Vote for '09 def. rookie of the yr

[yupchagee]

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/05/10/fanh ... e-of-year/

[frankcal20]

Orakpo has the lead - big time.

[langleyparkjoe]

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/05/10/fanhouse-roundtable-who-should-win-defensive-rookie-of-year/

thanks for bringing it to our attention Yup

[1niksder]

Cushing got 18 votes in the do-over, Jairus Byrd received 13, Clay Matthews got 10, Orakpo got the same three he got last time and St. Louis linebacker James Laurinaitis one. Byrd was second in the original vote, followed by Matthews and Orakpo, while Laurainitis didn't get any votes.

The first time all 50 votes were casted, this time 5 members abstained... Cushing had 39 the first time around Byrd only had six and Matthews had three.

Cushing should not have won the re-vote, because the he should have served his four game sit-down in his rookies season. His worst game last year was here when he only had three tackles against the Jags. Include that game in a four game string and his total number of tackles for the year would have dropped at least 29 and at most 36 tackles, he would have dropped up to 1.5 sacks and one of his four interceptions fall within that window. The lost of these stats would have dropped him to second behind James Laurinaitis (:shock: the guy that got ZERO votes 1st time around) in tackles.

This really isn't my beef with the re-vote...

How does Clay Mathews gain seven votes while Rak stays at three
Having the same number of votes made it look like the writers knew what they were doing because Clay had 51 total tackles to Brian's 50 and Rak had one sack more than Mathews. Cushing's numbers should have been the only thing to change and in no way should Orakpo not have gained votes if Mathews would.

[CanesSkins26]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

[VetSkinsFan]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Yup, b/c with all the examples being made out of ppl, it's good that a juicer can still get awards.

[SkinsJock]

I am very surprised and disapointed that Cushing was even considered for an award following what transpired last season - if he was not 'guilty' of anything the NFL would not be suspending him

I am also surprised that some AP voters later yesterday stated that they were not aware of a lot of the 'facts' about what happened with this issue



IMO - the AP reporters (and fans) who think Cushing deserved to even be considered for this award (or any award) is grossly misinformed about PEDs and the NFL's drug policies - end of story

[langleyparkjoe]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Why bro? He's a proven cheater who got caught, he shouldn't have won the re-vote IMO.. Actually, why did they do a re-vote with his name in it anyways, shouldn't he have been out of it?

[CanesSkins26]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Why bro? He's a proven cheater who got caught, he shouldn't have won the re-vote IMO.. Actually, why did they do a re-vote with his name in it anyways, shouldn't he have been out of it?

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

Second...anyone that thinks that steroids/HGH isn't WIDELY used in the NFL has their head completely burried in the sand. Do people really think that Romo and now Cushing are the only two guys that have used roids? Considering what NFL players are required to do, HGH/steroids/other performance enhancers will ALWAYS be a part of the game. If I had to guess I'd say at the very least 25-30 percent of NFL players use some sort of banned substance.

Is there anyone on here naive enough to think that there aren't guys on the Skins using roids or some other performance enhancer right now?

[Irn-Bru]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Why bro? He's a proven cheater who got caught, he shouldn't have won the re-vote IMO.. Actually, why did they do a re-vote with his name in it anyways, shouldn't he have been out of it?

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

Second...anyone that thinks that steroids/HGH isn't WIDELY used in the NFL has their head completely burried in the sand. Do people really think that Romo and now Cushing are the only two guys that have used roids? Considering what NFL players are required to do, HGH/steroids/other performance enhancers will ALWAYS be a part of the game. If I had to guess I'd say at the very least 25-30 percent of NFL players use some sort of banned substance.

Is there anyone on here naive enough to think that there aren't guys on the Skins using roids or some other performance enhancer right now?

I agree with both of your posts in this thread. But people are looking for a scapegoat, and as long as someone is getting punished for steroids it helps them not think about how pervasive they are.

[chiefhog44]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Why bro? He's a proven cheater who got caught, he shouldn't have won the re-vote IMO.. Actually, why did they do a re-vote with his name in it anyways, shouldn't he have been out of it?

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

Second...anyone that thinks that steroids/HGH isn't WIDELY used in the NFL has their head completely burried in the sand. Do people really think that Romo and now Cushing are the only two guys that have used roids? Considering what NFL players are required to do, HGH/steroids/other performance enhancers will ALWAYS be a part of the game. If I had to guess I'd say at the very least 25-30 percent of NFL players use some sort of banned substance.

Is there anyone on here naive enough to think that there aren't guys on the Skins using roids or some other performance enhancer right now?

This is one of the absolute dumbest statements I have ever read on here. First off, to give a guy an award for using a banned substance is rediculous. What kind of message does that send to kids watching this situation. How much does this tarnish the shield. The AP should be ashamed, and listening to the head of the AP on Sirius this week confirmed that the process will be changed because he thought that writers would not vote this way on the re-vote. The ONLY other way for HCG to get into your body is to have malignant tumors, and if that was the case, you think the guy would have taken the year off and figured out what kind of lethal tumor was in his body. I'm sure the team would request that as well since their investment in his health is paramount. He tested positive in September.

Secondly, you have absolutely, positively NO evidance that HGH is in the league. None whatsoever, and I'm sure the players in this league would be disgusted with your feeleings since it was them who made such a push for Goodell to instill a tough testing policy. If you are using any kind of enhancement, you WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if, but when. These guys get tested ALL the time and you have absolutely no way to avoid it if your name is called. The HGH test is right around the corner, and I cant wait. The cleaner this league the better. There are 2000 banned substances and if you get caught with any of them in your body, you have a 4 game suspension, no pay, and then are in the program to get tested 10 times a month for the rest of your career!

Understand what you are talking about before making such dumb statements

[chiefhog44]

Personally, I'm glad that Cushing won in the re-vote.

Why bro? He's a proven cheater who got caught, he shouldn't have won the re-vote IMO.. Actually, why did they do a re-vote with his name in it anyways, shouldn't he have been out of it?

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

Second...anyone that thinks that steroids/HGH isn't WIDELY used in the NFL has their head completely burried in the sand. Do people really think that Romo and now Cushing are the only two guys that have used roids? Considering what NFL players are required to do, HGH/steroids/other performance enhancers will ALWAYS be a part of the game. If I had to guess I'd say at the very least 25-30 percent of NFL players use some sort of banned substance.

Is there anyone on here naive enough to think that there aren't guys on the Skins using roids or some other performance enhancer right now?

I agree with both of your posts in this thread. But people are looking for a scapegoat, and as long as someone is getting punished for steroids it helps them not think about how pervasive they are.

[Irn-Bru]

This is one of the absolute dumbest statements I have ever read on here. First off, to give a guy an award for using a banned substance is rediculous.

Dude, he wasn't given an award for using a banned substance, he was given an award for outstanding play in his rookie season. The question is whether his use of a banned substance disqualifies him. Considering that some over-the-counter cold medicines make the NFL banned substances list, obviously the question depends on the individual circumstances of the situation.

And as CanesSkins points out:

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

So here we have a guy who basically drank the wrong kind of Gatorade — unknowingly! — who has not admitted to nor been shown to have taken actual performance-enhancing drugs, and you say right away, without any sense of context, that he in no way should win the award.

Secondly, you have absolutely, positively NO evidance that HGH is in the league.

I take it you've never seen any one of the dozens and dozens of interviews conducted with players who say that most players in every locker room they've been in take steroids? If you take a few minutes on Google to look for them, it will open your eyes . . .

[chiefhog44]

This is one of the absolute dumbest statements I have ever read on here. First off, to give a guy an award for using a banned substance is rediculous.

Dude, he wasn't given an award for using a banned substance, he was given an award for outstanding play in his rookie season. The question is whether his use of a banned substance disqualifies him. Considering that some over-the-counter cold medicines make the NFL banned substances list, obviously the question depends on the individual circumstances of the situation.

And as CanesSkins points out:

One...he didn't get caught for steroids. It's an alleged masking agent. He also took and passed a lie detector saying he didn't knowingly ingest it.

So here we have a guy who basically drank the wrong kind of Gatorade — unknowingly! — who has not admitted to nor been shown to have taken actual performance-enhancing drugs, and you say right away, without any sense of context, that he in no way should win the award.

.

I think you should do some research on HCG. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Clueless if you are comparing HCG to an over the counter or gatorade. Let me repeat for those that do not want to spend time investigating this or asking a radiologist. There is absolutley NO way that you can get HCG into your body without injecting or injesting it besides having malignant tumors (mostly in the gonad's). And the guy (and you) is saying that you have no idea how it got into his system. It is used ONLY as a masking agent for steroids, and so yes, he should be pulled from the running, NOT because you say that most NFL players are on steroids (which, doesn't make it right), but because it sets a horrible example for kids watching this unfold. How can you even argue otherwise?

It's frustrating when people spout off when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It's one thing to do so when argueing about how good a player is, but another when arguing medical fact.

[Irn-Bru]

Clueless if you are comparing HCG to an over the counter or gatorade.

I wasn't being literal . . .

There is absolutley NO way that you can get HCG into your body without injecting or injesting it

Look, no one is disputing that he ingested the stuff. The point is that (1) by itself it doesn't actually establish his guilt in using steroids, period—much less the number and kind of steroids that he would need to substantially affect his performance on the field. And (2) he passed a lie detector test claiming that he did not knowingly ingest the masking agent. There are several ways he could have gotten it on accident: there have been stories in the past of trainers passing stuff on to the wrong guy, or other players, etc. This wouldn't be the first time that a player had ingested the wrong stuff on accident.

It is used ONLY as a masking agent for steroids, and so yes, he should be pulled from the running

Let me draw an analogy here if it would help clarify things. It's pretty well established that a corked bat doesn't actually confer any advantage to a baseball player (aside from whatever superstition might add to his swing). If a player picked up a corked bat without knowing it and hit the game-winning homer, it wouldn't seem just (to me, anyway) to take away the team's win if months later they discovered that the same bat was a corked one.

Then again, if you could prove that the player corked the bat himself, that a corked bat conferred an advantage, and that he deliberately picked it when he stepped up to the plate, then there's a stronger case for making an intervention in the record books.

Based on the actual evidence, and not premature conclusions with hand-waiving about "the children," cushing's situation resembles the former much more than the latter.

It's frustrating when people spout off when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It's one thing to do so when argueing about how good a player is, but another when arguing medical fact.

I've ignored similarly condescending remarks from earlier in this thread, but I'll just point out that what you are arguing isn't solely medical facts about what he did or did not ingest. You are taking your interpretation of events and arguing it like it's the only possible option. In fact the "medical facts" you speak of are not in dispute(!). So, it might be illuminating to actually consider the other side of the argument . . .

[SkinsJock]

I presume that most here know the facts here - early last year, Cushing tested positive and when sample B was tested and it was negative he was technically not at fault - then later (September 09) he was again tested randomly and this time both samples tested positive - he appealed as he felt that he had not taken anything but he lost this decision and was in violation and hence the 4 week suspension

during the recent press conference Cushing aluded to tumors but never mentioned an enlarged gland - then after the interview the "story" from both Cushing and his agent changed again

this guy may have never 'knowingly' taken anything - that is possible because this guy does not know what he's doing OR saying

the AP should not have put his name on the ballot and there would not be an issue here AND the AP should have made sure that if they were going to keep his name on the ballot then all the AP voters should have been given all the facts about what had transpired with Cushing and the drug tests - a number of these AP voters have since stated that they were not aware of all the pertinent information

[CanesSkins26]

First off, to give a guy an award for using a banned substance is rediculous.

Irn-Bru already corrected you on what he was given an award for so I'm not going to repeat it. As for the award and revote, in my opinion, the circumstances of his positive test did not do enough to disqualify him. There are several contradictory tests and a passed lie detector test by Cushing. I have several friends that work in federal law enforcement, and despite what is portrayed in movies and tv shows, lie detectors are not easy to beat. Without more conclusive evidence that Cushing knowingly violated the banned substance policy, I see no reason for him to be stripped of his award.

What kind of message does that send to kids watching this situation. How much does this tarnish the shield.

What kind of message would it send to kids to take an award from a player who hasn't been proven to have knowingly cheated?

It's not the AP's job to send a message to kids, it's their job to vote for the player that most deserves the award, and given the circumstances that is Cushing.

The AP should be ashamed, and listening to the head of the AP on Sirius this week confirmed that the process will be changed because he thought that writers would not vote this way on the re-vote.

The AP held the re-vote to give itself some publicity. In the grand scheme of things nobody, outside of Cushing and his agent who will use it in contract negotiations, really cares that much about this award.

Secondly, you have absolutely, positively NO evidance that HGH is in the league.

There are plenty of news stories, books, documentaries, special reports, etc. quoting both current and former players talking about how prevalent steroids and HGH are in the game. Use some common sense, not just emotions.

None whatsoever, and I'm sure the players in this league would be disgusted with your feeleings since it was them who made such a push for Goodell to instill a tough testing policy.

Really!? If the players were so interested in a tough drug policy, why haven't they agree to blood tests, which is the only current way to test for HGH?

If you are using any kind of enhancement, you WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if, but when. These guys get tested ALL the time and you have absolutely no way to avoid it if your name is called.

Keep dreaming.

The HGH test is right around the corner, and I cant wait.

There is an HGH test...it's called a blood test. However, no professional sports union has agreed to such testing.

There are 2000 banned substances and if you get caught with any of them in your body, you have a 4 game suspension, no pay, and then are in the program to get tested 10 times a month for the rest of your career!

Drug testing in sports has gotten out of hand. It's one thing to ban masking agents, steroids, HGH, etc., but it's completely irrational to ban things like sudafed that any adult can walk into a pharmacy and purchase. I remember watching a segment during the Vancouver Olympics about an athlete that was banned from the Olympics for taking Propecia, which is absurd. The common sense element of drug testing has been replaced by irrationality and it causes way more problems than it solves.[/quote]

[Irn-Bru]

Secondly, you have absolutely, positively NO evidance that HGH is in the league.

You might want to close your eyes for a few moments, chiefhog . . .

Canadian doctor charged with supplying HGH was traveling to treat player in Washington
U.S. authorities filed charges today against a Canadian doctor who is accused of supplying illegal drugs to professional football players. The paperwork mentions 23 athletes who received some form of treatment from Dr. Anthony Galea, and while no names were given, the doctor was allegedly on his way to Washington to treat a player when he was stopped by authorities.

More at the blog.

Now of course, we all know that this news story is impossible, because there is ZERO evidence that HGH is in the league at all, and even if this one doctor treated 23 players in the NFL, each and every one of those players would DEFINITELY get caught. Because if you are using any kind of enhancement, you WILL be caught. It's not a matter of if, but when.

So at WORST, what this story means is that a MAXIMUM of 23 players have been using performance enhancements, BUT they have now all been caught. (Except the NFL doesn't know their names, but we can consider this one case closed.)

So, the good news is that, despite this very minor glitch (which isn't a trend at all and ONLY a one-time event ), we are now back to a clean league where no one uses any kind of enhancements, and guys like Cushing are so shocking in their behavior that they must be stripped of all awards, immediately! I'm actually surprised the league hasn't stepped in and taken away some of the Texans' wins from last year, but then again I'm not the commissioner.






P.S.: By the way, chiefhog . . . you may want to use more restraint in the future before being so quick to say things like:

Understand what you are talking about before making such dumb statements

or

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

or

It's frustrating when people spout off when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. It's one thing to do so when argueing about how good a player is, but another when arguing medical fact.

or

This is one of the absolute dumbest statements I have ever read on here.

It might come back to bite you, and in some cases only like two days after you post. Just my .