So ahead of the team nominees announcements this week, any thoughts as to who you would choose, and who should advance and win?

My picks:

MOP

BC - Bryan Burnham, Cal - Reggie Begelton, Edm - Trevor Harris (even with 5 games missed), Sask - Cody Fajardo, Wpg - Andrew Harris (will get through the Winnipeg vote despite the suspension)

Ham - Brandon Banks, Tor - McLeod Bethel-Thompson edges out S.J. Green, Ott - Dominique Rhymes, Mtl - Vernon Adams Jr.

Fajardo (sorry 17to85, he will get it) vs. Banks in the finals, Banks takes the prize

MODP

BC - Garry Peters, Cal - Tre Roberson, Edm - Vontae Diggs, Sask - Charleston Hughes, Wpg - Willie Jefferson (although Winston Rose would be a decent candidate in other years)

Ham - Simoni Lawrence (although Ja'Gared Davis is a strong candidate too), Tor - Abdul Kanneh, Ott - Anthony Cioffi, Mtl - John Bowman (lifetime achievement award)

Whomever of Roberson, Hughes and Jefferson (my choice by a hair) comes out of the west beats Lawrence in the final vote

MOC

BC - Lemar Durant, Cal - Cory Greenwood, Edm - Kwaku Boateng, Sask - Cameron Judge, Wpg - Andrew Harris

Ham - Ted Laurent (name recognition over Tunde Adeleke's stats), Tor - Cleyon Laing, Ott - Brad Sinopoli (despite a really down year), Mtl - Henoc Muamba

If Harris survives the PED vote of conscience, he is a lock to win. If not Judge vs. Laing (barely over Muamba) and give it to the 'Rider.

MOOL

How the hell should I know? It won't be a Lion, that's for sure. Bombers are probably in good given their rushing dominance.

MOR

I'll defer to 3downnation and their assessment:

https://3downnation.com/2019/10/18/each-teams-top-three-candidates-for-most-outstanding-rookie/

I think Lawler may edge out Exume for the Bombers given his late season success, but the finals is likely Holley of Calgary vs. Acklin of Hamilton. Unless the Stamps finish 3rd in the west, I see Holley being the vote.

MOST

BC - Sergio Castillo, Edm - Sean Whyte, Cal - Terry Williams, Sask - Jon Ryan, Wpg - Janarion Grant

Ham - Frankie Williams, Tor - Chris Rainey, Ott - Richie Leone, Mtl - Boris Bede

Grant was the best for the time he played, but with only 11 games and few kick returns, I sense he will not make the final cut. It will be Williams vs. Williams with Frankie taking the win (and shout out to Chris Rainey for a strong 3rd place finish)

 

Let’s be real... if the tables were turned and it were the Riders who had Andrew Harris in this situation, we’d be singing the praises of those who kept him off their ballot. Regardless of whether you believe he was completely innocent (I don’t), it sets a bad precedent to give prestigious awards to a player who tested positive for a PED that same season. This isn’t complicated and the right thing happened. 

6 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

I do think the league needs to have a rule in place for situations like this, either it being that player in ineligible to receive awards or eligible. 

For sure.  Avoid potential problems like this for the league.

Listen, I can appreciate what the voters consider when they make their nominations, but Harris would have had to take “Hulk“ type of proportions to be able to do do what he did this year. He didn’t. He’s earned it it according to fellow players and Coaches. 
Does heavy drinking factor into decisions made when considering nominees?

2 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

Let’s be real... if the tables were turned and it were the Riders who had Andrew Harris in this situation, we’d be singing the praises of those who kept him off their ballot. Regardless of whether you believe he was completely innocent (I don’t), it sets a bad precedent to give prestigious awards to a player who tested positive for a PED that same season. This isn’t complicated and the right thing happened. 

Maybe, 

But Winnipeg media has to look at the Winnipeg aspect. Do you really believe he accomplished what he has with the limited amount that he got caught on...before and after?

Seems to me he did just fine after he got tested.

2 hours ago, gcn11 said:

Maybe not letting the media vote anymore would be a better way to go or at the very least don't give them the freaking majority of votes.

Its something I always thought was weird. Like how come the team doesnt decide who is their best player?

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Bigblue204

When Banks was suspended for 2 games in 2016, he became the East nominee for Special Teams Player of the Year (losing to Medlock).   Harris won't get his chance because 3 local media members made up their own rules.   He violated a rule which called for a two game suspension - nothing more and nothing less.   He was eligible to play in 16 games and is unquestionably the most outstanding Canadian in the CFL this year.    

Lawrence gets the nod from the Hamilton media. I guess we can expect everyone from Hamilton to be suddenly quiet. 

 

26 minutes ago, Tiny759 said:

I do think the league needs to have a rule in place for situations like this, either it being that player in ineligible to receive awards or eligible. 

I'm fine with that. Not sure what it should be. Do other pro leagues have a similar rule? If Kawhi Leonard or Patrick Mahomes missed a couple of games for an alleged small positive sample for a banned substance, are they immediately ineligible for any league awards?  

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by M.Silverback

What I expected was the Winnipeg media to stand behind, and alongside of Andrew Harris, and let the chips fall where they may.

From their approach, he has no chance...and that just ain’t right.

Somebody has to support him.
 

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Mr Dee

What bothers me most is the fact that Andrew's game has only continued to be full steam ahead....There is nothing in his pee tests since his suspension...and you can bet the powers that be are testing the hell out of his samples...They did it before the suspension (more than any other player) and I bet it has continued on....Certainly some of our local scribes are not giving him the benefit of the doubt...even saying that it wasn;t enough punishment...Are some of these guys from Regina???  (okay I know Bob is originally and he's off the hook,,,but a few of the others??)..There's certainly doubt in my mind that Andrew took something tainted that was enhancing...I believe it was taken innocently...so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt...too bad a few of our local media types couldn't see their way to do the same...I know Harris is a true pro and he most likely will be treating those that crapped on him diplomatically ...but under his breath he most likely will be uttering 'frick you'

3 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

What I expected was the Winnipeg media to stand behind, and alongside of Andrew Harris, and let the chips fall where they may.

From their approach, he has no chance...and that just ain’t right.

A few sports journalists chose to play judge, jury, and executioner here - likely as far back as July when the trace amounts BS first came to light. They had all but made up their minds back then, IMO.

And yet, Harris continued to dominate this season, having one of his best games just a few weeks ago vs. MTL. So, I guess it begs the question: what "advantage" did trace amounts of some archaic steroid give him exactly?

It's just a goddamn shame... A dominant, historic season mired in some stupid, shitty controversy. It really grinds my gears.

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by blue_gold_84
I'm chokin' on my own rage here!

From today, I just had a dose of P.M.O.  (Piss me off) and I don’t like it.

It hasn’t even made me perform better.

24 minutes ago, M.Silverback said:

I'm fine with that. Not sure what it should be. Do other pro leagues have a similar rule? If Kawhi Leonard or Patrick Mahomes missed a couple of games for an alleged small positive sample for a banned substance, are they immediately ineligible for any league awards?  

So In the NFL, failing a test for peds results in the person not being able to receive league awards, but can still receive individual game awards. Ex) Edelman. Won super bowl mvp but could not get any league awards.

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by Tiny759

22 minutes ago, M.Silverback said:

I'm fine with that. Not sure what it should be. Do other pro leagues have a similar rule? If Kawhi Leonard or Patrick Mahomes missed a couple of games for an alleged small positive sample for a banned substance, are they immediately ineligible for any league awards?  

MLB you can't participate in the playoffs and are ineligible for awards

So, everything’s ok then, Simoni Lawrence, a vicious dirty player, who doesn’t respect his fellow players, gets nominated, and a player’s player gets rejected.
Fair enough. Right?


(I’m throwing a challenge flag on this)

Party drugs and late hits are not the same as PED's.

3 out of 5 voters stopped Harris from getting the teams nomination. None of them are judge, jury and executioner alone. Maybe that matches the general populations opinion on taking PED's. Maybe not. 

Players take suppliments for the same reason as they take PED's. To get an advantage. Even if that advantage is not real like coloured tape or coloured horse collers or small amounts of a banned substance, most players will take a chance on whatever they think gives them an advantage. They likely tell themselves that everyone else is doing it so they need to do it too to be equal. 

It's the players responsibility to know what's in all suppliments they take. If the player doesn't know and the manufacturer won't or can't tell him, then he can't take the supplement without taking the risk of testing positive. Harris took the risk and this is the result. 

 

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Party drugs and late hits are not the same as PED's.

You’re right. “Party drugs and PEDs” don’t potentially cripple fellow players.

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Party drugs and late hits are not the same as PED's.

3 out of 5 voters stopped Harris from getting the teams nomination. None of them are judge, jury and executioner alone. Maybe that matches the general populations opinion on taking PED's. Maybe not. 

Players take suppliments for the same reason as they take PED's. To get an advantage. Even if that advantage is not real like coloured tape or coloured horse collers or small amounts of a banned substance, most players will take a chance on whatever they think gives them an advantage. They likely tell themselves that everyone else is doing it so they need to do it too to be equal. 

It's the players responsibility to know what's in all suppliments they take. If the player doesn't know and the manufacturer won't or can't tell him, then he can't take the supplement without taking the risk of testing positive. Harris took the risk and this is the result. 

 

Not the same but are the same. Same penalty, right? Except some media have decided to make up their own rules. If Harris is disqualified, then he should be through the rules. He wasn't. 

45 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Maybe, 

But Winnipeg media has to look at the Winnipeg aspect. Do you really believe he accomplished what he has with the limited amount that he got caught on...before and after?

Seems to me he did just fine after he got tested.

No, I don’t but it doesn’t change that it sets a bad precedent. Even if he was merely unlucky with a contaminated sample (unlikely, but possible) the worst case scenario is he doesn’t get nominated for an award over a testing error. It sucks but it’s hardly the end of the world. Let’s not forget that most Bomber fans are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt solely because he’s a fan favourite and a great football player on their favourite team. Even the most hardened homers have to acknowledge that. 

1 minute ago, AKAChip said:

No, I don’t but it doesn’t change that it sets a bad precedent. Even if he was merely unlucky with a contaminated sample (unlikely, but possible) the worst case scenario is he doesn’t get nominated for an award over a testing error. It sucks but it’s hardly the end of the world. Let’s not forget that most Bomber fans are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt solely because he’s a fan favourite and a great football player on their favourite team. Even the most hardened homers have to acknowledge that. 

Harris was not disqualified through the rules. What precedent is set?

If the league thought it would look bad, then they should say so through the rules. 

11 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

So, everything’s ok then, Simoni Lawrence, a vicious dirty player, who doesn’t respect his fellow players, gets nominated, and a player’s player gets rejected.
Fair enough. Right?


(I’m throwing a challenge flag on this)

If Simoni Lawrence were on the Bombers and Andrew Harris were on the Ticats, what would be your reaction to all this? Likely general indifference, no? Lawrence is a dirtbag, but it’s still not on the same level as testing positive for PEDs. 

Just now, JCon said:

Harris was not disqualified through the rules. What precedent is set?

If the league thought it would look bad, then they should say so through the rules. 

Does any other league have it in the rules that they are ineligible for awards if they test positive for a banned substance? At some point you don’t need specific rules, you just need common sense. Ryan Braun was having a great season in 2012 when he was busted for PEDs and he got no award recognition that season. Why should the CFL be any different?

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

Not the same but are the same. Same penalty, right? Except some media have decided to make up their own rules. If Harris is disqualified, then he should be through the rules. He wasn't. 

Same penalty sure. Same thing? Nope.

The media didn't make up their own rules. They just followed the rules that are in place and came to a decision you don't like.

2 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

If Simoni Lawrence were on the Bombers and Andrew Harris were on the Ticats, what would be your reaction to all this? Likely general indifference, no? Lawrence is a dirtbag, but it’s still not on the same level as testing positive for PEDs. 

Really? Intentionally trying to cripple another player is not same? 

2 minutes ago, AKAChip said:

No, I don’t but it doesn’t change that it sets a bad precedent. Even if he was merely unlucky with a contaminated sample (unlikely, but possible) the worst case scenario is he doesn’t get nominated for an award over a testing error. It sucks but it’s hardly the end of the world. Let’s not forget that most Bomber fans are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt solely because he’s a fan favourite and a great football player on their favourite team. Even the most hardened homers have to acknowledge that. 

Acknowledged, but what’s stopping the Winnipeg media?

What do they really have to lose.

Respect? Well, we already know who gets the respect that’s deserved.