Blog Entry

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

Posted on: January 28, 2012 12:00 am
Edited on: January 29, 2012 10:25 am

By: Adam Gretz

The Tim Thomas White House controversy just won't go away, even though he wishes that it would.

After he refused to attend the Bruins visit to the White House earlier in the week, the Conn Smythe winning goaltender has drawn a flood of criticism from media, fans and even anonymous sources within the Bruins organization, referring to his decision as "selfish," as the Boston Globe reported on Tuesday.

Even though he said his Facebook statement explaining his position would be his only comment on the matter, it's been all anybody wants to talk about anytime he's been in front of a microphone or camera during the All-Star weekend festivities.

During his media availability on Friday, for example, he was asked if he wanted to see this all just go away.

“I think it should. I think it should," said Thomas. "I think it’s all media-driven right now. It has been from the start. Everything I said then was as an individual. It wasn’t as a representative of the Boston Bruins. All it has to do is with me. It’s separate from hockey. That’s my personal life. Those are my personal views. Those are my personal beliefs. It has nothing to do with hockey. It has nothing to do with this All-Star Game.”

Thomas did not join the Bruins on Monday and said later in the evening that it was his right as an individual to not go, a decision he made because he feels the Federal government "has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People."
The controversy that followed even led to speculation that maybe this could be the beginning of the end for Thomas' time in Boston, which seems pretty silly to think about. Of course, sooner rather than later Thomas and the Bruins are going to part ways, but that has more do with the fact he is 37 years old, only has one year remaining on his contract, and the team already has his replacement, Tuukka Rask, on the roster. Not because he skipped out on taking a trip to visit the President.

Thomas will also eventually get his wish, and this story will disappear. Perhaps as soon as the second half of the season starts up and he gets back into the crease and starts winning games again.

That always seems to put a pretty quick stop to a lot of controversies like this.

Photo: Getty Images

Previously at Eye On Hockey

Bruins honored at White House while Thomas declines
Thomas explains decision
Thomas Speculation starts

For more hockey news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnHockey and @agretz on Twitter.

Since: Jan 13, 2011
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:37 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

What liberal media is owned by republicans.
Ok ... I'll educate you. ABC, NBC and CBS are ALL operated by conservative managment groups (google it ... it'll be fun for you.)

I think most are owned by stock holders, and they can be from either party.
So, you are already contradicting your "liberal media" comment?

Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:36 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

I don't see an outcry over our children not being allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance in some public schools anymore, yet one individual who chooses not to visit the President is chastised for his position.  That's BS.  I personally feel the same way he does, and I too may have made the same decision.  For others of you, if you would choose to go and mingle with the "greatest food stamp President" our country has ever seen, have at it!  It is your choice.  I will not begrudge you.

Since: Dec 22, 2009
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:35 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

Mr Thomas is welcome to go to OCCUPY BOSTON and make all of the political comments he'd like.  "Mic check".  Or, is he the 1%?  FINE.  FREEDOM demands of us ALL to take responsibility for oneself, our family and each other.  Pay up, Mr. Thomas!  WELCOME to OCCUPY BOSTON, Mr. Thomas. 

Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:33 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

2) Your so called liberal media is owned by republicans.

What liberal media is owned by republicans.  I think most are owned by stock holders, and they can be from either party.  It is not like all business owners are republican.  You think the bruins needed a photo op with the president?  What good does that do them? 

Since: Jan 13, 2011
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:31 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

How thin skinned are you clowns.
The more I read this fools comment the funnier it gets. Tim makes a baltant "public" political statement and then cries when he gets called to the carpet for it.

Just who is being thin skinned there little man?

Since: Nov 11, 2007
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:29 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

Now, the liberal media, and many of the liberals on this site are offended.  How thin skinned are you clowns.
Oh sure, it's all the "liberal" media's fault.  Talk about thin-skinned.  Thomas, whether he likes it or not, is in the public eye.  He made a decision and some people have called him on it.  Personally, I think it has more to do with team unity than anything else, and Thomas has proved to be more about himself than about his teammates.  To think that he would not get some heat for his decision is naive on his part.  You can cry "liberal media" all you want to, fact of the matter is that because of who Thomas is, this is a story.  It would be if any of the Bruins skipped out.  Not a particularly compelling one but, it's going to get coverage nonetheless.  What Thomas needs to do it put on his big-boy pants and quit being such a whiner about it.  He made his decision, now live with it!

Since: Jul 9, 2009
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:29 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

I don’t watch much Hockey, but now I’m A Boston Bruins FAN!!!!!!! Good on you Tim I wouldn’t go either. And as far as the idiots saying it is your responsibility, that’s crap you are responsible to play Hockey.

GO BRUINS!!!!!!!!

Since: Dec 22, 2009
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:27 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

FREEDOM demands respect.  Tim Thomas is free to complain, but will not be free until he sees his responsibility to his teammates and his country.

Since: Mar 2, 2008
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:27 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

Other people have different opinion then yours, get over yourself.  Tim isn't even pushing this opinion, everyone else seem hell bent at being a hilarious douche.  Oh nooooss!!  Tim Thomas hates both parties, he clearly cannot even be the only one at the end of the day.  Life don't work that way.

Since: Aug 29, 2006
Posted on: January 28, 2012 11:26 am

Tim Thomas responds to criticism

First off, it's his right as an American to decline the invitation. It has happened several times before in the history of sports, and will happen again. The reason the media is blowing this up is because of WHO is the President (and possibly what sport the dissenter hails from). Theo Epstein didn't go when Bush invited the World Series Champion Red Sox. James Harrison, of the Super Bowl winning Steelers, skipped the White House visit because he didn't like Bush. James Harrison later skipped a White House visit because he said it wasn't "important" to him, and did so while Obama was the President. Mark Chmura skipped the trip to play in a golf tournament. Manny Ramirez skipped in 2007. Michael Jordan skipped in 1991 to spend private time with his family. Larry Bird skipped in 1984 and told a reporter the President "knew where to find him." Where was the media backlash for these events? And it had nothing to do with Thomas's statement, either.

James Harrison: "This is how I feel -- if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don't win the Super Bowl. As far as I'm concerned, he [Obama] would've invited Arizona if they had won." 

Thomas isn't the first person to skip an invitation, regardless of motivation. Yet how much airtime did all these other players get for their decisions? He isn't the only Superstar athlete to feel it was an unneccesary trip, only his motivations went beyond, "Who cares? Invite someone else." I guess that makes him villanous. But then, what of Manny Ramirez and Theo Epstein? James Harrison (2006)? Larry Bird in 84? All must be equally disgraceful characters, right? 

Secondly, it's not some civic duty of his to attend. Obama, in all likelihood, had no idea who any of these NHL players are, most of whom aren't even Americans (only two players on the entire roster are American-born), will use the images from the visit for campaign propoganda. If a player chooses to not have his likeness used to campaign for a politician's re-election, then so be it.

Thirdly, the only citizens in America who HAVE to go are members of the US Armed Forces. Obama, as Commander in Chief, is their boss. Therefore, they are not in a position to decline. However, Obama, as the elected representative of the citizens of the United States, is not any other common citizen's boss; in fact, we are HIS boss. If Thomas invited Obama to his house, and the President declined, there would be no uproar. There would be people questioning who the hell Thomas thinks he is. Obama works for the people of this country, not the other way around. 

Lastly, Thomas made it quite clear that he was going to keep it low-key. He informed the Bruins before hand, it's not as if he just didn't show up and used the media as an outlet to bash the President, springing it on anyone. By several accounts, no one was surprised by his decision. He also was forced to make a statement (likely by the Bruins organization) to quell some of the uneasiness that his decision had created. In his statement, he said it was the only thing he would say on the matter. The media doesn't like that. They want to dig and create a catostrophic  story out of a simple decision; that's their jobs. To say that anyone is to blame but the media is nonsense. 

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or