[ad_1]
Borussia Monchengladbach striker Marcus Thuram could be set for a long suspension after being sent off for spitting at opponent Stefan Posch on Saturday.
The 23-year-old is highly rated as one of Europe’s most exciting forwards, but his latest actions have caused a widespread backlash, including from his own teammates, following his dismissal.
The incident occurred in the 79th minute of Gladbach’s clash with Hoffenheim, when an altercation between Thuram and Posch led to the Frenchman spitting in the face of the defender.
The forward has been slammed for his petulant action, given the particularly precarious nature of the current global situation amid the coronavirus outbreak.
Players are living in a much different world to their usual surroundings, where contact with one another and the outside world should remain at a minimum.
The coronavirus is an airborne disease which can be transmitted from something as simple as breath or touch, so the sight of one player spitting at another has shocked the sporting world.
The footage, as seen on Get French Football News, clearly shows Thuram spitting towards the mouth of Posch, who quickly puts his hand to his face.
Thuram will have to wait to learn the length of his ban, with a longer suspension than usual likely to be enforced in order to discourage any footballer from spitting at a colleague on the football pitch again, especially in the midst of a pandemic.
The striker’s teammates were made to pay for his actions, as the hosts slipped to a 2-1 defeat to Hoffenheim, with Ryan Sessegnon bagging the winner on 86 minutes – seven minutes after Thuram was sent off in disgrace.
Following the game, Thuram posted a message on Instagram apologising to his ‘Posch, my opponents, my teammates, my family and all those who saw my reaction’, while he vowed to ‘accept the consequences’ of his actions.
Meanwhile, Thuram’s Gladbach teammate Christoph Kramer – who was only recently cleared of his own spitting charge – said via Sky Germany that the incident didn’t ‘look good’ and was not befitting of a ‘role model’.
[ad_2]
Source link