Do Black Athletes Have a Genetic Advantage?

4of 33

Why black athletes dominate sports

by J. Carter

Black athletes tend to dominate sports because of a combination of genetic and social factors.  Social factors play the most important role, by far.  Genetic factors come a distant second.  

Different countries produce a disproportionate number of top athletes in different sports.  Inevitably countries produce more top athletes in the sports that are most popular in that particular country.  So, for example, Canada produces a disproportionate number of very good hockey players.  Think Wayne Gretzky, and Maurice “Rocket” Richard.  The Dominican Republic has produced a disproportionate number of top professional baseball players like Sammy Sosa.  Argentina, Brazil and some Western European countries have produced more then their fair share of soccer greats.  Some former British colonies- particularly India, Pakistan, Australia and the West Indies- have produced some of the best cricket players in the world.

The Dominican Republic hasn’t produced many top hockey players.  Canada hasn’t produced many great cricketers.  The United States produces a lot of great football, basketball and baseball players, but not too many notable soccer players.  This has a lot to do with the values of the society.  Many Canadians, for example, love hockey.  Young kids grow up playing hockey and dreaming of being NHL stars.  Their parents want them to become NHL stars.  With so many young people devoting a lot of energy towards this goal, it becomes a numbers game.  Out of all those wannabes, a few will have enough natural talent to make it to the highest level.

The same applies to black athletes, in many cases.  In some black communities, sports are seen as a means of social mobility.  Kids and parents put a lot of effort into sports.  With a large number of black kids devoting a lot of energy towards become great athletes, a few will actually be able to achieve their goals.  In other communities there may be less people who see sports as their main means of advancement.  As a result they’ll devote less energy, as a group, to pursuing sports.  This means that a lower percentage of them will become big sports stars.

The other factor is genetic.  The genetic factor is actually much less important then the social factor.  Genes will only give a person the potential to excel in sports.  If a person does not play a particular sport or put the effort in, they’re not going to become a great athlete.  You can’t become a hockey star if you never learned how to skate.  Nevertheless genes can definitely play a role in athletics.

Human beings have fast and slow twitch muscles fibers.  Fast twitch muscles are good for short explosive bursts of exertion, but they become exhausted quickly.  Slow twitch muscles have less power but they don’t get tired as quickly.  Different individuals and different groups of people tend to have different proportions of fast and slow twitch muscles.  People of who have ancestors from some parts of Africa tend to have higher proportions of fast twitch muscles.  This provides a significant advantage in some sporting events.  This is particularly true in something like a short sprint, where runners depend entirely on their fast twitch muscles.  This is why races like the 100 meters are almost always dominated by athletes of West African descent.  But even here there are other factors involved.  100 meters events are often dominated by black athletes from the United States, the United Kingdom or the Caribbean, as opposed to black people from African countries.  Even though a person from Ghana or Senegal would have similar genetic advantages in 100 meters, sprinting programs may get less funding their countries.  They may not benefit from state of the art training like their Western counterparts.

Overall the most important factor in the success of black athletes is the fact that some black communities view sports as a means of social mobility.  Since so many black kids are aspiring to athletic greatness, a certain percentage will make it in the NBA or the NFL or as professional athletes in other sports.  Genetics are a factor, but not the most important factor.

This is a great perspective into why black athletes dominant in some sports, but not all. This article agrees with what we were taught about in class and what Coakley states in the text. On page 287 of the text, there is a chart that describes why black athletes dominant certain sports. That chart like in the article, describes how it is embedded in the African American culture to excel in some sports. The chart describes how black athletes are encouraged to develop their skills because it is their best opportunity. The chart also describes how black athletes have an advantage because of the belief that they are athletically superior. In sports, confidence is everything and if you believe you are superior you will perform that way. I agree with that reasoning completely. I come from an area where mostly everyone had opportunities in other areas in sports. My school district is extremely competitive in athletics, but we do not have a lot of big time division one or pro athletes. I believe the reason for that is because academics are valued very highly in my school district and academics are seen as the way to sucess. Because of that, my school has an extremely high graduation rate and many people are accepted into the top schools across the nation. If you are from an area where sports are seen as the way to success, you will probably have a lower academic prestiage, but a much higher rate of division one and pro athletes from that school. I feel as though a large part of your success is hard work and what values you have instilled in you. In class we discussed how there is research that shows black athletes have certain genes in them that make them more successful in some sports, but there has not been enough research done in this area. It is hard to deny that genetics play a role when you see how dominant west africans are in sprinting and how dominant East Africans are in long distance. I wish there was more research done in this area, so we could have some concrete evidence on the role genetics play. I feel as though the bottom line is you get out of something what you put in. If you put everything you have into sports you will get the most you can out of sports.

Steroids in Sports

Wednesday, October 13, 2010Steroids hysteria might inhibit progress

---

By Patrick Hruby
Special to ESPN.com

Forty percent.

Almost half the population of any given locker room.

An equivalent number, proportionally, to the number of young Americans who have college degrees.

Downright Chances-nian.

Crack some eggs: This is your national pastime on drugs. According to an anonymous NFL player writing in the current issue of ESPN The Magazine, four out of every 10 of his peers use human growth hormone. And that, in turn, is a serious problem -- at least by the standards of the Steroid Madness gripping baseball, cycling, the Olympics and just about every other avenue of human competition, including chess and poker.

	These steroids came from one of 56 illicit labs raided by the DEA in Operation Raw Deal in 2007.

Only, what if that madness is misguided?

What if we're too ignorant to judge the severity of the performance-enhancing drug problem in sports?

What if the madness makes us ignorant, and the single greatest side effect of our ongoing War on 'Roids is that we don't even know what we don't know?

Let me explain.

From the BALCO probe to Congressional hearings to ESPN The Magazine's "Player X" lamenting that HGH use is cheating, we're in the middle of an ongoing drugs-in-sports moral panic, a panic rooted in two suppositions.

First, PED use is against the rules.

Second, PED use is bad for your health.

The former is a vexing ethical quandary, fodder for thought and debate. It's also essentially arbitrary: In sports and society alike, the rules are whatever we decide they should be. Think interstate speed limits. The curse words permissible on network television. Zone defense in the NBA. Whatever the NFL decrees qualifies as a touchdown catch.

Look, if the league pooh-poohs HGH, then Player X has every right to be upset with violators. Same as if it pooh-poohs sack celebrations that fail to comply with the Hays Code.

By contrast, the latter supposition is a scientific question, fodder for observation and hypothesis testing. (You know, like your junior high science fair.) The answers aren't related to who can shout the loudest about the sanctity of the Major League home run record; they're entirely dependent upon how substances such as HGH actually affect the body, day after day, dose after dose.

And that's where our madness may be mucking up our knowledge.

Here's the dirty little open secret about HGH and other performance-enhancing drugs: We have a murky, incomplete idea of the health risks they pose -- particularly over extended periods of time, and especially when it comes to their use by adult athletes.

Only, don't take my word for it.

"Can you hurt yourself with [these drugs]?" says Dr. Charles Yesalis, an emeritus professor at Penn Sate and expert on performance-enhancing drugs in sports. "Yes. But you can hurt yourself with aspirin, with any drug. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug.

	The hysteria over performance-enhancing drug use in sports reached a new high when Roger Clemens testified in front of Congress.

"We've been using [steroids] safely in medicine for 80 years. In the global sense, they've never been demonstrated to be a major killer like cocaine, heroin, alcohol, tobacco. For something that's been used for so long by so many people, where are all the body bags?"

In his autobiography "Juiced," Jose Canseco lauded PEDs as pharmacology's answer to magic beans, drugs that will make you big and strong without causing any harm. He was mistaken. Experts agree that they're harmful to adolescents. According to the Mayo Clinic and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, anabolic steroid and HGH use by adults has been associated with a series of undesirable side effects, ranging from male breast growth and acne to liver tumors and heart disease.

Oh, and don't forget testicle shrinkage -- one reason steroid users such as Canseco sometimes take human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), a female fertility drug that can counteract … umm, deflation.

Yipes.

On the other hand, Yesalis says, the short-term effects of steroid use generally cease when you stop using them. Or, as an American Medical Association doctor told Congress during a 1989 hearing, patients under medical supervision can use the drugs safely.

Meanwhile, Yesalis adds that evidence for "roid rage" -- a much-hyped increase in aggression linked to steroids -- and other psychological side effects popularly attributed to steroid use is largely anecdotal. Moreover, the long-term effects of PED use are unknown.

Not fuzzy.

Not kinda-sorta understood but waiting on additional study to make sure.

Just unknown. Dark side of the moon.

The reason?

In a climate of hysteria -- in which steroids are culturally demonized and legally criminalized under the same federal statutes that govern controlled substances such as cocaine -- no one has done the basic research commonplace with drugs like ibuprofen. Forget control groups, peer-reviewed studies and much of what constitutes modern medical science. Much of what we presume to know about the effects of PED use comes from surveys of bodybuilders, people who are taking massive quantities of drugs of dubious composition and origin.

"To the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be an epidemiological study of the long-term effects of steroids," Yesalis says. "I proposed to do a study on this in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I submitted that proposal three times. It was rejected three times. I gave up."

What happens when we give up? We panic. We trade reason for emotion, robust facts for hollow moralizing, realistic risk assessment for unchecked fear and unwitting ignorance. We no longer know what we don't know -- a deluded state of mind that can be more dangerous than any PED side effect.

	Dr. Charles Yesalis, right, and Dr. Harrison Pope testified about female steroid use in front of a Congressional committee in 2005.

Not convinced? Ask yourself the following:

In the long run, are PEDs more or less harmful to one's health than the repeated concussive and subconcussive head traumas that are commonplace in football?

Are PEDs more or less harmful than bulking up to 350-plus pounds to play offensive and defensive line?

Are PEDs more or less harmful than the powerful painkilling and anti-inflammatory drugs -- including corticosteroids -- given to pro athletes on a daily basis?

Is 40 percent of NFL players allegedly using HGH even a cause for legitimate alarm?

Right now, all of the above are mysteries, casualties of the War on 'Roids. We simply don't know. And that's a pity -- a shame, really -- because they're exactly the kind of questions Player X and his HGH-using peers need and deserve answers to, the sort of information that could help them make rational decisions about both their health and their sport.

Years ago, Yesalis attended a news conference for former Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster. In his post-football life, Webster suffered from a series of mental disorders before dying from heart failure at age 50. He later was diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the same rare neurodegenerative disease found in nearly a dozen other deceased former players.

"I remember Mike standing at the podium, and they asked him, 'Do you ever use steroids?'" Yesalis recalled. "He said, 'What do you mean -- the ones athletes take, or the ones team doctors give you?'"

Patrick Hruby is a freelance writer and ESPN.com contributor. Contact him at PatrickHruby.net.

In this article, Patrick Hruby is suggesting sport legalizes steroids. I understand and agree with his reasoning to an extent, but i think steroids should stay illegal. On page 186 of the text, Coakley gives the arguement testing is infective because athletes are one step ahead. As true as that may be, I still think testing is a deterrent. I know many people who do not take PED's because of the NCAA drug testing. Even though there is a slim chance of them being tested and caught, the punishment is so severe they won't take the risk. This leads me to believe drug testing is effective. However, if a change wants to be made it needs to be a cultural change. On page 180, Coakley talks about how PED's have became part of the norm in sports. I agree and disagree with what Coakley says. I do not think it is the norm in sports to use PED's through my experience. The reason people think it is the norm to use PED's is once again because of the media. In the article above, it says 4 out of 10 in the NFL use PED's. I cannot really speak for the NFL, but I personally believe the people on my team that use PED's is no where near 4 out of 10. I have friends on division one teams and they tell me that their PED use is low. When all the media shows is people using PED's, it allows young athletes to think that is the norm in sports and that is why the use PED's. Although this article has many valid points, articles like this are the problem.

Violence in Sports

Fans, stop cheering helmet-to-helmet violence

By David Satcher

As Surgeon General of the United States, I released 14 reports that addressed issues related to the health of the American people, three of which directly addressed mental health. Some of these reports demanded a reaction and therefore were released as calls to action.

Mental health is now more than ever a pertinent issue for sports, and it's time for a call to action to communities of sports fans, coaches and parents, especially now in light of the tragic death by the suicide of Denver Broncos wide receiver Kenny McKinley on Sept. 20 and the evidence of long-term effects of head injuries in sports, particularly depression, early dementia and Alzheimer's disease. While many circumstances may surround McKinley's death, most of which we may never know, we are learning more and more about mental illness among professional athletes.

Football is a fundamentally dangerous sport, and often that violence is celebrated among fans of the game. The harder the hit, the louder the cheers. Fans and the general public must consider the long-term consequences of these potentially catastrophic head injuries even though they may not emerge until decades later.

At the same time, this is not a problem unique to professional football. Head injuries occur in soccer, boxing and hockey, just to name a few, and youth athletes are especially vulnerable. It is estimated that more than 55,000 concussions occur in high school football alone every year.

The brain is our most delicate organ and it must be treated as such, and not just by use of helmets (though the importance of helmets cannot be overstated). Studies suggest that dementia is becoming a problem of concern for a growing number of NFL alumni and their families, and therefore the NFL also has a growing concern about the problem of dementia in America. Research continues in an effort to understand the relationship between the experience of NFL alumni including injuries and concussions throughout their development as athletes and their play within the NFL. As life expectancy increases in this country, so does the need to increase years of quality living. As such, athletes need protection today to ensure their future quality of life.

A cultural change is needed. The issue of brain injury has finally risen to the level of importance in the NFL that Commissioner Roger Goodell is taking action by changing NFL policy and rules of play by suspending players for illegal hits. This policy will change the culture of football as well as the game itself.

But this is also a call to action for the fans, not only of football, but of all sports and at all levels, and it's our duty as fans to respond. Fans must change the way we view and celebrate America's favorite pastime. The days of celebrating potentially catastrophic blows to the head must be over. This is a call to action!

David Satcher is the director of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta. He was 16th Surgeon General of the United States.

The idea of the fans not cheering for voilent hits is ridiculous. The fans go to football games to see big hits and always will. However, the fans do deserve some blame for the volience in contact sports. On page 200 of the text, Coakley talks about how players in power/ performace sports are rewarded for volience. If a player is known to be a big hitter, he will be more popular and probably receive more endorsements.  Ray Lewis and James Harrison are prime examples. I play football and part of the reason I play is because I love the violence of the game. I love hitting people and doing things in football that would normally be frowned upon in society, but they are encouraged in football. With that being said, I do think there needs to be a change. The number of concussions in football are extremely high. The 55,000 concussions that happend in high school last year is alarming and making a change will be diffcult. On page 209 of the text, Coakley discusses  how it  is difficult to change volience on the playing field becuase it is rooted into the game. I could not disagree with Coakley more. In football, particularly voilence is part of the game. Ever since I can remember, I was always taught to hit as hard as i can and to hurt the guy across from me. If change is going to truly come in football it will take a long time. Volience is so embedded into the sport and football is loved becuase of its volience. The game of football is in a tough sitaution if they get rid of the violence in the game they will loose almost all of its fans. If they allow the voilence to grow, the players' health is at exetreme risk. It is a very difficult sitaution for the NFL and all of the different levels of football.

Female Athletes Posing Nude Sets a Bad Example

Diana Taurasi fans are feuding over whether she's objectifying her body or just being sexy

Photo: Courtesy of ESPN

Diana Taurasi's 'bad example': Top player hits rock bottom with nude ESPN pics

• October 6th, 2010 8:49 am ET
• By Sunny Pepper, Celebrity Fitness and Health Examiner

Pro women's basketball player Diana Taurasi isn't the first female athlete to pose naked and raise the eyebrows of creeping men. While Taurasi's ESPN naked debut is one of dozen athletes featured in the "Body Issue", she may be the one to fall the furthest. 

EX-DIANA FAN: YOUR GIVING YOUNG GIRLS ISSUES

The photos are said to merely, only be "partially nude" but the former UConn star and 28-year-old Phoenix Mercury pro is still young enough to have young fans. Fans, that to Diana, want to be like her, look like her and do what she does to have fame and fortune.

"This makes me sad," says one commenter by the name 'rosemary'. "If I had a young daughter, it would really trouble me. (It does anyway)...kids and young women will see this picture...one way or another and copy what they see," she writes. "I am no prude, but what does this tell them? Look around and see the state of youth and similar publications, tv, movies, etc.. Womens basketball was always a stellar example for youngsters and young women." Adding, "[It's too bad."

EX-DIANA FAN: "YOU JUST SET WOMEN BACK 100 YEARS"

In a sport like women's basketball, teams are often caught straddling the fence between integrity and great marketing. The games have a need to be family-oriented but the need for ticket sales and organization support is what's challenged the WNBA throughout the last decade. Even still, one reader says she doesn't approve.

"Thanks Diana - you have just set women back 100 years, women are more than just sex symbols. What does your naked body have to do with all that you have accomplished on the court? I am a diehard UCONN fan and have been since 1990 but can't get my head around the concept of why you had to pose like this."

ARE AMERICANS TOO PRUDE?

So, she isn't the first to take off her clothes to boost press and business and she's surely not the last (i.e. Lauren Jackson). Even still, for the millions of men who'll drool over her ESPN cover, there are daughters who are looking out only to look back in - Questioning themselves, their bodies and subscribing to their own issues.

The argument that American culture needs to be more accepting of nudity may be one leg to stand on, but the other critical limb is the reality we - Americans - live in. There is a difference between embracing the amazing nature of the human physique and objectifying it for sexual luxury.

Did Diana cross the line?

Here are some more of the pictures from ESPN's Body Issue

ESPN's body issue is a perfect example of how the media portrays female athletes. In class, the three stereotypical ideologies were discussed towards women in sports were; objects of desire, objects of pleasure, and that women are eye candy. After looking at these pictures it is hard to argue against any of those ideologies. These pictures are clearly displaying these female athletes as eye candy. Page 420 of the text mentions because the mid 1990's women's coverage has grown, but is inconsistent. The media coverage is very inconsistent with women's sports. We can watch sportscenter and never see a single highlight of a women's sport. The only thing consistant about the coverage of women's sports is the yearly issue of ESPN the body issue and the sports illustrated swim suite issue. I personally don't even consider these issues as media coverage. The women are being displayed purely as sex symbols and the magazines mention nothing about the women's athletic accomplishments. I do agree with the article above. These pictures do set women's sports back. These pictures just add fuel for peoples' view of women athletes as objects of desire and eye candy. I believe the pictures take away credibility from women's sports. These pictures make people think the only thing female athletes are good for is to look at. Female athletes should strive to be acknowledges for their athletic accomplishments and not thier bodies. In the text on page 404, it says sports depend on the media. So how can you blame these female athletes if sports depend on the media? If this is the only coverage the media is willing to give women's sports, can we really blame them for giving into the pressure. It must be frustrating to be a brilliant athlete, but nobody acknowledges you unless you get nude for a magazine. So maybe we should be placing more blame on the media and less blame on the female athletes.

National Women's Law Center files Title IX complaints against 12 school districts

By RACHEL COHEN , Associated Press

November 10, 2010

NEW YORK - The National Women's Law Center filed complaints against 12 school districts Wednesday alleging they failed to offer equal opportunities for female athletes.

NWLC officials say they believe statistics from 2006 indicate the districts violated Title IX, the federal law prohibiting gender discrimination in federally funded education programs. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights will investigate the complaints.

The school districts are Chicago; Clark County, Nev.; Columbus, Ohio; Deer Valley, Ariz.; Henry County, Ga.; Houston; Irvine, Calif.; New York City; Oldham County, Ky.; Sioux Falls, S.D.; Wake County, N.C.; and Worcester, Mass.

Determining whether Title IX violations exist is more complicated than looking at raw numbers because the statute can be satisfied in one of three ways: if the percentage of athletes who are girls is about the same as the student body; if the school has continually expanded opportunities for girls; or if the school meets its female students' interest in participating in sports.

Several of the school districts noted that participation numbers didn't necessarily mean that girls lacked the opportunity to play a sport if they chose.

"There are equal opportunities for girls to participate in our school district and it is something that is really important to us," said Irvine's Cassie Parham, assistant superintendent and a former athlete. "The opportunity to be an athlete certainly exists."

In the 12 districts, the percentage of girls playing sports was lower than that of the student body. The gaps ranged from 8 percentage points in New York to 33 in Chicago.

The NWLC found the gap increased in most of the districts from 2004 to '06, indicating that opportunities had not been expanding. It also said the districts didn't field teams in all girls sports sanctioned by their state, suggesting that interest was not being met.

"On the face of it, it looks pretty difficult to say, 'Our students are unique. They're not really interested in playing the sports that other students are playing all around the state,'" NWLC Co-President Marcia Greenberger said on a conference call.

The general counsel for the Oldham County Board of Education, Anne Courtney Coorssen, emphasized the numbers cited are four years old. She said the participation gaps in the district have shrunk since 2006.

"Unfortunately, representatives from the NWLC chose not to contact the district to obtain current data and discuss Title IX compliance prior to filing their complaint," she said.

Wake County spokesman Michael Evans said the district offered all sports sanctioned by North Carolina's sports governing body.

"We leave it up to the schools to determine whether they're going to field a team or not, based on student interest," he said.

The NWLC selected one school in each of the 12 Office for Civil Rights regions based on the 2006 data, the most recent available.

"The numbers are so stark and the gaps are so big, they show they have a lot of explaining to do," NWLC senior counsel Neena Chaudhry said.

The New York City Department of Education noted in a statement that the Public Schools Athletic League has added double dutch, lacrosse and golf in recent years.

Houston's Marmion Dambrino, the district's first female athletic director, said the schools would work closely with the Office for Civil Rights to ensure they were in compliance.

"It's extremely important," Dambrino said. "All of our female athletes need to be provided that opportunity and to my knowledge we're doing that and doing everything we can to afford those opportunities to our female athletes."

A spokeswoman for the Deer Valley Unified School District in north Phoenix said it has been recognized by the state's governing body for advancing girls programs in three of the past six years.

"We feel we've met all their interests, and we've provided equal access to every sport," Sandi Hicks said.

A spokesman for Henry County Schools in suburban Atlanta, Tony Pickett, said: "We are very well aware of the requirements and responsibilities under Title IX and work to ensure full compliance."

Worcester Superintendent Melinda Boone said in a statement to the Telegram & Gazette newspaper that the district "provides female students with equal opportunities to play sports."

The chairman of the College Sports Council, which advocates Title IX reform, expressed concern that a focus on participation levels in high school sports would eventually lead to boys teams being cut.

"If you use proportionality as the measurement for compliance at the high school level, you will inevitably see cuts in boys participation," Eric Pearson said.

In Las Vegas, Clark County Schools spokesman David Roddy said it expected the Education Department to determine how to continue, then contact the district and develop an administrative response. He said he did not know whether the district was in full compliance with Title IX.

"That would be up to the Office of Civil Rights to work with the school district to make that determination," he said.

Roddy also questioned the complaint's numbers, noting it listed the district as having too few high schools.

The complaint said 16 of 31 high schools in the district had gaps of 10 or more percentage points between girls enrolled and sports participation, but a budget for the 2006-2007 school year shows the district had 40 high schools. The district has 49 high schools today.

Officials from Chicago and Columbus said they were waiting to review the complaints.

Officials from Sioux Falls did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

If these Athletic directors are providing women the same opportunities to participate as the men, I feel they are doing nothing. On page 233 in the the text Title IX states, " no person in the Untied States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation." According to some of the athletic directors, the girls just choose not to participate. There is nothing you can do to make someone participate. The best you can do is give them opportunity. Although I also understand where the NWLC is coming from. They should monitor these participation level and if there are serious drop-offs an investigation should be done. Page 232 of the text lists new opportunities as one of the reasons for the explosion of women athletes since the mid-1960's. I feel as though today there are really no recently new opportunities for women in sports and that could be part of the reason for the drop off in participation for women in high school sports. In class we discusssed how many of the women's professional leagues are in trouble. The high school girls may see the struggling pro sports and think there are no opportunities for them in sports. I also believe the media may be a cause of girls not participating in sports. As we spoke about in class, the media does not cover women athletes near as much as men. Women in the media are normally beautiful movie stars or models, not athletes. I personally know a lot of girls that were tremendous athletes in middle school, but stopped playing in high school. For what reason they stopped, I do not know. At my highschool there were plenty of talented girls who chose not to participate. I understand why the NWLC filed a complaint on these school districts. An increase in the participation gap is a cause for concern. However, I think we sholuld not pass judgement on these school districts until an investigation is done and there is proof these schools are not providing girls every opportunity to participate.