For decades world competition in sprints has been dominated by people of West African ancestry, and in long-distance running by people of East African ancestry.
Which just might indicate that our lumping these two groups together as “black” or “sub-Saharan Africans” or “Negroid” (old-school) may be mainly a result of our focus on cosmetic difference rather than deeper ones.
IOW, actual scientific study is likely to find that our three, or four, or five “races” is quite simplistic and often based on the wrong distinctions.
Personally, I dislike the word “race,” not because it is inaccurate, but because it carries a lot of baggage that makes it impossible to use without implying a lot of stuff you aren’t actually saying.
I wonder if it would be possible to discuss sub-species, a term used to describe long-isolated populations in the animal world that have differentiated from each other in significant ways, but not so much as to become separate species.
Or would that term also freak people out?
I don’t like the term race much either, because it suggests to many people different species. I don’t think the different peoples of the world are different species...they’re just different in a number of physical and mental respects. And it’s time the so-called “experts” admit as much.
What happen is that almost none of those with European ancestry take sports as a serious career choice, and of those that do, they may demand a higher price or be more difficult to deal with (because they have other choices available to them) than black athletes of similar ability, which would also create a selection bias for blacks.
Black dominance in US sports is mainly a matter of selection bias, both by the individuals and sport institutions.