I wanted to post a comment to Mr. Kirkendall's original post on this comment but I could not discover how to do so.  Hence I make a post here.

A funny thing is that I tried to post comments on the Odell situation on Bengals.com but found that they actually censor comments on that site.  Funny that, they asking for our comments but then deciding on what we should or should not see. To that I can only say let freedom ring.  

Perhaps the same thing will happen here but I will try my post none the less.

I think the NFL is completely and unequivecally out of bounds on the Thurman decision.  I know that everyone has probably chewed up and spit out numerous comments on the subject but I will try to offer yet another view of the event.

To me, I say, did this guy meet his obligations to the league and has he done what was asked of him in order to be reistated. If it would have been otherwise then I feel the league owed it to him, the team, and all of us loyal fans in Cincinnati to know the exact truth. This did not happen and obviously this is not the case because we have heard nothing from the NFL and nor are we likely to do so.  Again, let freedom ring.

Likewise, I say, if the guy has met all requirement of the federal, state, and local laws then what other obligations can the NFL have?

Accordingly, if a guy has to make the team and must be able to play in order to get paid then this guy is clearly being denied the opportunity to do so.  If the player has signed a personal services contract to the team which says that he must make the team and be physically able to play in order to be paid then this player is clearly being denied the opportunity to do so.  

If this player has been suspended and met every condition set forth by the leagues for his reinstatement and is still denied the opportunity to play then he is being discrimminated against.  

Further, if the NFL denies any player equal opportunity under the laws of the nation then isn't the league discrimmating against that individual. Also, to compound the situation, based on contractual obligations to the Bengals it's perceived that the individual is under contact and is not free to play elsewhere.  Under that scenario wouldn't the individual be denied the opportuity for pursuit of happiness under the constitution?  Again, wouldn't this be discrimnation?  

I could go on and on but the simple point is this.  If the NFL can capriciously control who is on the field then are we seeing the best players in the league and on the field?  I think in this case that the answer is no.  Obviously this is the same kind of mindset that we saw in individuals who were behind payola scandal of recording industry in the 50's.  The next question to this is......are the best players playing in the NFL and are NFL games controlled.  

Obviously the NFL is a monopoly and is granted a special exemtion from antitrust laws in order to exist.  Under this scenario one could ask if the NFL violating federal laws.  Further one could ask if the NFL os discrimminating against and denying opportunities to individuals and should they be allowed to maintain the special antitrust exemption as they are today.  These are things that must be considered when thinking of the current NFL and the commissioner of the NFL.

Note that the commissioner is not jamming his shoulder into the ground trying to catch a deep end-zone pass like Chad Johnson.  Nor is the commissioner getting 4 vertabre broken during a punishing hit during the season yet gutting it out through the end of the season for the benefit of the team.  Note that neither the commissioner nor the owners are taking dibilitating hits or standing on the frozen tundra during the freezing snow of December trying to win a game.

How dare the comissioner or any owners try to control the opportunities or destroy an individual for the purposes of personal gain.