Never smoke without a fire: Cushing suspended for steroids

eagle eye

It was big news 12 months ago just before or just after the draft but its resurfaced with Brian Cushing again.

The Houston Texans' defense took a major blow Friday when defensive rookie of the year Brian Cushing learned he is being suspended four games for violating the NFL's steroid policy, according to league sources.

Cushing
Cushing appealed the league's decision at a hearing at the NFL scouting combine in February but was informed Friday his appeal had been rejected, according to sources.
Cushing will be allowed to participate in training camp with the Texans this summer, but then will serve his four game suspension to start the 2010 regular season.
Cushing's attorney, Harvey Steinberg, did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
The Texans defense will suffer without Cushing, especially considering that its first game of the season is against the defending AFC South champion Indianapolis Colts. Cushing will also miss games against the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys and Oakland Raiders.
Cushing, who was voted to the Pro Bowl, had 133 tackles, helped lead the Texans to a 9-7 record, their first winning record in franchise history. Cushing finished the season with five sacks, four interceptions and two forced fumbles.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5172060

themont85

Well I'll be damned :eek:;)

I remember someone on the rugby forum posted some program that Cushing went on which supposedly was the source of his added mass one year, bit my tongue there. I'm suprised its taken this long tbh, it was obvious to anyone who watched the lad.

cooker3

Such a joke of a policy. Just 4 games.
It should be at least a season.

Neil3030

I know the NFL test 10 players a week during the season off each roster, but how regular do they test in the off season does anyone know? Just strikes me as suspect that a guy this visibly jacked could go a whole year before testing positive for something.

But I'm not for one second going to suggest the limp-wristed "steroid policy" of the NFL is a smoke-screen so the league can be seen to be doing something while behind the scenes letting a lot of usage slide to make the players bigger and the sport more appealing.

On a related note, I say let them take whatever they want. The risks on their health can be hardly any greater than the risks already faced by simply playing the game.

f1dan

http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/2010/05/brian-cushing-on-steroids-duh/

Are those before and after pics real?

Chucky the tree

f1dan wrote: »

http://yepyep.gibbs12.com/2010/05/brian-cushing-on-steroids-duh/

Are those before and after pics real?

Depends what your definition of before and after is. Afaik the one on the left is was taken after after he had come back from an injury in and a good bit of pre-season training. I think the right was at the end of his last season with USC. Still the rumors have followed him for years and even the rumors about USC in general certainly don't make this a surprise at all.

Chucky the tree

He tested positive in September but was wasn't banned until his appeall in Fenraury which seems like a ridiculous rule. He should have either had his appeal heard straight away and banned during the season. Also, The AP are re-doing the voting for DROY and ALL-PRO second team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5176949

jdivision

He says he didn't test positive for steroids, which suggests he took a diuretic which is enough to get suspended with. I still don't understand why anybody would use steroids these days, as I've said repeatedly you can't get caught with HGH unless you admit it or they find it in your possession. The guys who get caught are just stupid.

Chucky the tree

jdivision wrote: »

He says he didn't test positive for steroids, which suggests he took a diuretic which is enough to get suspended with. I still don't understand why anybody would use steroids these days, as I've said repeatedly you can't get caught with HGH unless you admit it or they find it in your possession. The guys who get caught are just stupid.

The effects of HGH are still unknown though. It's not guaranteed to increase strength and it can even harm endurance.

jdivision

Endurance doesn't come into American football, explosive bursts of power do and the last survey I know of said it improves speed which is key. This was only on 100 recreational athletes though:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-03/growth-hormone-makes-sprinters-faster-in-first-athlete-study.html
Growth Hormone Makes Sprinters Faster in First Athlete Study
May 03, 2010, 9:03 PM EDT
By Jason Gale

May 4 (Bloomberg) -- Growth hormone injected daily for eight weeks may cut 0.4 of a second off a sprinter’s time over 100 meters, according to the first study to measure the effect on athletes of a drug used to boost competitiveness

Chucky the tree

Disagree on endurance not coming into NFL. For a linebacker it is very important, especially in the Linebacker spot. Last thing you want is one of your linebackers gassing in the 4th quarter.

eagle eye

Endurance is a huge thing in American Football, especially when you play a team like the Colts(and the Texans do twice a year) who play no huddle offense.

ArmCandyBaby

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-apnfldefensiverookievoterbreakdown

And he holds on to his DROY award... I love the way some of the press just don't give a sh*t! It's such a contrast to the ultra PC saccharine sincerity that they usually exibit.

eagle eye

ArmCandyBaby wrote: »

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-apnfldefensiverookievoterbreakdown

And he holds on to his DROY award... I love the way some of the press just don't give a sh*t! It's such a contrast to the ultra PC saccharine sincerity that they usually exibit.

Well imo there should never have been a new vote on it, whats done is done.

I do have a problem though with anybody voting for a drug cheat in hindsight. If you were of the belief that there should not be a new vote on it then you should abstain not vote again for him.

davyjose

cooker3 wrote: »

Such a joke of a policy. Just 4 games.
It should be at least a season.

It's a complete joke. He'll miss only one divisional game.

When you look at the Roethlisbrger situation, and compare the two, it's a joke. That's American Sports for you, unfotunately. Look at the state of Baseball.

frostie500

davyjose wrote: »

When you look at the Roethlisbrger situation, and compare the two, it's a joke. That's American Sports for you, unfotunately. Look at the state of Baseball.

Baseball is a lot better now than a few years ago. Whereas in the past they didn't have bans on steroids-wouldnt even test for fear of bad publicity-now you get a 50 match ban for a first offence. If the NFL is serious about removing performance enhancing drugs from the game they need to have mandatory two year bans for a first offence and a eight year ban for a second offence like you see in cycling and athletics.

davyjose

frostie500 wrote: »

Baseball is a lot better now than a few years ago. Whereas in the past they didn't have bans on steroids-wouldnt even test for fear of bad publicity-now you get a 50 match ban for a first offence. If the NFL is serious about removing performance enhancing drugs from the game they need to have mandatory two year bans for a first offence and a eight year ban for a second offence like you see in cycling and athletics.

True, but the game is forever tarnished with guys like A-Rod, Sosa, McGwire, Bonds having all used steroids. Bonds' record will never be broken, steroid-free, so there's a reminder for the rest of the games history of what sort of carry on went on in the 90's and 00's in American sport. That's a bloody nose to the game's legacy, if ever I saw one.*

My point is, there seems to be a culture in American Sports where steroid use, while frowned upon, is not treated with the same revulsion as it should be. The proof of this is the lousy 4 game ban in the NFL, and until very recently, the leniency shown in baseball.

*Bonds' case is ongoing, but there's a very dark shadow over him.

frostie500

davyjose wrote: »

True, but the game is forever tarnished with guys like A-Rod, Sosa, McGwire, Bonds having all used steroids. Bonds' record will never be broken, steroid-free, so there's a reminder for the rest of the games history of what sort of carry on went on in the 90's and 00's in American sport. That's a bloody nose to the game's legacy, if ever I saw one.*

My point is, there seems to be a culture in American Sports where steroid use, while frowned upon, is not treated with the same revulsion as it should be. The proof of this is the lousy 4 game ban in the NFL, and until very recently, the leniency shown in baseball.

*Bonds' case is ongoing, but there's a very dark shadow over him.

Your'e right, and in my mind it's a disgrace, but until the NFL gets proactive against these cheats the benefit of using will always outweigh the potential repercussions. When you look at the Cushing situation he wins the rookie of the year and undoubtedly gets a big bonus at pretty much no cost. He loses four game cheques and will come back into the team and be in perfect condition at the end of the year when others will be feeling the affects of four more games.

The NFL needs to come down on these players otherwise news cycles of players using drugs should be a non story because in my eyes drug use is a product of their current system of non punishment

davyjose

frostie500 wrote: »

Your'e right, and in my mind it's a disgrace, but until the NFL gets proactive against these cheats the benefit of using will always outweigh the potential repercussions. When you look at the Cushing situation he wins the rookie of the year and undoubtedly gets a big bonus at pretty much no cost. He loses four game cheques and will come back into the team and be in perfect condition at the end of the year when others will be feeling the affects of four more games.

The NFL needs to come down on these players otherwise news cycles of players using drugs should be a non story because in my eyes drug use is a product of their current system of non punishment

I agree, the governing bodies need to go further to bring it to the public consciousness how serious, and how despicable drug cheating is.

America is in its own bubble in many ways, they don't often follow trends set by the rest of the world. So, while the rest of the world sees drug cheats as forever tarnished, and when people like Michelle Smith and Ben Johnson are forever discredited on the international arena, you still have kids in Rodriguez shirts, and he is still one of the highest paid sportsmen on the planet, and tens of thousands of people cheer him on every week. That's where the big problem lies in American sports, IMO. There is minimal public outcry.

themont85

davyjose wrote: »

I agree, the governing bodies need to go further to bring it to the public consciousness how serious, and how despicable drug cheating is.

America is in its own bubble in many ways, they don't often follow trends set by the rest of the world. So, while the rest of the world sees drug cheats as forever tarnished, and when people like Michelle Smith and Ben Johnson are forever discredited on the international arena, you still have kids in Rodriguez shirts, and he is still one of the highest paid sportsmen on the planet, and tens of thousands of people cheer him on every week. That's where the big problem lies in American sports, IMO. There is minimal public outcry.

If I recall Barry Bonds, he was booed at every stadium he went to (apart from at home) for the last few years he played. And with A Rod there was considerable public reaction, A Roid ect. Some journalists questioning whether certain Hall of Fame careers should be dumped, or a decade of Steroids corner opened up!

The big problem with baseball was that many people including the authorities just didn't think people actually were enhanced by it. Blissful ignorance is no excuse but that's how it was. How could you ban people when you had no rules against it at the time?

The NFL though definately needs to get real about this sort of stuff but they aren't helped with players like the Williams at the Vikings bringing them to court.

davyjose

themont85 wrote: »

If I recall Barry Bonds, he was booed at every stadium he went to (apart from at home) for the last few years he played. And with A Rod there was considerable public reaction, A Roid ect. Some journalists questioning whether certain Hall of Fame careers should be dumped, or a decade of Steroids corner opened up!

The big problem with baseball was that many people including the authorities just didn't think people actually were enhanced by it. Blissful ignorance is no excuse but that's how it was. How could you ban people when you had no rules against it at the time?

The NFL though definately needs to get real about this sort of stuff but they aren't helped with players like the Williams at the Vikings bringing them to court.

No rules against it! This is exactly what I mean. The MLB/NFL etc etc didn't even have a rule against it, when every other sport was stringently being tested.

I heard some of the relatively weak journalists opinions on this. It was more like they were bugged by it, than outraged. Bonds getting booed is one thing, how about Bonds getting his records taken off him (or A-Rod, or McGwire), but it won't happen. There would be public outcry over that.

Back On-Forum, if someone in Cycling or athletics (sports with a large US participation) can get a 4 year ban, how can the NFL justify a 4 game ban? Unless they feel it's not a big deal?

themont85

davyjose wrote: »

No rules against it! This is exactly what I mean. The MLB/NFL etc etc didn't even have a rule against it, when every other sport was stringently being tested.

I heard some of the relatively weak journalists opinions on this. It was more like they were bugged by it, than outraged. Bonds getting booed is one thing, how about Bonds getting his records taken off him (or A-Rod, or McGwire), but it won't happen. There would be public outcry over that.

Back On-Forum, if someone in Cycling or athletics (sports with a large US participation) can get a 4 year ban, how can the NFL justify a 4 game ban? Unless they feel it's not a big deal?

I disagree Dave, from my viewing of the situation, there was a lot of anger of it. From viewing polls and reactions in general, stripping Bonds of his record was quite popular.

DonkeyPokerTour

frostie500 wrote: »

Baseball is a lot better now than a few years ago. Whereas in the past they didn't have bans on steroids-wouldnt even test for fear of bad publicity-now you get a 50 match ban for a first offence. If the NFL is serious about removing performance enhancing drugs from the game they need to have mandatory two year bans for a first offence and a eight year ban for a second offence like you see in cycling and athletics.

But frostie your missing one huge point, its a 162game season in baseball so missing 50 games is like missing 1/3rd of the season, missing 50games in the NFL is over 3 seasons!!! A like for like suspension would be 5 games out of a 16.2 game season and since the nfl plays 16games 5 would be the almost the same as baseball!

frostie500

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

But frostie your missing one huge point, its a 162game season in baseball so missing 50 games is like missing 1/3rd of the season, missing 50games in the NFL is over 3 seasons!!! A like for like suspension would be 5 games out of a 16.2 game season and since the nfl plays 16games 5 would be the almost the same as baseball!

All I said was that baseball were making progress, fair enough that the suspensions are proportional but as I said in the second half of that post if the NFL is serious about removing drugs from the sport they need to have suspensions of a much greater length. They need to have two years for the first offence and an eight year(career ending in all likelihood) suspension for a second failure.

I've spent the last God knows how many years defending cycling and its drug enforcements but they are incredibly pro active in removing drug use from the peleton unlike the NFL, and most sports I hasten to add, who view it as bad publicity when a star player fails a test. The lack of testing is a joke in the NFL and while Roger Godell is more concerned with the moral standing of the players-look at the bans for various crimes-he has neglected the effect that drugs are having on the sport.

jdivision

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Disagree on endurance not coming into NFL. For a linebacker it is very important, especially in the Linebacker spot. Last thing you want is one of your linebackers gassing in the 4th quarter.

I'd prefer to have one who was faster who could last at peak performance for about five or seconds a time than one who could run for an hour

davyjose

jdivision wrote: »

I'd prefer to have one who was faster who could last at peak performance for about five or seconds a time than one who could run for an hour

Yeah but it takes endurance to be able to do that X number of times over the course of 3 hours.

Not much point in having a beast for the first 3 quarters only!

yerayeah

Funnily enough, Cushing's syndrome is caused by excess corticosteroids in the body!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushings_syndrome

mattman_iflaf

Agreed on Roethlisberger.