Sir Roger's black issue is a grey area

T HOSE of us who are black and haven't won a sprint in their lives will probably be feeling a little inadequate this weekend while those of other hues will be enjoying the complete vindication of their failure as fast-movers - all thanks to Sir Roger Bannister and his suggestion that anatomical and physiological attributes are responsible for the high proportion of successful black athletes, particularly sprinters. Some races are beaten before they start, it seems.

Leaving out the medical terms, much of what the good doctor said could be deduced even by someone who comes from a long line of thick-heads. The ranks of top sprinters have been dominated by black athletes for some time now, although less so among women than among men, and this can be no more coincidental than the profusion of black heavyweight champions since Rocky Marciano, and before him for that matter.

So what? Are sprints any less exciting because of this? Are heavyweight title fights, or at least most of them, any less compelling? Of course not. Apart from a few nutters, we seem to have calmly absorbed the notion that we comprise a nation of varying race, colour and religion and any of our number is liable to pop up in a prominent position. And since sport, to its credit, accommodates a wider repre- sentation of all our people than any other walk of public life, we have long been used to a healthy national mix.

Not every sport has developed to its limit in this respect - some haven't mixed the classes yet, never mind the races - but, generally, as long as we can consider ourselves represented in the action the enjoyment is complete. That doesn't mean to say that we can't examine the attributes of those who make it to the top. The reason Sir Roger revealed his views was not, as some have wrongly suggested, to make a racial point but as a scientific observation. He was, after all, speaking at the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Newcastle and not just advancing theories for the sake of it.

If anyone is entitled to say a few scientific words about sport it is the man who broke the four-minute mile and he was very careful to preface them by admitting the risk he was taking in political incorrectness by drawing attention to the "seemingly obvious but under-stressed fact" that black sprinters, and black athletes in general, seem to have certain anatomical advantages.

Some of us had already noticed but Dr Bannister goes on to speculate why exactly it should be. It may be, he said, an adaptation of their muscles to life in hot climates . . . or that their power-to-weight ratio is better because of the relative lack of subcutaneous fatty insulating tissue in the skin . . . or perhaps there are advantages in the length of the Achilles tendon. He also claimed that the innate differences are not just physical, that the difference between great runners lies less in anatomy and physiology than in their capacity for mental excitement, which is probably inborn, but which brings with it an ability to overcome or ignore the discomfort, even pain, of extreme effort.

The allegation that to dwell on the physical superiority of the blacks in athletics is to imply their inferiority in other spheres of life is a nonsense; but to defend Sir Roger from that is not to deny that there are dangers in his theory. It may not be entirely right for a start. Obviously, there are helpful physical differences, but to what extent they allow black athletes to dominate is not easy to calculate.

Writing in the Independent on Friday, Mark Richardson, a black international 400m champion who has a BSc in sports science, made the excellent point that although Sir Roger had correctly identified many recognised variances between the races, there were other factors to be taken into account when examining the success of black athletes.

One of the great appeals of athletics was the sport's easy accessibility to all, regardless of status, race, finance or class. They don't get such easy access to the best education and careers as they do to the best running tracks. Once blacks began to dominate sprinting in the 1980s there was suddenly a greater supply of black role models and success bred success. White sprinters meanwhile began to think they were at a disadvantage and switched to other sports.

This is the main danger of Sir Roger's theory, that we are going to create a black ghetto out of the sprints. To credit the black race with unmatchable physical attributes is akin to saying that there is no point a Chinaman, a Welshman or a Brazilian embarking on a sprinter's career. If sport has taught us nothing else over the years it has proved that there is no barrier too high, no achievement that is beyond the scope of the dedicated. By achieving the athletic breakthrough of the century, no one has proved that more than Sir Roger himself.

To reason that the ability to run like hell for the tape has been given to only one chosen race is to ignore the strong possibility that it might yet be visited on someone with hitherto unconsidered vital qualities. After all, 30 years ago we didn't figure the black sprinters would be hogging the world's starting blocks. To be a champion you have to possess the right equipment be it in build, co-ordination, balance or timing.

There is also the danger that to attribute the present crop of world sprinters to a gift from nature is to demean their achievements. Linford Christie is not one of the fastest men in the world because he has in- built advantages over those of different coloured skins and physiques. The men he beats most weeks have much the same inherited advantages as him. The reason he's faster than them is more to do with being Linford Christie than being black.

There are many more unfair advantages in Great Britain than being born with a longer Achilles tendon but let's not complain when scientists take an interest in sport. We need all the light they can throw on its mysteries. Has Sir Roger ever thought of examining why we can't play football like the rest of the world?

T HE Tottenham chairman Alan Sugar has been hailed for his decision to allow Terry Venables into White Hart Lane. Despite the litigation proceeding between them, Sugar says he has acted for the good of England, although he didn't explain how he expects the country to benefit. Meanwhile, congratulations to the FA who engineered Sugar's change of heart. They have actually managed to persuade a club under their jurisdiction to permit the England manager in to watch a game. Is there no end to their power?

W HERE is Kenny Dalglish? Blackburn's former man- ager guided them to the Premiership title last season and was promoted to Director of Football, handing over the reins to Ray Harford. Whose football Dalglish is directing is not clear but in Black- burn's hour of need I would have thought it appropriate to offer a public gesture of support to the man who is holding the stick of dynamite with the lit fuse. I'm all for a manager taking a back seat but being in the boot isn't very helpful.