Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation
N8Frog wrote:I'm surprised this story hasn't been bigger. If this were MLB and some rookie like that Heyward were suspended for roids/PED, it would be top news/sports story everywhere.
One wonders with Clay, but hasn't failed yet, so its all good I guess.
DrugBust wrote:There's going to be a re-vote, per Shefter. Byrd, Matthews and Orakpo figure to be up for the very hollow award.
chuckleslove wrote:DrugBust wrote:There's going to be a re-vote, per Shefter. Byrd, Matthews and Orakpo figure to be up for the very hollow award.
Cushing is still on the ballot too and could still win.
MartyConlonOnTheRun wrote:
Reminds me of Steve Lattimer from the Program
DrugBust wrote:He won the re-vote too.
My vote goes to Matthews
Cushing keeps Defensive Rookie of the Year award, but Packers' LB more deserving
For the sake of full disclosure, I figured I'd let you know what I chose to do in regard to the Brian Cushing revote.
As a member of The Associated Press all-pro voting panel, I looked long and hard at this issue and struggled until the deadline this morning before making my decision.
One thing I knew for sure: I was not going to vote for Cushing for defensive rookie of the year again. At the end of last season, I thought he was the runaway winner and voted in good conscience for him. But finding out this week that he had violated the NFL's anti-doping policy changed my opinion.
I was not a strong supporter of a revote. It's an unprecedented move by The AP and not enough time was given to examine the consequences of voting again. I think that if The AP felt it had to do something it should have just erased his name from the reward. In other words, vacate the honor.
As a responsible member of the panel, I felt I had to do something, and after consulting with an AP official I was told the rules did not prohibit someone from abstaining. So I withdrew Cushing's name and left the ballot blank. I was one of two voters who did so.
In the case of outside linebacker, I had originally voted Ellis Dumervil and DeMarcus Ware, so I simply entered their names again.
My rationale for taking Cushing off the ballot is that he was caught cheating by NFL standards and deserved to give up his honor. It doesn't speak well of the game if players who violate the anti-doping policy -- especially when they have a connection to anabolic steroid use -- keep winning awards they may or may not have deserved.
I did vote for Julius Peppers for DROY in 2002, but at that time players knew less about the drug program and it was thought many of the violations that occurred then were due to player ignorance about supplements they were taking. It was probably wrong to vote for Peppers, but the landscape was different then.
I did not vote Shawn Merriman for DROY in 2005, so I don't think I had set a standard of overlooking PED-related offenses.
I did vote for Minnesota's Kevin Williams for all-pro in 2008, the year he and teammate Pat Williams, among others, were suspended for using a diuretic found in a weight-loss product called StarCaps. The difference between that case and Cushing's is pretty obvious. The two Williamses were taking the pills in training camp so they would make weight and not get fined for being too heavy. Both were established players with no history of steroid abuse.
Their federal lawsuit states they did not know StarCaps had a banned diuretic in it. They still face punishment, and had Kevin Williams been suspended for four games in 2008, I wouldn't have voted for him. If he has to serve his suspension this year, I probably won't vote for him because appearing in 12 games is generally not enough to earn an all-pro honor, in my opinion.
Cushing reportedly tested positive for hCG, which from what I can tell from the numerous web sites I visited, is definitely used in conjunction with anabolic steroids. It's main use is to return testoserone levels to normal after a steroid cycle and ease the transition to natural training. Cushing's people told ESPN he has no idea where the hCG came from.
Considering the positive test happened in September, he should know by now where it came from, especially if it was from a supplement he was taking. An official from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency told The AP that the appearance of the substance in Cushing's body wouldn't have occurred naturally. It's not even considered a masking agent -- diuretics are in that category -- it's a well-known complement to anabolic steroids.
At least Kevin and Pat Williams were forthcoming with what drug they took and the reason they took it.
As for abstaining, I don't feel great about that. On the surface, it might seem like a cop-out. But like I said earlier, I don't like how quickly the decision for a revote was made and the lack of policy in place to decide what should happen when honorees are found to have violated the NFL steroid policy.
In my opinion, it's best to just vacate the spot and not award it to a second-place finisher. I don't know if Cushing would have won the award if he had not tested positive. Maybe he would have. But you can't predict that. You don't know if the next guy you vote for will soon be suspended. Hopefully, a policy is put in place soon to deal with this kind of problem because it's likely to happen again.
Code: Select all
o- - - \o __|
o/ /| vv`\
/| | |
| / \_ |
/ \ | |
/ | |
Mags FTW wrote:Technically, it's not known if it was steroids or something else.
Mags FTW wrote:Technically, it's not known if it was steroids or something else.
skitch815 wrote:On Twitter Mortensen said that one voter who originally voted for Byrd changed his vote to Cushing. Now that's a great message to send.
Turk Nowitzki wrote:skitch815 wrote:On Twitter Mortensen said that one voter who originally voted for Byrd changed his vote to Cushing. Now that's a great message to send.
I read that too, I think it was a writer from Pittsburgh if I remember correctly. He might be the one in need of drug testing.