Peter King: Steroid Policeman and Upholder of All Things Good In the NFL

Peter King has an idea he feels the need to convey to the public. Peter King is not planning on voting for Brian Cushing in the AP re-vote for Rookie Defensive Player of the Year because he was suspended four games for violating the NFL's steroid policy. I am all for removing steroids from the NFL and punishing those who use PEDs, but I believe this re-vote is a dumb idea for reasons I will further explain. I also know I am in the minority on this because writers everywhere are saying, "he used PEDs? Off with his head! He doesn't deserve this prestigious award we created and gave to him." I don't like the idea of a re-vote.

Here is Peter King's moral grandstanding in his Tuesday mailbag. (By the way, I did not read Don Banks rebuttal to Peter King's column before writing this and I still haven't read it, not because I don't care, but because I don't want him to influence my opinion since he is the only one I could find who agreed with me. I think he could actually talk me into Peter's opinion if it is poorly laid out...plus his nickname is Donnie "Brasco" Banks...can he have a good point with that Peter King-given nickname?)

For me, it is moral grandstanding because we don't know how much the use of the hCG helped the play of Brian Cushing and for me the mere fact he violated the NFL steroid policy shouldn't affect this award. Yeah, he cheated. I am sure everyone feels stupid for voting for him, but simply because the problem can be fixed doesn't mean it should. The Defensive Rookie of the Year award has never been re-voted on when a player has violated the NFL's drug policy before and I don't see a reason to do it now. It's an award and I feel like it is arbitrary to call for a re-vote since it is just a silly award. It's just my opinion and I know I am in the minority. We all want Brian Cushing punished dammit! How dare he deceive us all!

Life changes. Tom Brady said it in my column Monday, and I'm saying it today.

Tom Brady: Model, quarterback, parent of the year, and philosopher. Is there anything this man doesn't say or do well?

If there is anyone in the NFL who we should base our life philosophies on, it is Tom Brady.

In 2006, I voted for Shawne Merriman on my all-pro team as one of two outside linebackers, even though he had tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug and was suspended for four games that season. I made a mistake and I'm not going to duplicate it this year.

It looks like someone reads Kissing Suzy Kolber's weekly MMQB post. They had made this point in what was written there, so either Peter read it and said, "Oh shit, that's some hypocrisy on my part," or he actually remembered voting for Shawne Merriman, which is also possible.

I don't think those who are caught using PEDs should be rewarded, but Peter King voted for Merriman AFTER he got suspended, so he knowingly voted for Merriman to be on his All-Pro team and I don't understand why he has changed his mind now. I think this is different from having a complete re-vote of the award. I think the NFL should just say, "we got fooled," and move on.

As one of 50 voters for the Associated Press postseason all-pro team and award list, I voted for Brian Cushing as my defensive rookie of the year in January. But I won't vote for him Wednesday.

There shouldn't even be a re-vote on Wednesday for the Defensive Rookie of the Year. Brian Cushing should still have the award, even though he may not deserve it. I say this for a couple of reasons.

(Correction time: As pointed out by Rulebook, this isn't the NFL's fault at all. It is the AP's fault for doing the re-vote. It doesn't change what I meant here, there is still moral grandstanding, and I don't know why I used NFL when I was clear I knew sportswriters were voting for the award. I am an idiot. So I will change what I am writing in red accordingly.)

First, this is just moral grandstanding by the Associated Press and the voters. They are trying to show how different from Major League Baseball and how they won't allow PED users to gather up awards and taint the sport of football. I appreciate the effort they make in ensuring their votes are not given to cheaters, but if there is a sport out of the three major sports in the United States that looks like it has a PED problem, it is football, and specifically the NFL. I know they have a drug policy, but you can't convince me the NFL is still a clean sport, just like you can't convince me MLB or the NBA is a clean sport. The NFL is trying to clean up the act of its players and also wants to be seen as a league where there is fair competition. They don't want a "steroid era" for football. The voters are trying to prevent his as well and are taking extreme measures in my opinion to fix this. Taking away one award isn't going to stop a player from using PEDs to enhance his performance though. It's fairly naive to believe this would happen.

I do appreciate the effort on the Associated Press's part, but in a league where (here I go again) players have killed other people, been to jail for various other crimes, and players are leaving the NFL after having played for years and having serious mental and physical health problems...I just can't seem to get behind taking away a meaningless award for a four game suspension due to PED usage. I want to punish Brian Cushing and take away the Defensive Player of the Year award, but it just seems juvenile to me for some reason.

Second, the award is really meaningless in the grand scheme of things. To have a re-vote would indicate the Defensive Rookie of the Year award is a really important award, which it isn't. This isn't the Nobel Peace Prize or a Pulitzer Prize or anything. It is an award given only to a subset of players (defensive players) and then only given to a smaller subset of players (rookies). It may mean something in terms of incentives and contractual terms of a contract a player signs, but having a re-vote on this award opens up a slippery slope that I don't believe the NFL should want to be a part of. At what point would calls for a re-vote stop in the future? Julius Peppers was suspended for PED usage his rookie year in the NFL. He won the 2002 Defensive Rookie of the Year award. Should there be a re-vote for that award also?

That's nearly a direct parallel because he got the award the same year he got the suspension and Peppers should have that award stripped or re-voted on if this happens to Cushing. Granted, Peppers was voted Defense Rookie of the Year AFTER he used the PEDs, but he still used and there wasn't as much of an uproar at that time because baseball hadn't blown the lid off PED usage in sports yet. So maybe some of the voter's opinions would have changed since then, so should there be a re-vote? If you think that example doesn't prove anything, how about Shawne Merriman's 2005 Defensive Rookie of the Year award? If you are going to have a re-vote on Cushing's award then you have to have a re-vote for other winners of the Defensive Rookie of the Year who have PED suspensions by the NFL after they won the award. He was suspended only one year after he won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award.

Ben Roethlisberger just got a 6 game suspension, granted non-PED related reasoning was behind it, but should his Offensive Rookie of the Year award be re-voted on? How about Lawrence Taylor's 1981 Defensive Rookie of the Year award? How about his induction in the Hall of Fame? He has been arrested several times? Are his awards tainted? Which of these players has brought more shame on the NFL? Cushing, Taylor or Roethlisberger?

What is the purpose of a re-vote on the award? Is it to make sure those who use PEDs aren't rewarded or is it to make sure the NFL has a good public image and isn't seen as rewarding players who cheat? Many other things besides PED use is going to hurt the NFL's image. I would say any of the crimes NFL players have committed away from the field reflect more poorly on the NFL than a player getting caught having used PEDs.

Finally, it just seems trite and small. It's an award voted on by writers. What is really the point of having a re-vote? Would he have been a terrible linebacker without the hCG? We have no idea how much of his excellent rookie year was a result of the hCG and how much was a result of hard work to make himself a good player. I know the Associated Press wants the NFL voting to be honest and moral, but I don't think it is honest or moral to re-vote for an award that hasn't been re-voted on in the past with the same set of circumstances. Is the re-vote really going to stop other players from using any type of PED? I don't think so.

I won't vote for him even though this morning ESPN's Adam Schefter Tweeted that Cushing tested positive for hCG, which the body can produce naturally.

Of course. Once your mind is made up, what's the point in changing your mind? Other than the fact Peter changed his mind about his entire position on awards for players who have been suspended for PED use, Peter will always stick to his guns. If the fact the body produces hCG naturally could be a valid point in this discussion, then how do we know for sure Cushing was helped tremendously by this? Basically the re-vote is going to happen and the sportswriters are going to change their mind based on science and pure guessing as to how it affected Cushing. Nothing says a fair re-vote like expecting journalists to guess about how drugs affected a player's body. It's essentially a re-vote on a moral standard, rather than whether Cushing was the best rookie defensive player last year. Steroids are bad, let's make sure everyone knows this, but now the NFL finds a great example in Cushing to prove this point...I don't think this makes it fair to have a re-vote though.

But hCG also is known to be used during and after steroid cycles to maintain and restore testicular size as well as for normal testosterone production. It's the same substance that got Dodgers outfielder Manny Ramirez suspended by MLB last year.

I really think the Associated Press is trying to avoid NFL awards end up being like MLB and have a bunch of awards in the record books won by PED users. I do understand this, but re-voting for the award seems a bit too much like revising history to me. The vote happened, a guy who got suspended for PED use won an award, just like has happened at least two other times. Few people can remember very well who won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award from year-to-year anyway. Cushing has a suspension and he's learned his lesson, let's move on.

I feel like I could probably guarantee the NFL already has a record book full of dishonest, immoral, and PED-using men who have won major awards. I feel like this is true. There is drug testing in the NFL, they just have to trust their drug testing works like it did in this situation. Re-votes are stupid in my mind.

I spoke Monday with Terry Taylor, the sports editor of the AP, when the news organization made the unprecedented decision to take a second vote on the defensive rookie of the year. (The AP is also opening up the outside linebacker voting; Cushing was second-team all-pro as a rookie.) She acknowledged it's a slippery slope, opening up the vote.

Not only is it a slippery slope, it is a really slippery slope. Shawne Merriman got suspended four games because of PED use and he still got to keep his award. How far back should the AP go to re-vote for awards? Two years? Three years? If we are going to go back 4 months, then why not go back 2 years to make sure the right guy won the award? If a PED user wins an MVP in 2014 and in 2017 we find out he was using PEDs, should he have his award re-voted on?

The Defensive Rookie of the Year award is supposed to be an award based on on-the-field performance by a rookie. Having a re-vote takes it from a merit-based award to a vote that determines how much the fact a player has been suspended for PED use should factor into the evaluation of his performance. It goes from a performance based award to a referendum on PED use in the NFL.

But she said the AP prides itself on its transparency and credibility,

Any award voted on by sportswriters that prides itself on credibility lacks credibility in my mind. Also, if the AP loves transparency then how come research has to be done to figure out which sportswriter or person voted for which player? Why isn't this information made easily available? Make the way the awards were voted for really transparent and tell which writer voted for which player when the winner of each award is announced.

and just because this sets a precedent that may lead to difficult future scenarios, that's no reason for the organization to not make this decision.

I am worried about past scenarios as well as future scenarios. Re-voting and re-writing the record books in the NFL isn't going to make PEDs go away. I just need set rules for how far back re-votes are going to go and I also think they take their own awards a little too seriously. I don't think Cushing getting the Defensive Rookie of the Year award should be changed based on knowledge we find out later. It brings too many questions forth in my mind. He won the award, it's not the end of the world.

I agree. Just because you make a mistake one time doesn't mean you can't change your mind in the future.

But a re-vote? It is not the Nobel Peace Prize or anything like that. How much of a role in his great rookie season did Cushing's PED use play? If we could figure that out, I would feel much better about a re-vote, but why can't we change our mind if a player who doesn't deserve to win the award wins the award. Can't there be a re-vote if 4-5 sportswriters change their mind on who should have won an award between February and May and this change-in-mind would have changed the final results?

Now, I also agree with the AP's decision to keep Cushing in contention for the award. It's up to the 50 voters to decide -- just the way it should be.

That's a no-brainer. He was a rookie and played defense, he should be in contention for the award.

If a majority feel he should be the defensive rookie of the year, then so be it. But I won't be one of his supporters. I'll spend the day considering my options, and I'm leaning toward Green Bay outside linebacker Clay Matthews as my revoted choice.

Because we all know Cushing's college teammate is perfectly clean from any PED usage. That's a certainty. I just think a re-vote is a bad idea because it is contradictory to what has happened in the past and causes problems in the future for when there any other reasons there needs to be a re-vote. More importantly, it is a stupid award. It's not like it means something extraordinary. The Associated Press needs to sort of get over itself and quit trying to be the moral majority for the purpose of keeping the NFL record books "clean."

Let's get to Peter's mail:

From Rich Ross of New York City: "I have been thinking a lot about the issue of character lately in light of the unfortunate situation with Ben Roethlisberger, and to a lesser degree the retired Lawrence Taylor. It dawned on me that there have been plenty of teams that have won the Super Bowl with players of questionable character and I wonder if it really has anything to do with a team's success.

No, it doesn't. Players are usually coddled so they think they can get away with whatever they want, which leads to their bad behavior. The better the player, the more he generally gets coddled, which can lead to bad behavior. This doesn't require a flow chart.

PK: "Take the Steelers. Big Ben to Santonio Holmes for the game winner against the Cards -- not exactly a couple of choirboys. The previous year you had Plaxico Burress catching the game winner from Eli Manning. Then you have the first Big Ben Super Bowl, the Ray Lewis-led Ravens, numerous Cowboys Super Bowls with Michael Irvin, etc. Go all the way back to the early years of the great Packers teams, and you have the gambling Paul Hornung and the gallivanting Max McGee out drinking before starring in the Big Game.

Most of these guys probably were used to special treatment and this led to their bad behavior, as I said above. Better players are treated more kindly by fans, the media and others growing up. They can get away with more bad behavior in general. If Charlie Batch had gotten accused of the same thing Ben Roethlisberger did, no one would care.

I am not trying to besmirch anyone here, I am just saying that the record books are filled with champions of questionable character.

So before May 8, 2010 it was fine for someone to be in the NFL record books if they had questionable character, but now with Brian Cushing's PED-use we need to start having a re-vote for certain character issues? I know PED-use is an on-the-field issue, but if the Associated Press is looking to make sure the record books aren't full of guys who have left a bad mark on the NFL's name then this shouldn't be the last re-vote for postseason awards. We should have other re-votes for postseason and regular season awards.

I know I just jumped back on the Cushing topic, but PED use is seen throughout the NFL. Some players get caught and others don't. For me, using PEDs is a character issue that also can affect how a player performs on the field. I know there is a difference in a person who cheats by using PEDs and a person who is just an asshole, but they are both character issues in many respects.

From Peter of Somers, N.Y.: "I found it interesting that at least twice in your piece on Tom Brady, he mentioned the Patriots players needing to respond to Bill Belichick and his staff's coaching. What, if anything, was Brady implying? Do you sense some unrest in Foxboro?''

Tell me more about the Patriots? What's the feeling in their locker room? More importantly, why should the Patriots players give a shit about advice from Tom Brady when he is too busy with his family to attend optional team practices with them? I am not saying he shouldn't be busy with his family, but other players have families they want to be with as well and I bet they still make it to optional offseason practices.

Brady is a veteran and he should be respected, but I can imagine him requesting everyone listen better to Belichick may fall on deaf ears when he isn't present for "optional" team practices and work-outs.

PK: Unrest, no. But I do think it's fair to wonder if the current crop of young players -- who have not been on a Super Bowl champion -- give the coaching staff as much respect as the team did five years ago. That's what I sensed from what Brady said about the players needing to listen to Belichick more.

He said this from California while he was pushing his son on a swing and essentially saying how football isn't his life anymore. I am not saying this advice will fall on deaf ears, but I do wonder how this advice goes over with the Patriots. Leaders lead by example and right now the example Brady is leading by is that he can work out on his own and he needs to be with his family. I wonder if a player like Chad Johnson would get criticized for this same thing?

From GChop of Santa Monica, Calif.: "Do you have any insight into other top quarterbacks' attendance to voluntary OTAs? Peyton Manning? Drew Brees? Just curious if there's any correlation. Either way, as a father, I don't begrudge Tom Brady for doing what he does, but it would seem that earlier in his career, when he was all football all the time, it was having an effect. Or was that just part of the sixth-round, out-of-nowhere myth? In your opinion, can he reclaim the mantle as the best without reclaiming the celebrated parking spot?''

PK: That's the $64,000 question and one we'll all be studying early in the season. Now, I don't think he had perfect attendance last year either.

So I guess Peter has no insights on when other quarterbacks attend voluntary OTAs or how many of these they attend? I would like to know this as well. Peter really only knows in-depth what the Patriots players, and Tom Brady in particular, are doing. Don't make him find out what other quarterbacks he stalks do in regard to voluntary OTA attendance. It's not like he covers the ENTIRE NFL or anything.

But he'll be missing, in all likelihood, at least half the offseason program this year. And we'll just have to wait to see how much of an impact that has on his season.

Brett Favre missed everything last season and it didn't affect his season. I am not worried as much about Brady having a bad year in regard to performance, but with his contract coming up soon and him being a leader, what does this say to the other players on the Patriots? Why should they listen to Brady if he isn't attending the voluntary OTAs they are? Maybe they should, but these thoughts have to be going through some of the player's minds.

No one knows.

Thanks Peter. So how many voluntary OTAs do other elite quarterbacks participate in again? I guess we will never get that answer. As much time as he spends with Peyton Manning you would think he could at least give us the answer on how many voluntary OTAs he attends.