Horus Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 nfl.com Odell Thurman OK maybe I'm wrong here but i feel Bengals showed no class in cutting Odell Thurman for the reason stated in the article....the mans grandmother has just died, she raised him so he was as close to her as if she was his mother...the man fails to attend VOLUNTARY ota's just after her death as he's at home takeing care of her things...I understand he just had 2 years off and that the Bengals are installing a new defense and want him there to study it, but c'mon....this just sounds like they didnt want him back in the first place and are just useing this as a way to get rid of him...to bad it makes them sound like losers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 nfl.com Odell Thurman OK maybe I'm wrong here but i feel Bengals showed no class in cutting Odell Thurman for the reason stated in the article....the mans grandmother has just died, she raised him so he was as close to her as if she was his mother...the man fails to attend VOLUNTARY ota's just after her death as he's at home takeing care of her things...I understand he just had 2 years off and that the Bengals are installing a new defense and want him there to study it, but c'mon....this just sounds like they didnt want him back in the first place and are just useing this as a way to get rid of him...to bad it makes them sound like losers I thinking we should sign him to an incentive laden deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 I thinking we should sign him to an incentive laden deal. LOL..I wasn't trying to start a "hes cut and hes good and we know his name so sign him thread"...but his rookie year looks really good and if hes really taken the steps to get his life back on track and get back into NFL.. I dint see why another team that needs a LB wouldn't at-least try him out...some people do grow up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I thought they cut him due to his substance abuse problems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I thought they cut him due to his substance abuse problems He successfully completed his court-ordered alcohol treatments while he was suspended for the '06 season. But Goodell would not lift the suspension for 2007 - Thurman felt (and I agree with him) that he was not re-instated because at the time the Vick story was raging. He filed a lawsuit against the NFL, claiming that alcohoism is a disease per the Americans with Disabilities Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted May 20, 2008 Author Share Posted May 20, 2008 He successfully completed his court-ordered alcohol treatments while he was suspended for the '06 season. But Goodell would not lift the suspension for 2007 - Thurman felt (and I agree with him) that he was not re-instated because at the time the Vick story was raging. He filed a lawsuit against the NFL, claiming that alcohoism is a disease per the Americans with Disabilities Act. well in my mind that makes it even worse for the Bengals and for the NFL...Am I the only one thats getting the feeling that Goodell sucks and is not very good for the NFL?...every time I read something like this he seems like the evil ceo that's trying to cover up all the bad deeds hes doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 well in my mind that makes it even worse for the Bengals and for the NFL...Am I the only one thats getting the feeling that Goodell sucks and is not very good for the NFL?...every time I read something like this he seems like the evil ceo that's trying to cover up all the bad deeds hes doing. Protect the family at all costs... Protect the family at all costs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 well maybe the wrong part of the article was focused on, it doesn't really specify but it does say : "I was just told by coach (Marvin) Lewis that he hadn't been in the building enough since his reinstatement, and they decided to go in a different direction," Lawson said. Now the agent is making it out to be that he missed the 3 OTA's and that's why they released him, but this part of the article states the entire time he has been reinstated he hasn't been there enough, and that was almost a month.... Could be a difference maker in the way it is viewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 He filed a lawsuit against the NFL, claiming that alcohoism is a disease per the Americans with Disabilities Act. I know this a football thread, but ain't that the chit! Lordy, i swear(as I have seen it twice) if ya about to get fired or put on plan, use this excuse and all is good!! You will prolly even get a month vacation at rehab, and another year before thay fire you ass. At which point you can just claim you had a relapse. Happening on my team as we speak, just so sorry to see it creep into sports Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I know this a football thread, but ain't that the chit! Lordy, i swear(as I have seen it twice) if ya about to get fired or put on plan, use this excuse and all is good!! You will prolly even get a month vacation at rehab, and another year before thay fire you ass. At which point you can just claim you had a relapse. Happening on my team as we speak, just so sorry to see it creep into sports My father worked for GM as a forklift driver, nice job with great pay and little work. He was an alcoholic and had been caught drunk at work and sent home once. Caught again, sent straight to a local rehab centre. Caught again and sent to a stricter rehab centre that he was kicked out of. His work was pretty much through with him by that point but he managed to convince them that his problem wasn't alcohol, but stress. So they told him they would re-consider reinstating him if he attended AA and stress management. I think that the rules are way too lax when it comes to this kind of stuff. You are right, just claim you are an alcoholic before they fire you and then say its a disease/disorder and they can't fire you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I know this a football thread, but ain't that the chit! Lordy, i swear(as I have seen it twice) if ya about to get fired or put on plan, use this excuse and all is good!! You will prolly even get a month vacation at rehab, and another year before thay fire you ass. At which point you can just claim you had a relapse. Happening on my team as we speak, just so sorry to see it creep into sports I think you are missing Thurman's contention. He dried up - he did what he was told to do by the NFL and by the court. He wanted to return to work. But the NFL commissioner refused to reinstate him, and added on another year of suspension. Thurman's suit was filed months ago - you seem to assume that it is some ploy cooked up the day before yesterday, in response to his being cut by CIN . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 I think you are missing Thurman's contention. He dried up - he did what he was told to do by the NFL and by the court. He wanted to return to work. But the NFL commissioner refused to reinstate him, and added on another year of suspension. Thurman's suit was filed months ago - you seem to assume that it is some ploy cooked up the day before yesterday, in response to his being cut by CIN . Cincy, that was not was i was saying. In you original post, you claimed a few months ago he filed suit claimimg alcoholism was a covered disease under ADA. Now, I do not know whether that was before or after he was re instated, but really does not matter. The simple fact that drunks can now not get fired frm theie jobs for being drunk and not being able to do their jobs is what I was railing agaisnt. Next logical step is to say when you drive drunk and kill someone"its a disease and no one from government was helping me, so I should not be arrested for vehicular manslughter, but should be put at the governments teet and they should send to rehab, after all i have a disease"Please feel sorry for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billadelphia Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Cincy, that was not was i was saying. In you original post, you claimed a few months ago he filed suit claimimg alcoholism was a covered disease under ADA. Now, I do not know whether that was before or after he was re instated, but really does not matter. The simple fact that drunks can now not get fired frm theie jobs for being drunk and not being able to do their jobs is what I was railing agaisnt. Next logical step is to say when you drive drunk and kill someone"its a disease and no one from government was helping me, so I should not be arrested for vehicular manslughter, but should be put at the governments teet and they should send to rehab, after all i have a disease"Please feel sorry for me I agree, if you can't handle your alcohol problems, you shouldn't have the privilige to work. I don't know anything about this case (other than whats been posted), but playing the disease card doesn't hold water for me. It's a choice, not a disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Cincy, that was not was i was saying. In you original post, you claimed a few months ago he filed suit claimimg alcoholism was a covered disease under ADA. Now, I do not know whether that was before or after he was re instated, but really does not matter. The simple fact that drunks can now not get fired frm theie jobs for being drunk and not being able to do their jobs is what I was railing agaisnt. Next logical step is to say when you drive drunk and kill someone"its a disease and no one from government was helping me, so I should not be arrested for vehicular manslughter, but should be put at the governments teet and they should send to rehab, after all i have a disease"Please feel sorry for me 5 mis-spellings. Have you been drinking? What's your position on companies that fire or threaten to fire employees who smoke, or are overweight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 5 mis-spellings. Have you been drinking? What's your position on companies that fire or threaten to fire employees who smoke, or are overweight? Today!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 5 mis-spellings. Have you been drinking? What's your position on companies that fire or threaten to fire employees who smoke, or are overweight? Smoking, or being overweight won't affect your work (unless you have a job that requires you to do alot of strenuous physical work) like alcohol will, so I do think that firing or threatening to fire over being overweight or smoking is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 5 mis-spellings. Have you been drinking? What's your position on companies that fire or threaten to fire employees who smoke, or are overweight? Fug me, any body who smokes is just a weak kneed, no account sissy who can't quit and must be a dolt so I would not hire them in the first place !!!!! Good to be an ex smoker for all of 11 days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Fug me, any body who smokes is just a weak kneed, no account sissy who can't quit and must be a dolt so I would not hire them in the first place !!!!! Good to be an ex smoker for all of 11 days Paul, did you catch the recent FDA public advisory on Chantix? Don't be surprised if additional studies appear very shortly, linking the drug to other medical issues. There have been more "adverse event reports" to the FDA concerning Chantix over the past 1/4 than for any other drug, regardless of circulation. Be glad you stopped taking it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 The guy was suspended for 2 YEARS, the Bengals stuck with him and gave him another shot (which after 2 whole years, I doubt that was something most teams would do), and during the time off he did not put in the commitment the Bengals wanted, so they cut him. How is that no class? After being suspended for two years and having all the time in the world, you'd better have your ass at the facility doing anything and everything you can to make yourself better and prove that you are serious. I don't feel sorry for the guy. For once, the Bengals decided to get tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 they cut him for missing a non-manditory camp. That alone is a violation of the league rules, but I dout anyone will do much about it. Its obvious the Bengals dont want him. He will sign with someone for a very low deal. Players with tallent are always given several chances. I do not see the harm in signing him to a league minimum contract. At worse we cut him and be out a few pennies in cap space. But there is a chance he could be a damn good backup, or even, if he proves himself, earn a starting job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts