In this case, Bush was punished for accepting money and other forms of financial help. This is against NCAA rules and he was strictly punished. The issue in this situation is whether an athlete should be forced to deny financial help in a time of need, so they are complying with the rules. It can be assumed Bush most likely understood that he was violating NCAA rules, but he had to make decisions that would favor him in the long run. Should a person be at fault for doing what is best for their family? According to the NCAA, yes. Bush wanted the extra money for travel, housing, and transportation. Even though the gifts he received may have been extreme in regards to price, he was able to address his wants. The Reggie Bush investigation starts the conversation of what makes an athlete amateur and what makes them professional. The answer is money; and the issue at stake is what happens when it is given to an amateur and how that affects their status.
There are several moral-ethical values that are in play in this case. Two that immediately come to mind are respect and honesty. These two values correlate back to the original dilemma of whether an athlete should be able accept benefits without being punished. Respect is a value in play because it can be debated whether or not Bush respects the game of collegiate football. He knew the benefits he received were improper and he could face punishment. With this knowledge, Bush made a conscious decision to violate the rules of the game and do what was best for himself and his family. Bush clearly violated the rules put in place by the governing body and was punished for his actions. The second moral value in play is honesty. This is directly related to respect. Like previously mentioned, Bush knew that accepting monetary benefits was wrong, but did it anyway. If Bush was honest with himself and all other personnel related to this situation, he probably would not have made the same decision.
