Find a back issue

Making Dallas Even Better

Gregg Doyel Says Josh Brent Should Be on the Sideline

Everyone went nuts when they saw Josh Brent on the Cowboys sideline in the game against the Steelers. CBS Sports columnist order viagra online

blank”>Gregg Doyel wasn’t one of them. Yesterday he wrote:

Look, few people in this world — Jerry Brown’s parents, but maybe nobody else — lost as much as Josh Brent lost on Dec. 8. He lost his best friend. He killed his best friend. He lost his dream career. He lost his freedom, most likely, after the courts are through with him. He lost his reputation. He lost damn near everything that night, and now we’re going to complain because he’s standing on the sideline a week later with his friends and teammates?

He has a point. The reason people got upset, I think, is because they want to see someone who has done bad things suffer. They certainly don’t want to see him standing on a field at an NFL game, which sounds like a lot of fun. But for Josh Brent, standing on that sideline couldn’t be much fun. Every player he saw surely reminded him of the best friend he killed. And every play he saw surely reminded him of the career he has lost. If the players and Brown’s family want him there, then there’s nothing wrong with Josh Brent watching a football game. Just keep the cameras off him till he’s sentenced, and we can all go about our business.

  • Glenn

    People didn’t get upset because they want to see Josh “suffer.” They think it was crap judgment by all involved because it trivialized what happened, And if it was as painful as you say for Josh to watch the game from there, he could have just declined to do it.

  • Tim Rogers

    Glenn, I’m still working through this in my mind. How does it trivialize what happened? If Josh Brent goes to Subway and gets a sandwich, does that also trivialize what happened?

    You’re right. He could have declined to go. But he didn’t. And we don’t know what went into his thought process. All we know is that players asked him to be there, and he went. The only way I can see it as bad judgment is because he should have been able to foresee that the cameras would find him, and people would get themselves in high dudgeon. But if the cameras had avoided him (I know, impossible), then how would his presence on the sideline have affected anyone but his (soon to be former) teammates?

  • Glenn

    Tim, I think it’s pretty clear how it trivializes it. A few days after [allegedly] breaking any number of laws with the worst consequence imaginable–snuffing out the life of your best friend in life–you don’t want to keep your head low, show a little discretion, stay out of the spotlight, maybe betray a tiny amount of shame for what happened. Instead you show up on national network TV taking in a pro football game that people watch for fun, like it was just another Sunday. (Yeah, I know, it was for “solidarity” and because the mother asked, etc. etc.) This sends a message: What’s the big effing deal? For a different type of response to your question, see any official from Mothers Against Drunk Driving.