By Wallace Matthews: The following is a column I wrote concerning the Piazza-Is-Gay rumors that the Post refused to run because it was critical of Neil Travis' deplorable journalism in Monday's paper. I always knew the paper had no integrity. Now we know it has no balls, either.

Bobby Valentine may turn out to be everything he thinks he is: baseball
genius, restaurant innovator, all-around Renaissance Man.
     But on one issue, he is wrong, dead wrong.
     Major League Baseball is not "ready'' to accept an openly gay player, as he told Details magazine in an upcoming issue.
     Nor is the NBA, the NHL, the NFL, the PGA, the USTA or professional boxing.
     If they were, Mike Piazza would not have found himself thrust into in the awkward position of having to address rumors concerning his sexuality before the start of last night's Mets-Phillies game.
     If the fans were ready, the Mets would not care if it became known that their entire roster was made up of gays, because it wouldn't matter.
     And if the rest of society were ready, I wouldn't be writing this column right now.

Mr Matthews is reportedly now looking for another position.

The Sporting News: Responding to questions and rumors about his sexual orientation, Mike Piazza said Tuesday night that the major leagues are ready for gay players but he's not one of them.
     "I'm not gay. I'm heterosexual," the New York Mets All-Star catcher said before playing the Philadelphia Phillies.
     Piazza, who wanted to set the record straight about his sexual orientation, said he's aware of the rumors but doesn't know why they started.
     "I can't control what people think. I date women," Piazza said.
     He also agrees with Mets manager Bobby Valentine that players can accept an openly gay teammate. "In this day and age, it's irrelevant," he said. "I don't think it would be a problem at all."

Right, babycakes. This is why you actually answered that question instead of saying, "None of your damn business," and letting your conduct answer the question. Because it wouldn't be a problem in baseball.

There are still no homosexuals in baseball. Not officially, anyway. [...] For a ballplayer to acknowledge otherwise, of course, would be committing professional suicide. [...] The most encouraging thing about the whole episode is how little attention it's generated. Reporters who questioned Mets general manager Steve Phillips got this answer: "If statistics hold up, in every clubhouse there is somebody who is gay. So what? Who cares?"

At least two wire service articles, independent articles on both the Sporting News and ESPN, a planned story on how this got so blown up also on ESPN SportsCenter, a rather resigned column over at OutSports ... and this is only a "little attention"? I mean, yes, it could have been worse -- and was worse last year when Lemon ran off at the editorial -- but it's not exactly as if this surfed entirely under everyone's radar, as it should have if it wasn't really a big deal. The answer to Phillips' question "Who cares?" is transparently, "WAY too many people to make it comfortable or possible for someone to come out voluntarily."

Frankly, I don't expect the first out-professional athlete to come out voluntarily if they're already in pro sports. Either it will be someone dragged kicking and screaming out of the closet who finally just gives up the bad fight, or, in the best of all possible worlds, someone coming up from high school and college who has always been out, and who is so overwhelmingly talented that professional sports simply can't take a pass. That's been the model for ethnic minorities -- only the outstanding get in at first -- so there's no reason at all to believe that it would be different for anyone else. (Aside from the kicking-screaming possibility.)

What I can't figure out is why it's even anybody's business. What difference does it make?

It doesn't. What difference does THAT make?