An interesting sports article here in Orlando, that (for the local paper) takes a rather surprising side in the "not ready for an out gay athelete" debate.

Orlando Sentinel - Sport Column

-- TommOrl

That's a great article. I'd almost think the writer was gay himself. All these criminals are given multiple chances (Strawberry, Gooden, Steve Howe) and keep failing, but since they're straight, everyone looks the other way. I wonder who will have the courage to come out with the type of reaction we saw with the Mets/Piazza mess.

Except for the one thing that bothered me about the article: how does he know we don't cheer for gays? Until somebody comes out, this is speculation. I don't recall seeing Amelie Mauresmo getting booed anywhere.

[quote]Originally posted by JC:
Except for the one thing that bothered me about the article: how does he know we don't cheer for gays? Until somebody comes out, this is speculation. I don't recall seeing Amelie Mauresmo getting booed anywhere.

---

I think the thrust of the article was not about what reality might be if and when a gay player comes out, but the absolute terror among the pundits over the possibility. I think the author was trying to speak to the absurdness of those naysayers.

I thought the article was total crap. A poorly-reasoned cascading series of fallacies. The writer is living in some sort of parallel universe that only superficially resembles our world.

John Rocker beloved and cheered? Not in New York. Not anywhere else. Rocker is a pariah, not a beloved sportsmen. Sure a few folks in that yay-hoo town of Atlanta cheered him, but they were a minority. And Rocker's not a drug addict, a wife beater, or a criminal. He only said some stupid anti-New York remarks.

The Jason Kidd is example is very unfair and ill-chosen. After the spouse abuse allegations surfaced, Kidd was traded from Phoenix, a city that he loved and which loved him. And the attitude, generally, was don't let the door hit you on the way out. But he rebuilt his career, salvaged his marriage ... Kidd did things right and he deserves to be cheered. On the other hand, wife-beating Wil Cordero is still a pariah. Yeah he gets work, but the fans will always be cold to him. Forgiveness and redemption always will be boffo in this culture. Kidd's comeback is a good story.

Daryl Strawberry and Steve Howe kept getting work despite well-publicized drug addictions, but once their addictions surfaced, neither were cheered as loudly again. Teams saw them as potentially useful, but fans never took either to heart. (In contrast, a player who genuinely licked a addiction - like Dennis Eckersley's battle with the bottle - were taken to heart.). And there are plenty of other, less stellar players who never got the second and third chances after criminal or drug problems ... just like a gay superstar will always find work.

The writer's premise is totally off-base ... with the exception of his paragraph of Mike Tyson. I don't understand why he is still such a big draw. He's a disgrace to boxing. I guess boxing fans just love pure violence and no one else in the sport brings that on like Tyson.

Other than that, it's whiney, smug self-righteous crap. The stupidest statement is this one: "In what other facet of our lives do otherwise decent men and women give standing ovations to wife beaters, tax evaders, drug addicts, liars, pimps and thieves? In what other circumstance would we even associate with these people, much less pay their salaries?"

That answer: Show biz. Music. Movies. Why is he singling out sports and sports fans?

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
That answer: Show biz. Music. Movies. Why is he singling out sports and sports fans?

---

First off, that struck me as well when reading the article. I think this guy let emotion write, which is ok if you let intellect edit (I didn't once, and boy did I get in trouble).
However, as a resident of Dallas, I have to say that from where I sit sports fans are a very forgiving lot. Forgetting that factory of reprobates we lovingly call the Dallas Cowboys, there was the infamous Eddie Belfour incident in one of finer hotels where the hooker he was with was so freaked by his substance (I'm really not sure what substance, it could very well have been mere booze) induced hostility that she called the police on him.
But getting back to the boys in blue and silver, we have a lineman who videotapes every sexual encounter he has, not because of some kink, but so that when he gets accused of rape, he has proof it wasn't. We have our boy Michael who spent his birthday in a sleazy motel room (alright it was sleazy because they were there, not in itself) with several self employed models and a lot of cocaine.
Over on the basketball side there's always fashion criminal Steve Nash who can't seem to get a decent haircut in a city of very nice salons... Oh, wait, he's got bigger problems. Some fan might find out he's gay (no, I don't know that for sure. I have only my gaydar to work with)
Our hockey team seems to think getting girls they're not married to pregnant is part of the sport. To their credit, more often than not, they tend to marry them before they start to show.
So there's lots of stuff out there worse than being gay that is largely ignored and/or tolerated by the fans, the press and management. In particular these pecadillos are glossed over by the very pundits who are so sure no one will be able to handle a gay ball handler (pun intended, tongue fully in cheek, and yes that pun was intended too)

I was thinking that some players' overt homophobia might actually work in favor of a gay athlete.

For examples, if the teammates of the out gay athlete started spewing John Rocker-like comments, I think the fans would start turning against the homophobe (like they did against Rocker) and support the gay "underdog."

Americans espcially like people who have been put down, but then rise to the top against all odds.

The columnist was right. If sports pundits would stop bemoaning homophobia and start blasting it, maybe some progress would be made. It's insulting that they can abdicate their moral authority like they do on this issue. Is it because they're scared of not being thought of as enough of a man? Probably.

The easiest thing in the world is to say "I personally have no problem with it, but gosh, it would be just so hard because of the OTHER HOMOPHOBES."

The hardest thing is to lambast homophobia as a disease, say that nobody should have to sacrifice their self-respect or their integrity in the name of the closet, encourage players who have a problem with gays in the lockerroom to find another profession that doesn't require nudity in front of other men, point out that the whole "privacy" argument is a gigantic double-standard, and challenge a gay athlete to come out NOW because sports will NEVER be ready for the first openly gay athlete but until someone does it, progress can't be made.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
I thought the article was total crap... premise is totally off-base... with the exception of...Mike Tyson.

---

You may not agree with all his examples, but if even a couple of them are accurate it supports his point. An athlete who is gay and wants to not live in the closet while also living in the sports spolight has a right to expect respect from teammates, opponents and fans.
Those who keep saying "are we ready" need to say "we are ready" and be ready to show support for an athlete who chooses to come out. They need to help open the eyes of those who have been accepting of athletes with criminal, or simply detestable personal records to the illogical double-standard they are applying by not accepting a moral and upstanding gay athlete while overlooking a whole range of foibles, at the least, among hetero (or "undeclared") athletes. I think that's what the author is saying.

I'd better come up for air after that run-on sentence.