Bix Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 From the local newspaper article about how Travis Tomko posted bond yesterday in his robbery case and is going to WWE-sponsored rehab: WWE offers substance-abuse rehabilitation assistance to every “contracted talent” who has worked for the company, according to the company website. Six percent of former WWE talent have gotten help through the program since it began in 2007.Umm. Holy shit. I've emailed the reporter to ask if he got that figure from WWE (if he didn't, then I have no idea who the source would be, but why would they give it out?) and have my fingers crossed that he will reply, but... Holy shit. The sample covers everyone who has ever had a WWE booking contract (waiting to hear back from Meltzer about if that covers developmental wrestlers who never got called up but I would guess it does) or referee agreement. They started signing most wrestlers to contracts in '83-'84 and have had 150+ guys signed at a time at some points. Also, they haven't necessarily been able to contact everyone and obviously some are dead, as well. 6 out of every 100 wrestlers or referees ever signed to WWE who are not currently with the company have gone through their rehab program. When you think about how many more there may be that don't want to get clean, haven't gotten letters from WWE, are dead, etc...wow. That's not too far from the amount of addicts needing rehab in the general population going by the little bit of research I did today. The amount who want help and go is a lot lower largely due to financial/lack of insurance reasons. This is pretty fascinaingly screwed up of accurate. I'm very curious to hear more about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Huh, it's on the WWE corporate site: http://corporate.wwe.com/news/rehabilitation/summary.jsp Not sure how wise that is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 So 40 wresters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 So 40 wresters.Ostensibly as of January, yes. Unless the percentage is out of a total that includes those who are deceased and not contactable as opposed to the number of those contacted. And depends on if developmental guys who were never called up are included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 So 40 wresters.Ostensibly as of January, yes. Unless the percentage is out of a total that includes those who are deceased and not contactable as opposed to the number of those contacted. And depends on if developmental guys who were never called up are included. According to "Road Dogg" Brian James Armstrong except for one all his brothers and himself have used the program. What is the story here Bix? Is it that unbelievable to you? Do you think WWE are double or triple counting the Scott Halls of this world? Going on a witch hunt to find an exhaustive list of 60 isnt really in the spirit of things either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 So 40 wresters.Ostensibly as of January, yes. Unless the percentage is out of a total that includes those who are deceased and not contactable as opposed to the number of those contacted. And depends on if developmental guys who were never called up are included. According to "Road Dogg" Brian James Armstrong except for one all his brothers and himself have used the program. What is the story here Bix? Is it that unbelievable to you? Do you think WWE are double or triple counting the Scott Halls of this world? Going on a witch hunt to find an exhaustive list of 60 isnt really in the spirit of things either. Really just that I wouldn't have expected WWE to release the figure because, well, it's WWE. When I realized where it came from, I was wondering if it was manipulated at all. The official percentage of former WWE wrestlers who have gone through the program is reasonably close to how many Americans are addicts in general, so when you account for wrestlers who are addicts and haven't sought treatment, it's not a flattering figure to WWE. And then I wanted to just open a dialogue about the topic from there. I'm not sure if I've talked about it here but I have wondered how many wrestlers who have been branded painkiller addicts aren't addicts in the compulsive mental illness sense because the estimates about how many wrestlers have problems are sometimes so high that it seems statistically impossible. Once, when I was seeing a neurologist, he explained (to reassure patients who thought that some of the other patients seemed creepy) that some people who don't take pills to get high can end up drug seeking and showing other addict-like behavior due to issues with tolerance and insufficient pain management. With how badly bumps mess dudes up, it makes me wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 The worst addicts were those who enjoyed partying and bodies were absolutely thrashed, so it's a hard issue to disentangle, but I think the latter is the bigger problem of the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Given what we know about the business, the 6% is "low" for how many people probably need it. So I don't see anything surprising with the number. The number of former WWE talent that are addicts is likely considerably higher. That not all of them come forward and ask for help / take up the offer isn't terribly surprising to any of us who've dealt with addiction, either our own or with people we know. Don't see anything surprising with the WWE putting it up, either. They have touted the program. What they put up "makes them look good" in the sense of how widely they are offering the program and that they are "serious" about it. There is an interesting contrast here, though: (1) "We're not responsible for anyone who dies who is not with the WWE." and (2) "We're willing to help former WWE'ers who are addicted." On the first,the WWE has often gone to the point that they aren't even responsible for those who drop dead on their watch like Eddy. I don't think that we can take (2) as an admission that they think (1) doesn't fly. But one does get the sense that when launching the program that they were getting tired of taking blame for the Dead Wrestler List Of Doom, and that by creating this specific aspect of the program, they wanted to be able to balance out the Blame with a We're Trying. Of course I'm cynical, this is the WWE we're talking about, so there usually is reason for being cynical. I'd balance the cynicism about the origin of the program with the fact that over time, it has a chance of doing good... at least for some who turn around. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I wonder if guys who are on the fence about getting help will see someone like Scott Hall go to rehab a million times and still be messed up (through no fault of the program) and think "fuck it, that shit doesn't work". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 The number and the fact that WWE published it doesn't surprise me at all. It is an interesting piece of information though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Given what we know about the business, the 6% is "low" for how many people probably need it. So I don't see anything surprising with the number. The number of former WWE talent that are addicts is likely considerably higher. That not all of them come forward and ask for help / take up the offer isn't terribly surprising to any of us who've dealt with addiction, either our own or with people we know. Don't see anything surprising with the WWE putting it up, either. They have touted the program. What they put up "makes them look good" in the sense of how widely they are offering the program and that they are "serious" about it. There is an interesting contrast here, though: (1) "We're not responsible for anyone who dies who is not with the WWE." and (2) "We're willing to help former WWE'ers who are addicted." On the first,the WWE has often gone to the point that they aren't even responsible for those who drop dead on their watch like Eddy. I don't think that we can take (2) as an admission that they think (1) doesn't fly. But one does get the sense that when launching the program that they were getting tired of taking blame for the Dead Wrestler List Of Doom, and that by creating this specific aspect of the program, they wanted to be able to balance out the Blame with a We're Trying. Of course I'm cynical, this is the WWE we're talking about, so there usually is reason for being cynical. I'd balance the cynicism about the origin of the program with the fact that over time, it has a chance of doing good... at least for some who turn around. John In his 2007 Congressional testimony, Vince openly stated that he paid for rehab solely for public relations purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkelly Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 I think the number being 'low' at 6% suggests several things. First, it more than suggests that the 'effected' former-employees enjoy what they do. If they're an addict, they like what they're doing. And with any other person, they continue doing what pleases them. It just so happens to be things that aren't good for them. And not just in the sense of the body, but on the legal side as well. We can see the actual amount of current workers that have been 'effected' by the business in unfavorable lights. (Examples Being:) Flair, Angle, both Hardys. Add in the old guys that are outside the limelight, like Scott Hall and Jake Roberts. The actual number of 'effected' employees to those degrees today are low by 1980s' standards. The guys in the 80s literally went nuts by comparison. They bred a culture to go until they died. Add in the natural personalities of the men, ('wanting to be pro wrestlers'), and it is a dangerous game of time. Second, what kind of percentage of workers is being used. * Are current TNA wrestlers included? * Are current elsewhere workers included? * Are there 'old stars' in the program? * How many former employees are dead? * Conscientious objectors (of Vince). * Is any of the family on the list? Knowing the WWE though, instead of 6% being a good number, it is actually bad. All we got to know is numbers, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 In his 2007 Congressional testimony, Vince openly stated that he paid for rehab solely for public relations purposes.Yep. He was very clinical when asked why WWE has this offer: "Two words: Public Relations" I'm not particularly surprised to see the figure on the site. I would think that Vince truly doesn't see himself or his company as responsible for drug problems that others developed so the shame factor's not there; I would say that it's more likely to be a reflection of his PR mindset: "How many other companies would pay for 6% of its former employees to go to rehab (/or something else that was totally unrelated to past tenure there, such as "treat them to a holiday", "buy them a holiday home")?" It won't be too long before we're seeing it on those "Do you know?" sections that they inject into their TV programmes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Vince's attitude REALLY comes through in the testimony. It's very black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.