I wish Reggie Bush had taken steroids in 2005.
If he had, I'd understand why he was forced to give back his Heisman Trophy. Abusing performance-enhancing drugs is reprehensible because it creates an unfair advantage on the field.
Unfortunately, this is not the case with Bush. The New Orleans Saints running back is giving back the award – which he earned by being the most outstanding player in college football – because he accepted money from a mal-intentioned agent.
Sure it is unethical to "cheat" by accepting gifts while playing football in college because one must maintain integrity, and, on a certain level, I agree. Bush should not have accepted money for himself or his family members while he was a student at the University of Southern California.
With that said, however, should he really be forced to give back an award that he earned for his accomplishments on the field?
In the era of performance enhancing drugs, doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous to take away the Heisman from a kid who won it legitimately? He played in those games, rushed for those yards and provided America with some of the most memorable plays in football history at that level.
Yet we're going to take it away from him because he accepted some money?
This whole situation brings up another argument, which I feel is important when considering this debacle.
Should college football players get paid?
I have been over both sides of this argument, and while I respect both opinions, I always find myself wishing these players were compensated for their talents.
All these players receive a college education that is priceless and will serve them throughout the remainder of their professional lives and, yes, it will benefit these players to have an education, but is that all they're entitled to?
After all, it is the players who bring in millions of dollars to schools across the country every year. Without them, the schools would fail to fund countless other campus programs and athletic endeavors.
I understand the argument that if you cheat in any way – and yes, taking money is cheating – you should be ineligible for the award. I can almost stomach that rationale and move on.
But what doesn't sit right with me is that the Heisman award is given out for excellence on the football field, and Bush delivered like few before him in that regard. To take away from his football accomplishments for this reason just doesn't seem right to me.
I think that I also struggle with small infractions in sports because of how many athletes disappoint us on a daily basis. This seems like such a little problem, yet it carries such stern consequences.
In the end, he shouldn't have cheated, but let's stop acting like he was on trial in a murder case.
