Yes, he's an odd-ball, but SI's Peter King is one of the better NFL sources to turn to for league information and decent commentary on NFL issues of the day. That was why his citing of public encyclopedia Wikipedia when commenting on the Brian Cushing HcG issue has struck a cord with some fans. How much of a cord? Enough that they edited the HcG Wikipedia page twice just to prove a point.
(screenshots taken from Wikipedia page on Human chorionic gnadotropin)
Certainly there are better sources than Wikipedia to judge a man's drug use, but that pales in comparison to Sport's Radio 610 morning host John Lopez' twitter kangaroo trial where Cushing was convicted on heresy and guilt by association.
In short, the information that we're receiving from sports talkers and reporters on Cushing's testing is, for the most part, wrong.
For one thing, it's only 'reported' that Cushing tested positive for HcG we don't know this for a fact. For argument's sake, however, lets assume the reports are true.
HcG is NOT a 'masking agent'. The purpose of masking agents is to cover steroid injection through the use of an agent that (theoretically) won't show up in testing but will alter the body's hormonal composition. HcG doesn't do that. Yes, it does alter the body's hormonal composition, but it's (obviously) not invisible to testing protocols. If anything HcG would fall under the umbrella of "Post cycle therapy" (PCT). The use of PCT compounds is typically undertaken to lessen the effects of steroid side-effects. Medically, it's a fertility drug that stimulates the release of the eggs in women, and increases sperm count for men. There are instances where off-label administration of HcG can be used for weight loss, especially to treat obesity.
Given those facts you either believe that Cushing was trying to lose weight (hard to see from an NFL player) or was trying to have a baby. The other option is that he was on steroids and using HcG in his PCT routine. Casting aside any rare uses, those are the three options that make sense.
A larger question that this brings to the fore is society's feelings toward PED's in sport. In summary: Why do we care what these athletes are taking and are we really prepared to make the changes necessary to root drugs out?
Many observers consider PED's to be the Pandora's Box of athletics, now that it's open it can never be closed. To be sure there will always be those who are unscrupulous and willing to break every rule in order to get to the top. If people are willing to cheat on The Amazing Race to win, why wouldn't they cheat when the stakes are much, much higher?
Removing PED's from sport totally requires three things: 1. Olympic-style testing 2. Public display of results. 3. Long, meaningful bans for rule-breakers.
By Olympic testing I mean random blood tests that can be conducted at any time during the year. When the collector shows up, the athlete has to give a sample. All athletes would be put on a heavy rotation. Displaying drug-test results publicly has met stiff opposition due to HIPA. There would probably need to be adjustments to the law to allow this. Making the suspensions meaningful is not hard at all. The minimum punishment for a first offense should be one year, the second offense should be a lifetime ban. Enact all of these in every sport, and you could get to a point that the games we watch are about 90% clean, with only the top 10% being clever enough to beat the test...for a while.
Or, my preferred option, we can all just accept the fact that sport has always been about pushing the envelope to be faster, stronger etc. and make sure that athletes are provided with the safest environment possible in which to practice their craft, that the NFL takes care of them after the fact, and that the drugs used are taxed to the gills.
Either way something has to change.
