For anyone who was paying attention to the Associated Press' revote on the NFL's Rookie Defensive Player of the Year award after Houston's Brian Cushing received a four-game suspension for using an illegal substance last year, here's a column of outrage from my guy Ralph at the Daily News.
I decided not to follow the story because I could care less about most awards, whether they're voted on by the press or anyone else. But if I did care, I'd have done one of two things. Either let the first vote stand, and simply chalk it up to a cheater hoodwinking the 39 of 50 balloters who voted for him, or do a re-vote with Cushing ineligible. Either way, writers would have had expansive openings to rip the daylights out of Cushing and make some valid, strong points about the evils of performance enhancing drugs.
But the AP did it the worst way possible and wound up embarrassing itself by leaving Cushing eligible in the re-vote and, ultimately, a repeat winner.
Like I said, I don't consider this any earth-shattering thing. It's an honorary award with no money attached. The 18 guys who voted for Cushing, one actually changing his vote from second-place finisher Jarius Byrd, can defend their decisions on their own. I didn't have a vote, and I've always been a reluctant participant in the few votes I've been asked to cast over my career. I'm firmly against PEDs, but I also know that the locker room chemists are always one step ahead of the testing process, so I'm under no illusions that football is a totally clean sport no matter what the league claims.
With that, I'll leave the rest of the commenting to you guys.
The Powder Room's last-minute beauty buys for holiday 2014
18 minutes ago