[JoeRedskin]

Dungy's remark, in light of his past statements about other "distraction" players, strikes me as incredibly hypocritical. As SS said, if it is performance based, fine - just say that. To couch it the way he did, however, certainly creates more than a mere inference of gender preference discrimination.

@ SirLK26: If "someone saying he didn't want a black player" is impermissible discrimination, how is someone saying "I don't want a gay player" not impermissible discrimination.

Based on his statement, juxtaposed against the statements Dungy has made about other "distraction" players, the only reason Dungy wouldn't draft Sam is b/c of his homosexuality. You can couch it any way you like, but that is the crux of it. Alleging Sam's homosexuality brings "a different kind of attention," is the type of evasive arguments used in racial discrimination for years - football has seen similar disguised discrimination before: intelligent QB's v. athletic QB's, Dungy himself faced similar hidden discrimination - "Sure, he's qualified but I've known Coach X for years."

Jackie Robinson was a huge "distraction" - was Branch Rickey right or wrong to put him on the team? If Rickey was right to put him on the team in that time and place. Isn't Dungy wrong in this time and place to exclude Sam?

[Yes, I know. Sam is not the talent that Robinson was, but, again, the debate here is not whether he had the talent to be drafted but, regardless of talent, and as with Robinson, whether Sam's mere presence would be too disruptive and hinder the team.]

Dungy is free to speak his mind. Others are free to agree or disagree with him. Bottom line, is it okay "in this era" to permit discrimination based on gender preference in a football locker room setting? You (and Dungy) apparently believe it is. Others believe it is not. Quite frankly, I find neither side's argument particularly persuasive of any imperative answer.

Bottom line for me, if he can play with the big boys, all else is moot.