I dare say that my initial reaction Monday to hearing that the NFL’s Defensive Rookie of the Year had been suspended because of a failed drug test was much like many of yours.

As in … “Hmmmm. I wonder who it is.”

Today, you would have to be completely oblivious to the 24-hour sports cycle world in which we live not to know about Houston linebacker Brian Cushing. And the story just gets funnier and crazier with each step.

First came the news of the test that would lead to a four-game suspension this season. Big news? Not really. Happens all the time in the NFL, and we, in the media, don’t do enough to indicate that we care.

There’s not a great outpouring of fan disgust with media cheats in football, either, mind you.

Then came the news that the Associated Press had decided to take a second vote. The award Cushing had won with his on-field play — perhaps enhanced by an illegal drug, perhaps not, we don’t know — was up for grabs again.

I had to laugh. If we are going to get into the business of a revote every time new evidence comes to light regarding past discretions by award winners, we’re not going to be doing much other than voting for the rest of their lives.

O.J. Simpson and Lawrence Taylor are Pro Football Hall of Famers. Do we need annual meetings to determine which busts to remove from Canton or perhaps Cooperstown?

I’m a Heisman Trophy voter. Have been for several years. I keep hearing that the NCAA’s investigation of Reggie Bush is nearing completion. Possibly it will even be wrapped up before Bush finishes his NFL career.

When that happens, and if the NCAA determines Bush was receiving improper gifts from USC, when do I recast my vote for the 2005 award? And do I just give it to Texas’ Vince Young or do I need to study a bunch of tapes to refresh my memory from five years ago?

It’s preposterous, of course. Bush won the Heisman.

Fair and square?

I don’t know, but he won it, and we have moved on. Revisionist history doesn’t work. A revote isn’t quite as bad, but it’s nearly as silly as the NCAA stripping victories and even Final Four trips from the written record.

You may recall seeing John Calipari coaching in the Final Four with UMass back in the ’90s or for Memphis two years ago. I may recall it as well. Kentucky may be paying Calipari millions to produce similar results for its basketball-crazy fans.

The NCAA will tell you it never happened. Look it up.

Gone from the record.

In Cushing’s case, however, the revote was just the next step in a ridiculous tale.

The revote was conducted Wednesday. The results were released in the afternoon.

Cushing won. Again.

His vote total was diminished, but Cushing became the first player in NFL history to win a Rookie of the Year award twice.

Kind of sad that after eight years in existence, this is by far the biggest news the Texans franchise has generated.

On Wednesday, Cushing was down to 18 votes. But the voters who abandoned Cushing mostly split their choices between Buffalo safety Jairus Byrd and Green Bay linebacker Clay Matthews III, so Cushing won again.

How about the 18 voters who stayed with him?

If you think a revote is silly like I do, just don’t vote. Don’t take part. That’s what five people did.

But to vote for Cushing again having learned that he tested positive for an illegal substance in September?

My gosh, why don’t you just tell your viewers or readers, “You know I really just want to watch football, I don’t care about all these silly drug tests … “

Cushing’s victory assures us of at least a couple of things. We will remember for quite some time the name of the 2009 NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year, even if we have pretty much no clue who won it up until now.

And we learned that there’s at least a decent-sized section of the media that either: (A) thinks commissioner Roger Goodell’s efforts to clean up the sport are a waste of time or, (B): didn’t want to spend the energy to figure out if Byrd or Matthews had the better season.

Frankly, it’s just an embarrassing outcome.