G
Guest
Guest
This obviously isn't a post specific to American Football, but I submit it here for the reason of greater traffic.
Racial inequity in sport and the role of exogenous androgens
I suppose it's common knowledge that different groups show variant levels of relative blood-testosterone following along ethnic- or race-specific, (or, perhaps more, accurately latitudinal) lines, and that this is commonly cited as (one of ) the chief phenotypic differences when examining the fact of ethnic performance disparity in sport. It's no secret that more southerly hominid types are developmentally accelerated relative to their more northerly (id est: neotenous or paedomorphic) cousins; this is true of most higher vertebrates...it stands to reason and is consistent among human groups as well. The mechanism of this precocity, most here likely presume, is that slightly augmented presence of blood-testosterone in these accelerated groups. However, I might point out another physiological mechanism in this: The relative affinity or sensitivity of hormone (specifically in this case, androgen) receptors in variant populations. This is (exponentially?) significant with the introduction of exogenous, performance-enhancing androgens.
I myself can attest to this anecdotally; perhaps some of you reading will have corroborative recalls. I, myself, am of a "southerly type" Caucasian extraction, and following with this, can recall being developmentally accelerated relative to certain other more conservative, or what I might call, neotenous, children. That is, most especially East-Asian Orientalid types, Amerindian Orientalid types, and also most Northerly Nordic-type Caucasians and other whites with some other obviously northern or central-European or Asiatic admixture. I grew up in a very ethnically diverse region, by most any standard. As I remember, it was only those most southerly groups (very swarthy southerly Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern Caucasian Whites, Mediterranean-Caucasian or Mulatto derived Hispanics, and Sub-Saharan-West-African derived Blacks) who seemed as accelerated (or, especially in the case of Black kids, more so.) I, myself, was always very athletic by any standard; there seems to be a correlative between developmental precocity, general muscularity and motor-neural recruitment (I won't get into this here, but I think the implication is clear enough.) As a young man, I had occasion to experiment with common steroids, and was amazed to see some very relatively impressive results from only limited, sporadic experimentation. The guy I bought the stuff off kept something of an eye on my development, and said that I was one the most "gifted gainers" he had seen, the only other guy he mentioned as being "gifted" in this regard was a swarthy, southerly-type guy of Croatian extraction. Of the many dozens of guys in my extended group of (school, gym, work, etc.) relations that I knew to experiment at any level with exogenous androgens, I very definitely recall a correlation in this regard. I knew more than one notherly-type (blonde/blue, pale, etc.) some very big, strapping dudes even when 'natural', who saw really very modest gains from steroid use (some with pretty relatively bad incidentals, most notably, 'gyno', something I never even saw a hint of myself.) The only (half) Black I can recall, a part-time training partner (a 6-foot, 180-pounder, naturally) saw some pretty impressive results from only a couple of simple tes-suspension shots bought as something of a lark. I've seen some Japanese pro-wrestlers who obviously use 'roids, and they seem especially cursed in this regard, often getting just plain bloated and ravaged by 'gyno'. One Asian guy I recall at the gym seemed to get pretty good (Caucasian-level) results; he was Vietnamese, a relatively swarthy, southern Orientalid type.
I've heard it said before, and I'll point out again here in paraphrase. The only difference between 'great' amateur bodybuilders and the guys who go pro (even after accounting for things like genetic gifts of 'good' muscle bellies & tendon insertions & aesthetic body symmetry, yadda yadda) is that the pros are often just the guys who happen to be blessed with big, greedy testosterone receptors. My dealer, as well as more than a few others, had told me I could be something of a pro-am competitor. I had nice enough symmetry, was evenly proportioned (limb-length, torso dimensions, etc) and those kinds of things, and worked adequately hard in the gym (maybe a little lazy) but these 'gifts' likely only account for less than half of a winning formula. I knew what they really meant: you just happen to have 'those kinds of receptors' (and, oh yeah, "buy more of my roids" of course!)
Pro sport is far more complex than bodybuilding, of course, but the implication is clear enough, especially in the functional bio-labs that modern American sporting arenas have become (American Football being the worst offender in this regard.) In the argument: "Do you really think White athletes don't use steroids?" I think one need not resort to ambiguous sociological commentary (however potentially valid, but likely unsupported by any conventional evidence) like "Blacks are just more likely to use them because of a tendency to caprice; therefor law of averages, etc." The disparities in relative developmental precocity and its mechanisms are likely well-known in coaching and training circles, if unspoken officially. Collegiate programs have become little more than extensions of a greater pro-sport and entertainment medium. These programs have long since discarded any vestiges of a long-forgotten paradigm intent in what I would call "moulding socially viable individuals." Instead, they're now in the business of "casting valuable commodities"...be they cogs of industry, commerce, or in this case, mass-consumer entertainment (and more than a few in this conspiracy-minded forum might suggest, social-engineering?) Using a strict cost-analysis, it's no surprise that we see the rise of small groups of 'receptor gifted' individuals skimmed off the top of larger developmentally accelerated group-wholes, for the purpose of investment in high-cost training and biochemical enhancement. This sort of thing really seemed to accelerate in the '80s, as has been pointed out before, likely when newer, more streamlined designer androgens and related training systems began to emerge (the genesis of this often coming out of the newly-crumbling Eastern bloc.) Maybe it's no coincidence that this quantum leap in Western performance (by Sub-Saharan-West-African Diaspora populations) follows with the mass-defection of Soviet and East-German sport scientists in the late '70s and '80s?
Testing this hypothesis, and controlling for other variables, consider the (relative) equity in women's competitions. Looking at sprinting (a pure test of sheer athleticism) we see similar arcs in ethnic inequity, although exponentially less so. This stands to reason since developmental/sexual precocity is (absolutely) good for male athletes, but only (sort of) good for women athletes. It is of course the very physical manifestations of woman-hood which make female athletes slower than men, so it stands to reason that any developmentally accelerated group (as a result of one of the same mechanisms which bestows this favour when enlisting exogenous performance enhancing hormones) should see a lesser advantage in the case of the females. Exogenous androgens can decrease bust size as well as general estrogen-enduced fatty-deposition, but some other specifically female physiological morphology remain impairments (wide hips being the most notable) and these would manifest earlier and in some cases to greater extremes (given a standard bell-curving distribution) in the case of developmentally precocious groups. In a sport like sprinting, where exogenous androgens are used, we might expect still to see these 'receptor gifted' groups occupying the most elite positions (when some of these impairments happen to be less manifest as a result of circumstances of individual physical morphology) with a smaller but well-represented number from the less 'receptor gifted' populations; and this seems to be the case.
We see patterns that parallel this in other sporting endeavours: consider changing attitudes regarding sport-specific steroid recruitment. Often in the evolution of different sports, there had been attitudes in the past that "steroids will just make you cumbersome and slow and won't help in this sport"...this was most notably true in baseball, for example. This attitude actually had a good deal of validity in the past, when steroids were still very poorly engineered and steroid-specific training systems had not been conceived. With the gradual introduction of newer steroids and training systems, we see performance enhancement being introduced into formerly 'finesse' -based sports like baseball, track & field (especially the sprints starting in the late sixties) boxing, etc. Changes in these sports' demographics seemed to follow. Even in those countries that continued to pump out competitive athletes, sprinters, for example, most notably the Eastern Bloc, to compete with 'Western' (re: Black) athletes, we see a remarkably similar microcosmic pattern. The great Valeriy Borzov, for example, was Ukrainian, a relatively southerly type of Slav, as was virtually all of the competitive Caucasian-derived sprinters to the modern era, be they Bulgarian (Petrov), Pole (Woronin and others), Italian (Mennea and others) and a host of other great Ukrainian sprinters during the Communist sprint hay-days. Of course there was Allan Wells and Geir Moen, but even they seemed sort of swarthy by the standards of their respective regions. It's no secret that many Irish, Welsh and Scots can appear nearly Arabic in complexion; there are Phoenician and Iberian-derived Diaspora groups in Scandinavia, where entire small, remote villages in Norway can be quite swarthy. Looking at recent performers, Macrozonaris, Collio, Kenteris, Nagel are consistent here; of course Shirvington, Little, Osovnikar and Ito stand as extremes on the very far end of their respective bell-curves. I don't know about Andrey Yepishin; perhaps another great Ukrainian sprinter? Further, we see southerly Ukrainian (and Kazakh, Uzbek, etc) boxers beginning to emerge...boxing trainers long-derided steroid use, but it has become, IMHO, de rigeur for at least 20 years. I believe Vasili Alexeev identified as Ukrainian, but regardless, he could very easily have passed as even a Turk, a country which now so thoroughly dominates in power- & weightlifting. Some might point out World's Strongest Man competitions that are dominated by very nordic-type Scandinavians. I would suggest that these competitions rely as much on experience and technique, and we see older men in the elite ranks (well over 30 years.) In this case, being less 'receptor gifted' is not so much of a disadvantage (it's not that these groups don't ever see benefit, it is just that these benefits take that much longer to manifest.) Also, "Strong Man" competitions still occupy that stage of semi-contested 'folk' interest where instant-gratification gainers are not currently channeled (American Football is notorious for it's insatiable thirst for immediate 'impact' players...substitute the word 'impact' for 'juice-friendly'.)
As long as exogenous performance-enhancing androgens remain ubiquitous in any pro sport, I would expect to see these relatively exaggerated disparities to continue. With the emergence of gene-manipulation as a method of performance enhancement, we'll likely see new patterns emerge, although don't expect much of a change in the demographics. Sub-Saharan-West-African gene sets tend to show broader disparity in variance (this being consistent with a less 'bottle-necked' precursor gene pool...look up horse breeding and animal husbandry for some hints as to the future of performance enhancement in sport, if you don't believe me.)
Racial inequity in sport and the role of exogenous androgens
I suppose it's common knowledge that different groups show variant levels of relative blood-testosterone following along ethnic- or race-specific, (or, perhaps more, accurately latitudinal) lines, and that this is commonly cited as (one of ) the chief phenotypic differences when examining the fact of ethnic performance disparity in sport. It's no secret that more southerly hominid types are developmentally accelerated relative to their more northerly (id est: neotenous or paedomorphic) cousins; this is true of most higher vertebrates...it stands to reason and is consistent among human groups as well. The mechanism of this precocity, most here likely presume, is that slightly augmented presence of blood-testosterone in these accelerated groups. However, I might point out another physiological mechanism in this: The relative affinity or sensitivity of hormone (specifically in this case, androgen) receptors in variant populations. This is (exponentially?) significant with the introduction of exogenous, performance-enhancing androgens.
I myself can attest to this anecdotally; perhaps some of you reading will have corroborative recalls. I, myself, am of a "southerly type" Caucasian extraction, and following with this, can recall being developmentally accelerated relative to certain other more conservative, or what I might call, neotenous, children. That is, most especially East-Asian Orientalid types, Amerindian Orientalid types, and also most Northerly Nordic-type Caucasians and other whites with some other obviously northern or central-European or Asiatic admixture. I grew up in a very ethnically diverse region, by most any standard. As I remember, it was only those most southerly groups (very swarthy southerly Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern Caucasian Whites, Mediterranean-Caucasian or Mulatto derived Hispanics, and Sub-Saharan-West-African derived Blacks) who seemed as accelerated (or, especially in the case of Black kids, more so.) I, myself, was always very athletic by any standard; there seems to be a correlative between developmental precocity, general muscularity and motor-neural recruitment (I won't get into this here, but I think the implication is clear enough.) As a young man, I had occasion to experiment with common steroids, and was amazed to see some very relatively impressive results from only limited, sporadic experimentation. The guy I bought the stuff off kept something of an eye on my development, and said that I was one the most "gifted gainers" he had seen, the only other guy he mentioned as being "gifted" in this regard was a swarthy, southerly-type guy of Croatian extraction. Of the many dozens of guys in my extended group of (school, gym, work, etc.) relations that I knew to experiment at any level with exogenous androgens, I very definitely recall a correlation in this regard. I knew more than one notherly-type (blonde/blue, pale, etc.) some very big, strapping dudes even when 'natural', who saw really very modest gains from steroid use (some with pretty relatively bad incidentals, most notably, 'gyno', something I never even saw a hint of myself.) The only (half) Black I can recall, a part-time training partner (a 6-foot, 180-pounder, naturally) saw some pretty impressive results from only a couple of simple tes-suspension shots bought as something of a lark. I've seen some Japanese pro-wrestlers who obviously use 'roids, and they seem especially cursed in this regard, often getting just plain bloated and ravaged by 'gyno'. One Asian guy I recall at the gym seemed to get pretty good (Caucasian-level) results; he was Vietnamese, a relatively swarthy, southern Orientalid type.
I've heard it said before, and I'll point out again here in paraphrase. The only difference between 'great' amateur bodybuilders and the guys who go pro (even after accounting for things like genetic gifts of 'good' muscle bellies & tendon insertions & aesthetic body symmetry, yadda yadda) is that the pros are often just the guys who happen to be blessed with big, greedy testosterone receptors. My dealer, as well as more than a few others, had told me I could be something of a pro-am competitor. I had nice enough symmetry, was evenly proportioned (limb-length, torso dimensions, etc) and those kinds of things, and worked adequately hard in the gym (maybe a little lazy) but these 'gifts' likely only account for less than half of a winning formula. I knew what they really meant: you just happen to have 'those kinds of receptors' (and, oh yeah, "buy more of my roids" of course!)
Pro sport is far more complex than bodybuilding, of course, but the implication is clear enough, especially in the functional bio-labs that modern American sporting arenas have become (American Football being the worst offender in this regard.) In the argument: "Do you really think White athletes don't use steroids?" I think one need not resort to ambiguous sociological commentary (however potentially valid, but likely unsupported by any conventional evidence) like "Blacks are just more likely to use them because of a tendency to caprice; therefor law of averages, etc." The disparities in relative developmental precocity and its mechanisms are likely well-known in coaching and training circles, if unspoken officially. Collegiate programs have become little more than extensions of a greater pro-sport and entertainment medium. These programs have long since discarded any vestiges of a long-forgotten paradigm intent in what I would call "moulding socially viable individuals." Instead, they're now in the business of "casting valuable commodities"...be they cogs of industry, commerce, or in this case, mass-consumer entertainment (and more than a few in this conspiracy-minded forum might suggest, social-engineering?) Using a strict cost-analysis, it's no surprise that we see the rise of small groups of 'receptor gifted' individuals skimmed off the top of larger developmentally accelerated group-wholes, for the purpose of investment in high-cost training and biochemical enhancement. This sort of thing really seemed to accelerate in the '80s, as has been pointed out before, likely when newer, more streamlined designer androgens and related training systems began to emerge (the genesis of this often coming out of the newly-crumbling Eastern bloc.) Maybe it's no coincidence that this quantum leap in Western performance (by Sub-Saharan-West-African Diaspora populations) follows with the mass-defection of Soviet and East-German sport scientists in the late '70s and '80s?
Testing this hypothesis, and controlling for other variables, consider the (relative) equity in women's competitions. Looking at sprinting (a pure test of sheer athleticism) we see similar arcs in ethnic inequity, although exponentially less so. This stands to reason since developmental/sexual precocity is (absolutely) good for male athletes, but only (sort of) good for women athletes. It is of course the very physical manifestations of woman-hood which make female athletes slower than men, so it stands to reason that any developmentally accelerated group (as a result of one of the same mechanisms which bestows this favour when enlisting exogenous performance enhancing hormones) should see a lesser advantage in the case of the females. Exogenous androgens can decrease bust size as well as general estrogen-enduced fatty-deposition, but some other specifically female physiological morphology remain impairments (wide hips being the most notable) and these would manifest earlier and in some cases to greater extremes (given a standard bell-curving distribution) in the case of developmentally precocious groups. In a sport like sprinting, where exogenous androgens are used, we might expect still to see these 'receptor gifted' groups occupying the most elite positions (when some of these impairments happen to be less manifest as a result of circumstances of individual physical morphology) with a smaller but well-represented number from the less 'receptor gifted' populations; and this seems to be the case.
We see patterns that parallel this in other sporting endeavours: consider changing attitudes regarding sport-specific steroid recruitment. Often in the evolution of different sports, there had been attitudes in the past that "steroids will just make you cumbersome and slow and won't help in this sport"...this was most notably true in baseball, for example. This attitude actually had a good deal of validity in the past, when steroids were still very poorly engineered and steroid-specific training systems had not been conceived. With the gradual introduction of newer steroids and training systems, we see performance enhancement being introduced into formerly 'finesse' -based sports like baseball, track & field (especially the sprints starting in the late sixties) boxing, etc. Changes in these sports' demographics seemed to follow. Even in those countries that continued to pump out competitive athletes, sprinters, for example, most notably the Eastern Bloc, to compete with 'Western' (re: Black) athletes, we see a remarkably similar microcosmic pattern. The great Valeriy Borzov, for example, was Ukrainian, a relatively southerly type of Slav, as was virtually all of the competitive Caucasian-derived sprinters to the modern era, be they Bulgarian (Petrov), Pole (Woronin and others), Italian (Mennea and others) and a host of other great Ukrainian sprinters during the Communist sprint hay-days. Of course there was Allan Wells and Geir Moen, but even they seemed sort of swarthy by the standards of their respective regions. It's no secret that many Irish, Welsh and Scots can appear nearly Arabic in complexion; there are Phoenician and Iberian-derived Diaspora groups in Scandinavia, where entire small, remote villages in Norway can be quite swarthy. Looking at recent performers, Macrozonaris, Collio, Kenteris, Nagel are consistent here; of course Shirvington, Little, Osovnikar and Ito stand as extremes on the very far end of their respective bell-curves. I don't know about Andrey Yepishin; perhaps another great Ukrainian sprinter? Further, we see southerly Ukrainian (and Kazakh, Uzbek, etc) boxers beginning to emerge...boxing trainers long-derided steroid use, but it has become, IMHO, de rigeur for at least 20 years. I believe Vasili Alexeev identified as Ukrainian, but regardless, he could very easily have passed as even a Turk, a country which now so thoroughly dominates in power- & weightlifting. Some might point out World's Strongest Man competitions that are dominated by very nordic-type Scandinavians. I would suggest that these competitions rely as much on experience and technique, and we see older men in the elite ranks (well over 30 years.) In this case, being less 'receptor gifted' is not so much of a disadvantage (it's not that these groups don't ever see benefit, it is just that these benefits take that much longer to manifest.) Also, "Strong Man" competitions still occupy that stage of semi-contested 'folk' interest where instant-gratification gainers are not currently channeled (American Football is notorious for it's insatiable thirst for immediate 'impact' players...substitute the word 'impact' for 'juice-friendly'.)
As long as exogenous performance-enhancing androgens remain ubiquitous in any pro sport, I would expect to see these relatively exaggerated disparities to continue. With the emergence of gene-manipulation as a method of performance enhancement, we'll likely see new patterns emerge, although don't expect much of a change in the demographics. Sub-Saharan-West-African gene sets tend to show broader disparity in variance (this being consistent with a less 'bottle-necked' precursor gene pool...look up horse breeding and animal husbandry for some hints as to the future of performance enhancement in sport, if you don't believe me.)
