Harris not worried about his critics
Dominant performance by Harris doesn’t erase stigma surrounding doping incident
Winnipeg Blue Bombers running back Andrew Harris apparently considers all of his critics — the dispassionate and the trolls — in strictly black-and-white terms.
You either believe the entirety of his defence — that a tainted male energy supplement led to a positive test for a trace amount of a performance-enhancing drug — or you’re a hater.
Feeling tarred by a broad brush and now armed with one of his own, the newly crowned Grey Cup champion, MVP and Most Valuable Canadian took a swipe at those disparate masses on Sunday night.
“For me to (win both awards), that’s for everyone that wrote an article or said something on Twitter or said something to anyone. … I’m just happy to come out on top. Everyone that kicked me when I was down, you know where you can stick it.”
This wasn’t Harris shooting from the lip in a heightened emotional environment. This was his considered opinion, delivered by the upper hand of a champion.
In the glow of Winnipeg’s dominant 33-12 win over Hamilton, and especially in light of the vital role he played, the 32-year-old could have chosen a magnanimous entry and exit from the post-game interview podium at Mcmahon Stadium. Ignore the haters entirely, or marginalize them by taking the higher road.
Instead, he essentially empowered them by sharing the moment with them. Unfortunate, but understandable.
Certainly, it can’t have been comfortable to walk around in Harris’ shoes since the positive test for the anabolic steroid methandienone went public in late August. He was suspended for two games of an 18-game season, and by putting himself in that situation, however it happened, he let down his teammates who count on him to drive the Winnipeg offence. That’s uncomfortable.
When it came time for the Football Reporters of Canada to vote on team awards, the Winnipeg chapter didn’t nominate Harris as most outstanding player or Canadian, though he was eligible and his performance would normally have placed him under consideration for both awards. Again, not a comfortable situation for him.
Two members of the Winnipeg chapter wrote newspaper pieces explaining their decision not to vote for Harris was tied to a belief that any player who tests positive for PEDS in season should not be eligible for a performance-based award, because the drug test, regardless of when it occurs, taints the entire body of work.
This brings us to another uncomfortable juncture, for the CFL and the FRC, whose members also vote for the Grey Cup game’s MVP and Most Valuable Canadian. I commended the Winnipeg voters’ decision to exclude Harris from the team awards. Though the CFL’S collective bargaining agreement with its players does not address just such a situation, Winnipeg voters prevented the league from potentially bestowing its top award on a player who failed a drug test.
However, Harris was on my ballot on Sunday as both MVP and MVC. He was a virtual lock, though his teammate Willie Jefferson put up three sacks, two tackles and two forced fumbles and was definitely in the running for MVP.
I’m struggling to reconcile Sunday’s vote with my previous stance on Harris’ eligibility.
If it holds that a failed July 12 drug test should exclude him from consideration for a team award, despite the fact he had played just four of 18 regular season games at the time — and then played six more while the anti-doping protocol played out, and six more after serving the league-mandated suspension — how does one justify his eligibility for individual Grey Cup awards? I haven’t hit upon a satisfactory answer.
This is an issue that may never arise again, but the CFL has to address the possibility, by adopting a specific rule that outlines player eligibility for awards both in season and at Grey Cup in the aftermath of a PED suspension.
Harris said he wants put the issue behind him, but acknowledged it’s never going to go away. Indeed, the taint on his reputation likely is permanent, though corroborating evidence of a tainted supplement would sway some critics.
Harris said in mid-september that he sent the supplement, which he wouldn’t name, to a lab for analysis. Two months later, neither he nor the team has announced the results, if indeed the analysis has been completed. If the results support his story, we’ll surely hear about them. If they do nothing to advance his defence, there will be no upside in making them public, and the resulting informational void on occasion will be filled with more critical takes.
Harris is free to ignore them all, attack them all, or delineate between the dispassionate and the trolls, and in so doing perhaps glean some awareness or understanding; a positive from a negative.
“As negative as it was, I’m almost … not happy that happened, but I took a lot from it,” he said Sunday. “I’ve grown as a person from this, and it’s one of those things where I’m going to look back on this and be a better person from it.”