Always have to be careful with the "biological differences" stuff. Easy to see patterns, but also easy to find yourself making some fairly harmful assumptions. Mostly because the way that humans socially divide "white" from "black" aren't the same as differences at the ethnic, regional, familial, or genetic level when it comes to humans, not to mention cultural and social influences.
Like, for one particularly good example, it's not that black people are often better at long distance-running, or even people from East Africa, or even Kenyans - it's specifically Kalenjins. There's 5-6 million of them, mostly in Kenya, and we're still not really sure why they're so good at running for long distances. Seems to be some combination of culture, traditional diet, geography (runners there often train at altitude), and biology, but there are plenty of other East Africans with just the same kinds of lifestyle and physiques who aren't as good, so who knows? And with sprinting, it's a similar thing - while clearly there's something about people with West African heritage (most slaves were from that region, and now the Caribbean produces plenty of great sprinters), there are still plenty of social and cultural factors that must play a role, because there's nothing biologically there that gives such an overwhelmingly big advantage that it would cause such a dominance that anyone can find. And I don't think it's a coincidence that athletes from poorer countries tend to get on better in sports that require less equipment and less-sophisticated facilities, too - unless white people are just inherently better at rowing, dressage, sailing, skiing, shooting, swimming, and so on...