The Curious Case Of Brian Cushing

The news that Brian Cushing tested positive for a banned substance back in September is raising some serious issues. For starters, the Associated Press is holding a re-vote, in an attempt to wipe some egg off their face in the wake of their Defensive Rookie of the Year and All-Pro linebacker getting popped.

The problem is, the season is over. The award was handed out, the statistics were compiled, and there's really nothing that you can take away from Cushing for his 2009 season. 2010 will be a different story, since Cushing will have to sit out for the first 4 games.


Cushing Should Get His Votes Again

By holding a re-vote, the voters are not only being hypocritical (remember, they gave juicer Julius Peppers the 2002 Defensive Player of the Year award), they're also pretending that they know a few things about which they truly know nothing.

If any of them changing their vote, they are doing so for one of two reasons. One of them may be that they believe no one should win the award if they test positive for banned substances. This is reasonable.

The other reason would be that they evaluated Cushing's performance, determined what it would have been if he had not taken banned substances, and decided that in this hypothetical situation, he no longer stood out as the best among his peers.

Problem:
They would have to know which banned substance he took.
They would have to know exactly how it affects a player's performance.
They would have to know how much he took, and for how long.
They would have to know that he was the only player taking said substances (or any others).

They know none of this.

That's why when the votes come back, I hope to see pretty much the same exact voting results. Kudos to John McClain for being one voice of reason among the crowd.


This Isn't The AP's Problem, It's The NFL's Fault

The AP is now awkwardly trying to save face, but in reality, this is something that should never have needed to happen. The positive test was in September. That means the NFL knowingly allowed Cushing to play nearly an entire season possibly under the influence of performance enhancing drugs.

Again, we don't know which drug(s) he tested positive for. We only know that the NFL knew about it from the beginning of the season, and did nothing about it for the duration of the football season. They didn't punish him, they didn't notify the media (like the AP, who votes for awards), and they didn't let the fans know. According to Texans owner Robert McNair, they didn't even tell the team the details.


Even If The AP Screws This Up,
The Transitive Property Does Not Apply

Some of the nonsense that I've heard from fans is that not only should the AP strip Cushing of his Defensive Rookie of the Year and All-Pro honors, other teams and players should also be stripped of accomplishments that are potentially tainted by the use of banned substances.

This Pandora's Box is something that I hope never gets opened. To try to pretend that we know exactly who was taking which substances at any given time is ignorant and foolhardy.

For example, over a decade of World Series championships have been tainted by steroid users in baseball. Should the Oakland Athletics of the late 1980's and early 1990's be stripped of their accomplishments because of Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire? Of course not. Should the entire 2000's be re-played, simply because many players on many championship teams were caught using steroids or HGH? Nope.

There's not a single team in baseball that hasn't been tainted by a suspended player, and there are countless others that we don't know about. The same applies in football, and it's even spreading to the NBA.

By vigilant in testing, be open about the results, and hopefully we can put this behind us. But let the past stay in the past.