kjh

I always took that to be an (unhelpful) analogy at a stage when the science wasn't very well understood.

I think it's clear that the autopsy was conducted far from perfectly, but I think it's still an open and shut case of CTE. The slides shown in the paper clearly show abnormal buildup of tau proteins that were seen in other autopsies of people suffering from CTE at the time of their deaths.

My personal opinion is that although brain damage was obviously an important factor in the Benoit tragedy, I think it's far from the only important factor, and not enough to absolve blame/guilt.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in a professional American wrestler: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2010.01078.x/abstract

It looks like the only reason the production company the Harris twins are involved with, Aroluxe, might end up with a stake in TNA is that Dixie Carter used it as collateral in case she defaulted on payments for their services. They're creditors not investors.

Not to be offensive, but wasn't the whole Sweeney issue that he didn't have "his head on straight"? And that he wasn't taking his meds? Dave clearly had a major brain freeze, as he forgot his cause of death. I really put a lot of blame for Dave's insensitivity on Jim Ross not doing his homework and having a well-known agenda. I don't think Dave would have been quite so blasé about Sweeney's mental health issues if Ross had reminded him that he had committed suicide by hanging himself and had long suffered from bipolar disorder.

The issue was never Dave going over Lucha Underground results, but him talking about spoilers at times when there was no need (mainly in his reviews of shows after they aired). I don't watch LU, but it was pretty glaring and I can see why people were annoyed by it.

Stephanie, with her boyfriend's help, were the one's responsible for Russo's WWE return in 2002 only lasting a matter of days. So that's another plus in her favour, even though it was largely just family politics at play.

I think if TNA hadn't survived past the summer of 2002, another company would have eventually filled the vacuum that was left by WCW closing. Who knows, maybe Ring of Honor would have ended up on Spike TV instead? There's definitely been a huge opportunity cost in TNA's existence, particularly over the past five years where Dixie Carter may have soured three networks on the idea of ever airing pro wrestling programming again. It might be scorched earth for some time to come. Sure, Stephanie McMahon was an inexperienced head writer when she was put in that position and that likely led to WWE's Attitude Era boom fizzling out quicker than it should have done. However, it wasn't a complete disaster either, as Stephanie was the first key power player to get behind John Cena and the company would have been a lot weaker over the past decade if they had missed on him. Stephanie has been a mixed bag for the business, whilst Dixie Carter has been an overwhelming negative. There's no competition here.

The DA deal made sense because TNA Impact was still making close to a million viewers on Spike TV, despite several time slot changes towards the end of their run on the station. The PopTV deal made a lot less sense, given that Impact had already been a ratings failure on DA and it sounds like Dixie Carter promised ratings that they should have known she couldn't deliver.

tl;dr brother. Actually I did read and didn't take too kindly to the math bashing. It also begged the question whether we should rank a Bret Hart above a Kobashi for working a safer style and not being so willing to destroy his body for his art (which ironically Bret in the end did too, but that was a freak accident and poor injury management)? Not saying I would, but if you place a strong emphasis on getting the most out of minimal risk, I can see voting Bret above Kobashi.

I think you can make a similar justification for Delphin as you did for Quack actually, but maybe I just have fond memories of the Osaka Pro show I went to many moons ago.

The bottom of the list was always going to have some odd positionings. That said, there will be worse wrestlers above Kendrick.

Cranky is a funny adjective to use. There was this Twitter account...

Is this like the storyline where Shane McMahon complains about how Triple H and Stephanie are running WWE into the ground?

PWInsider is reporting that: My thoughts here: http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2016/4/6/11380544/evolve-wwe-relationship-grows-stronger-focus-changing

It's also important to note that the Evoke Neuroscience testing hasn't been peer reviewed, plus their kits are pretty expensive (They were being sold for $20K initially).

This is very silly I'll eat my hat if the "big plans" with New Day involve HH. No way, no how......that's not happening Oh, Bro, of course it wasn't. It's totally going to be the Rock, like you said. Taking a cryptic Dave quote, making up a story based on it, and THEN reporting that the made up thing you created isn't going to happen and calling it news? Way to go Edward R. Zero. The Rock makes a lot more sense, but when WWE trots out Eva Marie and were surprised at the negative reaction in Brooklyn of all places, you can't rule out that WWE is tone deaf enough to put Hogan in the spot. To be fair to Bix, there were rumours in early February that Hogan would be back for WrestleMania.

I'm sure Angle has a rationale for his match layout, but when your style sees you hit an Angle Slam on the steel steps and an Angle Slam in the ring and your opponent is back on offense 15 seconds later, I think it's a valid criticism of the style that Angle isn't milking what should be major spots for all they're worth and making moves mean less.

Yes, in the Florida 2DCA decision, they sort of skirt the issue of whether Gawker obtained the sex tape unlawfully (because Hogan's lawyers didn't push that angle and it's not 100% clear either way), but the judge did cite a precedent where a third party has stolen information and its subsequent publication was deemed lawful.

I'm not arguing morality (clearly what Gawker did was a pretty scummy thing to do) or that such an interpretation of the law is just, but given the weight put on the First Amendment (freedom of the press) by the three judges on the appeals court Hogan will have a tough time holding onto his big win. Campbell's rulings so far have been the consistent outlier, rightly or wrongly. The smartest strategy for Hogan would be to use the verdict as leverage for a sizable, albeit reduced, settlement with Gawker which guards against the risk that Gawker wins their appeal. I'd hate to see Hogan snatch defeat from the jaws of victory based on his seemingly bullheaded counsel, especially if he's the one footing the bill if that risky strategy backfires. Regarding the legality of how Gawker acquired the tape, it was sent to them anonymously. No money was exchanged. That said, I would think this is a good line of attack for Hogan, given the appeals court have already indicated how sympathetic they are to Gawker's First Amendment defence.

It may seem like a ridiculous ruling, but it's entirely consistent with the nearest equivalent case (Paramount being sued by Bret Michaels over excerpts of his sex tape with Pamela Anderson being used on an edition of their tabloid show Hard Copy, which was dismissed before going to trial).

Actually in this case, the Florida's Second District Court of Appeal in their decision to overturn Judge Pamela Campbell's injunction on the video, has already ruled that Gawker's video was protected by the First Amendment: It also doesn't matter that it was illegally recorded, so long as Gawker obtained it legally ("The Supreme Court in Bartnicki held that if a publisher lawfully obtains the information in question, the speech is protected by the First Amendment provided it is a matter of public concern, even if the source recorded it unlawfully.") This is why many people think Hogan will have a very tough time in the appeals court (because to rule in Hogan's favour they would have to go back on their previous ruling).

Where things get murky is that Hogan's original lawsuit clearly was designed partly to stop Gawker and other publications from reporting on the sex tape that had racial slurs on it, especially airing audio/video of the footage. They didn't just want Gawker's video taken down, but the narrative too (which Gawker resisted and won on appeal). Hogan's lawyers misrepresented their original case to the jury when they stressed that all they always cared about was the video being published. Moreover, the sole juror willing to speak to the media seemed more concerned about Hogan's private conversations being published than the sex itself.

The difference is that Gawker didn't hack Hogan's phone/computer to get the video.