Why are there no black Pro cyclists?

Pokerface

There are more poor white folks in the US than poor black folks I would think. By sheer volume.

I'm having a hard time accepting that in today's society, that it STILL comes down to socio-economics.

And it's not like white athletes don't want to go Pro and make millions of dollars. So they have just as much incentive to succeed as black athletes.


I can't make the genetics argument because I don't have the knowledge or patience to research it. And if it's been 100% disproved (by multiple sources), then so be it.

I agree that there is a large socio-economic bias to many sports and things like geography and climate, etc help shape the type of athletes that a country produces (it's why the best hockey players come from Canada 8) - but by the same token, there are lots of black people in Canada (and there doesn't exist the same rich-poor divide in Canada between blacks and whites), yet few good black hockey players.

It just seems that I'm missing something :oops:

minardi

Pokerface wrote:

There are more poor white folks in the US than poor black folks I would think. By sheer volume.

I'm having a hard time accepting that in today's society, that it STILL comes down to socio-economics.

And it's not like white athletes don't want to go Pro and make millions of dollars. So they have just as much incentive to succeed as black athletes.


I can't make the genetics argument because I don't have the knowledge or patience to research it. And if it's been 100% disproved (by multiple sources), then so be it.

I agree that there is a large socio-economic bias to many sports and things like geography and climate, etc help shape the type of athletes that a country produces (it's why the best hockey players come from Canada 8) - but by the same token, there are lots of black people in Canada (and there doesn't exist the same rich-poor divide in Canada between blacks and whites), yet few good black hockey players.

It just seems that I'm missing something :oops:

I would be more in favour of a cultural explanation in the first instance but one which is cross cut and interlaced with economic, social, gender and race inequalities.

It's also the way in which individuals engage in sport at a particular and local level. For example, NZ has produced stronger rugby team than England despite having a much smaller population. Egg chasing is just the 'done thing' in NZ where here it is football.

It terms of cycling it's partly economic. Cycling is not a cheap sport; e.g. bit only in terms of a bike but also in that as a minority sport it involves a fair amount of travelling to compete. Not a problem in the rich west but a far bigger issue in the majority world.

dougzz

Pokerface wrote:

Can one of you boffins please explain why the majority of North American professional sports is dominated by black athletes?

NBA (Basketball)
NFL (Football)
MLB (Baseball)

We're talking about sports where the majority of athletes come from the USA - one of the richest countries in the world. There are just as many white athletes trying to break into the 'big leagues', yet these sports are dominated by black athletes. And it's clear to see their physical make up is quite different.

Simply not true for Baseball. Hispanic more than black.

Pokerface

dougzz wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Can one of you boffins please explain why the majority of North American professional sports is dominated by black athletes?

NBA (Basketball)
NFL (Football)
MLB (Baseball)

We're talking about sports where the majority of athletes come from the USA - one of the richest countries in the world. There are just as many white athletes trying to break into the 'big leagues', yet these sports are dominated by black athletes. And it's clear to see their physical make up is quite different.

Simply not true for Baseball. Hispanic more than black.

Just looked it up - and you are correct. 27% Latino vs 9% blacks in the Majors last year. :oops:

daccordimark

Damn! I've just spent ages typing in a long post and lost the lot.

Anyway, one of the main points was that if genetics is the main reason how do the genetically disadvantaged people know? Does word spread or do they have some sixth sense that tells them not to even bother? Or are there loads of them out there who have tried it and failed? If so surely cycling clubs would be awash with short term black members who just couldn't cut it. I think not.

Also, look at population stats. UK is 2% "Black", BC has a membership of roughly 33,000. Even France is only estimated to have 2% sub-Saharan descended population. If you know the number of pro cyclists in UK and Europe let us know and we can do the maths to find out how many Black pro cyclists there "should" be.

Africa has racing cyclists all over the continent. We all hear about Eritrea and Nigeria but there are many others. If European teams weren't awash with potential riders they would find plenty of talent there. They just don't need/want to.

Think about Lance Armstrong. Massive influence inspiring many people to take up cycling apparently. Is it too simplistic to think that if he was black more black kids would be cycling?

It's all cultural. Look at cycling clubs in the UK and a lot are skewed age wise toward the older end of the spectrum. How cool do they look to the average kid? My old club was largely bereft of youth members other than existing member's kids and they were few and far between.

Mark.

dougzz

Pokerface wrote:

Without looking up the stats - I would agree that there is a large hispanic influence in baseball today. But African-American still dominates methinks. Except for all the white pitchers

I can't be bothered to check either, I was just thinking of all the good players called Hernandez, Rodriguez and Pujols

Without starting another debate in the wrong place it's odd how my perception is also that whites represent a disproportionate amount of the good pitchers as compared to the overall proportion of players.

littleking02

I think one of the main reasons is a financial one. Cycling is a very expensive sport and no one in 3rd world would spend so much money, thats why football is much more popular.
It also to do with heritage, I mean the best cycling country is Eritrea (former Italian colony). But wether pro teams are prepared to take on young hopefuls from 3rd world country is another question.

dreamlx10

Because they've sold their bikes for crack ?

DaveyL

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Well, someone has to tell them it's bollocks. Otherwise it'll just grow until it's so big that people think it's acceptable. Oh.

What's bollocks? Social theory in general or this bit of social theory in particular? Or social science generally?

D. All of the above.

pedro118118

In the UK, it's purely cultural. Young black kids have a choice and football is usually the default choice. There generally has to be special circumstances (usually family influence) for any British kids to take up cycling seriously - black or white. I'm sure there's a lots of latent cycling talent amounts black kids, that will sadly never by realised, but you could say the same thing about many minority sports (sailing, equistrian, rowing etc). It's just not on the mainstream radar.

Personally, I don't really care if I'm honest about it. I don't think black riders are excluded from elite cycling in any way, it's just that young black kids simply chose not to participate and I don't really see the need to lament on some some idealistic desire for some cultural/ethnic nirvana in every walk of life for the sake of it.

minardi

DaveyL wrote:

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Well, someone has to tell them it's bollocks. Otherwise it'll just grow until it's so big that people think it's acceptable. Oh.

What's bollocks? Social theory in general or this bit of social theory in particular? Or social science generally?

D. All of the above.

Thanks for clearing that up!

In you opinion then: In what way should we seek to understand the phenomenon being discussed here? (now that we have established that social; theory/science is not up to the task)?

DaveyL

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Well, someone has to tell them it's bollocks. Otherwise it'll just grow until it's so big that people think it's acceptable. Oh.

What's bollocks? Social theory in general or this bit of social theory in particular? Or social science generally?

D. All of the above.

Thanks for clearing that up!

In you opinion then: In what way should we seek to understand the phenomenon being discussed here? (now that we have established that social; theory/science is not up to the task)?

Seems to me quite a few people here have already hit on the causes here - a variety of reasons, including cultural/lack of infrastructure.

Maybe we should all award them degrees in social theory.

On a serious note, people can try and interpret stuff like this whatever way they want. Just don't call it science if it doesn't follow the scientific method.

Essentially (it is a sideline really) I object to the attempts to critique the Science paper mentioned above using these social science concepts (for want of a better word). Rick seems either unwilling or unable to pick any holes in the work in terms of the methodolody used, the interpretation of the results or the conclusions drawn from the data. If there are flaws in the work, this is the way to do it.

rick_chasey

DaveyL wrote:

Essentially (it is a sideline really) I object to the attempts to critique the Science paper mentioned above using these social science concepts (for want of a better word). Rick seems either unwilling or unable to pick any holes in the work in terms of the methodolody used, the interpretation of the results or the conclusions drawn from the data. If there are flaws in the work, this is the way to do it.

No, I answered, you didn't understand.

:roll:

DaveyL

Sorry Rick. I must have missed the bit where you read the paper and pointed out the flaws in it.

rick_chasey

DaveyL wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Do you have any specific objections to the study that was carried out, or to the conclusions drawn from the data they gathered?

Not especially. A discourse is inescapable, so that's how we all, like it or not, think.

I'm just saying in the context of a discussion, it's position and genuiely 'objective' as opposed to objective within the defined discourse should be made explicit.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all, to me at least.

There?

I'm not disuputing the results, or the methodology. I'm suggesting that anything, science included, does not occur in a social or political vaccuum, and as such, must be considered in the context in which the science is conducted - in this case, in the context of colonialism racism, etc etc.

DaveyL

And I'm suggesting that you're wrong.

rick_chasey

DaveyL wrote:

And I'm suggesting that you're wrong.

You should make your way over to the history department and discuss it with one of your post-colonial (or post-modern leaning) historians over there.

I'm sure you'd find it enlightening.

It's worth considering how thoughts, ideas, are created. If you're interested in scientific rigour it'd be a worthwhile effort.

Better then arguing with a headhunter on a bike forum anyway.

DaveyL

I'll bear that in mind and pop over the next time our hand driers are broken.

I can understand that there are issues when people wish to use the results from such a study to draw conclusions beyond the scope of the work.

But if you are going to suggest cultural or in fact any external factors have influenced a specific piece of work you need to (a) understand the work in the first place, and (b) point out a mechanism by which such external factors could have influenced the study.

cajun_cyclist

It'd make an interesting trivia question, who was the first Black to finish the Tour de France. Or even enter, surely that has been done...but I google searched it... nothing yet.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I've heard it claimed, eminently plausibly given that Africa is the birthplace of humanity and that other "races" are fairly recently migrated (evolution not stopping in Africa meanwhile), that there is more genetic diversity within the indigenous African population than in the rest of the world put together.

Massive bullsh1t.

Whoever is claiming that is from the 1900s,and think pears' 'white man burden's' soap advert is the best thing ever.

[/flippant remark]
It is absolutely 100% cultural. Both within cycling (which I think is often under-estimated. It's probably very structural), and the culture of those with African decent.

Hold on just a moment.....

As far as I can see what I'm pointing out is the massive heterogeneity of Africa, which makes any attempt to subsume and homogenise all athletes of African descent under the single umbrella "black" and to bind that to some particular genetic advantage impossible.

I was very careful to point out that the erroneous picture of an evolutionary family tree assumes that there is a trunk that has stopped evolving and branches that are currently evolving, which is patent bollocks. I was at pains to point out that the fact that migration from Africa is a relatively (in evolutionary terms) new phenomenon didn't imply that Africa represented some evolutionarily stagnant primitive stage.

From that I concluded that given the hugely heterogeneous genetic pool that "black" actually covers the only reason we didn't see lots of black cyclists about was cultural/social.

I hadn't (and haven't) read the study that was quoted in support of my argument, but unless you're arguing that any attempt to study human genetic diversity is inherently flawed by underlying assumptions regarding race/colour then I think you're barking up the wrong tree. You'd still need to show why that particular study fell foul of the same flaws though.

For the record, I've read some Foucault (and others), have done some study regarding value weighted dualisms masquerading as objective binomial distinctions and am not entirely virgin to some of the theory you're referencing.

disquieting_museeuws

cajun_cyclist wrote:

It'd make an interesting trivia question, who was the first Black to finish the Tour de France. Or even enter, surely that has been done...but I google searched it... nothing yet.

There have been a few north africans, was Ali Neffati the first in 1913? Not sure about sub-Saharan africa.

Mederic Clain rode in 2003.

No_Ta_Doctor

DaveyL wrote:

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

minardi wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Well, someone has to tell them it's bollocks. Otherwise it'll just grow until it's so big that people think it's acceptable. Oh.

What's bollocks? Social theory in general or this bit of social theory in particular? Or social science generally?

D. All of the above.

Thanks for clearing that up!

In you opinion then: In what way should we seek to understand the phenomenon being discussed here? (now that we have established that social; theory/science is not up to the task)?

Seems to me quite a few people here have already hit on the causes here - a variety of reasons, including cultural/lack of infrastructure.

Maybe we should all award them degrees in social theory.

On a serious note, people can try and interpret stuff like this whatever way they want. Just don't call it science if it doesn't follow the scientific method.

Essentially (it is a sideline really) I object to the attempts to critique the Science paper mentioned above using these social science concepts (for want of a better word). Rick seems either unwilling or unable to pick any holes in the work in terms of the methodolody used, the interpretation of the results or the conclusions drawn from the data. If there are flaws in the work, this is the way to do it.

Well firstly, plenty of study within the social sciences does follow rigorous scientific method. You'll find masses of statistical work for instance.

As for us being awarded degrees for social theory, I've referenced genetics in my argument without you phoning the nearest university to ensure my graduation in biological sciences....

I agree that I'd like to see Rick demonstrate how the particular study is flawed, even if only as a case study in the practical application of postcolonialism.

But I'd also suggest that the line you're taking is all too reminiscent of the anti-intellectual "it's just common sense, innit?" viewpoint that allows utter morons to claim global warming is a myth because their train was delayed by some snow. In short, I'd like to see a counter argument rather than mere rejection.

EKIMIKE

I think on the whole it boils down the cultural factors. I think sporting talent is definitely a racially neutral quality. Equally physical characteristics are on the whole racially neutral. Just because in a given culture, such characteristics are proliferated doesn't make said characteristics a result of race.

To say that certain races are bound by certain characteristics is a direct contradiction to genetic diversity. Moreover, if we all descend from the same few human beings would we not all be bound by the narrow characteristic profile of those few. Or were these few all super-humans with the ability to run a 3hr marathon, 10 second 100 metres, ride a 3 week tour e.t.c all in one. It's absurd.

The application of mathematical/statistical theory upon natural occurrences eventually finds it's limits. In ALL cases. Trying to determine the genetic make-up of the pro-peloton on (what boils down to) some averages and probabilities only goes so far. Point being, the fact that Tour has never been won by a 'black' man does't owe to the 'black' man's lack of ability on a bike it simply denotes a mathematical score of 97 - 0 in favour of the 'white' man. It would be crazy suggest this was anything more than cultural. The Tour is a European race, ridden mostly by European riders or European made/designed bikes (on a simplified level).

As an aside, i also get confused as to this assumption that cycling is some sort of elitist snobby culture. It really isn't. Maybe it's become that way in this country in recent years (MAMIL's) but it's still a sport of the working classes on the whole. Most pro's are from fairly normal working backgrounds. In fact, Roman Kreuziger is considered 'abnormal' (for want of a better word) because he comes from a wealthy family. In fact in a crude way, this sort of goes some way to proving the absurdity of the 'race' debate.

DaveyL

No tA Doctor wrote:

But I'd also suggest that the line you're taking is all too reminiscent of the anti-intellectual "it's just common sense, innit?" viewpoint that allows utter morons to claim global warming is a myth because their train was delayed by some snow.

Wow, a defence of the scientific method compared to "anti-intellectuals" rejecting global warming. Good work.

No tA Doctor wrote:

In short, I'd like to see a counter argument rather than mere rejection.

Is this directed at me or Rick? Where is Rick, by the way? Is he still putting together his critique of the Science paper? You're welcome to have a go too if you want. If you type it up in Word, you can send it to the editors as well, kill two birds with one stone, y'know?

P_Tucker

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's cultural - both within cycling and in the cultures of those with african decent.

Anyone saying it's genetic or anything like that is talking rubbish - professional cyclists are by their very nature, unusual freaks - there's no reason why that freakishness should be exclusive to people of one particular race.

And this is different to 100m sprinting how exactly?

motdoc

We learned about this in med school.
Basically given similar eduation / social circumstances black people have slightly higher IQ than white people.
And larger penisis.

PS It was a pretty dodgy study. Basically most of IQ comes down to upbringing, it predicts nothing useful (hapiness, partner, income etc).

No_Ta_Doctor

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

But I'd also suggest that the line you're taking is all too reminiscent of the anti-intellectual "it's just common sense, innit?" viewpoint that allows utter morons to claim global warming is a myth because their train was delayed by some snow.

Wow, a defence of the scientific method compared to "anti-intellectuals" rejecting global warming. Good work.

No tA Doctor wrote:

In short, I'd like to see a counter argument rather than mere rejection.

Is this directed at me or Rick? Where is Rick, by the way? Is he still putting together his critique of the Science paper? You're welcome to have a go too if you want. If you type it up in Word, you can send it to the editors as well, kill two birds with one stone, y'know?

You seem to have got a little lost regarding other peoples positions in this debate Davey. I've not called the particular paper into dispute, and it was brought into the debate (though not by me) to back up a claim I made. I've agreed with you that Rick needs to show why that particular paper is flawed. I was asking you for an argument backing up your rejection of social sciences, just as you've asked Rick for one re that paper. Fai'rs fair? I don't criticise your defence of scientific method, I criticise your rejection of social sciences, which you provide very little argument for. That's why it has certain similarities to global warming denial a la Clarkson. I'm sure Clarkson himself would be happy to opine that social sciences were basically "political correctness gone mad" or something equally shallow and lacking in deeper thought, just as he concluded that global warming was bullshit because he could park a 4*4 at the North Pole.

So lets just be clear about this, all I'm asking for is a little intellectual rigour, rather than "it's all a load of bollocks".

DaveyL

No tA Doctor wrote:

You seem to have got a little lost regarding other peoples positions in this debate Davey. I've not called the particular paper into dispute, and it was brought into the debate (though not by me) to back up a claim I made. I've agreed with you that Rick needs to show why that particular paper is flawed. I was asking you for an argument backing up your rejection of social sciences, just as you've asked Rick for one re that paper. Fai'rs fair? I don't criticise your defence of scientific method, I criticise your rejection of social sciences, which you provide very little argument for. That's why it has certain similarities to global warming denial a la Clarkson. I'm sure Clarkson himself would be happy to opine that social sciences were basically "political correctness gone mad" or something equally shallow and lacking in deeper thought, just as he concluded that global warming was bullshit because he could park a 4*4 at the North Pole.

So lets just be clear about this, all I'm asking for is a little intellectual rigour, rather than "it's all a load of bollocks".

I'm not saying you've called that work into dispute - you just remarked you would like to see it critiqued by Rick, so I was inviting you to have a go yourself if you want. Clearly though, there's a bit of an elephant in the room as far as that work goes.

And yes, a lot of the social sciences are basically "political correctness gone mad" as Sokal's hoax neatly demonstrated. But fortunately it appears easy to spot those areas - they appear to have the word "post" as a prefix in most cases.

The problem with some of social science work that wants to be science is that due to the nature of the system under study, it is very difficult to control for all the variables which could affect the outcome. However, on their own, I guess they are harmless enough. What amuses me is when people employ this stuff to criticise science, when they don't actually understand the science in the first place. Which takes us back to that elephant.

Tom Butcher

Doesn't the term social science come from an anglo-american positivist tradition ?

I know it is now applied to just about anything that might loosely be termed sociology but I'm not sure that it's fair to say the kind of theorists Rick is referencing could be accused of pretending what they do is a science - it's more the term social science has come to encompass more than it originally did.

No_Ta_Doctor

DaveyL wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

You seem to have got a little lost regarding other peoples positions in this debate Davey. I've not called the particular paper into dispute, and it was brought into the debate (though not by me) to back up a claim I made. I've agreed with you that Rick needs to show why that particular paper is flawed. I was asking you for an argument backing up your rejection of social sciences, just as you've asked Rick for one re that paper. Fai'rs fair? I don't criticise your defence of scientific method, I criticise your rejection of social sciences, which you provide very little argument for. That's why it has certain similarities to global warming denial a la Clarkson. I'm sure Clarkson himself would be happy to opine that social sciences were basically "political correctness gone mad" or something equally shallow and lacking in deeper thought, just as he concluded that global warming was bullshit because he could park a 4*4 at the North Pole.

So lets just be clear about this, all I'm asking for is a little intellectual rigour, rather than "it's all a load of bollocks".

I'm not saying you've called that work into dispute - you just remarked you would like to see it critiqued by Rick, so I was inviting you to have a go yourself if you want. Clearly though, there's a bit of an elephant in the room as far as that work goes.

And yes, a lot of the social sciences are basically "political correctness gone mad" as Sokal's hoax neatly demonstrated. But fortunately it appears easy to spot those areas - they appear to have the word "post" as a prefix in most cases.

The problem with some of social science work that wants to be science is that due to the nature of the system under study, it is very difficult to control for all the variables which could affect the outcome. However, on their own, I guess they are harmless enough. What amuses me is when people employ this stuff to criticise science, when they don't actually understand the science in the first place. Which takes us back to that elephant.

Well I'm interested in Rick doing the critique because I'd like to see application of theory, how it works in practice. I don't have any issue with the paper, which I haven't read, but out of sheer curiosity would like to see what issue Rick might have with it.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from the Sokal hoax, there are also science journals that have been taken in by fraudulent papers, without us needing to claim that science is a load of old bollocks because of that. Perhaps if he'd published in a peer reviewed journal it wouldn't have got through, or been caught before he fessed up.

Yes there's some crap out there. Yes, there's deliberate obfuscation. But it isn't all crap. In science there are also weaknesses. Where is the journal of negative results? What happens to all the results that didn't show what the author was hoping to show? Unless they reveal something else of interest they're just binned. Not out of malice, just that there was nothing to write home about. Except in the medicinal industry, but when they hide results to promote a product that's a near criminal abuse of science.

Good science needs to identify and control all variables, and to make explicit its assumptions (usually by referencing previous work). As you point out, much social science has a problem with the former due to the sheer number of variables to control. I'd argue that science can have a problem with the latter because some of the assumptions made can fall outside the scope of traditional science (and within the scope of social sciences perhaps). Here I'd be looking at the conceptual framework surrounding a particular piece of science - or even a whole discipline and the language employed within it.

That might not be especially problematic within theoretical physics, but wrt genetic profiles of human populations extrapolated to generalisations regarding phenotype there's certainly something for critical social sciences to play with.

I'm reminded of when I had a similar debate on a different board, someone brought up the 400m runner Cathy Freeman to support their "black athletes always win" argument. Now I'm not claiming he was a scientist (and clearly not a rocket scientist...) or that any scientists have ever made the particular mistake of lumping anyone with dark pigmentation into a single homologous population, regardless of whether they were African or Australian, but that's a highly exaggerated example of what I'd be expecting good social science to pick up, that the science itself might have missed.

As far as science is under some form of epistemological attack I think it's mainly about inserting a couple of clauses such as "as far as we know anything...". Some misread that as assuming that believing in teapots orbiting the sun as just as credible as believing in evolution. Or that without epistemological certainty its plausible LA rode clean.

I'd liken it to what happens in ethics, where few outside the religious believe there is any formal objective foundation of good and bad or right and wrong, but most of us at least make an attempt to live as if there were. Do we have epistemological certainty? No. Should we behave as if we had? Yes, though always with one eye on how we construct more truth.

Sorry, that's excessively long winded. I can now state with epistemological certainty that I need a beer.