Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe

This isn't about "race."

The folk concept of race is deeply flawed, and shouldn't be used in this context. We're talking about genetic lineages (or ought to be).

E.g. it isn't the case that "All sub-Saharan Africans are great distance runners," or "all East Africans are great distance runners," or even "all Kenyans are great distance runners." It's that members of specific tribes, such as (and primarily) the Kalenjin (~4.5 million), appear to have some sort of genetic advantage at specific sports.

Contrary to popular presumptions, it is still possible to not be in one of those specific populations and still perform at nearly the same level. E.g. if you look at the NY Marathon, Men's 2011, 4 of the top 10 aren't of East African heritage -- 2 Moroccans, 1 Swiss, and 1 American. The #10 runner came in at 2:12:26, which is off the winning time by ~7 minutes, but is still extremely fast. And again, Paula Radcliffe, who is definitely not Kalenjin, is clearly one of the top women distance runners.

Also, keep in mind that training, diet and technique aren't necessarily harmonized across all contestants. E.g. many Kenyans tend to consume very little water while running, and will end the race slightly dehydrated. The Kalenjin tend to land on the front of their feet, but many elite runners land on the heel. There's no solid evidence if a change in running form offers a performance advantage or reduces injury rates.

And, of course, no one really knows what physiological or genetic profile makes up a truly great cycling stage racer. Surely any research done on "winners" from the past 20 years is now unusable.


As such, I see no physiological or genetic reasons why someone who happens to have brown skin cannot possibly win a stage race or a grand tour at some future date. It's unlikely in the short term because of factors like participation rates, training, motivation, experience, culture, and racial discrimination.