Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

Cushing Retains DROY Award...Seriously?


One of the first things I read this morning is that Brian Cushing retained his Associated Press DROY award after testing positive for a performance enhancing substance. In an unprecedented move, the AP stripped Cushing of his award and then re-voted, with Cushing being eligible for the award in the second voting. Sure enough, the sports writers voted Cushing the award a second time.

Between the time the award was stripped and the re-vote, I noted that there were, astonishingly, several writers saying that they would vote for Cushing again. This is perplexing to me. Using a performance enhancing drug is cheating isn't it? Therefore, Brian Cushing was cheating, wasn't he? I don't get it. But, to my astonishment, it seems that those who would overlook cheating were in the majority.

Is this an indicator that the line for acceptable behaviour has shifted? And shifted toward the immoral side? (I can hear the comments "Who are you to say what is moral". If you don't think cheating is immoral, give me your best argument) When I think of this I think of a bell curve: On one end are the virginal angels, the people who don't drink, don't smoke, don't lie (ever), are at the head of the line to get into heaven. On the other side are the lying, cheating, stealing dritbags at the head of the line for a warm afterlife. Between these two groups, the numbers swell, gradually at first and then bulge to the peak. This peak would be the mean for acceptable behaviour. If you were actually looking at a bell curve, it would be clear: "Oh, there's the line for acceptable behaviour". But there is no bell curve and so the line is kind of a fuzzy gray area. So, if you could actually quantify the line, most peoples behaviour would flirt with line, sometimes going over in minor ways.

The gray area is the difference in thinking between two average people. Most of society would be average. So in society, there will be some who think white lies are okay and those who think it is okay to lie to get what they want. I won't argue the fine points here, but I was pretty sure that cheating was on the wrong side of the behavioural line. Has it shifted so that it is now in the gray area? Has the line shifted so far that cheating is acceptable?  Is there a plausible argument for cheating in this day and age?


Pete Rose was banned from Baseball for gambling, not cheating. But, there was a strong chance, a viable argument, that he may have cheated. We are talking just the possibility of cheating here. Banned. For Life. Recently, the Patriots head coach Bill Belichick was caught actually cheating. The subsequent investigation by the NFL was anything but transparent and a lot of fans were left grumbling and unsure of the depth of the infraction. Did Belicheck get banned for life, suspended for a year, even suspended for a few games?...Not even close. He got fined a fraction of his yearly salary and was allowed to continue coaching. Now the Brian Cushing incident.

Here's what I see. If you make enough money, you can pay to cheat. Belichick did it. Now Cushing is going to do it. And in Cushing's case the press has given him a resounding round of applause for cheating. "You cheated and got the ROY award? Well done!"

In Cushing's case, someone, the head of the AP, stood up and said, "This is unacceptable and we are going to do something about it". Then, the writers also stood up and said, "You're wrong and we'll show you, and the world, that this behaviour is acceptable to many". You know the saying "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to stand idle"? Well, a good person did not stand by, and got trampled.

Am I wrong here with my rant? Did I miss the memo that said society had voted and cheating was acceptable these days, with a token show of punishment, and certainly okay if you didn't get caught? Can one of you reading this give me a credible argument for cheating (The "everyone's doing it" argument is not a credible argument (unless you heard about everyone stealing and are now supporting yourself through thievery))? If it helps me to understand how cheating can be rewarded, I swear I'll listen.

Go Steelers!

Comment 144 comments  |  Add comment  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

nope...

you not wrong with your rant WYO…Cushing cheated, he should of had that title stripped from his trophy case as well as those 3 lombardi’s up in the New England Complex…it’s b/s…I agree with you man 110% percent…

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 11:42 AM EDT reply actions  

I agree that they do not deserve Lombardi's they cheated for

but at the same time, do you know how messy of a process it would be to take them away and what, just GIVE them to the other teams by default? The biggest prize in sports every year is not simply given away, or so I hope

by klompus on May 13, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

true...

although the same could be said for Barry Bonds and the single season HR record…yeah I guess the Pats should keep the trophies but they should have an asterix after each title…lol!!!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions  

No. They should NOT be able to keep them.

There would just be a void there where nobody won the title those years.

"Hey baby, want some Adam West penis?"
- Adam West

by Steel Spike on May 13, 2010 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

The HR title is easy...

Because the players hitting homeruns is not mutually exclusive. Bonds’ HRs didn’t affect Hammerin Hank’s. Scratch Barry’s fat ass from the record and give the title back to its rightful owner

by TheCincinnatiConqueror on May 14, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions  

i agree with ya man...

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions  

in australia

we had a rugby team caught cheating pretty severely (lying about their salary cap situation) and they had to forfeit 2 of their titles. they werent given to the teams they beat, they were just taken away, and not given to anyone. i would assume that wouldve been the case with the NE situation

by hasay on May 16, 2010 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions  

God don't we ALL wish.

Shut up those damned Pats fanboys FOREVER. Seeing the comments on their blog after they did that would have been worth a subscription fee to the site.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 16, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

Cheaters prosper

Morals change over time, what’s OK today was taboo 100 years ago. The older you get, it seems this change is degradation of morals rather than merely changing with the times. I’m not gonna argue either side…change is necessary but rapid change is too radical.

However, paying/promoting/idolizing proven cheaters? This has gone too far. Shame on the players union for not demanding that this guy receive a harsher punishment…aren’t they representing the 1500 players who did not get caught cheating? Never could figure out how work/players unions go overboard to protect the one…it hurts the credibility of all the others not charged/accused. Come down hard on bad guys (Cheaters) like Cushing/Belly-Chick and bad guys (assholes/rapists) like Taylor/BB. I’m not skilled/talented enough to be employed in the NFL, but having those 4 guys in my “fraternity” would make me fell pretty bad about myself. Memo to the 75-95% of good guy players/team representatives: You need to get rid of the trash sooner than later, you’ll make more cash in the long run.

Although I’m a sports fanatic and can’t give it up, I haven’t bought one single item of MLB clothing/hats/tickets etc. since the strike of 1994. I watched 2/3 of a season and they cancelled it over money? Effers!!!! I intend to cancel my annual Pittsburgh pilgrimage and Buffalo/Pittsburgh game (close to me) as long as BB is on the roster. I’ll still root and blog, etc., which ultimately sends plenty of dollars their way, but I’m not directly spending any of my dollars on a team or a big business(NFL) that only acts in it’s own interests, not those of the fans/supporters. Kinda sounds like gov’t, don’t it? Now if I could only boycott some of my taxes…..

Why don’t the commissioners of their sport take blood and urine, test what they can, deep freeze some more for the future testing and if your sample ever comes back tainted you’re done…banned…embarrassed…stripped of records, wins, rewards…and ultimately, sued for fraud and bankrupted. Do that once or twice and you’ll clean up the sport. Obviously that wouldn’t be fair tio cushing, just dropping the hammer for the first time, but if such a policy was in place imagine this: If Houston makes playoffs last year, maybe they get a home game, the owner gets payed, the players get playoff shares, someone gets a 100-yard rec game, someone else sets the single NFL post season sack record, etc. Cushing comes back a cheater, the Texand forfeit all their wins, the team pays a fine, the players lose all the playoff money, the owner forfeits the ticket revenue from the home game, and all the players performances in the PS are erased from record books. The Texans owners and players pay what they owe, Cushing files Chapter 7 and looks for work selling shoes. When’s the next guy gonna try such a stunt?

Oh well, more liquid lunch rambling than most of you wanted to read anyhow, congrats if you did, I’m impressed. Go DD!

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

I have an issue

with freezing down and testing it later. The major issue is, and it’s the reason such tests can’t be used in evidence, is the propensity of samples to be contaminated. In every instance of samples, if the first one comes back positive, then a B sample is tested as well. Only if both come back positive, is any action taken. The other problem with testing it in the future is that it doesn’t give a person a fair chance to defend themselves. I’m more than happy banning people long term for current indiscretions, but not with future tests

by mojo88 on May 13, 2010 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

Loved the rant Wheeler…

When You Run The Ball Good Things Happen

by 5020 on May 16, 2010 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions  

Love the rant, except the BB part.

If Ben had even been CHARGED and had to go to court, he would have been cut. He wasn’t so it would have been ridiculous to cut him. No you might not agree, but the team hardly went against fans wishes. Ben isn’t loved like he used to be in Pitt, but no one here thinks he should be cut. No charges were filed on the man so as his reward the team that he got 2 SB rings for cuts him? Stupid, no matter who or what you did.

As for the steroid thing, I agree entirely. Either get SERIOUS about disciplining these cheaters, or just say screw and let everyone juice up. Seeing a bunch of roided out, nearly insane 250 lb guys run into each other sounds fun, I don’t care what set of morals you possess.

Oh and let batters KEEP the bat when rounding bases. And give the shortstop one for fun too. Simple way to make baseball more exciting.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 16, 2010 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well I take that back about no one in Pitt wants him cut. When I talk to my friends around here and my uncles it's the same reaction from everyone....

This kind of begrudging, “Well he wasn’t charged so I don’t think we should cut him now, but if he does anything again, I want him gone.” I think in a year or two the city will forgive and things will continue the way they always do.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 16, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

I am split on the issue

Clearly, he is not getting away for cheating since he was suspending four games.

I just wonder if the votes, like myself, think a good portion of the NFL uses some sort of substance against the NFL conduct policies here or there. So maybe there thought was “he is just the only one who got caught.” I have no idea, just speculating.

Pretty interesting how much Merriman’s production dropped off after he was caught though.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 12:09 PM EDT reply actions  

agreed

besides, a mulligan is retarded. would the runner up really want to win by default anyway? i think this shows that even sportswriters think a big portion of the league is using PEDs.

definitely, we shouldn’t get sanctimonious about this, because the odds are good that one or more of our players are juicing too. it’s just common sense

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

Am I reading this correctly?

You’re saying it’s okay because you think our players are doing this? And, are you saying you have no problem with our players cheating? Or, are you saying that it is inevitable that all players are doing it, and therefore, ours must be doing it? So we shouldn’t judge? Are you then saying that if a Steelers player got caught cheating you wouldn’t be upset. Please explain.

At the end you say: “It’s just common sense”. Am I naive? I don’t think it is common sense. I thought that the NFL had the srictist drug policy in sports and that, for the most part, it worked.

Do you have tangible proof to the contrary, or just the rumor “Everybody’s doing it”?

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

You can go either way with that argument. But, however, since they should NOT be doing it and they do have very strict rules in place to try to prevent them from doing it, I’m going to say I’m safe enough to err on the side of needing to prove that it’s commonplace.

Every fact we have points to the fact that it is indeed not commonplace, mostly the fact that only a handful of people are busted for this yearly and that the NFL has, as WyoFan pointed out, one of the strictest drug policies in sports.

by klompus on May 13, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

And the fact that the NFL has monsters of people not really seen anywhere else but the NFL?

I am not saying they all do it, just saying it wouldn’t surprise me. And refuting my opinion by asking if I have tangible proof is foolish when you don’t have tangible proof to back your own.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

I read an article somewhere that said the NFL, in it’s early days, was known for sucking the biggest, best athletes out of other sports. People who would have been monster boxers are now middle linebackers and etc etc. It’s not unreasonable to think that football and the NFL culture draws the biggest baddest boys to play.

But I’ll definitely agree there is no tangible evidence on either side of this argument.

by klompus on May 13, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

i’m just saying, we shouldn’t get too high and mighty over cushing, because who knows if one of our players will get popped.

i don’t care if players use steroids, if they want to hurt their bodies that’s not my problem.

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

I sorta see what you are saying there

BUT it is illegal/against the rules of the NFL. For that reason, I do care. If the NFL made it legal, I wouldn’t give a rats ass for the same reason you cite. If they are stupid enough to risk significant long term damage to their bodies/health, be my guest.

"I don't know if I've got the vocabulary to explain that family. Art, the Chief, Dan, they reek of class, they're fair, they're giving, they're genuine, they're stern and the reputation they have established, that organization, to be that consistent all these years, at the end of the day it speaks to the top, it speaks to how the Rooney's carry themselves, and the things they have done." - Merril Hoge

by chewiesteeler on May 13, 2010 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, you’re right. it is illegal. it just bothers me sometimes how people will play up the health issues, but when a player plays with like 4 concussions or some other bad injury, they’re a “warrior.” i mean, the tragedy of mike webster wasn’t because of steroids, it was probably because of concussions.

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

that would be something...

they should find out the details…and while they do, i’ll fix myself a caucasian! lol…

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions  

PEDs, HGH

It does seem that proper use of PEDs (not abuse like the Steelers of the 70’s) can help. Bonds and Sosa sure did look good out there. All those dudes on the NBA sure look super healthy to me and they keep running up and down the court well into their 30’s? King James was a mini-monster by age 18…by his early 20’s he became superman. I’m sure there is better living to be had through pharmacology, but if the gov’t or the sport bans it, you can’t use it. Period.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions  

sounds like

a PhD degree right there…

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on May 14, 2010 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm going on the premis of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty".

I use the caps not to get in your face, but because I can’t figure out how to use the italics in the reply.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions  

That is fine

But I would not sit back and think that Cushing is part of a very small minority.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I understand where you are coming from.

I’m not saying they are not neck deep in steriods in the NFL, I’m saying: Prove to me they are.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

Right

And I said that is an unfair argument because you cannot prove to me that they are not.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

The NFL is not the US legal system

Hence why Ben is suspended for 4-6 games.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

Roger Goodel cited and there was proof that Ben was suspended for...

Serving under age persons. And, Ben was not suspended for breaking the law, he was suspended for violating the legue’s person conduct policy. Do you doubt proof of that?

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Seems like a lot of players break the league’s personal conduct policy and go unsuspended with just fines. Not sure how, when you consider he was not convicted of sexual harassment, that Ben’s situation is any different.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

johnny is right, wyofan. you can’t just cherry pick examples, it’s inconsistent

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Proof...

is in the fact that a player has not tested positive, been accused, suspended or fined. All players in the NFL are tested. Lack of a positive test is proof that they are clean. If you disagree, prove it.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions  

How long did Barry Bonds go before being caught? Drug tests are far from perfect and the people on the steroid side are always finding ways around the tests (i.e. masking agents). Its ignorant to believe that the NFL drug tests are perfect and unbeatable.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

So...

you’re saying that Barry bonds got away with it because it was later proven that he did it?

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Uhhh what?

I am saying because player’s are not caught with steroids right now does not definitively mean they are not using them, like you believe.

You seem to be imagining things.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions  

Johnny...

Yesterday you seemed to get angry with me and suggest that I was getting confrontational with you. I was very nice and explained my position and even went as far as to apologize where no opology was required. Today, in the last two posts, you have called me ignorant and said that I’m immagining things. Those are personal attacks. As I suggested yesterday, it is you who have the problem.

If you arguments can’t stand up to scrutiny without getting personal, stay away from me.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

Saying you are imagining things because you suggested I was saying something I was not and believing that something is ignorant are personal attacks?

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions  

When you suggest something about the person,

their charicter, abilities, etc…that is a personal attack.

I suggested nothing. Go back and read it again. I asked a question. The “?” at the end of a sentance denotes a question.

Tell you what, you stay away from me and I’ll stay away from you.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions  

The "?" at the end of a sentance denotes a question.

Are you implying that I don’t know what a question mark is? Therefore don’t know how a question works? Therefore implying that I do not know proper grammar? And that I am therefore ignorant to the English language?

That is a personal attack, sir.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions  

he went quite awhile...

i mean…if people didn’t see the shear size of him (Bonds) from when he first came into the league with the Pirates and went to SF and didn’t think he was on roids…had to be smoking something…they didn’t bring it up until he was chasing McGwire’s record i think…idk…heck yeah!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah

And I sometimes look at the muscle mass of the players in the league and think “how is that possible on a clean regime?”

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

it's crazy...

you look at players from like the 30’s to and through each decade and see the mass and muscle increased size speed and strength…its amazing…

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

so is Al

roiding it up?

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on May 14, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions  

pujols(sp?)

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on May 14, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions  

Will we ever know?

And the difference between Pujols and Bonds is I never remember seeing a small version of Pujols. He was always just thick. But that doesn’t mean he is most certainly clean.

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 14, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions  

It doesn't

matter to me. Roids don’t make you a better hitter, and what is performance enhancing? Its very vague and you can make it mean a lot of things. Why are steroids bad? Just because we don’t know the long term effects to the body? I just don’t get it. If everyone is using steroids, like in the 70s then its not really a competitive advantage, if you decide not to then that’s your choice. Just like you can decide not to lift weights because of the added muscle mass might not be healthy to carry for your body. At least I would like it explained to me.

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on May 14, 2010 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions  

One of the things you have to remember,

is that MLB was not testing it’s players and did not have a program for identifying players using substances at the time.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

indeed

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

i love it when...

people bring up an arguement about the Steeler’s of the 70’s and say that out SB’s are tainted b/c of the steroid usage, back then they were legal, and almost every player on every team was most likely using them…which amazes me b/c we had more talent on our team, and couldn’t be beat…it’s wasn’t just the steroids…it was the sheer talent as well…

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 13, 2010 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, if all the steelers were supposedly using them, it seems to follow that the other teams were too. this proves that we’re just awesome

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions  

you know it...

man our team of the 70’s could compete in this era guaranteed…

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 7:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

It is impossible

to prove a negative. Thus, this is a dangerous path to follow. Think of the dubious accusations that could be hurled at any of us and how defenseless we would be were the burden on us to prove them false.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on May 13, 2010 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

Keep in mind that Ed Bouchette of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (and Steelers beat writer) actually voted for Cushing precisely because of the revote. He voted for Jarius Byrd the first time around but seems to have decided to vote for Cushing this time because he’s offended by the very notion of a revote.

If anybody can actually make a coherent argument out of the reasons Bouchette gives, please tell me. I’ve included the link below:

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/sports-town/steelers/10078-ed-revote-lets-not-stop-at-cushing

by BluegrassSteeler on May 13, 2010 12:58 PM EDT reply actions  

I mean, I take it Bouchette thinks that this re-vote is really a bit of moralizing – like Ben’s suspension by the league – but I think he’s just wrong. It’s about ensuring that the award itself goes to an honorable player, someone who wins because they’ve worked the hardest, get the most out of their talent etc. Off the field issues have nothing to do with the revote. Rather, the revote should have been done to ensure a sense of fair play and honor on the field.

They shouldn’t win because they maximize their physical capabilities with substances that have been deemed illegal by the NFL. In other words, re-voting for Cushing sends a message that you’re a bit of a sap for not roiding up and carefully using masking agents to hide it.

by BluegrassSteeler on May 13, 2010 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bouchette seems the type to just be contrary for the sake of it. but I identify with that so I can’t exactly say it’s wrong

by klompus on May 13, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

haha, no doubt

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

I vote

That those 50 voters lose their privilege to vote.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions  

Alright, here's how I see it....

Before we even get into Cushing, I think it’s important to note that the Spygate stuff has no bearing what so ever on this Cushing situation. To be totally honest, all that including that does is convolute the arguement, and bring up anger about that situation, clouding the discussion at hand, PED’s and football.

Did Cushing cheat? It certainly appears so. If you wanted to bring up instances in the past, and raise the questions about ’roids and football, look at Shawne Merrimen and Julius Peppers.

Merrimen won DROY for the 2005 season, and tested positive for steroids. Not a suplement, not a masking agent… steroids (nandrolone). He lost no award, he was given a 4 game suspension, but lost his “Pro-Bowl” appearence (A game he had played in, and recorded three tackles and a fumble forced.) That was it.

Julius Peppers won DROY for the 2002 season, and tested positive for a banned dietery suplimemt. He was suspended four games that year. He did not have the award taken from him either.

Neither even faced a revote.

Here’s the sequence of events, as I understand them with Cushing. He, along with 9 teammates is selected for a random testing, per NFL rules. The samples are taken, and the always present delay in actually testing them occures. After it tests positive, a month to two months later, the original sample is split, and retested multiple times. Once for the testers credibility, and once in front of a union representative for their purposes. The appeals process begins. In the meantime, Cushing is tearing up the AFC South. After the appeals are heard in front of the board (February) and the paperwork goes through, it is announced he will be suspended for four games.

From what I’ve read from some of the AP writers who vote on this award, a few (3) obstained from the vote for a few reasons. Chris Mortensen sighted a lack of time to review the facts. Cushing originally received 39 of the 50 first place votes, and the second time received 18. To say that they voted him back in, with no regard to the positive test, is not totally accurate. He also didn’t buy his way out of it either.

He received the punishment that fit the crime, simple as that. He got what everyone else that did what he did got.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 1:02 PM EDT reply actions  

Spygate relates in that it seems to be another example of “acceptable” being skewed towards cheating

by klompus on May 13, 2010 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions  

But how?

Were Belichek and New England not punished for what they did?

The way it is used in this article, is to say, “see, they didn’t get punished enough, and neither did he!” And as I said, all that does is muddy the water of the actual topic at hand. Perhaps I inferred too much, but that’s what I got.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

What I was doing was compairing What happpened in thepast to today.

Pete Rose was banned from a sport for life for the IMPLICATION of cheating. Belichick got CAUGHT cheating. Rose got banned for life. Belichick got a $500,000 fine.

Do you think, even back in the day, Rose would have gladly taken a half million fine?

I was showing that Cheating used to be considered a sports crime and severely punished. And, I’m asking, why is that no longer the case?

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions  

Pete Rose was banned for gambling...

He didn’t get banned for life because maybe he cheated, he got banned because he gambled on games he was involved in, which was the biggest taboo in baseball (maybe up until steroids) because of the Chicago Blacksox. He got the same punishment they did. Would he have taken a half a million dollar fine? I’m sure he would have, but unfortuantely the precedent was set 60+ years prior.

Belichek got what was a precedent setting punishment, yes, for cheating. But his cheating and Cushing’s cheating aren’t the same just because they both cheated. Having twelve guys on the field is cheating, so is grabbing a face mask. There is different punishments for different crimes against the game.

Cheating is still punished. Cushing wasn’t just let go, scott free was he? No, he was given the punishment the league feels matched the crime, simple really.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

Gambling in Sports far worse

Than a player using PEDs to get an advantage, That dude still has to go out and play and entertain me. The gambler, who might get into a situation to throw the game has to go. I was surprised the NFL wasn’t pissed at Vick for gambling…killing dogs gets him a few game suspension…. BTW, you’re banned for life because gambling and professional sports don’t mix. Dogs, shmogs, doesn’t compare to rapist and murderers, the thought is actually making me hungry; but gambling is a no-no.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions  

My thoughtages on Vicks gambling

They were pissed about gambling. So were the feds.

The public hates the dog stuff, who wouldnt?

But the feds took him down because of the gambling, i can almost guarantee you that. Thats money thats not going into uncle sams pocket. You think the government gives a shit if Vick helps Bob Barker control the pet population? I dont think so.

And it was the Feds who blew Vick up, had they not have done that, the NFL likely doesnt find out and doesnt suspend. So thats all you need to know.

by Mechem on May 15, 2010 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions  

He wasn't banned for gamblings sake.

Who cares if a guy gambles? What they were worried about was that the gambling suggested he had a reason to cheat. It was the cheating they were worried about. Even the suggestion of it.

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

That's incorrect....
Amid reports that he had bet on baseball, Rose was questioned in February 1989 by outgoing commissioner Peter Ueberroth and his replacement, Bart Giamatti. Rose denied the allegations and Ueberroth dropped the investigation. However, three days after Giamatti became Commissioner, lawyer John M. Dowd was retained to investigate these charges against Rose. A Sports Illustrated cover story published on March 21, 1989 gave the public their first detailed report of the allegations that Rose had placed bets on baseball games.

Dowd interviewed many of Rose’s associates, including alleged bookies and bet runners. He delivered a summary of his findings to the Commissioner in May. In it, Dowd documented Rose’s alleged gambling activities in 1985 and 1986 and compiled a day-by-day account of Rose’s alleged betting on baseball games in 1987. The Dowd Report documented his alleged bets on 52 Reds games in 1987, where Rose wagered a minimum of $10,000 a day. Others involved in the allegations claim that number was actually $2,000 a day.

According to the Dowd Report itself, “no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds.”2 This is in contrast to the case of “Shoeless” Joe Jackson and his teammates in the Black Sox Scandal, who were accused of intentionally losing the 1919 World Series. Those critical of Rose’s behavior, including Ohio’s own Hall of Fame baseball reporter Hal McCoy, have observed that “the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game.”8

Rose continued to deny all of the accusations against him and refused to appear at a hearing with Giamatti on the matter. He filed a lawsuit alleging that the Commissioner had prejudged the case and could not provide a fair hearing. A Cincinnati judge issued a temporary restraining order to delay the hearing, but Giamatti fought to have the case moved to Federal Court. The Commissioner prevailed in that effort, after which he and Rose entered settlement negotiations.

On August 24, 1989, Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent place on baseball’s ineligible list.9 Rose accepted that there was a factual reason for the ban; in return, Major League Baseball agreed to make no formal finding with regard to the gambling allegations. According to baseball’s rules, Rose could apply for reinstatement in one year. Rose, with a 412-373 record, was replaced as Reds manager by Tommy Helms. Rose began therapy with a psychiatrist for treatment of a gambling addiction.

Link

Rose was banned from the sport after an investigation found he had gambled thousands of dollars on baseball games as a player and a manager for the Cincinnati Reds. Rose said he “made some mistakes” but denied betting on baseball.

Link

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rose = Manslaughter

I remember seeing that crap on the front page of the sports sections every fricken day for at least a year. Never liked the mental midget to begin with, makes me happy he’s banned and forced to sell his autograph to other folks with questionable morals…suppose they deserve each other.

If the whole scenario were a Law-and-Order episode Rose would been charged with manslaughter for causing the death of Bart Giamatti…I’m surprised he lasted as long as he did. RIP knowing that a$$ is perpetually embarrassed every time someone opens the all-time hit-list and asks/wonders why this idiot isn’t in HOF.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions  

I completely disagree with everything you said.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions  

I figured you would

Remind me not to play cards with you. Question: Aren’t you that guy that plays tennis and hoops and nearly gets in fights by making bad foul or line calls? I bet you win at most everything you do…budge in front of old ladies at the bank, push pregnant women on the bus/subway, cheat on taxes, stiff waitresses, etc? Not saying that is you, just a best guess. Guys like that make me sick. I’m from Rochester/Syracuse, when I travel I’ve learned not to tell people I live in NY…they frown and scoff – rightfully so. I tell folks I’m from upstate NY, near Canada and they treat me much better.

by steelerwheeler on May 14, 2010 8:34 AM EDT up reply actions  

I'm also from upstate NY myself...

And no, that doesn’t describe me at all. At all.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 14, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions  

Was this based on the fact I disagreed with you?

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 14, 2010 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions  

Umm, Maybe??? :(

Somehow, somewhere, I got the impression you were in the “It’s OK to cheat” camp. Not from the Rose disagree point (My post was way out there anyhow, didn’t expect much agreement). I re-read stuff and don’t know where or how I came to that conclusion. Please accept my apologies, I imagined you as a typical, rude, NYC stereotype dude. I’m happy to hear that doesn’t describe you at all. Sorry.

by steelerwheeler on May 14, 2010 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

No prob man...

It’s cool. I do not believe it’s okay to cheat by any means.

And I’m nowhere near the city myself, Utica area.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 14, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions  

Really?
"the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game."

Let me ask you this: If you and I could be guarenteed that a player betting on sports could not influence games in any way (Not worried about how in this instance), would you care that player was gambling on sports?

by WyoFan on May 13, 2010 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions  

I knew that statement was in there...

And I just somehow knew that was the only part you’d address. That was a statement by a Hall of Fame reporter. And that was his opinion on the whole thing as it related to the HoF (which is not run or owned by the MLB). That did not speak to why he was banned, those were just his feelings about it. But hey, at least you found some solace in it I guess.

A good hypothetical question. My honest opinion is, I woudn’t mind that at all. Unfortunately, that was not the case with Rose though. Personally, I don’t see anything incredibly wrong with what Pete did either. I guess that probably got lost in the point I was trying to make.

The truth is in this instance, somewhere in between. Pete got kicked out of baseball for both gambling on games (something proven) and gambling on games he had influence on, somewhat supporting your point that he was kicked out for potentially cheating as well (but I’ll be quick to point out that there was nothing proven in terms of him changing gameplans to aid his betting).

This still has no real relevence on Cushing in any way. Not only were their transgressions totally different, they’re not even in the same sport. Which goes back to my original point, if you want to look at things from the past, and how they have connection to the Cushing thing, at least look at players who did the same wrong thing. Realize that people who have done what he had done have been punished in the exact same way as Brian Cushing. You can even take it a step further, and say that the players who did what he did weren’t even forced to go through the extra (possibly deserved) humiliation of having their award revoted on to begin with, and realisticly, the best punishment for a roid user is just that, the humiliation of being labelled what you are… a cheater.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 7:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ya, have to agree with Wyo on Pete Rose

Yes, he was tossed for gambling on the games. But the point stands that it’s a no-no because you might be inclined to throw games or cheat.
Comparing him to Peppers and Merriman is a great way to ask if he was treated FAIRLY by the NFL for his crime. Presenting him alongside other cheaters and those who have been immoral is a great way to ask if his punishment was MORAL.

by TheCincinnatiConqueror on May 14, 2010 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

Okay!

I understand the reason he was banned was stated that is was for “Gambling”. But what is the problem with gambling? You yourselft say you wouldn’t mind if there was no chance they could change the game. But, they can change the game. That is the danger. Gambling may influence them to change the game. To cheat. Gambling is not a worry, a possible byproduct of gambling is: Cheating.
I never said that it was proven Pete changed games. I said the gambling indicated there was a chance he was influenced to. And, my point was, back in the day, he was banned for just the smell of cheating. I know, he was banned for gambling (See above).
My compairison was not to Cushing (Read it again), but to Belichick.
I was pointing out that, in times past, a player, I don’t care what sport, was banned for a POSSIBLE connection to cheating. Belichick was caught actually cheating and received a relatively mild punighment in compairison.

by WyoFan on May 14, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions  

I hear you Wyo...

My complaint was never really with the Rose thing either (read mine again :)), my complaint was with the Belichek part, because it had no bearing on Cushing either. I guess I just didn’t understand the point you were making.

It was my opinion that your post was to point out you didn’t think Belichek and Cushing were punished enough… and somewhere in there I kind of agree as well, but the problem is that Cushing was punished exactly as the rest of the people who did waht he did. To call for more, is to ask for someone to be punished beyond the reasonable amount, based on their stance, and I don’t think that is necessary.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 14, 2010 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah, but this is kind of like saying that two wrongs make a right. The AP voters are basically sending the message: Merriman got away with it, Peppers got away with it, so Cushing should get away with it as well.

It seems like the decision is aimed more at keeping the voting process consistent (“if one roider gets in, then they all can”) than making sure that the contestants on the field all honor the same rules and are judged by the same criteria. As the philosopher once said, I’d rather be right than consistent.

If i’m a high school/college player right now I’m thinking: Why shouldn’t I help myself to some PED’s? I can still become the NFL’s Defensive Rookie of the Year. Heck, I can even become the Defensive Rookie of the Year twice.

by BluegrassSteeler on May 13, 2010 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not at all...

Because the players got away with nothing.

It’s not the AP’s job to punish the players, it’s the NFL’s. And the NFL did punish the players, equally at that. The AP is in no position to punish anyone. The fact they even revoted in this case was precedent setting, showing they do recognize the brevity of the situation, and they’re no longer going to act like this stuff didn’t happen at all. That is all the AP can do in this case, and they did it.

As far as high schoolers go, there’s no answer to that. People will do what people will do. Punish them and show them why it’s wrong.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

AP's Job

Is to vote the most deserving player the award, support the NFL, and get free tickets and great seats to games. Clearly a conflict of interests, Cushing wasn’t the most deserving, but the NFL says he’s available for the award, so… he wins, give me my press pass.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions  

If Cushing wasn't the most deserving... Who was?

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 3:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

Dude that finished second

Did Ben Johnson and that Tour-De-France guy deserve their award? This ones a no brainer, don’t care about NFL precedent, you cheat, you lose. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a very poor grasp of right/wrong. I suppose your free to say/think whatever you want, but I don’t want my kids hangin’ with yours.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

Well, I don't have kids...

So, you can send yours to play with whoever.

I’ll say this, when I have kids, I won’t be hiding them from opposing viewpoints though.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

I agree with NYSteeler (Crime and Punishment)

I agree that their are different punishments for different crimes.
Face mask / Holding = Yardage Penalty
Fighting = Ejection and or Fine
Personal Conduct = Fine and or Suspension
Drug Testing = Suspension, “Random” test program, fines, etc.

Speeding = Fine
Assault and Battery= Fine and or Jail
Tax Evasion = Fine, Jail, “Random” audits, fines, etc.

I may not agree with Cush for using a substance that is banned but he was punished by the rules that are in place. The AP is not the NFL, that is a private award and those writers have to deal with their own issues and rules. I wouldn’t have voted a 2nd time for him but thats me. Every rule violation be it in our communities or in Private orginizations all have rules and consequences. I don’t believe the NFL rules are “Grey” as the Orig. post suggests. It’s the AP that Wyo has issue with here. IMO

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 14, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

I'm confused

what is that supposed to mean

Players who should be in the Hall of Fame: Pat TIllman, Dwight White, Donnie Shell, L.C. Greenwood, Ray Guy, Steve Tasker, Greg Llyod, Andy Russel, Cris Carter, Kevin Greene and Jerry Kramer
"It's a great day to be a mountaineer, where ever you may be" Tony Caridi
Canal Street Chronicles resident Steelers Fan

by WVPiratesfan on May 13, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Roy award, getting sent off the screen with a counter. Man I made my 13 yr. old BiL cry I did that to him so much.

by Phantaskippy on May 13, 2010 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions  

Some short of graph needs made.

The y coordinates needs to be suspensions/fines. The fines would equate to $ per game by a player, or something like that.
The x coordinates would be accusation/charged/pleaded out of/convicted, could be either 4 lines or one line depending on how it plays out.
I know someone on this board can do it. Once done, Godell needs to see his work, so he can understand how random he is. Do I think it will help, nope, but still it’d be interesting.
I may look into this.

If you buy a foreign made product you give money to a person who will not be buying an American made product that you get paid to make. Think about it next time you're at the store.

by SNW on May 13, 2010 1:30 PM EDT reply actions  

Its not really random

The Substance Abuse Policy has a set system. Which is why Holmes gets hit for smoking weed. His suspension was automatic. There are different policies for PEDs and Contraband. Hence why Matt Jones also wasnt suspended on the first run with the white stuff.

by Mechem on May 15, 2010 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Why is everyone so admanant that using a PED is 'cheating'?

It might be wrong and abusive to your body, or even helpful in some cases,(reduce healing time) but when I hear people say “cheating!!!!” I immediately think of my brother who used to slip a few 500’s under the monopoly board. It just doesn’t feel like that. Cheating has increasingly become something that is gray, and not clear cut enough.

I guess real steroids, PCP, crack, cocaine might be substances that offer some performance benefit, but I think talent comes from within. On another thread, I likened this to Jamarcus russel- suppose we started feeding him ’roids- would that make him a better player? What if we gave him alderall, would he focus better? Would it really be a competitive advantage? I think he could take all the substances that exist and he would still be a bust.

I guess I’m jaded in that this list of banned substances only continues to grow, and the benefits that many of them offer are marginal at best. At some point there’s going to be a substance on the list that will trigger a ton of false positives. I’d like to see just the serious stuff banned.

by SteelersVT on May 13, 2010 2:09 PM EDT reply actions  

The issue with hCG

is that it is most commonly used as a masking agent for steroids. That’s the reason it’s banned. To say steroids are performance benefitting, but not hCG makes no sense to me

by mojo88 on May 13, 2010 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

And why stop with PED's? Isn't lasik surgery cheating?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/if-steroids-are-cheating-why-isnt-lasik.html

Scores of pro athletes have had laser eye surgery, known as LASIK (Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis). Many, like Tiger Woods, have upgraded their vision to 20/15 or better.

It goes on to name a loto f players across a lot of sports that benefited from lasik.

by SteelersVT on May 13, 2010 2:24 PM EDT reply actions  

I want surgery before the next Olympics

to give me flexible 24" flipper/feet. Eat my dust, Phelps.

That Lasik thing is just stupid, roids are banned by the sport and usually obtained illegally.

by steelerwheeler on May 13, 2010 2:40 PM EDT reply actions  

Yeah seriously

I mean your body is naturally supposed to have good vision. Therefore a surgery to restore that is not wrong.

Your body is not supposed to resemble the Incredible Hulk.

by Mechem on May 15, 2010 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions  

these people aren't having natural vision restored

they’re having natural vision they already possessed beefed up

by klompus on May 16, 2010 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

I had lenses, then Lasik

Lasik isn’t perfect, my vision is slightly worse than what is was corrected. Fresh new script targets 20/15. The Lasik is an accurate laser that removes some cornea, hoping that your eye heals up to about 20/20. I’m 20/20 and 20/25 till my eyes tire to 20/25,20/30. I’d wear lenses if trying to hit a fastball. It’s not a bionic eye…..How could Lee Majors hold a pip in his hands and bend it with just one bionic arm? He must have been strong as hell in the left. When they made him better, stronger, faster; did they reinforce his spine? Saw him lift a car with his legs and bionic arm…man his core strength was impressive.

by steelerwheeler on May 20, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions  

This was BS

Cushing should have definitely had it taken away from him. I thought Jarius Byrd’s performance was more impressive last year anyway.

You have to hate losing more than you love winning.

by Mr MaLoR on May 13, 2010 4:21 PM EDT reply actions  

Louis Delmas would have got my vote...

With Byrd a very close second and Cushing third (probably close to a tie for second). Just me, but Delmas’ play last year was nothing short of spectacular for a rookie safety.

Byrd had the nine picks, which is a great year for anybody. But I thought Delmas was the better all around player. Cushing was deserving, and probably had the best statistical year, but in terms of impact to a unit, I don’t think Delmas was, or even is, given the publicity he deserves.

"One important key to success is self-confidence. An important key to self-confidence is preparation."
-Arthur Ashe

by NYSteelersFan4 on May 13, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions  

Actually, I would have given it to Issac Redman…….the MVP that is.

You have to hate losing more than you love winning.

by Mr MaLoR on May 13, 2010 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

They nearly gave Redman the Lombardi instead of the Saints…just because

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 13, 2010 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

The Lombardi was almost lucky enough to receive Redman. Redman does not receive Lombardi’s.

by klompus on May 13, 2010 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions  

This isn’t the NCAA. Violating the rules brings suspension, not removal of stats or revoking titles and awards.

The Associated Press placed their heads in their collective rear by calling the re-vote. That the voters selected the same guy sends a message that the AP voters think revoking awards is not the way to go in these situations.

by Phantaskippy on May 13, 2010 5:35 PM EDT reply actions  

I think

this is the correct take on the vote.

"Never mistake motion for action." - Ernest Hemingway

by SubLime on May 13, 2010 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions  

+1

The guy is already suspended. Doing the mulligan and him winning again just makes the AP look dumb.

"all my bitches, take some shots!"

by dankdiggety on May 13, 2010 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions  

NYSteelers brought up a good point though

The dude lost quite a few first place votes and looks like, at least to my untrained eye, that he was pretty close to losing the award. I think that still sends a message.

by TheCincinnatiConqueror on May 14, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions  

Oh ya totally

That you can cheat, and get a slap on the wrist when you get found out and not have to give anything back, even though you stole it from someone more deserving who put in more effort, while having more dignity, then you ever will.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 14, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions  

Oh for sure

I’m in total agreement. I think he should have lost the award outright. I’m just saying it looks like quite a few people on that committee felt the same way. A couple more votes and he would’ve lost it. I think at the least it sent the message that people are STARTING to get fed up with this garbage

by TheCincinnatiConqueror on May 14, 2010 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions  

What is your

definition of PED? To me its a very vague term.

Steelers football is 60 mins.

by tannofsteel84 on May 14, 2010 9:51 AM EDT reply actions  

WTF

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 14, 2010 12:45 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

That movie kind of sucked

Besides that Ricci was hot as hell in it

The future is not what it used to be.

by John Stephens on May 14, 2010 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ya I know. you figure a movie about Samuel MF'ing Jackson chaining up some random white chick would be more entertaining.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 14, 2010 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions  

Ricci...

man I would drink her bathwater…lol!!!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

i like the name man...

my alterego when i put on a lucha libre mask is Killer Ka-Doogan (Stimpy’s wrestling character)…awesome cartoon!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

Definately using PEDs here!!!

LMAO

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 14, 2010 12:51 PM EDT reply actions  

Meth is not a performance enhancer.

Bungles Tank Stupidly like Clockwork
--------
Every night at the club the girls screamed when he'd come
He stood six foot five and weighed 241
Kinda meaty in the face with a head full of stone
And everybody knew you didn't go to the bathroom alone around Big Ben
(Big Ben Big Ben) Big Fat Ben (Big Ben)

by svenhoek on May 14, 2010 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions  

LMAO

Don’t tell

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 14, 2010 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions  

it is...

if your running on foot to evade the copper’s…lol!!!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

RUN FORREST, RUN!!!

Had to do it….(-1,000 for originality)

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 14, 2010 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions  

hahahahahahaha!!!

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions  

Good Idea....

LOL

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 15, 2010 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions  

Meant as reply to sven pic

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 14, 2010 12:51 PM EDT reply actions  

"THAT IS A TASTY BURGER!!!"

"In Hoc Signo Vinces (With this as your standard, you shall have victory!!!") -Constantine I

by Webslasher81 on May 14, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

My thoughtages

Its about the principle of voting. They voted on what they knew at the deadline. You cant just keep having re-do’s. I think this re-do is an offense to the system personally.

The NFL should have put out this information well before, as it was found he failed the test in september I believe. So its more their fault. I dont agree with Cushing’s actions. But at the end of the day you have to respect the due process.

What if they gave it to Byrd, and then boom a month later he was found to have failed a test. Now do we re-re-vote. Where do you draw the line?

by Mechem on May 15, 2010 9:05 AM EDT reply actions  

I can't remember exactly

who posted a similar thought but, violations and consequences are handled differently. Holding is a standard 10 yards for Off. 5 yards for Def. But face masking can be 5 or 15 yards, depends on “severity”. Same with the doping PED rules. As well as Goodells “feelings” on personal conduct. All subject to interpretation by the official. But the AP is not the NFL. They made a farce of their own organization. All holier than thou during MLB’s BS and here they had an opportunity to show the world they meant it and what did they do? Dropped the ball. Not my concern. If they (the AP) can be that transparent in their dislike for players (Bonds, Sosa, McGwire) let them. They are the joke. Not the NFL and the way they deal with “Grey” areas in the rules. Consistently inconsistent. Works for me.

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 15, 2010 1:04 PM EDT reply actions  

Not any more
But face masking can be 5 or 15 yards, depends on "severity".

Facemasks are all 15 yards now

I'm getting tired of saying this: Dick LeBeau’s system is so complex very few rookies can make an impact.
We just dumped a problem WR just so we could draft another?

by Steel in FL on May 17, 2010 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions  

I stand corrected

Nice point. Holding is the same though. Right?

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 17, 2010 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yeah Holding is the same

I'm getting tired of saying this: Dick LeBeau’s system is so complex very few rookies can make an impact.
We just dumped a problem WR just so we could draft another?

by Steel in FL on May 17, 2010 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions  

lol

My attempt at humor. LOL

"If I could start my life all over again, I would be a professional football player, and you damn well better believe I would be a Pittsburgh Steeler."

-- Jack Lambert --

by Steeleraero on May 17, 2010 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions  


User Tools

Welcome to BTSC, a blog dedicated to the SIX-time world champion Steelers.

"Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history."

Art Rooney Jr.

"Level-headed thinking." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

5467103_small
Hines Ward: a different look part 1. Hines vs. the big boys.

Recent FanPosts

Photo_small
Worry Warts
6-trophies_small
The Saint Will Be The Starter for 2012 - The Whole Season.
Trophies_small
Why Is Rashard Mendenhall Still On This Roster?
Small
Your all time Steeler regret?
2009-week6_1440x900_benroethlisberger_small
Pads - To wear or not to wear
Small
53 Man Roster (Way too early edition)
Small
WHEN DO TICKETS GO ON SALE?
Small
Submitted for your approval: Steeler names for this year's pledge class
Small
The biggest offseason ever
Bonek_small
Rookie Mini camp lesson #1 (O Line edition)

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Terrible Towel Talk

Listen to internet radio with Michael Bean on Blog Talk Radio


Site Founder & Editor

Imag0299_small Michael Bean

Steelers Historian

Steeler_small maryrose

Bison_small Neal Coolong

Contributing Authors

Small Ivan Cole (RickVa)

Franco72_small 5020

Btsc_head_shot_small Rebecca Rollett

Small big_jay71

Hines_small John Stephens

178896_499126548441_596563441_5939410_7960015_n_small Anthony Defeo