Al

Agreed. Sources can't assume confidentiality in cases like these.

Jerry Quarry?

It might run up against the 4th Amendment which cites unreasonable search and seizure. I'm not certain, a constitutional expert would know more than I would. One of the problems is whether regulation is makes financial sense. Is it worth it to establish a commission to regulate wrestling given the expense and that there are really just two companies on the national map? Once that commission is established, will those in charge have real knowledge of wrestling. If they do, will they be cronies of the wrestling industry, or will they have the wrestlers' interests at heart? As for the hearings themselves, this isn't addressing KCook in particular but I don't want too many quotations in this post. Many seem to assume Congress will have a vast array of knowledge about the issue. I'm afraid much of Congress will have about as much knowledge of wrestling as Nancy Grace. Many will come in with 1980s stereotypes, and I'm sure the company will be referred to as the WWF on more than one occasion. I think many here will be frustrated when Congress fails to ask some obvious follow-up questions. The written policy is different. The results of that policy are invisible. Either the testing is a sham, or the inflated home run and power totals of the last 12-13 years were honest all along.

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.

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.

The last 6-7 minutes of the Boot Camp match between Sgt. Slaughter and the Iron Sheik are on the Iron Sheik retrospective. The Backlund/Sheik title change is also there in its entirety.

Here's a question. If you had legitimate drug testing, how would you handle positive tests? Could a company afford to routinely scrap advertised matches/main events?

I wouldn't necessarily even say it's just WWF. Other major sports are going through the same thing. The Jason Grimsley investigation for example and the media's current battle to get some of those names released. WWE, on paper, has a stronger steroid policy than any professional sport. So when cornered on something like this, they have to take bigger action than the other sports who just point to their own drug policies. One thing I wonder is how effective WWE would be if they made a 100% honest effort. MLB despite their best efforts still clearly has issues with steroid usage. This isn't just something that can go away with testing. There is HGH for which there is yet no effective test. There are masking agents. This is a legitimate struggle. On the legal front, I wonder if this gives WWE a leg up on Congress. Congress will ask about their policy. They'll cite the wellness policy, note they have suspended wrestlers. How can Congress respond at that point?

It'll be interesting to see how some people react when they find out it's Edge, Kennedy, etc. under fire. Ridding the business of steroids doesn't necessarily mean a workrate paradise.

They also don't apply swanton bombs. Wrestling is not MMA and fans don't expect it to be.

To be fair, Chris Benoit could get a little too stiff with that hold from time to time.

It's not that Foley can't connect with the fans. The problem in my view is that after they did the three faces of Foley and the retirements, they opened up Mick Foley as a person too much. Foley himself as a character doesn't ring the way Mankind or Cactus Jack did.

This is exactly why wrestlers make fun of net writers who never wrestled. You can review a match, but stick to what you know.

No, because the prices are set by the market. If people will pay it, it's just RoH selling at a fair price. If not, RoH loses sales.

I seldom point to the Rock 'N' Roll Hall of Fame as setting a good example of anything, but 25 years after a performer's debut always sounded about right to me for rock and wrestling (pun unintended). I endorse this. That would give us guys who debuted in 1982 or earlier. MAYBE you make it 20 years. No less than that.

Took less time than I thought. 34 MLB players in the last ten years. Quite a few of those are from accidents (Cory Lidle, Josh Hancock, Andujar Cedeno, Steve Howe, Mike Coolbaugh), foul play (Dernell Stenson, Ivan Calderon), or cancer (Dan Quisenberry). Ken Caminiti is the only notorious steroid user on the list.

It would've been helpful if the reporter would've listed the actual death figures for baseball and football here, in order to get an accurate comparison. And since Meltzer's list includes guys who never stepped foot in the WWE, you'd have to go past just the MLB and NFL and count players for minor-league teams too. (I'm not just being snitty, I really would like to know what those figures are.) Let me state for the record that I respect Frank DeFord as a writer as much as anyone in sports. I'm going to create a list for MLB for comparison's sake. It will include players who played in the majors at least one game, died before their 50th birthday, and died within the last ten years. I'll have results hopefully later in the day.

Nah. There's just too many guys "like" Bill Eadie. Guys who were successful in two ventures, drew well here or there, etc. Same with Bill Murdoch. It's not that he wasn't a great worker. But there are maybe a hundred wrestlers who come close to his credentials, and where do you draw the line?

I'd say the money Flair drew as a result of the wrestling boom outweighed his lower placement on the card. You have to keep some things in perspective.

Watts went in as a promoter but his time as a wrestler probably helped his cause tremendously. Given a ballot I'd vote for Rey Misterio, the Rock, the Rock 'n' Roll Express, Sgt. Slaughter, Bill Miller, and Hans Schmidt. I'd have four more choices and I'd use them after some further research. In the non-performer category I'd take Jim Crockett and Gorilla Monsoon. Monsoon may raise some eyebrows. I figure you have a guy who was an amateur champion, credible heel in the '60s, good face in the '70s, acceptable commentator in the '80s, and influential backstage worker and promoter (Puerto Rico) all the while. Very few in the industry can match his credentials.

There should be more tag teams in, otherwise it's fairly solid. Personally though, I think they bring up wrestlers for election too early. The problem for Dave is that if he doesn't induct anyone, the sales will drop.

Krusher and Houston were the odd men out of their respective matches, so they needed something to do on the card.

I'm more inclined to say it was a tragic family that happened to be wrestlers. There's no reason she can't avoid the same pitfalls with a bit of common sense.

Kevin Von Erich has usually maintained a positive attitude about the whole experience. Either they take things very well in stride, or those drugs were REALLY good.

Probably a case where WWE has a decent working relationship with the company and doesn't have a big problem.