WWE's coming fall

[Guest KCook]

The obvious fact everyone is kind of edging around is that all this controversy is just starting. Vince McMahon is going to go nuts while testifying before Congress. Big-time wrestlers like John Cena, Undertaker, and Triple H are going to be exposed as drug fiends. More wrestlers are going to die. These things are going to happen.

 

There are also other things that could happen. Vince's muscle-mag cover is probably going to be paraded around at the congressional hearings. Some big-time whistleblower who can't be dismissed as out of the loop is going to tell the truth about how the company works.

 

The end result of all this is that WWE is probably going to lose at least one and quite possibly all of its network clearances and be subjected to regulation. It has already been somewhat deservedly tarred as the single scummiest business in the country, non-war profiteering division, a place for murderers, wife beaters, drug fiends, and their enablers. This will have consequences ranging from low buyrates to potential wrestlers deciding they'd rather not die at 40 and thus going into construction.

 

Anyway, here's my question: How bad will it be? Before you say none of this will happen, keep in mind that:

 

a ) Randy Orton wasn't suspended because he's a top guy even though the hearings are coming up, showing that the company still doesn't understand just how big the stakes are;

 

b ) a lot of the worst shoes (Batista dying, Vince's steroid use being exposed, etc.) haven't dropped yet.

[Bix]

I tend to agree with the rest of what you're saying, but the belief right now is that Orton is the wrestler who came clean to management about using Signature and already served a "suspension" for it. Kennedy still being on TV next week is more questionable.

[Loss]

It will be bad enough that WWE will try all of their in-the-bubble solutions (more lighthearted comedy to make people think wrestling is innocent, return of former big names, even more babyfaces going over, added emphasis on Vince McMahon on TV) and will honestly be shocked that none of them do anything to clean up their image or make people forget the last two months.

 

I also think further investigation into the details of those listed as clients could be disastrous. It's pretty obvious to me Funaki is a patsy. Here's a guy who's kept a job for a decade despite barely being used, and is allegedly great friends with Austin, Michaels, HHH, Taker, etc.

[Loss]

Also, prepare for Shawn Michaels' return to even more greatly expose him as a con artist fraud who pretends to be Christian so he can sell t-shirts with crosses on them.

[Bix]

When did Batista start bodybuilding? It could give us a timeline for his eventual death (though everyone is different and Benoit proved that heavy use, even with HGH, doesn't always lead to organ enlargement).

 

There are a ton of other shoes that can still drop, more than we'll ever think of. If Sylvan Grenier is no longer in a relationship with Pat Patterson, I could totally see him going to the press to fuck with WWE. WWE could have the chutzpah to fire Chris Nowinski tomorrow 30 seconds after putting out a press release that makes "steroids could not be a factor because the deaths were via asphyxiation" and "testosterone is not a steroid" look like nothing. A WWE office employee could be outed as having received steroids. Really, nothing would shock me at this point, even internal memos showing that management was aware that Benoit was abusing kittens.

[S.L.L.]

Anyway, here's my question: How bad will it be? Before you say none of this will happen, keep in mind that:

Not that I'm one of those people, but it's probably worth noting that a lot of wrestling fans - much like people in wrestling themselves - are so far removed from reality that the WWE could go under tomorrow and they would still swear up and down that everything's fine. I know it's not your intention here, but the sect of fandom insisting none of this will happen will keep insisting it until all of it actually happens. And when it does, they'll probably still keep insisting it.

 

As to the question, it really depends on how much awful shit about WWE's backstage goings-on comes out, in any form, and how bad it is. Assuming the only thing that comes out is rampant drug abuse, they could get off (comparatively) light, or get hit bad. If the culture that endorses the drug abuse comes out, it won't be pretty. If some of the horrible incidental stuff that's happened over the years as a result of wrestling culture comes out (Vince covering up the murder of Jimmy Snuka's girlfriend just screams out to me here, especially considering the circumstances that got us to this point, or Vince's penny-pinching with the equipment for Owen Hart's fatal stunt), even stuff that isn't actually illegal, but would horrify most folks if they knew about it (Stephanie McMahon getting breast implants because of a sign in the crowd, Vince's plans to be the storyline father of his daughter's baby, the Benoit tribute show if it's revealed that they knew he was the killer when they did it), it could fry them. And of course, if Vince acts like Vince, that ain't helping them.

 

A lot of people in the wrestling bubble - fans included - feel like they're untouchable for one reason or another. Some of the savvier folks in that group can point to almost reasonable explanations for this - namely that no one in Congress or the rest of the civilized world cares about wrestling. But this just exposes the limitations of thinking in the wrestling bubble. People outside it might not give two shits about wrestling, but outside the wrestling bubble, I don't think anyone is looking at this as a wrestling issue, at least not first and foremost. The concern isn't that they're going after wrestlers, the concern is that they're going after drug dealers, murderers, and people generally unfit for decent society who are sitting on top of a giant pile of money, and have millions of fans who keep adding to it. They may not necessarily care for the right reasons, but you'd have to be pretty delusional to claim that Congress isn't interested in going after drug dealers. Whether or not any of these people would pay attention to wrestling otherwise is irrelevant when all this stuff they do pay attention to is laid out so nicely in front of them. What happens next depends on how much of wrestling's buffet of loathsomeness is presented to the general public. If they get enough, they'll eat the WWE alive.

 

And just to present one little elephant in the room: there's always the off-chance that Vince McMahon will be one of the workers who drops dead while all this is going on. Think of what happens then.

[S.L.L.]

Also, prepare for Shawn Michaels' return to even more greatly expose him as a con artist fraud who pretends to be Christian so he can sell t-shirts with crosses on them.

On a personal, strictly petty level, I'm kind of curious to see how much public exposure Michaels gets out of this, and what public perception of him is compared to his defender's claims.

[Guest KCook]

I tend to agree with the rest of what you're saying, but the belief right now is that Orton is the wrestler who came clean to management about using Signature and already served a "suspension" for it.

 

Fair enough, but I tend to think that if they had a good handle on things they'd suspend him anyway. It looks just awful.

[Bix]

Vince's penny-pinching with the equipment for Owen Hart's fatal stunt

It wasn't just being cheap-he also hated the way that the safe version looked and pretty much insisted on a quick release.

[Loss]

Well sadly, in terms of a spokesperson, Michaels is one of the better options they have. He's had a 20-year career in the company where he's never been a huge guy, and he was "cared for" and "watched after" when he was losing his mind and was immature. Of course, those days are long over.

 

On one hand, Shawn Michaels is the best company spokesman they could use.

 

On the other hand, Shawn Michaels is the best company spokesman they could use.

[Loss]

Also, I just picked up on the clever ambiguity of this thread title.

[Al]

I'm on record questioning the effectiveness of the Congressional hearings. KCook mentioned regulation. I'm not sure that can happen without a federal athletic commission, something John McCain attempted to push a decade ago and saw no progress.

 

WWE can point to their wellness policy and recent suspensions. On paper, the policy is stronger than any major sport. It allows random unannounced tests and blood testing. Yes it's a sham. Other major sports though have the same issues with athletes receiving steroids from online pharmacies. The Jason Grimsley case illustrates that. Current steroid testing in MLB has failed to stunt power statistics. No steroid testing policy is working in professional sports right now.

[S.L.L.]

Well sadly, in terms of a spokesperson, Michaels is one of the better options they have. He's had a 20-year career in the company where he's never been a huge guy, and he was "cared for" and "watched after" when he was losing his mind and was immature. Of course, those days are long over.

 

On one hand, Shawn Michaels is the best company spokesman they could use.

 

On the other hand, Shawn Michaels is the best company spokesman they could use.

Well, yes.

 

I meant more that I was selfishly hoping to see all the Michaels defenders act confused when the general public doesn't think the aging, balding, effeminate, registered sex offender-looking dude is a handsome pretty boy who's hip and with it and down with the kids these days (well, they might think that one, but not in the way it's intended).

[Bix]

On paper, the policy is stronger than any major sport. It allows random unannounced tests and blood testing.

Prescription loophole, specifically that it allows someone to flash it after failing so they can pass, when if you had a non-smokescreen, legit prescription policy, it would require prior disclosure.

[Guest KCook]

KCook mentioned regulation. I'm not sure that can happen without a federal athletic commission, something John McCain attempted to push a decade ago and saw no progress.

That was for boxing. Vegas is a lot more politically connected than Vince.

 

They are holding hearings, and those are going to expose the drug policy as a complete fraud and the company as completely morally bankrupt. I don't see how they won't regulate. That could take the form of anything from mandating a real, independently administered policy to creating a federal commission to simply cutting a political deal whereby WWE has to accept drug testing from state commissions. Our government is pretty inept, but we still manage to put things in space, occupy faraway countries, get all the mail to everyone, etc. Ruining Vince McMahon's business isn't really out of The Man's reach.

 

Re: Michaels. Isn't it just hilarious that he can't even be bothered to show up for TV right now? I said in the other thread that Cena's exposure as a complete fraud would be funniest, but now that I think about it the best would be Michaels being shown to be a total sham. His excuses would be the best. "I blew out my knees praying—I needed those horse steroids so I could get down on my knees for Jesus!"

[Tim Evans]

If Congress Regulates wrestling, It's all over for everyone but WWE. Vince will look like a bad guy and will probably be strict as ever. I expect more firings and or releases. It will probably end the Brand Extension. But I don't think anyone besides the Mcmahon haters and the internet really cares.

 

And using WWE and Morality in the same sentence is laughable.

[kjh]

On paper, the policy is stronger than any major sport.

Yeah, that's what WWE and Jerry McDevitt is going to argue. The problem is it's a really dumb tack to take because they'll get laughed out of Congress. This isn't Larry King where John Cena can play dumb without being called out on it.

 

Don't believe me then read this article from the New York Daily News: "The WWE does not have a drug policy that's worth a flip" - U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)

[tomk]

b ) a lot of the worst shoes (Batista dying, Vince's steroid use being exposed, etc.) haven't dropped yet.

Not really sure if Batista dying is one of the worst shoes.

 

None of the divas have been outed as roid abusers yet. Somehow I think if diva showed up on Signature list it would have opened up another big can of worms.

 

Supposedly VH1 is doing a reality show built around Chyna's adventures in rehab. I can't imagine Vh-1 not using Waxman hearings in their advertisements..."Chyna got her fame in a biz that encourages drug use...watch her try to regain her life"

 

Possibility of Angle dying is still out there.

 

Somehow, I don't see Batista death as being that big of a shoe.

 

Batista beating his ex-wife or current girlfriend could be a big shoe.

 

The end result of all this is that WWE is probably going to lose at least one and quite possibly all of its network clearances and be subjected to regulation.

People spend so much time talking about impact of regs that the network clearance issue gets forgoten.

 

What killed Pride and WCW was networks being shamed into not airing them.

[jdw]

On paper, the policy is stronger than any major sport.

Yeah, that's what WWE and Jerry McDevitt is going to argue. The problem is it's a really dumb tack to take because they'll get laughed out of Congress. This isn't Larry King where John Cena can play dumb without being called out on it.

 

Don't believe me then read this article from the New York Daily News: "The WWE does not have a drug policy that's worth a flip" - U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.)

 

Yeah... *on paper*, the WWE policy is a joke. Everyone has known that from the start. Massive drug use was allowable under the policy. It was written that way because Vince didn't want the boyz to get off the sauce, nor not be able to down a high amount of pain killers. It was written specifically to allow people to do what they wanted as long as they were "in condition to work".

 

I don't think any major or semi-major sport drug policy is specifically written to allow such massive drug usage as the WWE's.

 

John

[Al]

That was for boxing. Vegas is a lot more politically connected than Vince.

 

They are holding hearings, and those are going to expose the drug policy as a complete fraud and the company as completely morally bankrupt. I don't see how they won't regulate. That could take the form of anything from mandating a real, independently administered policy to creating a federal commission to simply cutting a political deal whereby WWE has to accept drug testing from state commissions. Our government is pretty inept, but we still manage to put things in space, occupy faraway countries, get all the mail to everyone, etc. Ruining Vince McMahon's business isn't really out of The Man's reach.

Maybe I'm wrong about all this. The problem is the Congress will talk tough because that looks good. The question is how will they act on it. The committee can't do anything on their own, they need to pass legislation. If that legislation is seen as too intrusive, it may not pass. I don't think the general public cares about the issue enough to make it worth a legislator's while to push it beyond its means.

 

So far in every other case I've seen, the sports are brought before Congress, lambasted for a day, and promise to tighten up their steroid policies. I have yet to see an actual difference in any sport. I do not think Congress can constitutionally impose steroid testing on what is essentially a private industry. That's why I point out the state athletic commissions, who do have the power to control sports in such a manner. The state of Oregon imposed testing on wrestling and it stuck. If you can separate boxing, wrestling and MMA in creating a federal commission to cover these things, I don't know. If you try a federal athletic commission on its own, you bring other interests (Vegas/boxing) into the mix.

 

But since I mentioned Oregon, here's a thought. Why don't other state athletic commissions do something here? Maybe I've misread something and WWE is mostly exempt via the "wrestling is staged" loophole.

[Loss]

WWE stayed out of Oregon from 1993-2003 due to them requiring outside drug testing. They deregulated in 2003, and WWE returned immediately.

[Bix]

WCW stopped going, too.

 

Both companies claimed other reasons but I've not sure what they were.

[Guest KCook]

I do not think Congress can constitutionally impose steroid testing on what is essentially a private industry.

They most certainly can, unless WWE decides to stop traveling from state to state or unless the Constitution is amended to get rid of the Commerce Clause.

 

I would tend to agree that Congress's main interest is in looking tough, but WWE is so completely beyond redemption, and has handled this so horribly, that they just might force Congress to do something. Consider this: WWE refused to send Congress a copy of the Wellness Policy, which was available on their website until two months ago. Their arrogance is absolutely astounding, and absolutely the wrong way to handle these people.

 

I'd also strongly disagree that legislation being intrusive is any reason to think it won't pass, but that way leads politics, so I'll leave the point there.

[Bix]

Consider this: WWE refused to send Congress a copy of the Wellness Policy, which was available on their website until two months ago.

This may have been undersold even moreso than the concussion story is.

 

For what it's worth, the original written policy did not state the frequency of the tests, nor the threshold for any drugs other than steroids, so even if they sent it, there would be nothing to learn from it on that front. It did state that testing was random, though.

[S.L.L.]

The problem is the Congress will talk tough because that looks good. The question is how will they act on it.

So Congress will back down from the guy who's openly mocking them and parading his flagrant insanity for all to see while laughing in their faces and talking shit about how he's going to beat the government twice.....because they want to look tough?