Jump to content


Photo

Congress requests WWE drug testing records


  • Please log in to reply
316 replies to this topic

#21 Jingus

Jingus
  • Members
  • 2583 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 July 2007 - 04:51 PM

perhaps airing all their dirty laundry on a public forum would shame them into making some real changes. If nothing else, for the stockholders' sake at least.

1. I think it's pretty well established that the WWE as a whole is incapable of feeling shame.

2. The same stockholders who are routinely lied to and no-sold at the quarterly press conferences? I'm amazed Linda's nose didn't turn into a broomstick with some of the bullshit she's peddled to the people who literally own her company. And they have that distressing tendency of hanging up on smark stockholders who are actually informed about the bad stuff. Clearly, this company doesn't give a fuck about the stock or its owners.

#22 khawk20

khawk20
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 2352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 July 2007 - 08:45 PM

No no, I mean that WWE hires most of their roster based on steroid-inflated physiques.

The closest thing in Hollywood would be nudging a star to do one cycle if he's going to be shirtless a lot.


Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.

#23 sek69

sek69

    Winnipeg Arena's gonna be on fire

  • Members
  • 10726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 July 2007 - 09:02 PM

Gah, the "ITS A PERSONAL CHOOOOOOOOOICE" crowd is really pissing me off. Like I said in the DVDVR thread, it's really not a personal choice when it's been made clear the company considers guys who don't do what they're told to be pussies who can't handle the workload of being a wrestler.

#24 Guest_KCook_*

Guest_KCook_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 July 2007 - 09:28 PM

It is a personal choice, though. I imagine I could make pretty good money performing in gay porn movies, but I don't want to have sex with men, wax my ass, or get hopped up on whatever it is you need to get hopped up on to be a gay porn dude. Vince McMahon is a huge scumbag, but the wrestlers are the ones ultimately doing this stuff. I don't mind Congress looking into this. They look into all sorts of stuff. Some really low-level staffers will spend a day or two Googling up info on this, some people will testify. It's a few hours out of a few congressmen's lives and McMahon will get shook and probably ban drugs for real.

#25 Tim Evans

Tim Evans
  • Members
  • 4118 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:03 PM

You mean for another 2 to 3 years when no one cares anymore?

#26 Jingus

Jingus
  • Members
  • 2583 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:30 PM

About the "personal choice" theory: I wouldn't mind a study or reporter to ask some wrestlers about what they felt/knew about steroids right when they first got in the business. How many didn't do them, didn't want to do them, didn't ever expect to do them, but ultimately felt that they needed to in order to pay the bills? Once they were already set in their career of course, complete with lingering injuries and no other job skills.

#27 sek69

sek69

    Winnipeg Arena's gonna be on fire

  • Members
  • 10726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 29 July 2007 - 10:34 PM

It is a personal choice, though. I imagine I could make pretty good money performing in gay porn movies, but I don't want to have sex with men, wax my ass, or get hopped up on whatever it is you need to get hopped up on to be a gay porn dude. Vince McMahon is a huge scumbag, but the wrestlers are the ones ultimately doing this stuff.

I don't mind Congress looking into this. They look into all sorts of stuff. Some really low-level staffers will spend a day or two Googling up info on this, some people will testify. It's a few hours out of a few congressmen's lives and McMahon will get shook and probably ban drugs for real.



The thing is that Vince (and I guess every promoter, but Vince is the best at it) preys on people's vulnerabilities and weaknesses while pushing all the right macho bullshit buttons to get guys to do what they want.

Yes when it comes down to it, it's the individual wrestler who pops that pill or plunges that needle, but to act like in every case that decision was made clearly is just asinine. I liken it similar to a military induction. You get told what to think and what to do, and before you know it you're making choices that perhaps aren't in your best personal interest for the good of the corps (or the business).

#28 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:09 AM

Let's be realistic here. Congress won't clean up professional wrestling. They'll make a show of things to the point where Vince and Co. revise their steroid policy and that will be it. The general public doesn't care enough for it to go any further.


Over 70% of the public thinks there should be a Congressional investigation according to internet polls. I'm just saying they should keep their minds open. I may be wrong, but you seem awfully against even the notion of wrestling cleaning up with your posts. You speak against it, underplay its impact and defend WWE when there are plenty of clearly presentable facts right there.


While this needs to be done, why isn't Congress investigating the drug use in the movie industry under the guise of "protecting the nation's youth"?


Because it's not a prerequisite to be successful as an actor that you take drugs.

#29 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:11 AM

The complaints over at DVDVR's boards seemed to be more centered on "doesn't the government have more important things to deal with", than the whole "it's there choice" response that some people were shouting a month ago. In this case, regarding Congress intervening, the small net backlash has to do with political beliefs about the role of government rather than whether or not they want the business "cleaned up". I don't think the same people opposed to congressional involvement are pro-steroid or pro-WWE, they're just anti-government involvement and rather the biz police itself without government coercion.


Which is one of my biggest concerns. Congressional action is essentially drug testing employees of a private company. Would any of us be comfortable if the government tested us for drugs at our own workplace?


If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to be uncomfortable. If the government wanted to drug test me today, they could feel free.

Wrestling has proven that it can not police itself. So there are two options:

(1) Get it regulated by the government.
(2) Ban it completely because history has shown pro wrestling can not exist safely and under any form of ethical guidelines whatsoever.

#30 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:12 AM

I can understand how anti-government people would be upset at this, but then they should stop and think how we got to this point.


Agreed. Ideally, wrestling would police itself.

Wrestling has proven that it is incapable of doing so.

#31 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:14 AM

Daniel Benoit was killed by his pro wrestler dad. Personal choice is officially out of the equation, because the kid didn't make a choice.

#32 kjh

kjh
  • Members
  • 3122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sheffield, England

Posted 30 July 2007 - 11:33 AM

So...

Will WWE rack up lots of overtime with the shredder, or is it pointless to do so unless Aegis Labs does the same?


I'd imagine there are plenty of incriminating documents that WWE could shred that have nothing to do with Aegis Labs, especially as the scope of the investigation is far wider than simply their most recent drug testing policy. For example, I'm sure Congress would be interested to see the memo WWE was supposed to have sent their wrestlers after Brian Pillman died telling them to stop seeing the mark doctor Pillman used to get his drugs from, Dr Joel Hackett, because he was hot and the feds were on to him.

#33 Bix

Bix
  • DVDVR 80s Project
  • 6292 posts

Posted 30 July 2007 - 12:13 PM

I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right.

#34 Dylan Waco

Dylan Waco
  • Moderators
  • 10193 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 July 2007 - 06:35 PM

Daniel Benoit was killed by his pro wrestler dad.

Personal choice is officially out of the equation, because the kid didn't make a choice.


Kind of a worthless argument, unless Congress is planning to investigate an awful lot more than steroids. One would guess that all things considered the amount of steroid abuse in other sports would have caused more steroid related deaths by now if wrestlings deaths were primarily steroid related which is the explicit purpose of this probe. The fact that it hasn't tends to indicate that those that point to the totality of the wrestling lifestyle are headed down the right track..and frankly I don't see how Congress could regulate "seasons" onto the industry, or anything else of that ilk.

The reality is that Congress intervening isn't likely to do much of anything without significant outside preasure and some sort of represenation for the wrestlers themselves whether it is called a union or not. The liklihood of that happening is slim to none..so really the Congressional card is pretty much a joke..

#35 sek69

sek69

    Winnipeg Arena's gonna be on fire

  • Members
  • 10726 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 30 July 2007 - 08:09 PM

So we end up at the same point a lot of political debates end at, the idea that nothing will change so why bother even trying.

#36 Al

Al

    Because a wrestling avatar seemed appropriate

  • Members
  • 2949 posts
  • Location:Pocono Mountains, PA

Posted 31 July 2007 - 04:16 PM

Over 70% of the public thinks there should be a Congressional investigation according to internet polls. I'm just saying they should keep their minds open. I may be wrong, but you seem awfully against even the notion of wrestling cleaning up with your posts. You speak against it, underplay its impact and defend WWE when there are plenty of clearly presentable facts right there.


My opinion on the matter of Congress is based on my studies and the manner Congress handled the steroid issue in Major League Baseball. I just don't see Congress passing meaningful legislation, and if they do I can't see it passing muster. The only thing Congress can do really is set up a National Athletic Commission, something they declined to do many times with boxing.

As far as the wrestling business goes, I am of the opinion that a large part of the problem is due to rampant recreational drug use. Other sports have not had high death rates despite also carrying quite a few steroid users in their ranks. I think WWE has taken positive steps, something they have greater ability to accomplish since there is no strong second promotion competing for talent. The problem is that the death rate we see is largely a product of the wrestling scene in the 1990s. If WWE's policies work, we will not know for another decade.

If you have nothing to hide, there's no reason to be uncomfortable. If the government wanted to drug test me today, they could feel free.

Wrestling has proven that it can not police itself. So there are two options:

(1) Get it regulated by the government.
(2) Ban it completely because history has shown pro wrestling can not exist safely and under any form of ethical guidelines whatsoever.


They could test me as well, but I would not at all be comfortable with the government, or individuals within the government, knowing the contents of my blood stream.

As for policing itself, that's a standard carried by no other company in the country. Why not carry the same measure to beer companies? The government certainly shows no interest in regulating other companies who commit serious ethics violations, coercing their employees to work unpaid overtime, cutting benefits through loopholes, and other matters. I realize it's getting into a political debate in which I have little interest in participating. I can't see it leading to positive changes in the sport.

#37 CodySave

CodySave
  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 06:26 PM

So we end up at the same point a lot of political debates end at, the idea that nothing will change so why bother even trying.


Here's what I posted on the DVDVR board in response to the "Why bother trying" attitude, which I hate when used with anything in life:

Much of this thread can be summarized as the following:

"Congress probably won't fix anything, so why bother trying?"

Great attitude, guys. I guess the 1980 U.S. Hockey shouldn't have taken the ice against the USSR team when no one thought they could win. Hell, I'm sure most of you have accomplished something that no one else thought you could.

Seriously, I can't believe the posters who would rather have wrestling exactly how it is, with an uneccessary amount of deaths, than have anyone, even if it is Congress, try to change things how they are now. Wrestling clearly isn't fixing itself, and some of you have the gall to bitch about a couple senators that want to make something positive happen?

I mean, my god, you spend countless dollars to watch the WWE as it is now, but you complain about the goverment using a few tax dollars to possibly make the WWE healthier? I'm at a loss to understand this type of thinking.



#38 Guest_KCook_*

Guest_KCook_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2007 - 06:28 PM

You're confusing "won't" and "can't." Congress isn't God and they can't just make bad things go away by wishing really hard.

#39 Loss

Loss
  • Admins
  • 43648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:22 PM

My opinion on the matter of Congress is based on my studies and the manner Congress handled the steroid issue in Major League Baseball. I just don't see Congress passing meaningful legislation, and if they do I can't see it passing muster. The only thing Congress can do really is set up a National Athletic Commission, something they declined to do many times with boxing.


I do agree with you that it probably won't work, but I do think it's better to try something that has a small chance of accomplishing something worthwhile than not trying anything at all.

As far as the wrestling business goes, I am of the opinion that a large part of the problem is due to rampant recreational drug use. Other sports have not had high death rates despite also carrying quite a few steroid users in their ranks. I think WWE has taken positive steps, something they have greater ability to accomplish since there is no strong second promotion competing for talent. The problem is that the death rate we see is largely a product of the wrestling scene in the 1990s. If WWE's policies work, we will not know for another decade.


WWE has taken steps in the right direction, but it's obvious not enough has been done when Lashley is still a top guy and has absolutely nothing to offer except his physique. Not to totally parrot Meltzer, but hiring, firing and pushing based on physique is as much of the problem as testing.

Eddy Guerrero was clean of recreational drugs, but was still using painkillers and steroids up until the time of his death, according to his toxicology report. There have also been known drug problems with somas with Rene Dupree and Nick Dinsmore, two new school guys.

They could test me as well, but I would not at all be comfortable with the government, or individuals within the government, knowing the contents of my blood stream.

As for policing itself, that's a standard carried by no other company in the country. Why not carry the same measure to beer companies? The government certainly shows no interest in regulating other companies who commit serious ethics violations, coercing their employees to work unpaid overtime, cutting benefits through loopholes, and other matters. I realize it's getting into a political debate in which I have little interest in participating. I can't see it leading to positive changes in the sport.


Porn was trusted to police itself for a long time. When there was an AIDS outbreak, they shut things down immediately. I liken this to that.

It's not even so much that I strongly favor hearings. I just think that if wrestling can't clean up its drug problem, it should be completely shut down because there's now evidence that the stresses of the lifestyle can result in death/harm to individuals not directly involved. Yes, it's a freak thing, until you hear other cases about domestic abuse and combine that with the staggering number of deaths. I'd rather see hearings tried than see wrestling banned tomorrow.

#40 CodySave

CodySave
  • Members
  • 273 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 07:36 PM

You're confusing "won't" and "can't." Congress isn't God and they can't just make bad things go away by wishing really hard.


Even if you switch "won't" with "can't," my statement would be the same. Who's to say they can't change anything if they don't try?

I can't stand it when people throw in the towel simply on the assumption they can't change anything. That's a terribly unconfident attitude to live with.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users