Black pro riders?

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark &

Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

curt said:

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I
think V. Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are
just going to call a person by a color. I find it
interesting that the world looks at Tiger as a black
man and says nothing of his Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

It says that you are either misremembering or have not
heard his once-and-never-again statement on his race:

nationalreview.comnordlinger09Open ↗
0602.asp

It may also mean I hear one of his other "once and never
again statements". I am willing to accept his public
statements. I think he bears no responsibility to make
them. I don't know that I would have made the choices he
has in this regard, but they are his to make.

Steve

Quoted message said:

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

Richard Adams said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

curt said:

Just so you know, Tiger has an Asian mother and I
think V. Singh is more black than Tiger, if you are
just going to call a person by a color. I find it
interesting that the world looks at Tiger as a black
man and says nothing of his Asian side.

Respectfully, Curt

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Then Tiger waffled. Initially he didn't want attention
drawn one way or the other, but considered himself as much
Thai as African-American. You could almost see people
lining up with agendas, trying to get him to sign on. I
could understand his discomfort.

Sure. Why would he want his persona to be exploited or
co-opted in this way? I was not intending to judge him.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]>
wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being asked
this, and his response is that he feels he is African-
American. I don't know what this says about his
relationship to his mother.

He's reported as saying he is African-American and Asia,
not just one or the other.

JT

Hey, are you really the nice guy Tony Lopez says you
are?

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
dentaltwins.comdentaltwins.comOpen ↗

Shayne Wissler said:

Whatever the case may be for cycling, that "population
geneticist" does not know everything about physiology and
genetics. And when he says that Americans of African
descent are closer genetically to Americans of European
descent than they are to Africans we have good reason to
question his understanding of genetics and/or statistics.

Why do we have reason to question it?

Quoted message said:

(That said, I think that the main reason why there are not
many black pros is cultural and not genetic).

In article <[email hidden]>, Ryan

Cousineau said:

There are obvious cultural reasons for these racial
disparities, like the fact that there aren't that many
blacks in cycling-mad Europe, and aside from Major Taylor,
there aren't a lot of black role models in cycling.

I find this emphasis on "role models" to be inflated. Was
there an infux of hockey playing kids of Polish descent
following Gretzky's stellar career? Will Pantani's
ignominous demise result in legions of Italians deserting
cycling? Or did OJ Simpson's fall from grace discourage
American blacks from aspiring to careers in football?

Having the means to participate in a sport - both physically
and culturally - by culturally I mean how the greater
community expresses itself through a particular sport , how
highly it's particpants are esteemed, supported, etc... as
well encouragement to engage at the local level: These play
a more prominent role than those abstractions of the media
age; 'role models'

Quoted message said:

Also, basketball has a place in Afro-American culture that
rivals the place of hockey in Canadian culture (as sport
which, weirdly enough, has a surprising (albeit small)
number of black or partly black players, including
notables like Grant Fuhr and Jarome frigging Iginla, who
just about singlehandedly knocked my beloved Canucks out
of the playoffs with his performance as best player on the
Calgary Flames (he's a local boy there, having been raised
in Alberta).

I'd like to add economic reasons also. Enrolling and
underwriting a child's participation in organized hockey to
the point where a level of skill (if possible) is acquired
that enables entry into the big leagues involves MAJOR
expenses in time, money and effort. If I remember
correctly, wasn't Grant Fuhr's father a doctor?
Notwithstanding the racial obstacles (overt and otherwise)
for a black fellow to make into yesteryear's NHL - see
Willie O'Ree - today, I believe economics are the prime
hurdle of aspiring big leaguers - or rather their parents.
This regardless of lineage.

luke
P.S. The Leafs could use a forward like Jarome. Philly is
rolling over them.

Helgi Briem said:

Lyle McDonald said:

Quoted message said:

"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has nothing
to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider this: the
dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact same
species with the same biology, and they can produce
fertile offspring. But they segregate themselves, just
like we humans do, because they look different...

We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c
you are a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in population
genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an entirely social
construct because the boundaries of one race or another are
entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of various genes vary all
over the place, but do not follow the boundaries of what
people refer to as different races. White Americans and
Black Americans are closer genetically than Black Americans
and Black Africans. Races are delineated mostly by skin
colour, a pretty meaningless biological variable and people
are assigned to one race or the other on arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They can
not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.
About 85% of the variation is within Africa anyway, since
humans originated there and only small sub-groups migrated
out of Africa.

Yes, you are right. Most people don't realize that the main
genetic differences are between people, not between
populations, or 'races.' Genetic differences between the
latter are mostly superficial and attributable to their
environmental conditions, which determines their phenotype,
even though responses may differ.

But talking about 'race' and 'ethnic groups' prompts emotive
responses more than objective consideration. 'Race' is a
human construct that allow us to categorize differences
because some of these differences appear in certain
subpopulations. It provides clear boxes to put people in.
But it does not predicate or justify differential treatment.

For more information on genes and populations, folks should
read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the field in
many ways.

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Helgi Briem said:

Lyle McDonald said:

> "Race" is entirely a social construct, which has
> nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider
> this: the dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact
> same species with the same biology, and they can
> produce fertile offspring. But they segregate
> themselves, just like we humans do, because they look
> different...
>
We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c
you are a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in
population genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an
entirely social construct because the boundaries of one
race or another are entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of
various genes vary all over the place, but do not follow
the boundaries of what people refer to as different
races. White Americans and Black Americans are closer
genetically than Black Americans and Black Africans.
Races are delineated mostly by skin colour, a pretty
meaningless biological variable and people are assigned
to one race or the other on arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.

Just recently heard that cheetahs showed (by contrast)
almost no genetic variation from individual to
individual. (I've heard speculation that extensive
inbreeding is one contributing factor in their
difficulties in the wild.

That is true. A research group in Oregon has a large
colony used for studying them and trying to save their
genetic heritage. You could almost consider it a live
cheetah germ bank.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, some of the designation of taxonomy mystifies me;
I thought that different species if mated, produced
offspring who are sterile (eg. mules). OTOH, wolves and
dogs produce fertile offspring, so on what basis are
they distinct species?

It depends on whom you talk to or read. Speciation is
complex, and has historically been the topic of controversy
('rules and guidelines' for true speciation). Ernest Mayr
addresses this well in his recent book "What Evolution Is."

The defining boundaries of speciation are in flux again, as
demonstrated by the push to reassign several species. For
example, dogs and wolves would be in one species, with
different subspecies; humans and several non-human primates
would be the same species but also with different subspecies
(this has met with heated non-scientific opposition).

Also, just for your reference, there have been rare cases of
reproductively-viable mules. One just born recently (I read
about that a month or so ago). The boundaries are becoming
rather vague, but evolution works that way, back and forth.

Quoted message said:

Also heard recently that naked mole rats are cold-blooded--
I thought being warm-blooded was a sine qua non of
mammalia.

Not really, Monotremes (aka duck billed platypus, which also
lays eggs) is cold-blooded. BTW, there is no animal/mammal
that is really 'cold-blooded.' They merely thermoregulate
their temperatures differently. Very efficiently, too. The
latter animals derive nearly all their heat from external
sources. We as warm-blooded creatures derive ours from
internal combustion: metabolism.

Again, the boundaries are blurred 🙂

(so much for neat little boxes, aye?)

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:408dadc3$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

Whatever the case may be for cycling, that "population
geneticist" does

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know everything about physiology and genetics. And when
he says that Americans of African descent are closer
genetically to Americans of

European

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

descent than they are to Africans we have good reason to
question his understanding of genetics and/or
statistics.

Why do we have reason to question it?

To point out what is painfully obvious to everyone except
you and this "population geneticist": Neither
geographical location nor citizenship is not a
determinant of genetic material.

elzinator said:

For more information on genes and populations, folks should
read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the field in
many ways.

Wow, that's a name I came across in an English class, go
figure. Linguistics and all that.

--
kj

elzinator said:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:05:23 -0400, Mark & Steven Bornfeld

DDS said:

Helgi Briem said:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:33:22 -0500, Lyle McDonald
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>>"Race" is entirely a social construct, which has
>>nothing to do with physiology whatsoever. Consider
>>this: the dove and the pigeon are identical, the exact
>>same species with the same biology, and they can
>>produce fertile offspring. But they segregate
>>themselves, just like we humans do, because they look
>>different...
>>
>
>We're going to segregate you from the smart peopele b/c
>you are a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>[censored] and cram it up your socially constructed bung.

Well, I'm a biologist, formerly specialising in
population genetics and I tend to agree. 'Race' is an
entirely social construct because the boundaries of one
race or another are entirely arbitrary. Frequencies of
various genes vary all over the place, but do not follow
the boundaries of what people refer to as different
races. White Americans and Black Americans are closer
genetically than Black Americans and Black Africans.
Races are delineated mostly by skin colour, a pretty
meaningless biological variable and people are assigned
to one race or the other on arbitrary grounds.

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal.

Just recently heard that cheetahs showed (by contrast)
almost no genetic variation from individual to
individual. (I've heard speculation that extensive
inbreeding is one contributing factor in their
difficulties in the wild.

That is true. A research group in Oregon has a large
colony used for studying them and trying to save their
genetic heritage. You could almost consider it a live
cheetah germ bank.

Quoted message said:

OTOH, some of the designation of taxonomy mystifies me;
I thought that different species if mated, produced
offspring who are sterile (eg. mules). OTOH, wolves and
dogs produce fertile offspring, so on what basis are
they distinct species?

It depends on whom you talk to or read. Speciation is
complex, and has historically been the topic of
controversy ('rules and guidelines' for true speciation).
Ernest Mayr addresses this well in his recent book "What
Evolution Is."

The defining boundaries of speciation are in flux again,
as demonstrated by the push to reassign several species.
For example, dogs and wolves would be in one species, with
different subspecies; humans and several non-human
primates would be the same species but also with different
subspecies (this has met with heated non-scientific
opposition).

Also, just for your reference, there have been rare cases
of reproductively-viable mules. One just born recently (I
read about that a month or so ago). The boundaries are
becoming rather vague, but evolution works that way, back
and forth.

Quoted message said:

Also heard recently that naked mole rats are cold-blooded--
I thought being warm-blooded was a sine qua non of
mammalia.

Not really, Monotremes (aka duck billed platypus, which
also lays eggs) is cold-blooded. BTW, there is no
animal/mammal that is really 'cold-blooded.' They merely
thermoregulate their temperatures differently. Very
efficiently, too. The latter animals derive nearly all
their heat from external sources. We as warm-blooded
creatures derive ours from internal combustion:
metabolism.

Again, the boundaries are blurred 🙂

(so much for neat little boxes, aye?)

Thanks--fascinating topic!

Steve

Quoted message said:

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Luke said:

In article <rcousine-
[email hidden]>, Ryan Cousineau

Quoted message said:

There are obvious cultural reasons for these racial
disparities, like the fact that there aren't that many
blacks in cycling-mad Europe, and aside from Major
Taylor, there aren't a lot of black role models in
cycling.

I find this emphasis on "role models" to be inflated. Was
there an infux of hockey playing kids of Polish descent
following Gretzky's stellar career? Will Pantani's
ignominous demise result in legions of Italians deserting
cycling? Or did OJ Simpson's fall from grace discourage
American blacks from aspiring to careers in football?

Well no, but Gretzky was a product of a very supportive
(Canadian) culture in which to become a hockey player, not
to mention having access to a backyard rink, a tradition in
the considerable swaths of Canada that get cold enough to
support such a thing (Lotusland, where I live, not so much).
And you're talking about players who were really ones of
many, culturally speaking. Gretzky yes, but also Stan
Makita, and legions of other players of Ukranian, Polish,
and whatever non-British Isles descent made up so much of
the prarie and rural Ontario settlers for so long, and then
made up the rank and file of Canadian hockey players.

Quoted message said:

Having the means to participate in a sport - both
physically and culturally - by culturally I mean how the
greater community expresses itself through a particular
sport , how highly it's particpants are esteemed,
supported, etc... as well encouragement to engage at the
local level: These play a more prominent role than those
abstractions of the media age; 'role models'

That's true. I agree with this emphasis: growing up in a
neighbourhood that plays a lot of hockey, regardless of
"role model" or racial considerations, is a big predictor of
what sport kids will try out.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, basketball has a place in Afro-American culture
that rivals the place of hockey in Canadian culture (as
sport which, weirdly enough, has a surprising (albeit
small) number of black or partly black players,
including notables like Grant Fuhr and Jarome frigging
Iginla, who just about singlehandedly knocked my beloved
Canucks out of the playoffs with his performance as best
player on the Calgary Flames (he's a local boy there,
having been raised in Alberta).

I'd like to add economic reasons also. Enrolling and
underwriting a child's participation in organized hockey
to the point where a level of skill (if possible) is
acquired that enables entry into the big leagues involves
MAJOR expenses in time, money and effort. If I remember
correctly, wasn't Grant Fuhr's father a doctor?
Notwithstanding the racial obstacles (overt and
otherwise) for a black fellow to make into yesteryear's
NHL - see Willie O'Ree - today, I believe economics are
the prime hurdle of aspiring big leaguers - or rather
their parents. This regardless of lineage.

Yes, I'll agree with economics, too. I don't know Fuhr's
history, but clearly his family was prosperous enough to let
him play hockey. Iginla is the son of a prominent Edmonton
lawyer, but it should be said that Jarome's father arrived
in Canada at age 18, worked his way through law school, and
generally did the Horatio Alger story in one rather fast-
moving generation:

colbycosh.comhockey04.htmlOpen ↗
espn.go.com1397030.htmlOpen ↗

His son basically had a typical hockey-mad Edmonton
upbringing, and happened to be incredibly talented.

Quoted message said:

luke
P.S. The Leafs could use a forward like Jarome. Philly is
rolling over them.

I believe there are 29 teams besides Calgary that could use
a forward like Jarome. I don't see a lot of teams saying,
"no, he wouldn't fit into our system." I'm thinking massive
game-breaking goal-scoring talent and an easygoing demeanor
work well on most teams 🙂.

Back to cycling:

In general, the North American culture of cycling is
relatively small, the junior leagues are not very strong in
most parts of the country, and the equipment is expensive,
making the sport into an aerobically demanding, smelly (or
is that just me?) version of golf, or an expensively-
equipped version of long-distance running. So really, there
isn't the raw exposure to racing.

I'm probably classic proof of that: I sorta liked riding my
bike as a kid, and even rode a fair distance (10 km or so,
with a serious hill on the way) to high school on a regular
basis, but it wasn't like there was a group of kid cyclists
prominently showing me what could be done if I rode really
hard, or joined the school team, or whatever. So I played
soccer badly for several years, played baseball very badly
for a year, nursed bad knees, a bad back, and a family-
encouraged devotion to clumsy recreational water-skiing
through my teenage years, and kept my mountain bike around
for very rare usage.

And then I got on my bike three years ago, and found out
that I was remarkably fast for someone who just rode to work
and back. Had I discovered this in high school, or had a
local team to look up to, or basically any exposure to
organized bike racing, I might have become a half-decent
racer by now, maybe a fast Cat 3 or a slow Cat 2. Instead,
it took me until my 30th year to hit a normal BMI, and now
I'm going to spend a year getting faster and work my way
from Cat 5 to Cat 4. It's my parents' fault! 🙂.

Ahem.

I suspect that in large parts of Western Europe, I would
have figured out fast that I was no good at footy, skipped
the embarrassing baseball interlude altogether, and gone to
watch the local bike races during the Spring and Summer. And
maybe tried to ride my bike as fast as I could, and pretty
soon realize I was outracing all the kids on my block, and
then I would have known it was time to work a paper route
(or whatever it is little French kids do to pay for their
bikes) so I could join the local cadet league.

Pardon my self-indulgent alternate-history fantasies here.
The point is that you're quite right, most athletes come
from places that are hotspots for their particular sport
because that's a good indicator that you're going to test
your ability in that sport (why are so great runners Kenyan?
Because everybody in Kenya runs long distances. See Hockey,
Canadians).

Why aren't there many fast black cyclists? Because there
aren't many cycling hotspots on the globe with significant
black populations. See also Cricketers, South American.

-RjC.
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

Kevin J said:

elzinator said:

For more information on genes and populations, folks
should read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the
field in many ways.

Wow, that's a name I came across in an English class, go
figure. Linguistics and all that.

"Genes, Languages and People"

He's a cool dude (Italian, too 😉

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mark &
Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct me if I'm wrong. I recall Tiger being
asked this, and his response is that he feels he
is African-American. I don't know what this says
about his relationship to his mother.

It says that you are either misremembering or have not
heard his once-and-never-again statement on his race:

nationalreview.comnordlinger0906Open ↗
02.asp

It may also mean I hear one of his other "once and
never again statements". I am willing to accept his
public statements. I think he bears no responsibility
to make them. I don't know that I would have made the
choices he has in this regard, but they are his to
make.

I think a lot of it has to do with the dual problem Woods
has: he doesn't want to answer a lot of questions about his
race, and when he first became a famous golfer he got asked
a lot of questions about his race, largely because it was an
easy (lazy?) hook on which to hang a Tiger story ("he's a
black golfer! That's like being a white boxer! Well, at
least, we think he's black. Well he's sorta black. He meets
the one-drop criteria, so he must be black right? So what if
he's part Scottish. Cablinasian? What the hell is that?"😉.

In our lifetimes there may well be an elite cyclist who
becomes Sports-Illustrated-famous and I'm sure for the first
several years of his (or her) career, every story about him
will reference Major Taylor, racial identity, and the
athlete's groundbreaking status. Just like everybody should
be proud that Lance Armstrong broke the Texan barrier, or
the single-parent barrier, or the Republican cyclist
barrier, or whatever.

Oh right, it's the cancer-survivor barrier. Actually, that
is an interesting story, since cancer usually kills and
weakens athletes instead of just making them more determined
and aggressive. As obstacles go, that's a real one.

Well, I'm making less sense than usual, so I'll stop now.
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

In article <[email hidden]>,

elzinator said:

For more information on genes and populations, folks
should read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the
field in many ways.

As an aside, the person generally credited with the
creation of the concept of 'race' is Carl Linnaeus, who
created the taxonomic system used to describe plants and
animals. But his proposal was given a significant tweak
by Johann Friedrich Blumenbach: "By moving from the
Linnaean four-race system to his own five-race scheme,
Blumenbach radically changed the geometry of human order
from a geographically based model without explicit
ranking to a hierarchy of worth, oddly based upon
perceived beauty, and fanning out in two directions from
a Caucasian ideal." (From Stephen Jay Gould: <www-www-Open ↗
.greeninformation.com/The%20Geometer%20of%20Race.htm>😉

It is interesting to consider what differences determine
what is a species, in taxonomic terms. For example,
domesticated dogs are all one species; note the
differences between an Irish Wolfhound and a Chihuahua.
Then look at the differences between the various
subspecies of Asian Water Monitors: huge differences vs.
fairly small differences.

--
tanx, Howard

Q: Can we call it a quagmire yet?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Shayne Wissler said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

Whatever the case may be for cycling, that "population
geneticist" does not know everything about physiology
and genetics. And when he says that Americans of
African descent are closer genetically to Americans of
European descent than they are to Africans we have
good reason to question his understanding of genetics
and/or statistics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do we have reason to question it?

Quoted message said:

To point out what is painfully obvious to everyone except
you and this "population geneticist": Neither geographical
location nor citizenship is not a determinant of genetic
material.

English, please?

You implicitly made a claim. I'm just asking for a
reference.

<snip>

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ryan Cousineau said:

I believe there are 29 teams besides Calgary that could
use a forward like Jarome. I don't see a lot of teams
saying, "no, he wouldn't fit into our system." I'm
thinking massive game-breaking goal-scoring talent and an
easygoing demeanor work well on most teams 🙂.

Back to cycling:

In general, the North American culture of cycling is
relatively small, the junior leagues are not very strong
in most parts of the country, and the equipment is
expensive, making the sport into an aerobically demanding,
smelly (or is that just me?) version of golf,

lol

Quoted message said:

or an expensively-equipped version of long-distance
running. So really, there isn't the raw exposure to
racing.

I'm probably classic proof of that: I sorta liked riding
my bike as a kid, and even rode a fair distance (10 km or
so, with a serious hill on the way) to high school on a
regular basis, but it wasn't like there was a group of kid
cyclists prominently showing me what could be done if I
rode really hard, or joined the school team, or whatever.
So I played soccer badly for several years, played
baseball very badly for a year, nursed bad knees, a bad
back, and a family-encouraged devotion to clumsy
recreational water-skiing through my teenage years, and
kept my mountain bike around for very rare usage.

And then I got on my bike three years ago, and found out
that I was remarkably fast for someone who just rode to
work and back. Had I discovered this in high school, or
had a local team to look up to, or basically any
exposure to organized bike racing, I might have become a
half-decent racer by now, maybe a fast Cat 3 or a slow
Cat 2. Instead, it took me until my 30th year to hit a
normal BMI, and now I'm going to spend a year getting
faster and work my way from Cat 5 to Cat 4. It's my
parents' fault! 🙂.

Ahem.

I suspect that in large parts of Western Europe, I would
have figured out fast that I was no good at footy, skipped
the embarrassing baseball interlude altogether, and gone
to watch the local bike races during the Spring and
Summer. And maybe tried to ride my bike as fast as I
could, and pretty soon realize I was outracing all the
kids on my block, and then I would have known it was time
to work a paper route (or whatever it is little French
kids do to pay for their bikes) so I could join the local
cadet league.

Pardon my self-indulgent alternate-history fantasies here.
The point is that you're quite right, most athletes come
from places that are hotspots for their particular sport
because that's a good indicator that you're going to test
your ability in that sport (why are so great runners
Kenyan? Because everybody in Kenya runs long distances.
See Hockey, Canadians).

True. I remember Steve Bauer and Olympic medallist Curt
Harnett. Their exploits were to inspire a generation of
budding Canadian Armstrongs. Well the seeds didn't
germinate. A local fellow, Michael Barry Jr. (USPS), is now
competing in Europe and elsewhere but (if I read his history
correctly) his love of cycling - and the means to pursue it
- stemmed from the cultural and sporting sensibilities of
his father; a British emigrant that operated a succession of
bicycle shops in Toronto and now builds custom frames
<http://www.bikespecialties.com/>.

Your story is similar to mine in many respects and to
a large degree reveals why the sport is not as popular
in North America (in my estimation) as it should be.
The bicycle in North America is a mode of conveyance
that's afforded a status that's only slightly superior
to that of a toy.

There's a symbiosis between the popularity and perception of
a recreational or utilitarian activity and it's organization
and presentation as a 'professional' pursuit. In North
America, the bicycle is just not taken seriously. Until that
changes, pro bicycle sports will languish.

Quoted message said:

Why aren't there many fast black cyclists? Because there
aren't many cycling hotspots on the globe with significant
black populations. See also Cricketers, South American.

-RjC.
--

And China as well. More bicycles there than anywhere. But I
suppose the absence of Chinese nationals in the Pro Peleton
is a matter for another thread...

Just a last observation. Frequently in Toronto I pass by the
housing project of "Regent Park." On it's southern periphery
is an outdoor ice rink. It's a winter sight in Canada that's
taken for granted: Kids playing hockey. But in this case,
the number of rosy cheeked white complexions among those
swinging lumber constitute a minority. Most of the hackers
trace their lineage to the Indian subcontinent, the
Caribbean and the middle east.

But, of course, most don the obligatory Leaf jerseys; Sundin
13, Domi 28, Belfour 20 etc.. They don't care that Matts is
a Swede, Domi's parents originated from Albania or that
Belfour's from Manitoba. They just want to play.

luke

elzinator said:

Helgi Briem said:

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They can
not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.
About 85% of the variation is within Africa anyway, since
humans originated there and only small sub-groups migrated
out of Africa.

Yes, you are right. Most people don't realize that the
main genetic differences are between people, not between
populations, or 'races.' Genetic differences between the
latter are mostly superficial and attributable to their
environmental conditions, which determines their
phenotype, even though responses may differ.

Genetic differences as studied in human population genetics
are measured from almost 100% neutral variations. The extent
of these differences and the between/within population ratio
is a simple reflection of effective population sizes and
history, and has almost nothing to do with anything on the
level of phenotype.

Races can well be social construct but you cannot argue for
or against it by appealing to the extent of neutral
variability ("neutral" as in Motoo Kimura). Cichlids is one
example of very unusual between/within species variability
distribution. One could argue that two randomly chosen
individuals from two different species are more similar than
two random individuals from the same species.

DZ

Quoted message said:

But talking about 'race' and 'ethnic groups' prompts
emotive responses more than objective consideration.
'Race' is a human construct that allow us to categorize
differences because some of these differences appear in
certain subpopulations. It provides clear boxes to put
people in. But it does not predicate or justify
differential treatment.

For more information on genes and populations, folks
should read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the
field in many ways.

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:408dcec2$1@darkstar...

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler said:

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

Shayne Wissler <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Whatever the case may be for cycling, that
> "population geneticist"

does not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> know everything about physiology and genetics. And
> when he says that Americans of African descent are
> closer genetically to Americans of

European

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> descent than they are to Africans we have good
> reason to question

his

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> understanding of genetics and/or statistics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do we have reason to question it?

Quoted message said:

To point out what is painfully obvious to everyone
except you and this "population geneticist": Neither
geographical location nor citizenship

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not a determinant of genetic material.

English, please?

You don't look like your mommy and daddy because you grew up
in their house.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Luke said:

<snip>

In article <rcousine-
[email hidden]>, Ryan Cousineau

Quoted message said:

I believe there are 29 teams besides Calgary that could
use a forward like Jarome. I don't see a lot of teams
saying, "no, he wouldn't fit into our system." I'm
thinking massive game-breaking goal-scoring talent and
an easygoing demeanor work well on most teams 🙂.

Back to cycling:

In general, the North American culture of cycling is
relatively small, the junior leagues are not very strong
in most parts of the country, and the equipment is
expensive, making the sport into an aerobically
demanding, smelly (or is that just me?) version of golf,

lol

Quoted message said:

or an expensively-equipped version of long-distance
running. So really, there isn't the raw exposure to
racing.

I'm probably classic proof of that: I sorta liked riding
my bike as a kid, and even rode a fair distance (10 km
or so, with a serious hill on the way) to high school on
a regular basis, but it wasn't like there was a group of
kid cyclists prominently showing me what could be done
if I rode really hard, or joined the school team, or
whatever. So I played soccer badly for several years,
played baseball very badly for a year, nursed bad knees,
a bad back, and a family-encouraged devotion to clumsy
recreational water-skiing through my teenage years, and
kept my mountain bike around for very rare usage.

And then I got on my bike three years ago, and found out
that I was remarkably fast for someone who just rode to
work and back. Had I discovered this in high school, or
had a local team to look up to, or basically any
exposure to organized bike racing, I might have become a
half-decent racer by now, maybe a fast Cat 3 or a slow
Cat 2. Instead, it took me until my 30th year to hit a
normal BMI, and now I'm going to spend a year getting
faster and work my way from Cat 5 to Cat 4. It's my
parents' fault! 🙂.

Ahem.

I suspect that in large parts of Western Europe, I would
have figured out fast that I was no good at footy,
skipped the embarrassing baseball interlude altogether,
and gone to watch the local bike races during the Spring
and Summer. And maybe tried to ride my bike as fast as I
could, and pretty soon realize I was outracing all the
kids on my block, and then I would have known it was
time to work a paper route (or whatever it is little
French kids do to pay for their bikes) so I could join
the local cadet league.

Pardon my self-indulgent alternate-history fantasies
here. The point is that you're quite right, most
athletes come from places that are hotspots for their
particular sport because that's a good indicator that
you're going to test your ability in that sport (why are
so great runners Kenyan? Because everybody in Kenya runs
long distances. See Hockey, Canadians).

True. I remember Steve Bauer and Olympic medallist Curt
Harnett. Their exploits were to inspire a generation of
budding Canadian Armstrongs. Well the seeds didn't
germinate. A local fellow, Michael Barry Jr. (USPS), is
now competing in Europe and elsewhere but

But, but, grassroots efforts starting with kids may work
wonders. Locally, there is a pretty big BMX racing scene and
a very lively high school mountain-bike racing league. Those
mountain biking high-schoolers don't realize it, but they're
doing perfect preparation not only for XC racing but also to
become roadies. And since a lot of these high school
programs are organized by roadie parents, they then tell the
kids "hey, you should get involved with dEVo" (or other young-
rider programs). Result: a pretty active young-racer culture
in Vancouver.

Quoted message said:

Your story is similar to mine in many respects and to a
large degree reveals why the sport is not as popular in
North America (in my estimation) as it should be. The
bicycle in North America is a mode of conveyance that's
afforded a status that's only slightly superior to that
of a toy.

Quoted message said:

And China as well. More bicycles there than anywhere. But
I suppose the absence of Chinese nationals in the Pro
Peleton is a matter for another thread...

It's quite simple: in China, the bike is transportation, and
not sporting equipment. Same goes for Taiwan. Both countries
look down on bikes as a sort of developing-nation transition
to cars, unlike the Netherlands or Japan, where they are
still pretty standard middle-class transportation, even for
car-owners. One of the most impressive sights on my short
Sunday-morning tour of Amsterdam was the huge numbers of
bike racks outside the train stations. They were empty for
the weekend, but were quite necessary for the commuting
cyclists during the week.

Quoted message said:

Just a last observation. Frequently in Toronto I pass by
the housing project of "Regent Park." On it's southern
periphery is an outdoor ice rink. It's a winter sight in
Canada that's taken for granted: Kids playing hockey. But
in this case, the number of rosy cheeked white complexions
among those swinging lumber constitute a minority. Most of
the hackers trace their lineage to the Indian
subcontinent, the Caribbean and the middle east.

But, of course, most don the obligatory Leaf jerseys;
Sundin 13, Domi 28, Belfour 20 etc.. They don't care that
Matts is a Swede, Domi's parents originated from Albania
or that Belfour's from Manitoba. They just want to play.

Hee hee. As Colby Cosh put it in one of his articles (I'm
paraphrasing from memory), Canadians are rather color-blind
when it comes to kids with good puck-handling skills and a
wicked shot. And clearly, the local immigrants in your area
are assimilating nicely 🙂.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:38:17 GMT, DZ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

elzinator said:

Helgi Briem said:

Yes, people vary a lot genetically. They are probably the
most genetically heterogeneous species of animal. They
can not be divided into 'races' in any non-subjective way
because the variation is continuous and not discrete.
About 85% of the variation is within Africa anyway, since
humans originated there and only small sub-groups
migrated out of Africa.

Yes, you are right. Most people don't realize that the
main genetic differences are between people, not between
populations, or 'races.' Genetic differences between the
latter are mostly superficial and attributable to their
environmental conditions, which determines their
phenotype, even though responses may differ.

Genetic differences as studied in human population genetics
are measured from almost 100% neutral variations. The
extent of these differences and the between/within
population ratio is a simple reflection of effective
population sizes and history, and has almost nothing to do
with anything on the level of phenotype.

Races can well be social construct but you cannot argue for
or against it by appealing to the extent of neutral
variability ("neutral" as in Motoo Kimura). Cichlids is one
example of very unusual between/within species variability
distribution. One could argue that two randomly chosen
individuals from two different species are more similar
than two random individuals from the same species.

I'm calling [censored] on this. Perhaps some "species" are
very close, but there's quite a bit of variability in
cichlids. Most are aggressive, but there are some that can
even be kept in a community tank. Differences in physical
characteristics can be striking as well. I'm getting the
impression that geneticists must really be dropping the ball
somewhere in how genetic %-similarity is measured.

Proton Soup

Quoted message said:

DZ

Quoted message said:

But talking about 'race' and 'ethnic groups' prompts
emotive responses more than objective consideration.
'Race' is a human construct that allow us to categorize
differences because some of these differences appear in
certain subpopulations. It provides clear boxes to put
people in. But it does not predicate or justify
differential treatment.

For more information on genes and populations, folks
should read Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He's pioneered the
field in many ways.

Bioinformatics: "What is a sheep; only millions of little
bits of sheepness whirling around and doing intricate
convolutions inside the sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"