More like this
Christophe Lemaitre: he runs fast for a white man
Gavin Mortimer: Why this French sprinter can only go so far - and why it’s not racist to face the facts
Two weeks ago I sat in the Stade de France in Paris watching Usain Bolt win the 100m in a time of 9.84 seconds. By the Jamaican's standards, it was an average time, way down on the world record 9.58 seconds he set last year when he won the World Championship title in Berlin.
Lining up alongside Bolt in Paris was a mere stripling of a sprinter, a tall, gangly wide-eyed French lad called Christophe Lemaitre. It looked like man against boy, and so it proved as Lemaitre trailed home in fifth place, five yards behind Bolt and America’s Asafa Powell, who came in second.
Yet just a week before that race in Paris, Lemaitre had created a little piece of history by becoming the first white man to run 100m in under 10 seconds. In winning the French Championships in 9.98 seconds, the 20-year-old from Annecy demonstrated he has potential. But potential to do what exactly? Run fast for a white man - or run fast to challenge the likes of Bolt, Powell and Tyson Gay in the London Olympics in 2012?
First the question of his colour. In the aftermath of his landmark achievement, Le Monde said the Frenchman’s victory had "launched an old and controversial debate that can be summarised by the question: Do black people run faster than white people and if so, why?"
That debate is only controversial because the politically correct choose to make it so; what is racist in acknowledging that, in general, black athletes run faster than white athletes - in the same way white swimmers, in general, swim faster than black swimmers? It is a proven fact.
As the first man to run 100 metres in under 10 seconds was a black sprinter, the USA's Jim Hines, in the 1968 Olympics. The last white sprinter to win an Olympic 100m title was Allan Wells of Britain in 1980, and one might say that was only because the USA boycotted the Moscow Olympics. If that doesn’t prove that black athletes run faster than their white counterparts then what does?
Yet there are still some people unwilling to accept this basic biological fact, among them Zoran Denoix, one of France’s national coaches.
"If one day the Chinese decide to make a guy run the 100m in less than 10 seconds, they will do it," said Denoix. "It is clear there is no genetic or other thing. It's just the kind of work you put in." A more absurd statement one would be hard pressed to find, as if we all are capable of emulating Usain Bolt in needing just 41 strides to cover 100m in 9.58 seconds.
Lemaitre’s own attitude to the debate is to avoid it, declaring in the wake of his 9.98 seconds in the French Championships: "This story is too much, I don't like it. I had a good race, I broke the record, but there is not much more to say. I did what I had to do, that's it."
The more pertinent issue surrounding Lemaitre is just how much faster can he run? In winning last night’s 100m European Championships title in Barcelona, Lemaitre clocked 10.11 seconds, a comparatively slow time by world standards. (In the final of the 100 metres in Beijing the sprinter who trailed in last did so in a time of 10.03 seconds.)
So is Lemaitre destined to remain just a decent European sprinter or can he shave another few tenths of a second off his personal best to challenge for a medal in the 2012 Olympics? At 20, he’s still young (though Usain Bolt was only 21 when he ran 9.72s in 2007) and he’s also still physically immature in comparison to other world-class sprinters.
But according to former British sprinter Darren Campbell, who won the 100m European Championship title in 1998, what Lemaitre needs to work on first is his technique. "You're born with speed, but you're not born a perfect sprinter," Campbell said in his capacity as a BBC Radio 5 reporter.
He then pinpointed several areas in which Lemaitre can improve, including his drive out of the starting blocks, and his body position as he hits full stride. "His running style at full speed is another area where he will improve,” says Campbell. “He doesn't rock and roll through his body, but because his foot placements aren't that consistent, he veers. In the first round he went out to the right hand side of the lane. If you stay straight, you'll go quicker."
But how much quicker for Lemaitre? "I think he's capable of low 9.9s,” says Campbell. "If he can eradicate these small things, why shouldn't he?" In other words, Lemaitre will never be a sprinting great, and the back of Bolt’s running vest is all he’s likely to see in the 2012 Olympic final. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
It is a real disappointment that sport stroires like this are used to make generalisations and assumptions about the ability of different ethnic groups over another. It just helps accentuate the divisiveness of the importance of the very small physical differences between ethnic groups. It is a shame that racism is supported by the ability by one tiny % of one ethnic group to successfully dominate a particular sport. The difference in speed between the fastest sprinters is very tiny but of course does becomes highly significant in elite competitions. Just because some black men have the physical ability to sprint fastet over 100m should not lead to the conclusion of black physical superirotiy.
The fastest sprinters have trained hard to achieve their success, and yet many balck sprinters can not run to the same speed as the top 3 sprinters today and there are white sprinters who are able to compete at this level.
The fastest swimmers may be white but that does not mean that all white people can swim faster than all black people. Just like the fact that the white 100m sprinters are not always the slowest. If one group does appear to dominate a sport ity is dangerous to then assume that other ethnic groups can't do it.
As a White British male I want a British athlete to win the 100m. I should not be supporting a french athlete because he is white.
Thank Billy Bloggins for some rational thinking in an emotive subject. To say that genetics takes no part in sporting ability is going too far, but to lump all humans beings into three different sets and call them 'black' 'white' and 'asian' is extraordinarily crude thinking, I wish we could just give it up now that the Human Genome Project has shown that we are all extremely closely linked genetically; the human race having contracted to one set of parents in prehistoric times. It has also shown that in the black/white sense we are almost all highly racially mixed, notwithstanding our appearance. (By the way, I used to live in the South Pacific and I assure you 'black' people can swim perfectly well out there.)
Most West Africans are the more heavily-built, muscular type of body that gives them the explosive speed you refer to. But East Africans, by contrast, are in general of lighter build, often smaller, and hence suited to long-distance endurance running. Look at the Kenyan, Ethiopian and other nations that consistently win marathon races. West Africans don't. So this isn't a white vs black issue, nor about skin colour, but what ethnic sub-group or part of a continent athletes come from.
It's human beings that run the 100m dash in under 10 seconds first and not neccesarily an athlete of European or West African descent.
Cant we just settle for an encouraging feat of human athletic endeavour and leave race out of this...
Black people have physiological differences that can be measured with scales and balances. Their bones are denser and harder than white bones. Their muscles are denser than white muscles with tougher ligaments, where the muscle joins the bone. This gives them advantage in many track events where explosive power is required for sprinting, and endurance is required for longer distances. Many blacks are heavier than water and sink - they can't swim. They never win swimming races. Facts chaps, facts.
Yet again the topic of race and its correlation to natural athleticism rears its ugly head. However, I'd like comment firstly upon Christophe Lemaitre's abilities as an athlete, not as a caucasian or frenchman, but rather as a sprinter. Lemaitre began sprinting at the age of 15 with no prior interest or ambition to enter the world of athletics, yet still managed to record a time of 10.96 in the 100m (it would be wise to note that Usain Bolt started at the age of 11). In addition, Lemaitre is the 3rd fastest person of all time for his age group, thereby highlighting another fact that makes his rise to success even more impressive. Finally, in the wake of Darren Campbell's comments, it is true that Lemaitre is not the finished package and severely lacking in the proper form and muscle mass displayed in world class sprinters. Any track fan will notice the small frame and poor technique of the young frenchman, but these are the exact reasons as to why Lemaitre is one to watch. It is not due to the colour of his skin but rather the massive amount of natural talent he has been shown to have for a sport that is relatively new to him, a sport in which he looks so physically weak and inexperienced.
In regards to the nature of the article, I find it to be quite pejorative in general, often missing out important pieces of information and intelligently worded in favour of the author's argument. For example, 'Lemaitre clocked 10.11 seconds, a comparatively slow time by world standards', yet failing to mention that the race was ran into a headwind. In addition, the term 'basic biological fact' is an extremely powerful use of both alliteration and lexis that would subtly convince most readers of the argument at hand. A basic biological fact? If the author would be so kind as to provide me with a comprehensive and credible study that has proven this 'basic biological fact', then I would enjoy seeing it because at the moment it alludes me.
After being brought up in a Jewish community, I thoroughly know the dangers of Eugenics and the effect that this pseudo-science can have upon people. If one group of people can be more athletically inclined than another, then who's to say that one race is not more naturally intelligent? or even worse, altruistic? The reason why no one says it is not due to political correctness but simply because it's idiotic to believe in theories that are so dangerously volatile. I'd like to also point out to the author that the majority of athletes to break the 100m are not of full West African descent with comprehensive studies highlighting that African-Americans and Afro-Caribbean people share large amounts of European, Native American, Chinese and Indian ancestry. Athletes are athletes based upon diligence to their chosen field and yes an inherent ability, but one that transcends race and has nothing to do with the veneration of the backward ideas put forward in this article.