Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.
Developing a system that effectively, and consistently, metes out punishments and secures justice is not easy task. Civilizations have been trying to perfect the idea for Centuries.
While establishing the perfect legal system is not a realistic notion, the dedication to continuous improvement is as mandatory as that pursuit is noble. As science becomes both more sophisticated and more practical, lawyers and judges are burdened with the responsibility of reviewing new evidence and determining if a case is worth reopening.
Now, I am not taking my argument in the direction of whether enough evidence existed to warrant a revote in the first place. It is clear that it does, it is clear Cushing cheated, and clear that he has received a four game suspensions as punishment for his actions.
It is easy to get bogged down in the details of this case, too, in researching the drug that he tested positive for, the weird excuses, the professionally crafted image, and the basic disbelief by every onlooker. Cushing isn’t going to win many likability contests right now (unless you put him up against that Kate lady from Jon & Kate Plus 8). The point is, Cushing was guilty, but the bizarre system constructed for voting on awards initially allowed him to walk away with trophy in hand. If only there was some other way to prevent this type of injustice from happening. If only there was some precedent somewhere that experts could look to as an example of how best to approach this type of situation.
Wait, the United States legal system has just such a precedent. When science finally caught up to the business of making justice, the U.S. court system allowed DNA evidence to reopen already decided cases in instances where new evidence may prove innocence… or more to the point, prove a shadow of a doubt.
While Cushing’s season was furiously underway, and he was impressing the naïve fans and media alike, Cushing was fighting a different kind of battle behind the scenes with the NFL. After testing positive for that “lady-roid” (the same one Manny Ramirez was busted for), Cushing fought the ruling tooth and nail, trying to claim legitimate cause for having test results that warranted his impending suspension. Well after the season concluded, and well after the draft was over, it was revealed to the world that Cushing had tested positive and he was suspended. Then the AP voters made the type of decision that is as momentous as it is mandatory in reopening the vote for 2009 AP Defensive Rookie of the Year.
The goal of any good news organization – and the AP is a not just a good news organization, but a GREAT one – is credibility and transparency. The AP has held steadfast to both principles in this case by opening up the revote. The commitment to justice is credible, and the entire process, from the APs perspective, has been transparent. The idea that sports writers are infallible, and not subject to second-guessing their initial ideas based on new evidence, is preposterous. It is also irrelevant. The Steroids Era across all sports calls for a new course of action from sports writers to account for the misdeeds. The revote is the right move.
The primary counter-argument to reopening voting for Cushing’s award is that it has never been done before, and there is a chance that a negative precedent may be set. That is an invalid argument. Throughout history a number of different folks have been presented with the opportunity to change history. Those who changed history were not afraid to set new precedent. Certainly this AP award vote is not a major event in the course of humankind, but a similar lack of fear for setting a precedent must exist for the NFL to continue to modernize and move forward.
There are some old stand-bys that think they are fighting a noble battle by refusing, or abusing, the perfectly legitimate revote process. Ed Bouchette, for one, changed his vote TO Cushing, according to ESPN’s Chris Mortensen, as a way of protesting the revote. This is what I call “Henry Ford Mentality.” Henry Ford was famous for many advances in the world of business, production, and manufacturing. But, he was also famous for his denial about the evolution of business. He famously quipped that consumers could purchase a Model T in any color they wished, as long as it was black. Bouchette and his ilk are modern day Henry Ford’s, refusing to adapt to changing market conditions and accept market drivers. In Ford’s case the market driver was (quite literally) the consumer. In the modern sports era, the driver is as much production as it is justice.
The Cushing revote only superficially SEEMS unjust. Yes, the NFL blew it in allowing Cushing to be on the list for voters to evaluate when recasting their votes. But the idea of a revote should not be questioned. It is right – and fair. Just remember that the crazy thing about democracy is that the majority rules, even if the majority is wrong. Just ask Al Gore supporters.
If questions about a vote’s validity persist, the NFL should take a page out of the book OF LAW that the U.S. established. If new evidence exists, institute a revote to fully establish a just verdict.
Besides, I know if I were the player whose award-winning validity was debatable, I would want another vote to make my victory above reproach. I have nothing to hide, so why fight a good system… the type of system that is specifically designed to seek out justice and reward fairness? Anything less would be un-American.
