Racist 10k Announcer at D1 Champs

You are correct. That statement has nothing to do with race or saying one race is more superior than another.

I think you're all missing the point here..

You can count rings in foreign peoples legs?! Amazing.

ryan foreman wrote:

In the end I think he was honestly trying to convey that 'yeah the age of East African are sketchy but who cares, just appreciate the performance you are watching'.

This ^

Just like with a orphan dog, you don't know exactly how old an African distance runner is. But in the end you will never know and you will love the dog/runner the same anyway.

I think the comment definitely falls in both the racist and weird camp. A condensed version of what he said: "You know those Africans, you never can know their real age. It's kind of like going to the dog pound and not knowing the age of the dog. You could just cut off their leg and count the rings."Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5220940&id=5221073#5221073#ixzz2VXqkotM1

MrJingles wrote:

Just a bad joke, no racist intention whatsoever. Stop being such a sensitive fa**ot jeffsdaf

Racism, classism and most prejudices are subtle jabs. BTW, if a statement can be construed by anyone as offensive, it is offensive. Was it intended to be a compliment? No it was a slam.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

asdfdsa wrote:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Sorry, this is not racism.

Is it racist to say, "poor people with a predisposition to running fast game the NCAA scholarship system to their advantage"?

I think this is a fair statement. And increasingly true. And not racist.

How are they "gaming" the system? Please explain that one. I think the kids going to school for 1 year in basketball are "gaming" the system more than any foreign runner ever could.

Also, give me a break on your wording. "poor people"? You can't be talking about all foreign fast guys because guys like O'Lionard, Willis, Levins, etc. are not poor at all and grew up in good homes. You are specifically talking about Africans. That is racist.

It was a stupid comment, which Stones should apologize for. However, I do not think Dwight was truly comparing Africans to dogs it was the extension of a dumb joke he makes about the unknown age of a dog from the pound. However, the comparison is more a dumb joke that you can date the age of a human or dog like a tree versus a direct comparison of an African to a dog. I get the impression that if someone had a super old white grandma that no one knew when she was born he would make the joke "just cut off her legs and count the rings." Given historical characterizations of Africans, I think it is a racially insensitive comment, not intended as being racist.

What he said was "You know my answer to the age old question about how old are these guys really when the run these incredible junior times, and everything else, is the same answer I've always given when we don't know how old a dog is that we've gotten from a, a rescue, just cut off the leg and count the rings. It's just that easy."

It occurs at the 3:34 of the broadcast.

I felt so awkward watching the 10k online because of the announcer. Couldn't the NCAA find someone better?

Among the dumbest statements ever made on Letsrun.

ryan foreman wrote:

As far as I can see there really isn't any system to document DOBs in East Africa.

Can we get over it already, I think a racially insensitive statement, does not make one racist. He was rather ineloquently pointing to the sketchy ages of some of the East Africans,

That aside, once you are over 18 you are an adult and it does not matter the age of the runner, 25, 35 or 40 you are all welcome to run as long you fulfill the NCAA rules, this is college athletics, and, colleges are open to anyone who qualifies (Hello my very unselective alma matter) or can get a government loan, [Hello University of Phoenix graduates ;)]

cuz that's what you actually do to tell the age of a log.

Holy crap Letsrun! people keep referring to "the announcers" it's Larry and Dwight and they call every meet and always sound this stupid. Have you ever watched Track before? It was only worse when Carol Lewis was there. They simply have to be drunk some of the time.

fershitsake wrote:

Holy crap Letsrun! people keep referring to "the announcers" it's Larry and Dwight and they call every meet and always sound this stupid. Have you ever watched Track before? It was only worse when Carol Lewis was there. They simply have to be drunk some of the time.

Yes. Larry made same crazy comment along the lines of "Lawi will have a lot more of his hands full in the 5k final" - that would be how many of his hands - 4, 5, 6?

They say a lot of crap during a 29 minute race. Larry at one point was telling us to get down to our local high school track and run a 33 second 200m - at least he's changing things up a bit!

some raise the bar, many take scholarships from legitimately college age American kids. the same goes for the mormons and the europeans and aussies and kiwis. solomon haile's age (spell check tried to make that "Hail") was questioned when he was winning footlocker, for good reason. Why have 25/6 and older people competing against 18 year olds and more importantly taking away scholarships from more promising 17-18 year olds? There should be a crackdown on age, or alternatively, for old people like myself whose eligibility wasn't used up back then because of injury, let all ages compete.

Just because it is about east africans does not make it racist. Read the definition carefully Dennis and think again.

jjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

some raise the bar, many take scholarships from legitimately college age American kids. the same goes for the mormons and the europeans and aussies and kiwis. solomon haile's age (spell check tried to make that "Hail") was questioned when he was winning footlocker, for good reason. Why have 25/6 and older people competing against 18 year olds and more importantly taking away scholarships from more promising 17-18 year olds? There should be a crackdown on age, or alternatively, for old people like myself whose eligibility wasn't used up back then because of injury, let all ages compete.

They don't "take" scholarships from anyone. The NCAA is not an American-only league, so as long as guys are fulfilling the requirements I don't see how you can complain about fairness. Don't like it? Run faster, that's all you have to do.

If athletes are providing documentation that might not be reliable, then they are not meeting the requirements. This means they are POSSIBLY taking scholarships away from American runners whose documentation is much more reliable. Read closer next time and try again.

Coach , that comment is as stupid as the announcer's. Birth certificates and actual birth dates have been inaccurate consistently from Africa. Usually by a year.

Athletes coming in older do state their age , coaches recruit to win and the NCAA has not stopped it. If your in disagreement start a petition to change the rules.

I just realized the announcer was Dwight, this is a person I can pretty much say for a fact is not a bigot...quite to the contrary. No body is perfect, we have all said something stupid at some point and/or something that can be misinterpreted.

With that said, when you are in the majority, you are not in the position to say what is racist, because if it does not affect you, it is easy to not understand. You have to accept that if someone in the minority feels it is offensive, it is offensive...period. You don't have to always understand why other people feel a certain way, accept it and show sensitive to it. And, if you feel that you should be able to say whatever you want to say no matter how it affects other people, in particular people of color, then you are a racist...period.

TrackCoach wrote:

It is a fact that Africans do age-cheat, but to equate any Black athlete to an animal to make a negative point is uncalled for. Anyone who does not understand this, does not understand history. With that said, if he said Dog and actually meant to say Dog, I would definitely call that Racist, but I am going to assume he meant to say Log even if he actually said Dog, which is not Racist.

I guess I don't understand history. WTF? Are you really that PC? You have to be a total wad to take stuff like this so seriously.. The truth is, it's just no longer premitted by our lame, cowardly PC society to speak ill of any black person, period. Any criticism whatsoever of blacks is judged as racist - if only because you morons take yourselves so seriously that you apply 'racist' & 'homophobe' to anyone who dares state the obvious about a black or homo..