Pandora's Closet

Gareth Thomas, Anton Hysen and Steven Davies

Anton Hysen’s recent revelation that he was gay appears to have been quite positively received. Especially when you consider that he is only the second European footballer to be so bold as to publicly ‘come out.’  

On the one hand I applaud his bravery, but on the other hand, I’m left perplexed as to why in this day and age his announcement should require bravery.

In 2005, it was estimated that six percent of the British population was gay. Imagine those figures applied to the Premier League... it would mean that there could potentially be at least one gay footballer on each Premier League team! 

There really isn’t much substance to my figures, but I would still happily wager a guess that there are at least a handful of football players who can identify with Hysen yet prefer not to rock the boat. But why?

Unfortunately that innocent question ‘why’ is the catalyst that kicks open Pandora’s Closet Door. Why should an athlete have to disclose their sexuality? Why should they keep it quiet? Why do we take so much interest in what happens behind the closed doors of these athletes? More to the point – why should any of this matter?

The only thing Hysen’s announcement has established for me is that in a day and age where women wear trousers, swearing is no longer taboo and a black man is managing the United States of America there is still a stigma attached to athletes and homosexuality. Go figure.

In order for stigmas and taboos to be broken, they have to be boldly challenged. Hysen’s done it in football, Steven Davies in cricket, Gareth Thomas in rugby – who’s next?

Michelle Brannan

When you hear the word ‘bikini’ what comes to mind? Most people think of beaches and holidays, but for a select few, ‘Bikini’ is a recognised category in bodybuilding competitions.


This latest addition to the world of bodybuilding competitions is for toned women who want to show off their physique without the extremity of the ‘Figure’ category. Competitors should display a toned physique with symmetrical upper and lower body development. Physique should be lean without excessive body fat, but should not display significant muscle size, separation or striation. Abdominal definition is acceptable but a ripped "six pack" is not ideal.

Despite the fact that the bikini ‘look’ is lean with little muscular development, competitors in this category still have to be very disciplined in their approach to their diet and their training. Furthermore, unlike most sports where the outcome of the competition is down to the performance, bodybuilding is different because the outcome of the competition is down to the 12 weeks of sculpting that takes place prior to competition day.

One person who can vouch for the hard work that goes with this category is Michelle Brannan. Michelle only started competing in 2010 and but has already stamped her name on the category by winning the FAME and UKBFF Mr Hercules show and placing 2nd in the 2010 Fitness Britain. She has started her 2011 season with a bang by winning the Ms Bikini IFBB Amateur International Cup last weekend.

Don’t let the pretty face fool ya – Michelle is not afraid of weights. Her favourite exercises are lunges, leg presses and Romanian deadlifts. She always does 5 sets of 10 for her legs and she’s more than happy to leg press about 120-130kilos.

‘I love competing’, said Brannan, ‘I like to see the results of my hard work, I am very competitive and I enjoy the buzz of being on stage and making the best of myself. Its hard work but it gives me a goal and its fun.’

The jury is still out on whether or not this category should be taken seriously or not, but judging by the amount of hard work that Michelle puts into her training, I’d say that 'Bikini' is not for the faint hearted.

To find out more about Michelle and her upcoming shows, visit her web page: http://www.michellebrannan.com/

There's Only One England Captain, Right?

I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid the news recently due to the worldwide destruction dominating the headlines. Despite this effort, the name ‘John Terry’ and the words ‘England captain’ have made their way onto my radar. If you take the current situation at face value, it should be simple really - manager appoints a captain, team accepts decision. However straightforward this decision should be, the relationship between the armband and its wearer is a unique one. 

For the life of me I’ve never understood the press’ preoccupation with the England squad or its captain so I decided to broach the subject with a group of seasoned football fans at the pub before the Chelsea v Kobenhavn match.

According to the lads, the role of England captain gained reverential status because of a certain golden haired skipper by the name of Bobby Moore who guided England to victory in the ‘66 World Cup. Apparently, there was something about the image of Moore wearing the red England kit and holding the cup victoriously that touched a nerve in the England fan and caused them to immortalise the skipper role. The role of the England skipper is held in such high regard that it could be argued that no other national team captain is revered as highly or under as much scrutiny.

No pressure, eh?

Judging by the number of fans at Stamford Bridge singing ‘There’s only one England captain’, it seems like England fans want more football and less politics. If a players suitability for the skipper role is measured with a morality stick… good luck naming one in time for Saturday.

I can’t tell you who should captain the squad, but what I do know is that this is yet another inappropriately timed debate that if not settled quickly,  will only serve to distract and hinder the squad – again.

Do As I Say But Not As I Do

‘Respect is the collective responsibility of everyone involved in football to create a fair, safe and enjoyable environment in which the game can take place.’ – FA.com

Seems as though a handful of managers missed that bulletin!

The RESPECT campaign was launched in 2008 to protect referees from abusive players and seems to have had the desired effect - with the players. Managers, on the other hand, appear to be exempt from this initiative.

Over the last few weeks there have been instances of petulance where management and the ‘beautiful game’ are concerned. In reality only two incidents made the headlines, but in a sport where players are constantly being raked over the coals for unsportsmanlike behaviour, it was a surprise to see management openly succumbing to their emotions.

If I had an opportunity to interview Mark Hughes I’d be compelled to ask: when your players feel that they are being disrespected on the pitch by the opposition, are you ok with them acting out?

Perception is reality. So regardless of what Mancini did or may have done or was to perceived to have done to Hughes – Hughes is the one who appears to condone childish behaviour.

Hughes’ pelted teddy was nothing compared to the incident that ended the Celtic v Rangers match. Historically, a highly charged fixture, this particular match was a train wreck of sorts: athletes were on edge, cards were being handed out like M&Ms at Halloween and the fans were ready for action. The exchange between Lennon and McCoist did absolutely nothing to calm an already precarious situation. Could they not have handled their beef in the tunnel, at the pub or in a boxing ring?

No one is without fault where heated reactions are concerned. Read the New Testament and you’ll see that even Jesus threw a wobbler once. However, as a society we have created a hierarchy which demands that different levels of responsibility and accountability are attributed to certain individuals the higher up they rise.

Numerous athletes have received hefty fines for questionable behaviour and they are the sheep – not the shepherd. How can we expect sportsmen to 'rise above it', when their managers can't?

With this in mind – should the RESPECT campaign extend to managers? Or should we just leave managers to their own devices?

For Country or Culture?

Femi Ogunode - Nigerian born sprinter

 There are some sporting events that are simply too good to pass up an opportunity to participate in. One of them is the World Cup, the other is the Olympics. Over the years there has been a growing trend in athletes opting to represent nations that reflect their heritage as opposed to their birthplace. Whilst perfectly understandable due to the eclectic nature of many Western countries, fans and spectators tend to display a strong sense of national pride and yearn for athletes who share their nationalism.

Many Jamaicans will remember 400m champion sprinter Marilyn Neufville. Neufville was born in Jamaica but emigrated to the UK at a young age where she went on to develop into an elite athlete. Despite having represented Great Britain in 1970 at the European Indoor Championships in Vienna – where she won gold - she made the decision to represent her home country of Jamaica just months later. This decision confused and angered the British public who felt that England nurtured her talent and helped her find international success – not Jamaica.

Fast forward three decades to the 2006 World Cup when the Trinidad and Tobago football team earned a spot on the world stage. The media however seemed to take a greater interest in one of TT’s Midfielders, Chris ‘Me Mum’ Birchall – than the fact that this was TT’s first inclusion in the tournament. Birchall was not your typical Trini... he was born in England and played for English teams throughout his entire sporting career, however, when the opportunity to represent the Twin Isles via his mother came knocking, he didn’t look back.

There are so many factors to take into consideration where this discussion on national eligibility is concerned. In some cases, athletes are simply not good enough to make the team of the country they most naturally represent. In other cases, the athlete’s standard may be higher than that of what his country can accommodate for. Yet still in other cases, money may be the driving factor. To this day Neufville’s reasons for changing teams are unknown.

Where Great Britain may felt slighted by Neufville, they have more than made up for her with NBA superstar Luol Deng and track and field champion Mo Farah. Scratch the surface oftheir biographies and you'll find that neither of these sports stars are ‘English’, however, they are championed as the country’s poster boys of their respective sports due to their excellence and professionalism on and off the court and track respectively.

Admittedly I am being a little provocative, but that is only because I genuinely want to know what others think of this trend. Should Merlene have stayed with Jamaica? Did the Windies need Nash? Should Cole be considering his options on the Bajan National team? (Is there a Bajan National Team?) How many times have we switched on the telly to watch a track meet only to see a strapping Mandingo warming up in the lane that has been assigned to Qatar? Is this acceptable or does it really not matter?

As always, I welcome your views.