Let's do some math on sprinting and genetics.
Let's say there is a genetic sprint trait.
Jamaica has 5 million people globally. China has 1.5 billion globally.

This genetic trait would need to be over 300 times more frequent in Jamaicans than Chinese, just to be proportional

But using the metric often used in here, it would have to be way more than proportional. Jamaica has dominated world sprinting.

You'd expect to find this sprint trait more like 3000 times more frequent in Jamaicans than Chinese.

Should be pretty easy to notice in the genome.

There are legitimate sports scientists who have been looking for genes that affect sprinting ability. There are a few found like ACTN3. It is actually differentially distributed throughout the world, but nothing remotely on the order of being able to explain why Jamaica dominates

People will move to "West African ancestry" to explain it. But here's the thing, actual West African countries actually suck at sprinting compared to Jamaicans. Pretty much everyone does.

They do it for the numbers, because it makes the math issue less obvious.

It's a lot harder to explain why 5 million Jamaicans dominate a sport claimed to be driven mainly by a genetic trait, with no meaningful evidence after decades of looking for this trait.

It's hard to explain too given the math on differential trait distributions.

Every time you see the The West African Ancestry "hypothesis" for sprint ability, ask them to explain why Jamaicans dominate West Africans (and everyone else), especially considering Jamaicans have less of this "West African DNA" and thus expected less of this trait.

I should point out that the whole "top X are group Y" thing is an instance of the Exception Fallacy. It's bad science. I'm just showing the *even if* you accept the bad science that these folks use, you'll still see that the math doesn't support them. Math is anti-racist