Mark Bingham, AP Photo/family handout
Good on Gareth Thomas for revealing to The Sunday Times that he is gay and wants to come out of the closet. Thomas, aged 35, is at the end of a great career that saw him captain the British and Irish Lions and become the most-capped Welsh player.
But we shouldn’t get too carried away about the bravery involved in the decision.
A cynic might suggest, in fact, that a tell-all book, along the lines of the Andre Agassi model, is probably on the way.
The fact of the matter is that the news that Thomas is gay is hardly earth-shattering stuff.
Most British rugby journalists knew that Thomas was gay. His career was never threatened. Players in the Welsh squad knew as well. They, like the rugby media, protected his secret.
It is hardly as if Thomas is the first Welsh rugby identity to come out in recent times. Nigel Owens, the dapper, neat-as-a-pin international rugby referee, with his high-pitched Welsh voice, came out a couple of years ago.
Although he had contemplated committing suicide earlier, Owens’ career continued on its upward trajectory after he made his announcement.
This season, for instance, he refereed England-Argentina at Twickenham and Ireland-South Africa at Croke Park.
It has suited the gay reform movement to paint male team sports as bastions of gay-bashing. But, in fact, it is difficult to think of occasions in recent years when someone coming out as gay in a team sport environment has suffered.
Simon Barnes, the brilliant award-winning sports columnist for The Times, has written a foolish piece about how Thomas’ announcement has dragged sport’s secret out of the closet.
“In questions of sexuality,” he writes, “male team sports have always been in perpetual flight from the very notion of homosexuality.”
Barnes has no understanding of matters relating to rugby union.
There was no mention of Owens in his attempts to implicate male sports teams as homophobic bastions. Nor is there any reference to Mark Bingham, whose life and death refutes Barnes’ silly and uninformed attack.
And who was Mark Bingham?
He was one of the heroes of United Flight 93, on that terrible day known to history as 9/11.
Four terrorists on board captured the plane and tried to crash it into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission has published details on how Bingham and some other passengers attempted to retake the plane about 30 minutes after it has been commandeered.
The passengers put the plane into a nose dive that sent it crashing into a field in Pennsylvania, rather than the Pentagon. They lost their own lives but saved many hundreds of other lives through their bravery.
Before the plane crash, Bingham made a call to his mother. His mother, who had worked as a flight attendant on United Airlines, left a voice message to her son telling him he had to re-take the plane.
This bravery on the part of Bingham was typical.
After the crash, Bingham’s partner, Paul Holm, told the media that Bingham had protected him against several attempted muggings, one of them at gunpoint.
“He hated to lose at anything,” Holm said about Bingham. He went on to relate how Bingham carried scars he’d gained from running the bulls in Pamploma.
The back story to Bingham that captured the attention of the US media was that he was not only a proud gay man, he was also a passionate rugby man who founded gay rugby teams, organised tournaments for them, played number 8 (he was 1.93cm and 102kg), and taught his team-mates his favourite rugby songs.
After Bingham’s exploits on United Flight 93 came out, T-shirts started appearing around the United States with these words on them: TERRORISTS BEWARE, RUGBY PLAYERS ON BOARD.
The details of Mark Bingham’s story (some of them used in this article) are related in his Wikipedia biography.
He lived an impressive life by any standards.
He was a successful businessman and a role model (Simon Barnes take note) for everyone who plays and supports a team sport like rugby. He was inclusive and combative, in the best traditions of the rugby game.
One of his best-remembered quotes to encourage gay men to play rugby is this: “This is a great opportunity to change a lot of people’s minds, and to reach a group that might never have had to know or hear about gay people … Let’s go and make some new friends … and win a few games.”
Bingham’s deeds on United Flight 93 have been portrayed in three movies.
The Mark Kendall Bingham Memorial Tournament, established in 2002, is a bi-annual international rugby union competition for gay and bisexual men.
Melissa Etheridge has written a song, Tuesday Morning, in his memory.
Gareth Thomas, like Nigel Owens, has shown courage to come out. But Mark Bingham, a rugby player who never hid his sexuality, will forever be rugby union’s iconic gay player.
Jason clarke
Guest
If there are any aussie gay/bi/straight/single/married/divorced/curious rugby players 18-45 years in Sydney please hit me up anytime.
Scarlet
Guest
So now that the story of Gareth Thomas has been digested what is the view of Brian Moore's disclosures? Personally, I believe that Brian Moore wrote sensitively in response to GT's announcement in his newspaper column and when he subsequently unveiled his own demons to the media a week or two later it is just another step forward to creating a more level and accepting society which doesn't denigrate people for their sexuality or the privations that they may have suffered. Good on them both, and good luck to all.
Elbusto
Guest
Congratulations to Gareth Thomas for having the courage to tell the world who he really is. Shame on those narrow minded people who do not appreciate the diversity of our species. There is a long way to go but acceptance is far more common now. We should be celebrating difference and not condemning it.
Keith
Guest
Hi Joe, the article didn't draw a direct link between Bingham being gay and his actions on the plane. He was a gay rugby player, and he chose to be heroic on the last day of his life. Nowhere in the article is there a claim he made that choice because he was gay or a rugby player. You make a fair point about the difficulty of assigning "ethic norms" to groups of people, but you take it too far. They exist - as clear as the nose on your face - and they're called cultures. Countries have them, professions have them and sports have them. Hell, even groups of mates have them. The article was about attitudes towards gays in rugby. It's reasonable it should use examples.
Joe O'Sullivan
Guest
Keith, relevancy or irrelevancy as the case may be is a matter of opinion. I have two primary concerns with Spiro’s article (which as you correctly identify is a response to the story by Simon Barnes). Firstly he appears to draw a link between notions of nobility and courage with sexual activities that may constitute nothing more than self gratification. Secondly he seems to regard the body politic of rugby union as a homogeneous group by suggesting a singular moral doctrine that has the support of all. Let me deal firstly with my second objection. Sports and specifically in this case male team sports like rugby union consist of a multitude of people, both male and female, with a wide variety of backgrounds. I question the ability of anyone to articulate an ethic norm for a group of individuals whose common interest is pursuit of a particular sport. There will be as many conflicting views and attitudes on homosexuality as there are rugby union fans. No one position can be said to be representative of the whole. More importantly for me though Keith is my first point. What one considers to be dignified and worthy is very much dependent upon the principles one embraces and the values thus engendered. The comment was made above that “its (sic) not about the sexuality”. Superficially this might be true because, whether we like it or not, it is much more than just sexuality, it is about a moral compass and the choices we make. The laws of rugby union in as much as they encourage sportsmanship and fair play are underpinned by this same ethos. If media reports of the last six weeks are to be believed one might reasonably conclude that Tiger Woods is or was a serial fornicator and adulterer. Is Tiger to be granted equivalent iconic status within the golfing world for his sexual practices? And if he were what would the consequences be for him, the game and the world wide golfing fraternity? Our deeds have consequences far beyond personal circumstances. Who we propose as role models and why we do so is important, and so too are the standards we choose to embrace or reject.
Wavell Wakefield
Guest
From test rugby, but not domestic rugby, Dingbat.
Dingbat
Guest
Has he retired?
Derm
Roar Guru
I thought they were very relevant questions to ask.
Keith
Guest
- "What does it mean to claim that rugby union (or any sport) has an iconic gay player? Does it advance, undermine or have no impact on the game’s development?" It doesn't have anything to do with the game's development. The article was refuting claims made about attitudes toward gays within the game. - "Is the particular individual thought to be of more or less value to society than you and I? Do we need to acclaim iconic adulterers?" Do you have to keep asking irrelvant questions?
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
"The passengers put the plane into a nose dive that sent it crashing into a field in Pennsylvania". Spiro, I don't think they ever worked out what happened on the plane. It may have been the terrorists that did that to prevent the plane being taken back over, it may have been due to people fighting in the cockpit. The suggestion that they crashed the plane to stop it being put into the Pentagon is drawing a long bow from my understanding of what went on. In relation to Thomas, I agree with the general tenor of your article. While it is brave to come out, it would have been braver to due it during his career. Now he has quit, there is no come back. No looks in the change rooms, no taunts from the crowd, no John Fashanu career stall. THAT would have said more about rugby, in how it responded then. There was a comment from Phil Waugh or some other Wallabies that they knew up to 2 years ago, but figured it was his issue not theirs, and not for them to comment. Thomas also said he never fancied any of his team mates. Whether true or not, this gets at the real reason for any "fear" of homosexuals in football. That they must be eying me up and wanting to have sex with me. Having said that, I saw the movie Milk with Sean Penn the other night, and it was eye opening as to attutides to gays even 30 years ago. Then you had the Christian fundamentialists alleging all gay men were pedophiles wanting to corrupt children. So things have come along a bit in 30 years ... but also plus sa change.
MM
Guest
Pothale - I do see where you're coming from having put it like you have - and the others too - my apologies to you all. I erred in hastily writing at some rediculous hour after landing from a long trip. It should say, ".... and where else BUT to place the article in the rugby column?" I think "BUT" is the missing word to others reading this. Yup - I messed up greatly on the main line quoted part by DD. I should have said: "Consideration should be given to OTHER TEAM individuals who may form the larger part of the ballpark..." Yes - at the cost of great arguments, considering the points raised about the article - it is fair on all to be open about one's gender preference if I can put it like that. It is also fair on the player in the long term - we are not living in Noah's days. As observed, there's often a closed eye to it anyway. This would be subject to GREAT CONSIDERATION - but myself and many I know would not be comfortable in the same change rooms for example - my point being fairness for all. I hope this clarifies the remark and once again, apologise to all. It'll teach me to wait 'till I've had a few zzzzzzz's before making any remarks. Thanks again Pothale!
Derm
Roar Guru
MM - Dublin Dave did comment on what you wrote. The problem is with understanding clearly what you wanted to say. You wrote: "Spiro has scripted an overview of Bingham not only within the rugby boundaries ~ and where else to place the article in the rugby column?" I don't understand this sentence - it doesn't scan grammatically. What did you mean? "However, as stated in various comments, the fairness / unfairness on the comfort and cohesiveness of individual players, I feel is the larger part of the ballpark rather than the individual." 'the larger part of the ballpark rather than the individual???? - what does this mean? It’s my opinion that such declarations be open – it may sound harsh – but just as gender anomalies are strictly governed in other arenas of sport – so it should be with rugby." Again, I have problems understanding this - are you trying to say that gay people should be obliged to announce their sexuality to their team-mates/other players? I have to say that the entire comment makes little sense to me. I don't know if English is your first language or not, so I'm not making it personal, as I know the difficulties of trying to communicate in a second language. Perhaps you'd try again and we'll see if we can understand your point better?
MattyP
Guest
Spiro/others - there seems to be an assumption that Thomas' sexuality was well known in Welsh rugby circles. Yet the article I first read on this (on BBC Sports) implied that when Thomas broke the story to Stephen Jones and Martyn Williams, his long time teammates, they were unaware (although Scott Johnson had "guessed" and confronted him). At least in the related anecdote, it wasn't as if they said something along the lines of "of course we knew, we're your mates". Just trying to reconcile that.
MM
Guest
Doublin Dave You quote an excerpt of mine and fail to comment exactly on that. In the article there is a clear implication on the possible effect on others - as well as contained in Spiro's first comment. It doesn't take rocket science to translate what I have said regarding OTHER individual players and their..... as said. Obviously it's the other individual players forming the team. Nothing complicated about that. I do not tell you how to write - don't do it to me. I did not get personal to anybody including Soapit - however you do - having read your first comment - why don't you submit an article rather - it's long in the tooth for a comment pal! Your last comment - your opinion - not necessarily those of others. Enjoy your day / night
Dublin Dave
Guest
"the fairness / unfairness on the comfort and cohesiveness of individual players, I feel is the larger part of the ballpark rather than the individual. " MM, you come out with this nonsense, and I'm talking about its semantics rather than the meaning I fear you intended, and then you demand of Soapit that he/she "be more definitive." A case of the blast furnace calling the electric kettle black. If you wish to extend the meaning of "gender anomalies" to include "people of the same gender but with different preferences" then say so. Then at least we can be clear what it is you're trying to say. And it is of course only right that "gender anomalies" be regulated in competitive sport. Women should compete against other women, where competition is the important thing. Having said which, if you haven't played a game of mixed rugby, you haven't lived. :)
soapit
Guest
it is directed at the part where you said "it may sound harsh" to which i responded "it doesnt sound harsh......."
MM
Guest
Soapit - be more definitive - "It doesn't sound harsh, just ignorant and plain stupid:. Should this be directed at my comment / me - look ahead in time - you know, what is best for normal players versus one player they are not comfortable with? Be there - and then comment - Right....
soapit
Guest
mm - it doesnt sound harsh, just ignorant and plain stupid.
MM
Guest
Spiro has scripted an overview of Bingham not only within the rugby boundaries ~ and where else to place the article in the rugby column? However, as stated in various comments, the fairness / unfairness on the comfort and cohesiveness of individual players, I feel is the larger part of the ballpark rather than the individual. It's my opinion that such declarations be open - it may sound harsh - but just as gender anomalies are strictly governed in other arenas of sport - so it should be with rugby.
soapit
Guest
roger, i hate to break it to you but statistically its very unlikely that this wouldnt have happened to you already. and you didnt feel a thing. sure you'll be uncorfortable the first few times like anything new and "strange" but you'll get used to it. in a lot of countries male and females change and shower in the same room. they are just used to it. i know you probably feel youre very important but do you really think youre the best person to give the definitive view on what is"right" or not. maybe youre just faithfully regurgitating some dogma someone else taught you at some stage but you better get on board, society has changed so suck it up (or spend the rest of your life whinging).