ITC Football Live Centre All Scores
Indian Sprinting • Bhubaneswar 2026

Bhubaneswar 100m Exposes India’s Sprint Gap — Is Genetics Part of the Problem?

Animesh Kujur ran 10.32 and Indian record-holder Gurindervir Singh 10.39 as four international sprinters finished ahead of India’s leading men. The result reopens one of Indian athletics’ most uncomfortable questions.

By Harpreet Sandhu, ChPC | ITC.International | | Bhubaneswar, Odisha

India has spent years waiting for the first Indian man to legally break 10 seconds in the 100 metres.

The country has moved closer than ever.

Gurindervir Singh owns the national record at 10.09 seconds. Animesh Kujur has run 10.14, the second-fastest legal performance by an Indian and the fastest by an Indian outside the country.

Yet at the Indian Open World Athletics Continental Tour Silver meeting in Bhubaneswar, both were beaten comfortably in their opening-round heat.

Kujur finished fifth in 10.32. Gurindervir followed in seventh at 10.39.

South Africa’s Tshepo Jason Tyantini won Heat 2 in 10.11, followed by Oman’s Ali Al Balushi in 10.16, Japan’s Rai Atago in 10.28 and Malaysia’s Muhammad Azeem Mohd Fahmi in 10.29.

It raises a difficult question that Indian athletics rarely discusses seriously:

Why has India still not produced a sub-10-second male sprinter? Is the gap primarily training? Talent identification? Competition? Coaching? Childhood development? Strength and power? Or, uncomfortable as the question may be, could genetics also be part of the explanation?

Bhubaneswar 2026 Men’s 100m Heat 2

Competition World Athletics Continental Tour Silver
Event Men’s 100m — Round 1 Heat 2
Wind +0.5 m/s
Date August 22, 2026
Place Athlete Nation Time
1 Tshepo Jason Tyantini South Africa 10.11
2 Ali Al Balushi Oman 10.16
3 Rai Atago Japan 10.28
4 Muhammad Azeem Mohd Fahmi Malaysia 10.29
5 🇮🇳 Animesh Kujur India / Odisha 10.32
6 Retshidisitswe Mlenga South Africa 10.37
7 🇮🇳 Gurindervir Singh India / Punjab 10.39
Emile Erasmus South Africa Broadcast time pending
Yuki Koike Japan Broadcast time pending

India’s Best Sprinters Were Nowhere Near Their Best

🇮🇳 Animesh Kujur 10.32 Personal best: 10.14

Kujur was 0.18 seconds outside the lifetime best he produced in Germany in July.

🇮🇳 Gurindervir Singh 10.39 Indian record: 10.09

Gurindervir was exactly three tenths slower than the national record he established in May.

This is important because neither athlete is fundamentally a 10.3-second sprinter.

They have already demonstrated substantially greater speed.

Gurindervir has run 10.09. Kujur has run 10.14.

So Bhubaneswar does not prove that Indians are physically incapable of approaching 10 seconds.

It does expose something equally concerning: India has still not developed the depth or consistency required to produce 10.0-level performances repeatedly.

And This Was Not a 9.8-Second Race

Heat winner 10.11 Tshepo Tyantini
Animesh Kujur 10.32 0.21 behind
Gurindervir Singh 10.39 0.28 behind

This may be the most revealing part of the result.

India was not beaten by Noah Lyles running 9.79.

The winning time was 10.11.

India’s national record is actually faster than the winning mark. Kujur’s personal best is only three hundredths slower.

Yet on this particular afternoon, four foreign athletes crossed the line before either of India’s leading sprinters.

That suggests that before Indian athletics worries about beating 9.8-second Americans or Jamaicans, it must first consistently defeat 10.1 and 10.2 runners from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

So — Does Genetics Matter in the 100m?

Yes.

It would be scientifically incorrect to pretend genetics plays no role in elite sprinting.

Human beings differ genetically in traits that can influence muscle structure, fast-twitch fibre characteristics, tendon behaviour, skeletal dimensions, hormone signalling, height, limb proportions, response to strength training and the ability to generate force at very high velocity.

One of the most studied examples is the ACTN3 R577X polymorphism. ACTN3 encodes alpha-actinin-3, a protein expressed primarily in fast skeletal muscle fibres.

Multiple studies have found the functional ACTN3 R allele to be overrepresented among sprint and power athletes.

That is real evidence that inherited biology influences the probability of becoming an elite power athlete.

But there is no single “sprint gene.” Even ACTN3 does not determine whether someone will become a world-class sprinter. Recent meta-analyses find associations between ACTN3 and some measures of strength or power, but effects are modest, inconsistent across outcomes and populations, and cannot predict elite sprint performance on their own.

What Genetic Research Actually Tells Us

Evidence 1 Sprint ability is partly heritable Genetic variation influences muscle and power-related traits, so athletes do not all begin with identical biological potential.
Evidence 2 Known genes have small effects ACTN3 and ACE have been associated with sprint or power status, but no known variant comes remotely close to explaining elite sprint performance by itself.
Evidence 3 Environment still matters enormously Training history, coaching, strength, technique, nutrition, competition and development determine how much inherited potential is ever expressed.

A recent meta-analytical review of athletic-performance genetics found significant associations for variants such as ACTN3, but described the practical effects as modest and warned about large differences between studies.

Another 2026 systematic review found ACTN3 associated with some strength and jump measures but not significantly associated with sprint performance itself across the studies examined.

In other words:

genes matter, but genes are not destiny.

The Bigger Problem With Saying “Indian Genetics”

There is another scientific difficulty with the genetics argument.

What exactly are “Indian genetics”?

India is not one genetically homogeneous population.

The GenomeIndia project sequenced approximately 10,000 people across 83 different Indian populations and documented extraordinary genomic diversity.

Earlier population-genetic research also found substantial differences in ancestry and allele frequencies among Indian groups.

Punjabis, people from Odisha, Tamil populations, tribal communities, northeastern populations and dozens of other groups cannot simply be compressed into one biological category called “Indian genetics.”

In fact, that diversity may strengthen the argument that India should have enormous untapped athletic talent if identification systems are capable of finding it.

Population Size Alone Does Not Produce Sprinters

A common argument is:

“India has such a huge population. Surely someone must be able to run 9.9.”

Statistically that sounds appealing, but population size by itself does not create Olympic sprinters.

The relevant population is not everyone living in the country.

It is the number of genetically talented children who:

are identified early, enter sprinting, receive competent coaching, have access to nutrition and strength training, remain healthy, receive competition exposure and stay in the sport long enough to develop.

If only a tiny proportion of the population passes through that pathway, then a population of hundreds of millions can still have a much smaller effective sprint talent pool than a country with a deeply established sprint culture.

ITC Performance Analysis: Why India Still Has a 100m Problem

1. India Does Not Yet Have Enough 10.1 Sprinters

A single 10.09 athlete is progress.

It is not depth.

Countries with strong sprint systems have multiple athletes capable of running at or near international qualifying standards.

That produces stronger domestic competition and makes exceptional performances less dependent on one athlete having the race of his life.

2. Maximum Velocity Remains Critical

The 100m is not simply a start.

World-class sprinters continue accelerating deep into the race before reaching extraordinary maximum velocities.

India must develop athletes who can produce and maintain greater speed between roughly 40 and 80 metres rather than relying primarily on acceleration and effort.

3. Speed Must Be Reproducible

Gurindervir’s 10.09 demonstrated his ceiling.

A 10.39 performance shows the difference between ceiling and repeatable performance level.

The same applies to Kujur.

His 10.14 in Germany was excellent. But an international athlete needs to become capable of producing 10.1-level performances repeatedly, across rounds, environments and championship situations.

4. International Racing Must Become Normal

Kujur’s fastest performance came when racing a strong field in Germany.

That should tell Indian athletics something.

Athletes improve when they regularly encounter competitors who expose weaknesses in acceleration, transition and maximum velocity.

A few overseas races cannot replace a season spent competing against athletes at the required level.

5. Childhood Power Development Matters

Elite sprinting is built over years.

Coordination, jumping, acceleration, stiffness, reactive strength and high-speed mechanics are trainable qualities that are best developed progressively.

Waiting until an athlete is already an adult national champion before introducing sophisticated sprint development is too late to maximize every component.

6. Talent Identification Must Become More Specific

India should not simply search schools for whoever wins the 100m.

Talent can be hidden in football, kabaddi, jumping events, tribal sport systems and children who have never competed on a synthetic track.

Coaches should look at acceleration, flying speed, vertical and horizontal power, limb mechanics, coordination and responsiveness to training.

7. The Genetic Question Should Motivate Research, Not Excuses

If researchers genuinely want to know whether population genetics influences Indian sprint performance, the answer is not speculation.

India could study elite and developing sprinters using genomic data, muscle architecture, force-velocity profiles, tendon stiffness, anthropometry and training history.

Until such evidence exists, saying Indians are simply “not genetically built to sprint” would be premature.

The uncomfortable truth: India still has not produced a legal sub-10-second male 100m runner, and Bhubaneswar showed that even its current best athletes can struggle against international 10.1-10.2 competition.
The equally important truth: Gurindervir Singh has already run 10.09 and Animesh Kujur 10.14. That is direct evidence that Indian athletes can approach the sub-10 threshold. The unresolved question is how much further their biological ceiling goes — and whether India’s system is capable of finding the athletes with even greater potential.

So Is Genetics Part of India’s Sprint Problem?

Probably in the same sense that genetics is part of elite sprinting everywhere.

No two athletes possess identical biological potential.

Some people are born with combinations of muscle architecture, morphology, tendon characteristics, nervous-system qualities and genetic variants that make extraordinary sprint performance more attainable.

But we currently do not have evidence showing that Indian ancestry itself places a population-wide ceiling above 10 seconds.

And that distinction matters.

There is a huge difference between saying “genetics affects sprint performance” and saying “Indians cannot sprint because of their genetics.”

The first statement is consistent with sports science.

The second is not established by the evidence.

Bhubaneswar Leaves India With a Bigger Question

Gurindervir Singh has already brought India within 0.10 seconds of the historic barrier.

Animesh Kujur is only 0.15 away.

Those numbers are simultaneously encouraging and frustrating.

In sprinting, one tenth of a second is enormous.

It separates national history from international relevance.

Bhubaneswar therefore should not end the debate.

It should intensify it.

India should investigate every possibility: genetics, biomechanics, coaching, training environments, nutrition, childhood development, strength, speed reserve, talent identification and competitive exposure.

Because the goal should not be to prove that Indian genetics cannot produce a sub-10 runner.

The goal should be to discover whether India already has that athlete somewhere — and has simply not found or developed him yet.

Leave a Comment