White Russians have ideal genetics for racewalking

[the_diego]

They’re just athletic. Most champion walkathoners I see have short, bowed legs.

[jsquire]

@levdrakon

Really? That’s sad. Not as sad as say, the bowling team steroiding up, but still sad.

You need to see it from a different perspective. Governments subsidize Olympic athletes in order to increase medal counts. If there is some doping going on–and I would be surprised if there isn’t any–then it’s probably organized through coaches, support staff and the like. Remember, the goal here is medals, not fame or fortune (b/c there isn’t going to be any).

Now, why do governments want medals? That’s a good question with no easy answer. The Ministry of Sport may want to increase its funding (or at least control any decrease in tight times) and factions within the MoS are always at odds for the available money. You know, the universal bureaucratic stuff. On a more meta level, Olympic success is all about proving that “our way of life is better”, usually directed at their own population. In East Germany I think the Olympic efforts were all part of the system designed to keep the masses from asking why their life was so shitty.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Merneith

He means ‘white’ as in white skinned, not any of the traditional “White Russian” appellations. He’s saying that these white-skinned Russians obviously have some genetic advantage that makes them premier race walkers, and they’re white skinned, therefore it’s not racist to assume that the black skinned Jamaican sprinters have some genetic advantage tied to their black skin.

I think it’s probably more correct to say that he’s parodying those people who say that the reasons Jamaicans or whomever excel in sprinting is because blacks are genetically predisposed to doing it.

[Chief_Pedant]

@astro

Like Jamaicans in the sprinting races the it’s pretty obvious that these Russians have the ideal genetics for race walking otherwise there would not be this concentration of race walking dominance. It’s simple biology.

Simple biology for simpletons intent on building strawmen, anyway.

To distinguish nurture and nature requires a closer consideration of nurture than an observation of what’s locally popular for cultural reasons.

If, for example, you normalize nurturing for an Mbuti population and some other west african population, and show that they have a reason to be drawing from different baseline genetic pools, you could construct a genes-based case that the Mbti are not going to compete well against a black Jamaican in sprinting.

But if you just take any observed difference among populations and pretend it’s evidence of genes, you simply make it look like you don’t understand population genetics, human migration history, or science in general.

[Flywheel]

@Darryl_Lict

Would you walk that way if a lion was chasing you?

If I could walk that way…

[astro]

@Chief_Pedant

Simple biology for simpletons intent on building strawmen, anyway.

To distinguish nurture and nature requires a closer consideration of nurture than an observation of what’s locally popular for cultural reasons.

If, for example, you normalize nurturing for an Mbuti population and some other west african population, and show that they have a reason to be drawing from different baseline genetic pools, you could construct a genes-based case that the Mbti are not going to compete well against a black Jamaican in sprinting.

But if you just take any observed difference among populations and pretend it’s evidence of genes, you simply make it look like you don’t understand population genetics, human migration history, or science in general.

Yeah… now I get it! That’s the ticket! It’s all so clear now. Clever Hans has nothing on you!