Probation violation charge against Thurman dismissed

[rishipatel]

Odell's probation violation was dismissed by the judge today. Good news for Odell. May give him more ground to stand on with his suit against the NFL.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3006521

WHO-DEY!

[Stripes]

Now what's your excuse, Roger?

[skyline]

Now what's your excuse, Roger?

He never said this was his excuse in the first place, did he?

In fact, I tought we had decided he most likely did not know of these charges when his decision was made.

His story from the beginning was that he didn't have to reveal his reasnoning to anyone, and I see no reason for him to change from that track now...

[ArmyBengal]

Are the arrests still the only thing these asshat writers can come up with ?? There seems to be a blurb about it regardless of the Bengals story being written about...

"In sports news today, the Bengals players have been working on a side project away from the field and have found a cure for AIDS. The whole world rejoices in this scientific discovery and are calling for the Bengals players to be considered for recongnition from the Vatican as "Saints", as this is nothing short of a miracle. The Pope commented on the situation calling the Bengals players, "Godlike"... That being said, we still aren't sure this is enough to get them by the whole 14 arrests the team had in the past two seasons."

F*cked Up !!!

Oh yeah, sucks for Odell, but it is what it is and he's not part of the equation for Monday night...

WHODEY !!!

[Kazkal]

Now what's your excuse, Roger?

He never said this was his excuse in the first place, did he?

In fact, I tought we had decided he most likely did not know of these charges when his decision was made.

His story from the beginning was that he didn't have to reveal his reasnoning to anyone, and I see no reason for him to change from that track now...

So Goddell = george bush? doesn't need a reason cause he can do what he wants?

[Stripes]

His story from the beginning was that he didn't have to reveal his reasnoning to anyone, and I see no reason for him to change from that track now...

Oh I have no doubt that Goodell won't budge, and whatever his reasons are will stay under the rug where they've been all along. I remain unconvinced, however, that Odells second year of suspension wasn't entirely the result of charges attatched to Odell's name before they (now its plural!) were dismissed.

You're right though. It may suck, and we as Bengals fans might complain all year, but it won't change Goodell's decision.

[delhole]

Not like it makes much of a difference now. What do you think Odell has been doing this whole pre-season, working out twice a day? Highly doubt it. Stopping at taco bell every night for fourth meal? Guaranteed!

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

So Goddell = george bush? doesn't need a reason cause he can do what he wants?

According to the collective bargaining agreement that the players' union negotiated with the NFL, Goodell has more power than the president. Don't blame the NFL, blame the incompetent union chief.

[The PatternMaster]

I don't expect Goodell to ever respond to Odell because the perception around the league is that he's doing a great job. If 1 out of 32 teams has a problem is it really a problem for the NFL and Goddell? I would say no.

Until the media forces this issue to the forefront there will be no justice or even explaination for Goodell's reasoning to suspend Odell.

[agreen_112]

There's still hope!

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

There's still hope!

What are you, running a telethon or something?

[cincy9275]

this is good news for o'dell i doubt it helps him this season with ass face goodell but it is a step in the right direction hope he keeps his nose clean and can get back on the field next season. weather it be here or some where else. could we see both pollack and o'dell back in bengals stripes next season ? i hope so but only time will tell

[jjakq27]

I don't expect Goodell to ever respond to Odell because the perception around the league is that he's doing a great job. If 1 out of 32 teams has a problem is it really a problem for the NFL and Goddell? I would say no.

Until the media forces this issue to the forefront there will be no justice or even explaination for Goodell's reasoning to suspend Odell.

I am pretty sure the Bengals know the reason.

[The PatternMaster]

I don't expect Goodell to ever respond to Odell because the perception around the league is that he's doing a great job. If 1 out of 32 teams has a problem is it really a problem for the NFL and Goddell? I would say no.

Until the media forces this issue to the forefront there will be no justice or even explaination for Goodell's reasoning to suspend Odell.

I am pretty sure the Bengals know the reason.

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

[skyline]

I don't expect Goodell to ever respond to Odell because the perception around the league is that he's doing a great job. If 1 out of 32 teams has a problem is it really a problem for the NFL and Goddell? I would say no.

Until the media forces this issue to the forefront there will be no justice or even explaination for Goodell's reasoning to suspend Odell.

I am pretty sure the Bengals know the reason.

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

Because if the commish actually DOES have a good reason, the Bengals wouldn't want to get any more bad press. The story that he is suspended for another year has already, largely, blown over as far as the national scene is concerned. If they release WHY he was suspended, then it's just more news. I'm sure they'd rather just move on and forget it.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

I don't think they want to expand the perceived war with the commish any more than it is now. Next thing you know Bengals players will be getting suspended for 5 years for a speeding ticket.

[Kazkal]

It could also be if they leaked info he might decide to suspend carson and he wouldn't have to let anyone know why

[The PatternMaster]

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

I don't think they want to expand the perceived war with the commish any more than it is now. Next thing you know Bengals players will be getting suspended for 5 years for a speeding ticket.

How much worse can it get, I mean the guy gave Odell a 2 year suspension for 1 dui while he gave another player a 2 game suspension for 2 dui's. The Bengals do have rights and the players union will have to step up sooner or later. Last time I checked the commissioner worked for the owners and Mike Brown is an owner of a NFL team.

[jjakq27]

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

I don't think they want to expand the perceived war with the commish any more than it is now. Next thing you know Bengals players will be getting suspended for 5 years for a speeding ticket.

How much worse can it get, I mean the guy gave Odell a 2 year suspension for 1 dui while he gave another player a 2 game suspension for 2 dui's. The Bengals do have rights and the players union will have to step up sooner or later. Last time I checked the commissioner worked for the owners and Mike Brown is an owner of a NFL team.

Odell was in step 3 or 4 of the NFL's substance abuse policy when he got the DUI. He was well on his way when he got pulled over last year.

I do agree that it seems a little slanted our way though. Especially the Frostee 1-gamer.

[The PatternMaster]

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

I don't think they want to expand the perceived war with the commish any more than it is now. Next thing you know Bengals players will be getting suspended for 5 years for a speeding ticket.

How much worse can it get, I mean the guy gave Odell a 2 year suspension for 1 dui while he gave another player a 2 game suspension for 2 dui's. The Bengals do have rights and the players union will have to step up sooner or later. Last time I checked the commissioner worked for the owners and Mike Brown is an owner of a NFL team.

Odell was in step 3 or 4 of the NFL's substance abuse policy when he got the DUI. He was well on his way when he got pulled over last year.

I do agree that it seems a little slanted our way though. Especially the Frostee 1-gamer.

I agree that Odell was going down the wrong path, but he didn't get the year long suspension until after the DUI, right?

The whole Rucker situation seems like something done out of spite, the guy was a USC Trojan when the incident occured. How can the commissioner randomly choose who to punish for previous incidents that were done before he was commissioner and before the player was even apart of the NFL?

That is what irks me about Goodell, there's no rhyme or reason to his madness; it's he's right we're wrong, deal with it.

[BengalByTheBay]

The whole Rucker situation seems like something done out of spite, the guy was a USC Trojan when the incident occured. How can the commissioner randomly choose who to punish for previous incidents that were done before he was commissioner and before the player was even apart of the NFL?

That is what irks me about Goodell, there's no rhyme or reason to his madness; it's he's right we're wrong, deal with it.

Rucker looks like a precendent-setting decision by Goodell. If suspensions can result from conduct that took place before the player was subject to the CBA (ie, before they were even in the NFL), that would make a whole host of things fair game. What's to say, for example, that the incident would even have to have happened in the player's senior year? Presumably, he could look back as far as he wanted to and slap suspensions on players for things that took place at any time. The crappy thing about it as well is the timing. Goodell waited until just before the season, with too little time for an appeal to be heard before the ruling could be reversed. As such, Monday night will come and go before he says diddly about the union's meritorious appeal. Thus, the penalty will be served and there will be no way for the Bengals to get relief from the (wrongful) ruling. Maybe Rucker will get a game check or something, but the team loses anyway.

To me the whole thing stinks like the wharf at low tide. And, again, I will stress that it's the principal that I'm talking about because I really don't think that this game's outcome will hinge on whether Rucker is available to play for the Bengals or not.

No doubt, we will get treated to the whole "the Bengals are still having trouble with THREE players suspended" BS during pregame, postgame and post-post game blather.

[HairOnFire]

Rucker looks like a precendent-setting decision by Goodell. If suspensions can result from conduct that took place before the player was subject to the CBA (ie, before they were even in the NFL), that would make a whole host of things fair game. What's to say, for example, that the incident would even have to have happened in the player's senior year? Presumably, he could look back as far as he wanted to and slap suspensions on players for things that took place at any time.

That's Hoosier's rant, and I'm still not buying that it changes anything. As he noted when he called the legal premise Goodell is basing the suspension on..."reed thin"...the ability to suspend a player involved in an event that happened years before the player was drafted rests soley on the much later date when Rucker was sentenced. Well, how rare an occurance is that? And isn't it likely to be an even rarer occurance now that Goodell's intent has become known? Isn't it likely that college players will be quicker to settle any legal problems they may have prior to being drafted?

In fact, who amongst us would be suprised if this type of suspension is NEVER repeated?

[oldschooler]

I don't expect Goodell to ever respond to Odell because the perception around the league is that he's doing a great job. If 1 out of 32 teams has a problem is it really a problem for the NFL and Goddell? I would say no.

Until the media forces this issue to the forefront there will be no justice or even explaination for Goodell's reasoning to suspend Odell.

I am pretty sure the Bengals know the reason.

Mike Brown sure doesn`t know the reason . . .

Thurman: Cincinnati's hopes that Thurman would return following a suspension for the entire 2006 season were dashed in late July when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell refused to reinstate the troubled middle linebacker. Thurman was originally barred following a series of drug- and alcohol-related incidents.

Thurman's absence on a suspect defense shouldn't be underestimated, as his potential impact was evident when he intercepted five passes as an NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year candidate in 2005.

"I was genuinely surprised — I would say shocked — when we were told that he was not going to be cleared to come back," Bengals owner Mike Brown said of Thurman, who reportedly had violated his probation by not attending a scheduled meeting with his probation officer.

"All that we knew pointed to him being cleared, but he wasn't. His violations, as I understand it, were not drug use or even alcohol use but that he had not adhered to the reporting standards. Just what all that involved, I don't know. And it may have involved more because we are not told. We don't know the way the system works any more. The clubs do not know all that turns up on testing.

"All I can say on that one is someone had to know more than we knew, so he was barred from coming back. That was a real blow to us as a football club."

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7170374

[oldschooler]

Also, apparently Odell`s house is in foreclosure, and is scheduled to be auctioned off October 4th.

This was posted on my home board . . .

Case Name FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE CO v ODELL LAMAR THURMAN, ET AL

Case No. 07-CI-880

Sale Date October 4, 2007

Appraised At: $0.00 LA $321,120.21

Taxes Check Subject to 2007 taxes

[BengalByTheBay]

Rucker looks like a precendent-setting decision by Goodell. If suspensions can result from conduct that took place before the player was subject to the CBA (ie, before they were even in the NFL), that would make a whole host of things fair game. What's to say, for example, that the incident would even have to have happened in the player's senior year? Presumably, he could look back as far as he wanted to and slap suspensions on players for things that took place at any time.

That's Hoosier's rant, and I'm still not buying that it changes anything. As he noted when he called the legal premise Goodell is basing the suspension on..."reed thin"...the ability to suspend a player involved in an event that happened years before the player was drafted rests soley on the much later date when Rucker was sentenced. Well, how rare an occurance is that? And isn't it likely to be an even rarer occurance now that Goodell's intent has become known? Isn't it likely that college players will be quicker to settle any legal problems they may have prior to being drafted?

In fact, who amongst us would be suprised if this type of suspension is NEVER repeated?

I haven't seen anything from the league that states that the suspension was based on when he was sentenced. I understand why that could be a claimed basis ("reed thin" is apt), but I haven't seen any basis stated at all other than simply issuing the suspension. If you have -- tell me where so I can check it out. Otherwise, I think Goodell is continuing to avoid giving such official explanations on the presumption that he doesn't have to. And...as I argue....if that is the case then we're back to the potential that suspensions can be levied based on pre-draft conduct regardless of how or when sentencing occurs.