Conference noted::bicycle

    Graham,
    
         I must admit that you gave Aristotle a run for his money with that
    passage.  Now that I have stopped banging my head against the wall, I 
    must say that I agree with your basic premise.  Athletes from less
    developed countries have more to gain by doing well in difficult
    sports that require character and discipline.  I would not put US
    sprinters on a pedestal yet, some sprinters from Afican countries are 
    coming along very fast - they now see potential in good sprint
    performances ( as did distance runners awhile ago ).   

    What country is the person from who has won the most tour-de-france
    races?

      I'm not sure where you're getting your info. The U.S. has had strong
    years in distance sports (with the exception of biathlons/cross country
    skiing) with respect to track. They continue dominate or do extremely
    well in hurdles, 100m's, etc... (men and women).
    
      While I agree many more countries are beginning to diversify and do
    well in spaces they've never delved into, I'm not sure it's as cut and
    dry as you've painted it. Certain countries are know for their consis-
    tent strength in certain sports (past and present). Shifts will
    naturally occur as a country recognizes a weakness and places more
    attention/publicity/money to develop athletes to participate.
    
     If I missed something or misread something forgive me. 
    
     A natural american?? Do you mean native americans? If not, there ain't
    no such animal..............
    
       Chip

    
    
    I think Graham means natural american.... one (regardless of ethnic 
    origin) who has grown up in the good life of the U.S. and sees 
    a 10 second sprint as being a more worthy sports figure than one 
    who wins a marathon. One who sees a 200 mph car lap as being more
    worthy of watching than a bicycle assault on the Alpe d'Huez (sp?). 
    
    On any given weekend in the U.S., you can watch three different golf
    tourneys, a NASCAR race, 20 American football games (or basketball or 
    baseball), yet we get 20 minutes PER YEAR of cycling. Heck, billiards
    gets more TV time. The best athletes are drawn to sports with more
    money and recognition (most people in the U.S. have no idea what 
    Greg Lemond looks like). I'm not so sure that it has as much to do with 
    a hard way of life as it does sponsorship and TV/newspaper coverage of 
    particular sports.     
    
    doug
    

    To .3
    
         I hate to attack people personally in a public forum, but your
    analysis on why white men can't run is the biggest smear of hogwash 
    that I have seen in a long time.  I don't know whether you paid
    attention to the 88 olympics or the 93 World University games but
    a black person WON a swimming event in both.
         I think the issue of racial based performances in certain sports
    comes down to percentages of a certain population ( read race or ethnic
    group ) participating in that sport that.  There are no great black 
    cyclists because there are FEW black cyclists, if blacks dominated
    cycling given the small number of black cyclists then I would 
    subscribe to a racially based explanation for their performance - the
    current state of affairs is the way it should be in cycling, you have
    few blacks and many whites, the top cyclists are all white.
         The reason that white basketball players can't out jump their
    black counterparts is due not to race but to the fact that when a kid
    participates in a basketball game in a predominately black neighborhood
    there is a premium placed on how well he jumps - a kid who cannot jump
    soon has to learn the process of leaping well to survive.  I have
    observed basketball games in both black and white neighborhoods and
    have seen games where good kids from both neighborhoods congregated and
    have noticed that in the white neighborhoods more emphasis is placed on
    shooting from a distance while in the black neighborhoods both close in
    play ( read JUMP ) and distance accuracy is practiced.  On neutral
    courts the best kids matchup well in all phases of the game, simply
    because the have practiced all phases of the game.
         Sorry about being so verbose but nothing ticks me off more than
    racially or ethically based explanations for sporting performance.  It
    ALL boils down to this;
    
      Incentive --> Motivation --> Practice and Focus --> Excellence
    
         If the first is there then the population of people in each
    subsequent phase will be large and will yield the final result.  I now
    step down from the podium.
      

    
    Re. "real' Americans
    
    	I realise that my definition isn't the politically correct one, but
    my definition is someone who has grown up in America. I don't believe
    that place of birth or your father's nationality affect your 'character
    nationality'. If you are born in the Netherlands by Dutch parents, but
    move to the US when you are 2 years old, you aren't Dutch, you're
    American because you have grown up in an American environment. If you
    leave South Africa at 30, then you are South African, because you will
    show South African characteristics.
    
    Re. Media Coverage
    
    	But why don't the media cover it. If the interest was there, then
    they would cover it to gain more readers/viewers. There's no interest
    because the nature of the sport doesn't interest...
    
    Re. Natural Ability
    
    	This is going down some dodgy ground. I have no idea of a typical
    African body, but I wouldn't dismiss it as hogwash. An example I can
    think of would be Japanese basketball players. The average Japanese
    body is much smaller than the average West African. Therefore, you can
    never have so much depth of talent in Japan than you can in countries/
    neighbourhoods that have a high number of West Africans. If someone can
    give me definate facts on different races, then I would consider it.
    
    Re. US history in long distance events
    
    	Athletics history is full of great US sprinters - Bob Beaumant,
    Jesse Owens, Carl Lewis. These names are famous the world over. There
    probably have been some good long distance runners, in the kind of
    statement I make in my base note, you have to make generalisations.
    But, you have to realise that you are an American and are far more
    likely to know them than the rest of the world. An athletes
    contribution to the sport can't be measured by his biased home country,
    but by his international fame. No US long distance runner is as famous
    outside the US as the Big 3 that I've just mentioned.
    
    Graham.

Interesting basenote and replies.

I think there is something in the idea that developed nations veer away from
'hard' sports. It must be related to the converse idea, that sports like,
for example, boxing, have always been a way out of the ghetto. However, 
there's a simpler explanation for poorer nations doing well in sports these
days, and that I think is that they are becoming developed and their
populations are now beginning to have leisure sporting activity and
in the process really gaining access to major events like the Olympics
and World Champs. With more nations in the fold, it's inevitable that the
traditional nations' dominance fades. There's simply a bigger pool of
talent now.

I've often wondered why there aren't more black cyclists. I simply don't
believe in any physiological reason (wasn't there an unbeatable black
American trackie in the early years of this century?). Maybe it's a cultural
thing.

As far as cycling being a hard sport goes, it's true and that in itself is
always going to be an attraction for people who want to really test themselves.
I think that to be a committed cyclist you in some ways are genuinely
rejecting the values of developed society, where the trend is to make every-
thing as easy as possible. We must be rebellious masochists!


Rod

The reason that people from different countries do well in certain sports is
a very complex mix of factors: cultural, economic, geographical, 
political and no doubt others.

Cultural because lots of people participate in the sport and the sport is 
held in high regard, eg France and cycling. Perhaps this is why the USA
produces the best sprinters, because kids aspire to do what they see their
idols do on TV.

Economic because certain countries are too poor to afford the facilities for
most sports, so all of their sportpeople participate in a small number of events.
Most of Africa does not have have many top class tracks, so is it any wonder
they concentrate on longer distances, especially cross country? It's the same
here in Ireland (not that we get too many medals to show for it :-)

And also ecomonic because for many people (in developed and undeveloped
countries), sport is the only way of escaping from the environment they grew
up in. The best soccer players used to be English, later South American, now 
watch out for the Africans. This is where i would agree strongly with .1 - the
wealthier your environment, the "softer" you become. This is probably the single
most influential factor in sports today.

Geographic because of high altitude, etc. This is one of the primary reasons that
Kenya produces such good athletes.

Political because certain countries, especially communist governments, use
sport as a political tool. (How many ex-eastern bloc athletes won medals this 
week, eh?) 

Having said all that, one does wonder whether certain races are genetically
more capable of doing well in certain events, given their increasing
domninance. Can it be purely motivational (undoubtedly for many black people, 
whether in the US, Europe, or Africa, sport is the only way that they can 
"beat the white-dominated system"), or is their something else involved?

And as a previous note pointed out, it is a mistake to make generalised groupings
of races for comparitive purposes. Moroccans and Algerians, who do very well
in long distance running, are closer genetically to Southern Europeans than
to Africans from further south on that continent.

    ASMITH,
    
    
    I don't think I know what you mean by "attacking" me personally.
    I haven't reviewed my note, but I don't recall putting any of
    my views on the author's research in it.
    
    But just to set the record straight... The one aspect I feel certain
    about is that when you go out for a club ride or race, some people
    have all of the physical tools to beat the hell out of you.  But
    somehow, you manage to win.  To me, that is the essence of sport.
    I live for the days when I am able to drop a kid who is forty
    pounds less than I am--on a hill! 
    
    I agree with your point.  In those studies, the author freely 
    admitted that the cultural component to the success of one
    "people group" over another is often overlooked.  It seems
    that when you have physiological differences, it is sometimes
    difficult to determine which came first, "the chicken or the egg".
    
    For example, to further use basketball/jumping as an example:
    High bone density improves the muscles ability to anchor itself
    to your joints.  However, excercise promotes high bone density.
    That leaves you asking why can Johnny jump well without injury?
    Is it because he jumps alot? or is it because he can?
    
    Black cyclist from developing countries?  The sport requires not
    only a bicycle, but significant infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.).
    That's my guess.  The club rides I do are very racially mixed, but
    everybody seems to "middle class", in terms of income.

    The World Track and Field Championships: (total medals)
    
    		Caucasians	Blacks		Asians
    1983        19		14              0
    1987	14		19		0
    1991	 3		29		1
    
    
    
    West Africa v. East Africa: (National Records)
    
    WEST
                        100 Meters	Marathon
    Cameroon	  	10.1		2:24:26	
    Ivory Coast         10.1            2:30:09 some of these marathon
    Nigeria              9.91           2:16:06 times aren't even
    Senegal             10.0            2:33:20 "world class"!
    Zaire               10.3            2:32:00
    
    EAST/NORTH
    
    Algeria 		10.2		2:13:13
    Djibouti            10.8            2:07:07
    Ethiopia            10.1            2:06:50
    Kenya               10.0            2:08:14
    Morocco             10.2            2:10:09
    Tanzania            10.1            2:08:01
    
    From the Journal of Applied Physiology, 1986.
             
    On average West African Blacks have 67.5 percent fast-twitch muscle
    fiber and French Canadian whites 59 percent.  Given a normal
    distribution curve, there should be more black individuals than 
    whites at the far end of the curve where Olympic sprinters would
    be found.

Rod, I take it that we are an athletics fan?

	The discussion about racial natural ability is fair enough, but my
basenote goes into something that I've started to believe in greatly over
the last year. Physical ability can only take you so far down the road. You
need to be an athlete mentally as well, to reach the very top. This is something
that only recently seems to have been picked up on in any great measure.

	Americans are good sprint athletes, because the American culture makes
their people go out and believe that they can reach the top. This is not a
criticism, I certainly wish that the Scottish had more self-confidence. But,
as with everything in life, every advantage brings a disadvantage and the
down-side of this confidence is that, when you really believe beyond any doubt
that you are the best and you get beaten, the fall is far greater. The
developing countries are far less emotionally fragile. Great joy and great
sorrow that is outwith their control, is part of everyday life. Our modern
society creates a smoother balance if left to run it's course. Our difference
is that our highs and our lows are more directly related to our actions. It is 
up to us whether we go for the top, or happily spend our entire lives at our
entry level. We go for the top and the emotional stress comes into play, but
ultimately we choose to go for that route and therefore choose that downside.

	Back to sport, that constant emotion change is more prominent in a
10 000m event than it is in a 100m sprint. In 100m you have 10 seconds to
run the event, too short for real emotion when the adrenalin is pumping. The
emotion comes when you finish. In 10 000m, you exeprience the great frustration
at not being able to respond to a rival's acceleration. You then experience the
great buzz that comes when you see him struggle on his own and get pulled back.
The emotions are more closely matched to those experienced to their off-track
life than it is to the wests.

	I am a firm believer in the principal that you can't change a country's
character. You can help it evolve, but you can't come in one day and say, as
from tomorrow, you're going to behave like this. Large corporations like
Digital are good examples. In the US, people are far more motivated to push
themselves up the corporate ladder. The Scottish are sheep who want to be led
(which is one of the reasons I believe we have yet to get independance). The
problem comes when an American corporation comes into Scotland, filled with
American princaples. The Scottish need led, the Americans like to motivate
and leave to get on with it and you become less productive. It's not that
either method is better, it's just that when in Rome do as the Romans do.

	In cycling, I believe that is why the Motorola squad have been so
successful. They have a series of riders who all like to work the same way.
Saiz of ONCE follows the same principle. The legs don't matter, it's whether
the personality will fit into the big picture that counts.

	I suppose the summary of my ramblings is that you can't do something
that isn't in your nature.

Graham.

    One of my favorite quotes was from the U.S. National Distance running
    coach who said, "The U.S. swimmers wouldn't be so cocky if there were
    more swimming pools in Kenya."
    
    Graham, ever heard of Frank Shorter.  He won the gold in the marathon
    in '72 and is credited with helping fuel the running explosion in the
    U.S.  Alberto Salazar held the world record in the marathon shortly
    there after.
    
    I agree with those that have stated that a country's role models have a
    lot to do with the kind of athletes that come out of that country. 
    Inspired by Borg, Sweden came out with a raft of great tennis players,
    Wilander, Edberg, Pernfors etc...  Kip Keino and Abebe Bikila inspired
    the current batch of Kenyan and Ethiopian distance runners ....
    
    I don't agree with the statement that distance running and cycling are
    harder than other sports that the western countries excel at.  I would
    argue that swimming is just as hard and the top U.S. swimmers suffer as
    much if not more that the Kenyan runners.  I would also argue that the
    decathletes work extremely hard and both Great Britain and the U.S.
    have been very successful here.  The western countries are not soft,
    they have just chosen different sports to focus on or rather the best
    athletes in those countries migrate to different sports that seem more
    glamorous to them.
    
    Don

Re: .8   Black U.S. cyclist at the turn of the century was Major Taylor from
Worcester, MA., USA.   From what I've heard (we've got a couple local 
historians on this subject), he was exploited for money as are most great U.S.
athletes, regardless of sport.   Didn't take too many years for him to burn
out badly, and fade away.

RE: U.S. athletes:

If one looks at running in the U.S. - this probably equates to other sports as
well - the best U.S. racers are terribly over-raced chasing the elusive dream
of making a comfortable (by U.S. standards) living from their sport.   Only a 
select few (U.S. marathoner Bill Rodgers) can physically withstand this beating
for all but a few years and consistently remain at the top of their game.   

An example of a U.S. athlete who has beaten (IMHO) the "system" is triathlete 
Mark Allen.   On an international level, there is noone, not a single person, 
who comes close to Allen in terms of performance.   Allen has done this by 
racing when *HE* wants, where *HE* wants.   He carefully plans his racing 
season, gearing up for the BIG ones (Hawaii Ironman, Nice Championship).   He 
certainly paid his dues (6 or so DNFs at Hawaii, for example), and has been 
lucky to be one of perhaps 3 or 4 triathletes earning comfortable six figure
salaries.   Rodgers and Allen illustrate what has happened (IMHO) to sports in
the U.S. (Racing for dollars).   One beat the system, the other physiologically
withstood it.

For those who don't know the accomplishments of these 2 great athletes, Rodgers
is certainly one of the greatest marathoners ever with 4 Boston wins, 4 NYC 
wins, U.S. Olympic team member,  and winner of prestigious international 
events such as the Fukuoka Marathon.  Allen has won the Ironman World Champion-
ship 4 consecutive times and the Nice International Tri 10 years straight.   
These events are the most prestigious tri's in the world.

RE Mark Plaatjes: too bad the media and press, and sporting world in general 
seem to focus on his citizenship rather than the fact that he defeated most of 
the best male runners in the world at the marathon distance, and is just now 
coming into his own as a tremendous international-level talent.   He *is* a 
U.S. citizen regardless of his country of birth.   Hopefully now, when he wins 
his next race, the story line will read, "First place: Mark Plaatjes, Boulder, 
CO., USA." 

    	RE: last...
    
    	I think it was Steve Ovett.
    
    	Scott

    To .18
    
         Need I ask what the first is?

        
>    The U.S. has never had anything like a Sebastian Coe/Brian Ovett
>    tandem at those distances though.  We're just not that deep at
>    those distances and no one else but the Kenyans have been, since.
    
	That's the whole point, there's no in depth talent, which implies that
the sport isn't big enough back home. I am not saying that there are no long-
distance runners in the US. As you say, all 3 finished in the Top 15, but in
this years 100m, all 3 finished in the Top 4 and I believe that the 100m starts
off with a bigger pool in the home qualifiers and in the Worlds itself. For the
UK, we had a 1-2 in the 110m hurdles. Now the US will no doubt know about Colin
Jackson, but I would say that only the great athletics fans over there know much
about Tony Jarrett. Jarrett is well known in the UK, because when we see the
final, they concentrate on 2 things. First they say who won from who. Then they
say that such and such of your home country came in wherever.

	If Jarrett always finishes 6th, then the average US fan doesn't know
him, because the US commentators have no reason to mention him. The same applies
to the UK. When a US athlete finishes 12th, why are we going to pay him any
attention? That's why I said in an earlier note that an athlete's stature can't
be told from their own countries bias (Linford Christie, Colin Jackson and
Sally Gunnell are the best athletes to have lived. Discuss), but from how they
are perceived in other countries where there is either no bias, or more likely
bias against them to favour that country's athletes. Lewis and Owens are the
most famous US athletes to have lived, Shorter isn't as renowned internationaly
and I would say that there are other short distance runners (Roger Kingdom, Ed
Moses, Bob Beaumant) who would appear on that list before him.

	To take it back to cycling, the US has produced 3 talented RRers in the 
past 15 years; Lemond (although I still question his brain :*), Hampsten and
Armstrong. But really, that's all that have come to Europe to take on the best
and win. Why? Because cycling is a minority sport and therefore can't produce
strength in depth. Sure, talent will always come through if it is matched with
hunger to do whatever is necessary to reach the top (for US and UK cycling, go
abroad), so you can still provide champions, but you don't create the backbone
to keep fuelling the peleton with riders. France has no great champions, yet,
even in Hampsten's and Lemond's heyday, France was winning more races than the
US because they had that necessary strength to keep it a major sport and keep
riders turning pro.

	The ability to win is a complex formula, but racial physiology,
personal physiology, national psychology, personal psychology and culture are
all parts of that formula, not just the personal physiology that gets
concentrated on. I suppose my base note was concentrating on one part of that
formula, the culture, but that too should be broken down to show all factors.

	It's a vicious circle. Culture gradually changes to go from the
endurance events to the sprints. All budding athletes grow up in the footsteps
of their heroes. So when they see their national jersey winning the 100m and
getting 12th in the 10 000m, they want to become sprinters. So the next
generation see a dwindling number of distance athletes so there is more chance
of them becoming sprinters, and so on... However, English cricket ruins this
theory. Watching English cricket, youngsters would want to become West Indian.

Graham.
                    

         There seems to be a large problem in US cycling in that the major
    growth category of racers is the 35-44 year old group.  The number of
    under 18 male racers is decreasing and the number of under 18 females
    is almost non-existent.  There appear to be sevearl factors at work to
    create the conditions mentioned above, as I see it.  I will describe
    them and put forth some possible solutions;
    
      Cost:
            Bicycle racing is a horribly expensive sport, the only sports
            that are as expensive are ski racing, figure skating, and 
            gymnastics - none of which get constant exposure in the US
            sports media.  Only people with significant disposable income
            or ones who are willing to make sacrifices elsewhere need race
            bikes. 
    
      Classification:
            When an inexperienced young racer showsup in a licensed race he
            or she gets thrown in with more experienced racers who just 
            happen to be about the same age, the situation is very bad for
            young females because they may pull up to the start line only
            to find Inga Thompson sitting on their right and Rebecca Twigg
            sitting on their left - the results will be obvious,
            humiliation and demotivation (even for the strong minded).
    
      No Reinforcement:
            The officials and announcers at racers focus on the winners.
            They don't care about the kid who appears to have good cycling
            technique but who has not developed into a fast racer yet.
            Potential is difficult to spot, this is why only the obvious is
            noticed.
    
     Solutions(?)
    
      Cost:
          In the US, the national cycling federation was said to have a
          budget of $9 million (US) this year.  The federation has done
          a good job of developing sponsors and is getting money from the
          USOC ( US Olympic Committee ).  But where is the money going?
          The USCF cannot buy bikes for every below 18 kid in the country
          but it can greatly expand it's racing camp ( held only once per
          year per region ) and greatly expand it's racing clinics.  Also,
          the federation can work with local bike shops to setup a system
          of loaner racing bikes, there will be some loss - but this will
          allow more kids to experience racing.  The federation is now
          working hard on expanding it's regional coaching and scouting 
          efforts but this will yield only limited benefits if only
          priviledged kids enter racing programs as a result.  The recent
          focus of the USCF seems to be changing to the extent that it is
          actively getting involved in cycling programs designed to
          introduce underpriviledged kids to the sport, this should
          continue and be increased, also heavy emphasis should be placed
          on getting more lower middle class and middle class kids into the
          sport.
    
        Classification:
          Break up the fields, use experience as the main factor, try to
          keep age relative.  This involves more tracking to insure
          fairness but the upshot is that beginners will race against 
          beginners.
    
        Reinforcement:
          For beginners a pat on the back, or applause goes a long way. 
          Also tips on how to improve would be well advised.  In most 
          cases beginners will do relatively poorly in races, Greg Lemond
          probaly did not do well in his first race, neither did Miguel
          Indurain, I would assume.
           

re .20

I am unconvinced that more aid, financial or otherwise is the answer.  In the UK
those who remain long-time bikies are those who had to go apple-picking or the
like to afford their first bike.  Those who have had their superbikes bought by
their parents, who are taken to events by car, who have their noses wiped for
them etc, etc... usually last a couple of years and then take up something a
bit easier, like competitive street-corner loafing.

I am coming to the conclusion that I am part of an anachronistic sport which
will just fade away - I am only pleased that I was able to enjoy it as it was.
I am as willing as the next person to help newcomers, but only if I am convinced
that they will put something into it as well.  You're right about newcomers being
dropped in the deep end, but is it better to give them a false sense of their
ability by setting up special events? - eventually they find out their real level
and have to come to terms with it.  Life's hard, life's competitive and the
earlier one finds this out and accepts it - the better.

I guess I'm saying I don't know the answer, but I do know that the constant quest
(usually, but not exclusively by our US cousins) for the Holy Grail or the Easy
Way to succeed, has not helped at all.  Please do not give me all this guff about
increased pressure etc, etc..  it is a load of garbage - there are tough times in
every generation, it is no different today.

     I agree with Robin. I don't believe that cost is the factor. As
    stated, families, paper routes, raking leaves, collecting bottles,
    etc... are alternatives. Socially, I think this is the area where
    the motivation is lacking. Unless the equipment shows up on a silver
    platter, little will be done (in most cases) by the youngster to make
    it happen. I don't believe the sport is "out of reach" economically.
    
     While I agree that the USCF should play a large role in promoting
    the sport, I believe the local clubs are really responsible. That's
    the "grass root" source of getting youngsters involved, recognition,
    etc... There are a hundred ways to reinforce/motivate people at all
    levels at the club level.
    
     I do have issues with some of the USCF groupings, but they also have
    to react to field sizes, etc... Putting a race on is an expensive and
    complex proposition. They are primarily there to provide that
    experience.
    
     Chip

    Personally, I would like to see more focus at the younger level on true
    touring.  This builds a great base of independence and does not beat
    your morale if you aren't at good as the next guy.  Also a great way to
    experience new people and culture. 
    
    steve

Hey, some-one from the US agrees with me!  There's hope for Euro/US entente 
yet....    ;>)

     No problem Robin... It was fun. There wouldn't be any hope if we got
    the UN involved :-)...
    
       Chip