The sport has a height bias towards height given the goal location. But if you just assess skills... Dribbling, shooting, etc I think that there are a lot more sub 5'9"master players.
Weightlifting has a bias towards strong people, but if you ignore the fact that you have to lift heavy weights to win...
The OP's claim was that with enough effort and some luck, anybody could play at any level (including top level) at any sport, not "at any sport, after changing the definition of winning".
100metres has a bias towards fast people? What does that mean?
I wager if two males born on the same day on opposite ends of the earth trained 8 hours per day to run the 100 metres eating exactly the same diet and following the same training regime to the same intensity they would post almost identical 100 metres results.
The difference comes from the application of focussed practice. It is the mental intensity through which you train.
Jack Nicklaus famously said he has never just "hit a ball" in his life. Every single stroke of every single session was a genuine attempt to accomplish a defined goal. Every shot analysed. That is why he is arguably the greatest (or second greatest golfer) of all time. 99% of golfers just hit the ball.
Schwarzenegger pioneered the idea that you can literally will your muscles to grow larger by thinking about them tearing and rebuilding. Subsequently proven almost three decades after he was laughed at. [1]
Natural talent is the witch doctor name we give to those who practise harder, longer and better than we do. Syed also subsequently disproves the idea of Kenyan runners as champion long distance athletes. Another cognitive dissonance.
[1] http://docsfitnesstips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/can-thinking-a... (Ignore the web address, it is the academic study he discusses and links to).
It is a comment on a comment to your comment, so it need not relate strongly to it.
"100metres has a bias towards fast people? What does that mean?"
It is analogous to the remark that basketball has a bias towards height, and IMO apt, because your claim was about any sport.
"I wager if two males born on the same day on opposite ends of the earth trained 8 hours per day to run the 100 metres eating exactly the same diet and following the same training regime to the same intensity they would post almost identical 100 metres results."
In the "nature vs nurture" debate, that is extremist towards nurture, to such an extent that I haven't heard it before, and find it hard to believe that anybody would hold that a view that extremist. One of those men might have been born without legs, with cystic fibrosis, or just with genes that predispose him towards long distance running rather than sprinting. And yes, those Kenyan runners may not have a genetic advantage in long distance running over other lightly built athletes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22634972), but they surely have one over, say, Samoan men or pygmies.
In a highly competitive sport, you need both talent, hard work and a good environment for training (food, trainers, gym, etc) to become exceptional. You can compensate talent with hard work or a good training environment, and some do, but even for those, having more talent would (all other things being equal) make them even better.
"In a highly competitive sport, you need both talent..."
There is no such thing as talent.
This is where our arguments are diverging. Disproving talents shows that anyone in possession of the minimum required attributes (legs, eyes etc) can become World Class at a sport given optimum training conditions and luck.
Claiming that an Olympic sprinter is more naturally talented than someone born without legs is absurd and a hijacking of the word talent beyond all legitimate understanding.
The argument is not about Heavyweight Boxer versus Featherweight. It is about can Person A become a world class boxer at all? The answer is yes, they can with the correct training, mindset and luck.
To argue otherwise is not consistent with scientific research.
The point that Syed is making is not Play A of X height and Player B of Y height are equal. He reports (cited academic studies) that given the same height Player A and Player B have no intrinsic native advantages over each other - all advantages are cultural and luck. Player A may have a great coach, a great basketballing school etc or Player B may just simply work harder.
There are a legion of examples to back up his claims including the Williams sisters. Two prodigies who came from a family that had not even heard of Tennis until their father decided they would be tennis champions.
There is also Syed himself who played in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games at table tennis. Curiously enough 50% of the national team for table tennis also came from his street...
...lucky enough to be born next to a world class club.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3f0BggE__4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0svVz4kSWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6qdM6O26CY
If you want to tell me how many hours training it would take to score that first try I am all ears.
Although to be fair, the stories of Rupeni Caucau are anecdotal. Contrast with the weightlifter and actor Carl Weathers who maintained he was just naturally muscled and athletic when he was in fact getting up at 3am to train and returning to bed at 430am so his co-stars never suspected his regime.
It infuriated Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarznegger to the point of on-set arguments. Weathers would just flex and claim "genetics does not need to lift weights."