be supported by evidence. Not to mention you are speaking about character traits that cannot really be empirically measured, and that you are speaking in absolute terms. > [@Blake](#): > > No, that’s completely untrue. He said that ““ he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster.” Simple as that. Nothing about usually being faster. He made the blanket statement that they are faster. Actually he did not say that. You can imply that that is what he meant, but he did not say that. **Give me a cite saying that he said what you quoted**. You made a direct quote of something that was never said. Either way, he made an true observation. Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean they aren’t true. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/64 "2005-10-28T02:42:48Z")
**brickbacon** , first off neither of those references conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes, which is what was claimed and what I rerquested. Even if “Black” and “West African” were synonymous, which they surely are not, those references simply conclude that those groups are dominant in some sports. Not that they are faster. Whites dominate in IQ tests. That doesn’t mean I can conclude that Whites are smarter. > [@](#): > > It’s not that talking specifically about black athletes precludes a statement from being racist. It’s that he is talking about a specific characteristic in a subset of people that can be measured. We have no idea how fast the average none athletic black guy is because we don’t go around testing people. These football players are tested, and the results are factual, and without bias. Well if they are factual and without bias then produce the references I asked for. Can we see this evidence that allows us to conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes? Not that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster on average. Not that they dominate in certain sports. I want evidence that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes. > [@](#): > > Perhaps that would be logical if that were the reasoning I’d employed, or if such claims could be supported by evidence. Why would that be logical? The definition of racism is quite clear. What logic allows it to be twisted to include “but not when referring to subgroups”? > [@](#): > > Not to mention you are speaking about character traits that cannot really be empirically measured, and that you are speaking in absolute terms. Why can’t I empirically measure the number of Blacks’ and Whites arrested or jailed for selling crack can’t I? Or the number of Black students disciplined for cheating? And De Berry was speaking in absolute terms. > [@](#): > > Actually he did not say that. You can imply that that is what he meant, but he did not say that. Give me a cite saying that he said what you quoted. You made a direct quote of something that was never said. Either way, he made an true observation. Just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean they aren’t true. I already addressed the misquotation issue above. And simply saying that his observation is true does not make it true. You have provided no evidence at all that what he said is true. It seems to be patently untrue. Blacks are not faster than whites. Blacks can run very well and Whites can run very well. De Berry claims that Blacks can run very well and whites can run well. That is not true is it? ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/65 "2005-10-28T03:32:50Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > **brickbacon** , first off neither of those references conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes, which is what was claimed and what I rerquested. Even if “Black” and “West African” were synonymous, which they surely are not, those references simply conclude that those groups are dominant in some sports. Not that they are faster. Whites dominate in IQ tests. That doesn’t mean I can conclude that Whites are smarter. IQ tests don’t measure how smart someone is, they measure your IQ. If I was creating a team that competed by doing IQ tests, it would not be racist to say I needed more whites on my team because they tend to score higher on those tests. It’s applying a known fact. He didn’t say black athletes are faster, he said they tend to be faster. If holding damn near every running record, and having the fastest college athletes is not proof that one subset tends to be faster than another, I don’t know what you want. I provided a cite stating there was biological reasons for these differences. These are not perceived differences, they are real. The numbers support the biological claims. > [@Blake](#): > > Well if they are factual and without bias then produce the references I asked for. Can we see this evidence that allows us to conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes? Not that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster on average. Not that they dominate in certain sports. I want evidence that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes. I did produce the cites you asked for. I linked to a cite discussing a book which outlines the biological reasons for these differences. Then I showed you how the hypothesis was bolstered by numbers. What else do you want? > [@Blake](#): > > Why would that be logical? The definition of racism is quite clear. What logic allows it to be twisted to include “but not when referring to subgroups”? You don’t read very well do you? It would have been a logical rebuttal of my initial statement had I employed the rationale you accused me of. > [@Blake](#): > > Why can’t I empirically measure the number of Blacks’ and Whites arrested or jailed for selling crack can’t I? Or the number of Black students disciplined for cheating? Being a criminal doesn’t just mean being arrested. Plenty of criminals have never been arrested or convicted. When you can provide some way to figure out how many actual criminals there are, then you would have a point. > [@Blake](#): > > And De Berry was speaking in absolute terms. No, he was not. > [@Blake](#): > > And simply saying that his observation is true does not make it true. You have provided no evidence at all that what he said is true. It seems to be patently untrue. Blacks are not faster than whites. Blacks can run very well and Whites can run very well. De Berry claims that Blacks can run very well and whites can run well. That is not true is it? Are you that dense? He never said blacks are faster than whites. Stop saying something he did not say. We are talking about athletes, and black athletes tend to be faster than white ones. If I was a coach looking for the fastest guys, the vast majority of them would be black. Is it a coincidence that all of the 10 fastest guys in college football are black? Or that there are no white cornerbacks in the NFL? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/66 "2005-10-28T16:54:10Z")
Trying again to jump in the middle of this … Race is a social construction of little but not zero biologic significance. The average Black is likely not significantly faster or slower, smarter or dumber, than the average White. But the fastest Blacks are likely faster than the fastest Whites.\* Since every other population is a subgroup of sorts from the original African pool, those populations with significant portions of their genomes of more recent African origins are the most diverse genetically; the spread about the mean is therefore larger for many traits. The statistical far tail for Blacks goes farther for many traits than the far tail for Whites. So for a coach to look at a population of athletes and observe that the fastest of the fast are more often Black is not too surprising. If he wants the fastest of the fast he is more likely to find it in a Black athlete than in a White one. But it was still stupid to say it. \*Yes, that also implies that the smartest of the smart are most likely Black too. Given a similar sized and large enough _n_ and given being raised in the same cultural environment with the same education, values, opportunities and interests, it follows that the the outliers for math and science achievement would likely be Black also. Odds are an Einstein of color or two is waiting in the wings for the cultural environment and opportunity to bloom in. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/67 "2005-10-28T18:23:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You simply can’t assume that because one particular race is more represented in a certain sport that it’s “the natural order of things”. There are too many unknown social factors that go into the selection process. And I don’t think you know much about hockey if you think it it doesn’t reward certain physical attributes. Sorry I missed this. I thought my post acknowledged the first part of your statement. regardless, we are in agreement on that point. And my point about hockey was that one abilty—strength, speed—isn’t isolated to the degree it is in runnig or weightlifting. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/68 "2005-10-28T19:42:53Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Fair enough. I forthwith apologist to Mr. De Berry for any pain or loss of esteem he may have felt. I guess I did imply that De Berry used those exact words. That was never my intent. Kind of a lame, smart-ass apology, don’t you think. I find it interesting that even in this so-called apology where you are admitting your dishonesty, you are dishonest once again. You say that you “I guess I did imply…”. You guess? You mean you don’t know? Well, I can believe the part about you not knowing about of what you speak. But the clearly dishonest part is “did imply”. You did not “imply”, you stated clearly, at least four times: #1, In Post 20 > [@Blake](#): > > The problem is that the man didn’t say that blacks tend to be faster than whites. He said “ he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster.” #2, In Post 43 > [@Blake](#): > > No. But nobody has said that Blacks are faster on average than whites. I made that point repeatedly and clearly in the post you just quoted from. De Berry has said that Blacks are faster than White. Not faster on average, Simply faster. Period. #3, In Post 43 > [@Blake](#): > > Can we see this evidence that allows us to conclude that Blacks athletes are faster than White athletes? Not that they tend to be faster, not that they are faster on average. I want to see this evidence that led you to believe that DeBerry is factually correct when he claims that “black athletes … are faster”. #4, In Post 43 > [@Blake](#): > > No, that’s completely untrue. He said that ““ he wanted to recruit more black athletes because they are faster.” Simple as that. Nothing about usually being faster. He made the blanket statement that they are faster. Do you understand what quote marks are for? Or do you think that falsely attributing words to someone is an acceptable tactic done because you perceive it (incorrectly) to be fighting racism? You know, consider all the questions above rhetorical. I’m really not interested in reading another lame apology. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/69 "2005-10-28T20:29:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Since every other population is a subgroup of sorts from the original African pool, those populations with significant portions of their genomes of more recent African origins are the most diverse genetically; the spread about the mean is therefore larger for many traits. The statistical far tail for Blacks goes farther for many traits than the far tail for Whites…\*Yes, that also implies that the smartest of the smart are most likely Black too. Unless the brain has evolved outside Africa since humans left Africa. There is evidence that two brain related genes have evolved mostly outside of subSahara Africa originating at times coinciding with the spread of agriculture and the beginning of civilizations. Not everyone has both the particular alleles, but they occur with much lower frequency south of the desert. See [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html?ex=1130644800&en=8ffc8801d6689883&ei=5070](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html?ex=1130644800&en=8ffc8801d6689883&ei=5070) ---
**Author:** ![Amok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f17d59/32.png) [@Amok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amok)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/70 "2005-10-28T21:18:29Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > Do you really think this is happening, or that there have just never been that many in the first place? On opening day 1975, American-born black players comprised [27%](http://www.nlbm.com/ns/NewsDetail.cfm?NewsID=64) of the rosters. For last year, it was about 9%, according to this [AP](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051025/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_world_series_changing_diversity) article. And as that article mentions, the Houston Astros were the first team since the 1953 Yankees (a team that was purposely non-integrated) to not have an American black player on its World Series roster). The White Sox had only 3, compared to 8 Hispanic players. Persumably that means less stars as well as less journeymen. So, black athletes are faster than white athletes, but white athletes hit a baseball (or pitch one) better than black athletes? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/71 "2005-10-28T23:47:18Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > So what you’re essentially saying is, “there’s no reliable way to determine racial differences but it’s real, believe me.” > Marc There are obviously some factors which are racially determined. Thus, to me at least, the claim that there are no racial differences in other factors is the extraordinary one. The burden of proof falls on you to prove that no racial differences exist. > [@archmichael](#): > > This reasoning is very disorienting for me because I use to hear it all the time to blame Black people. Now I hear the same reasoning to praise Black Athleticism, and it disturbs me. If you start to subscribe to the idea that “The only viable explanation for Black Excellence in XXXX is genetics”, how are you supposed to combat the racist who espouse the idea that “The only viable explanation for Black failure in XXXX is genetics”. > > I don’t believe in race as a biological definition, so the only explanation is cultural influences. So your rejecting an idea out of hand without looking at the facts because if you accepted it, you would have no way to argue against racists? That looks incredibly backwards to me. > [@Blake](#): > > Congratulations. I have my own version of Godwin’s Law that I apply in these race debates. Instead of Hitler I measure how long it takes for someone to accuse their opposition of being either PC or racist depending on the position they adopt. You’ve managed it on your second post. > > Now lets; abandon the strawman shall we? Nobody is saying that we quash facts in the name of anything. > > Of course if you wish to contend that De Berry’s claims are facts then role out the references. Not that Blacks “tend to be faster’ not ‘are usually faster’. Show your references that they are faster. And then trot out your references that show that a team needs a minimum number of Black players to be successful. > Can’t do it? Then these aren’t facts we are quashing are they? They are just racist stereotypes aren’t they? Oh FFS, can we stop with the tedious language lawyer debating whenever we start talking about racial or sexual differences? If I were to say in a debate about American culture that 'Americans are more religious than Europeans", it would pass without comment because **clearly** I am not saying that every single American is more religious than the most religious European. **obviously** , I meant that Americans, as a group, exhibit more relgious tendancies than Europeans as a group. This does not need to be said because the meaning is obvious. Yet in every racial difference debate, the PC group is waiting to jump on every statement that is not amply padded out with copious clarifications and circumlocutions and extract the most ridiculously extreme interpretation of it. > [@Blake](#): > > No. But nobody has said that Blacks are faster on average than whites. I made that point repeatedly and clearly in the post you just quoted from. De Berry has said that Blacks are faster than White. Not faster on average, Simply faster. Period. This is ridiculous. First of all, he didn’t even say that, it was a paraphrase of a question by a journalist. His actual quote was: > [@](#): > > “The black athlete, statistically, from program to program, seems to have an edge as far as speed is concerned.” > > \ > > “It was very obvious to me the other day that the other team (TCU) had a lot more African-American players than we did and they ran a lot faster than we did,” DeBerry said Tuesday. "It just seems to be that way. African-American kids can run very well. That doesn’t mean that Caucasian kids and other descents can’t run, but it’s very obvious to me that they run extremely well. Even if he did say that, it’s obvious what his meaning is and you are twisting the meaning of his words to score points. > [@](#): > > Saying that Blacks are faster runners is saying that Blacks are superior runners. It is claiming that one race is superior to others. > > What part of that simple chain of reasoning do you dispute? Interesting, you yourself [claim that that there is a genetically determined strength difference between men and women](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6583677&postcount=3). Following your chain of reasoning, you must advocate that men are superior to women. Is this, indeed, your true belief? > [@](#): > > It isn’t. Of course the definition of racism doesn’t require that a claim be made that a race is superior in all things in order for the claim tpo be racist. So this is a total Straw Man. No, but it cannot be demonstrate by merely pointing out that they are superior in one thing either. In order for that to be the case, to be not racist would be to claim that all groups of people are exactly the same in every single aspect. > [@](#): > > Can we please see the definition of ‘racist’ that precludes a statement if it refers to only a limited subsection of the population? > > By this reasoning if I claim that “Black Californians are criminals” or “Black college students are cheats” what I say is not racist because I am not talking about the general population. The difference here is that athlete and speed are correlated factors unlike californians. Thus, there is a real difference between talking about speed and black athletes and talking about speed in general. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/72 "2005-10-28T23:55:35Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > And thus you miss the essential point. No NFL running back or corner linebacker is going to run for 400 yards in one stretch. > > For the record, no white man has broken the 10 second 100 metre sprint barrier. > > See [Jon Entine](http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/quokka_01.htm) > > > [@](#): > > > > Sprints > > To better understand the complex story behind this dramatic map, let’s deconstruct the record book. Remember the last time a non-black set the men’s world record in the 100-meter sprint? One has to go back to 1960, when German Armin Hary won the Olympic gold medal in 10.2 seconds. Today, the 100 meter distance is totally monopolized by blacks with West African roots. They are quicker out of the starting blocks and demonstrate blazing speed over short distances. Former “world’s fastest human” Donovan Bailey clocked a mind-bending 27 miles per hour at the mid-point of his record-breaking race at the Atlanta Olympics. > > > > There are no sprinters of note from Asia, even with more than 50 percent of the world’s population, a Confucian and Tao tradition of discipline, and an authoritarian sports system in place in the most populous country, China. No white sprinter can be found on the list of 100-meter sprinters; the best time by a white, 10 seconds, ranks more than 200th on the all-time list. Dozens of blacks, every one with a West African ancestry, have cracked the 10-second barrier, but no sprinter of any other race. For top black sprinters, it’s an every-meet occurrence. > > > > All of the 32 finalists in the last four Olympic men’s 100-meter races are of West African descent. The likelihood of that happening based on population numbers alone-blacks from that region, now living around the globe, represent approximately 8 percent of the world’s population-is 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 percent. > > Quite frankly, I think DeBerry’s apology is what is insulting to black Americans. Finally, some facts that we can sink our teeth into. Thank you **Flying Dutchman**. How is it that there are hundreds of white sprinters at the high school and college level, yet not one has managed to break the 10 second barrier? Is it that sprinting is simply unpopular with white people? Is it that it’s more popular with black people? Even if every black person in the world were to train as an olympic sprinter, such a situation could not occur **unless** you posit genetic difference. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/73 "2005-10-29T00:18:06Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, it isn’t. It is universally accepted that when it comes to any gene expressions the notion of race, as conventionally defined is a useless and totally lacking in all scientific validity? Cite? I’m not disputing that there are **more** useful ways to categorise people based on genetic assaying. But that doesn’t mean that catagorisation based on race is completely **useless**. I know at least that there are certain medical conditions which used to be treated differently on the basis of race. Are you claiming that such practise was founded on junk science? > [@](#): > > The idea that the Earth orbited the sun no doubt sounded bizarre to many people as well. Science often produces facts that seem bizarre. That doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. You’ve yet to prove anything as a fact. In fact, you’ve yet to produce a single cite while asking for copious amounts from others. > [@](#): > > Yes. That’s what we call “circular reasoning. > > First we define a race based on certain genetic expressions leading to specific characteristics of skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, etc. > > Then we argue that race has a very strong correlation with certain genetic expressions related to physical appearance: skin colour, hair colour, hair curliness, hair density, , etc. > Circulus in demonstrando You’ve twisted my arguments. I never said that there is a correlation between race and such things was interesting. I said that the **cross-correlation** between any two of the factors was the interesting factor. Even if we strip away any pre-existing notions of race, such a cross-correlation would still exist. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone has ever argued that race has no correlation to those things, so it appears to be a strawman. But that doesn’t give the concept any scientific validity. > > For example we could find correlations between those things and internet use, or residential address, or type of shoes worn. That doesn’t mean that there is a scientifically valid “uses the internet more than 3 hours a week” race. > > It simply means that correlations exists between a great many things, and those things don’t need to have any scientific validity even if they are culturally or socially significant. I know you have some training in statistics so I don’t know why your even arguing like this. Clearly, when I say signficiant correlations, I mean correlations that occur at a greater than chance level. > [@](#): > > Yes, but since the whole contention is a strawman, a position that literally nobody supports, it’s rather irrelevant. Nobody has ever said that race doesn’t correlate to those things. Just has nobody has ever said that internet use doesn’t correlate to those things. No, thats exactly what people say. I wouldn’t have a problem if the claim was “race has only a mild correlation with intelligence/athletic ability/criminality”. But that’s not the assertion. The assertion has always been race has **no** correlation with any of those factors. Zip, zilch, nada, not even a little bit. And any evidence used to try and prove the opposite is shouted down. That is the claim which I find extraordinary. > [@](#): > > The problem is that you have proceeded form the logical fallacy of a circular argument and reached hasty conclusion, which is doubly invalid logically. > > Of course a correlation exists between race and skin colour, because race is defined in large part by the type of skin colour and hair a person has. If we defined race by the number of fillings a person has and the amount of soda they drank as a child then what correlations would we see? Not surprisingly we would see that "There exists a reasonable correlation between number of fillings and the amount of soda they drank.” > > Does that demonstrate the existence of a scientifically valid “soda drinking, filling having” race? No, it simply demonstrates that if you classify anything based on arbitrary factors then the groups produced will correlate to those arbitrary factors. > > In the case of race we have chosen skin colour and tightness of hair curls as one category. All those with dark skin and tightly curled hair are in one group. Those with tightly curled hair and light skin in another group, those with dark skin and loosely curled or straight hair in a third group, and in the fourth group we place all the people with light skin and loosely curled or straight hair. Unsurprisingly we then look at those groups and find a correlation between skin colour and tightness of hair curls and race. That doesn’t demonstrate anything about the validity of race. The problem is, if race were an arbitrary grouping, you would expect to see lots of people with, say white skin and tightly curled hair. In fact, you see very few. Same with, say dark skinned people with red hair or tall asians. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/74 "2005-10-29T00:31:37Z")
Okay, **Blake**. Can you come up with a single, plausible reason to account for **Flying Dutchman** ’s post without positing racial differences? I certainly cannot. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/75 "2005-10-29T00:46:26Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Finally, some facts that we can sink our teeth into. Thank you **Flying Dutchman**. How is it that there are hundreds of white sprinters at the high school and college level, yet not one has managed to break the 10 second barrier? Is it that sprinting is simply unpopular with white people? Is it that it’s more popular with black people? Even if every black person in the world were to train as an olympic sprinter, such a situation could not occur **unless** you posit genetic difference. So, you expect us to take these supposed facts from a person who feels the need to announce his Whiteness in his screen name? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/76 "2005-10-29T02:05:40Z")
If you read through some of the many (many, many) threads we’ve had about race and athletic performance you’ll find that Entine’s research and scholarship is pretty darn shoddy and isn’t a good source to base your argument on. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/77 "2005-10-29T03:25:58Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > If you read through some of the many (many, many) threads we’ve had about race and athletic performance you’ll find that Entine’s research and scholarship is pretty darn shoddy and isn’t a good source to base your argument on. Even if he was, the facts are still facts. [This site](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7713-1652084,00.html) claims: > [@](#): > > That is his immediate target — apart from his A levels this month — but, longer-term, his sights are fixed on two of the sport’s jewels. “I would like to win the 2012 Olympics,” Pickering said. Which brings us to the other jewel: the white man’s world record. **No white man has broken 10 seconds for 100 metres** and Pickering added: “A white sprinter has got to run under 10 seconds some time, so it might as well be me.” > > Even Allan Wells, the last white man to win the Olympic 100 metres title, in 1980, never managed quicker than 10.11 in legal conditions. The best “white” legal mark belongs to Marian Woronin, from Poland, who clocked 10.00 21 years ago, although \*\*44 non-whites have broken 10 seconds. \*\* Is there any way to explain this apart from racial differences? It’s not credible to claim that whites simply “aren’t trying”, once your at the olympic level, it’s pretty much given that you try as hard as you can. The popularity argument doesn’t work either, blacks aren’t running at over 100 times the rate of whites which is what would be neccesary to produce that sort of result. How else do you explain it? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/78 "2005-10-29T03:38:29Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > If you read through some of the many (many, many) threads we’ve had about race and athletic performance you’ll find that Entine’s research and scholarship is pretty darn shoddy and isn’t a good source to base your argument on. And it would appear that [Scientific American](http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=FE75AE7B-FF39-402C-AB11-2B4B5F2CF87&ARTICLEID_CHAR=9A4CDB27-0A5E-4727-83E1-D079B430A68&sc=I100322) is reasonably impressed with Entine’s work. Sciam doesn’t give web access to paper subscribers for some reason and I can’t find my paper version of that article but I do remember the review because it was my first SciAm ever and I remember wanting to buy that book on the basis of the review. The short blurb seems to suggest his research was credible: > [@](#): > > Few issues are as provocative and as poorly understood as biological differences among the races. So loaded are statements suggesting racial superiority or inferiority that, for the most part, an anxious hush surrounds the topic. To his credit, journalist Jon Entine has tackled this problem with a noholds-barred assault. Not shy about poking at the issue’s softest spots, he goes after the history of sports and race science, the segregation and integration of sports, racial breeding and eugenics, sports and IQ, and the emergence of the black female athlete. > > **Entine has put together a well-researched, relatively thorough and lucidly written case** , arguing that in many sports-particularly basketball, football, and track and field-athletes of African descent show a competitive advantage. He opens Taboo with the firm conclusion that “to the degree that it is a purely scientific debate, the evidence of black superiority in athletics is persuasive and decisively confirmed on the playing field. Elite athletes who trace most or all of their ancestry to Africa are by and large better than the competition.” ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/79 "2005-10-29T04:30:25Z")
An oldie but goodie: [ENTINE](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/23/bs.00.html) > [@](#): > > ENTINE: No, and I don’t believe in the concept of race, Reverend Jackson. I don’t think blacks can be lumped into one population because of skin color. East and West Africans have a different evolutionary history, there’s a tribe in southern Africa called the Lemba (ph), who are Jewish who are all black, and they’re more Jewish by their genetics than they are black. They just happen to have black skin by their intermarriage and effects of the environment. So if Entine doesn’t believe in Race, what’s his theory based on? > [@](#): > > ENTINE: Reverend Jackson, we know that that’s true whether you’re white or black. There are certain limitations. You know, Pete Rose could have trained and lifted weights all he wanted, but he was never going to be a Mark McGwire home run hitter. There’s just genetic limitations by the roulette wheel of genetics. The only controversy, so to speak, is whether some of these traits are – fall on certain populations more than others. And, you know, you suffer from sickle cell, as we know. And that’s a trait very specific to blacks, as is lactose intolerant. Whites are more likely to get cystic fibrosis, Jews are more likely to get Tasac’s (ph) disease. These are all diseases… Huh? Sickle Cell is specific to blacks? All Blacks or just “blacks” from a specific part of Africa and don’t other ‘races’ suffer from sickle cell as well? Lactose intolerance is specific to blacks? > [@](#): > > ENTINE: no. Again, the book is not about black advantages or white advantages. This is just a matter of natural human diversity in body types that we see. Clearly blacks were excluded from many sports, and I think the dominance you see of, let’s say, Irish boxers was only in a brief period of time when, frankly, blacks were banned from the sport and for a time Jews were banned from the sport. And when Jews had an opportunity to participate in boxing, they did quite well and were among the best boxers. So then it’s not Race, but body types and culture that makes the difference?I know that Basketball was once considered a “Jewish” sport, were Jews and what Race is a Jew anyway, genetically geared to play basketball? Are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to Entine? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023/80 "2005-10-29T06:57:13Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Are you sure you want to hitch your wagon to Entine? I don’t care if the argument comes from Nutsy McNutsbucket or the Pope. As long as the facts are correct and can be verified. Do you have any way of disputing his actual claim? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fisher-deberry-and-the-elephant-in-the-locker-room-sports-and-race-related/328023.md?page=5)