Odel Thurman and the Moral High Ground
Who’s right and who’s wrong? Yesterday the Bengals released Odell Thurman for missing some workouts earlier this month. Thurman says he simply didn’t return to practice as swiftly as the team liked after his grandmother passed away.
Clearly there are other factors which played a roll in the decision. Did Thurman’s past drug suspensions put him on a short leash even for an offense like a bereavement absence? Did the team think the story about Thurman’s grandmother wasn’t the “whole story” (a la Zach Randolph)?
On the other hand, it’s possible to team used Thurman’s absence a way to cut ties with a player who’s had a checkered past. The one word that repeatedly jumps off the page of the AP story on Thurman’s release is “voluntary.” As in the “voluntary” workouts Thurman was released for missing.
Sometimes in sports things happen and fans never know the real story. This is one of those transactions where there’s likely more than meets the eye—a transaction whose purpose falls into the gray area between improving the team and disciplinary action. The decision might have come down to something as trivial as Thurman’s attitude on certain days or a particular interaction he had with coaches.
Rather than make a big deal and fight over who has the moral high ground, both parties seem content to part ways and find a fresh start. Fans will now have to wait for Thurman’s memoirs to find out what really happened.
No Comments »