Congress requests WWE drug testing records

[sek69]

What is someone who wants to be a wrestler supposed to do? Doesn't seem fair that a guy should be expected to shoulder responsibility for the people running the industry they want to go into being heartless dicks.

 

Also, what's to say everyone who wants to be a wrestler is fully aware of how the business is run? Maybe they think it's just the indies that run this way and once they get to WWE everything will be different.

[S.L.L.]

What is someone who wants to be a wrestler supposed to do? Doesn't seem fair that a guy should be expected to shoulder responsibility for the people running the industry they want to go into being heartless dicks.

They shouldn't, but there are plenty of examples throughout history of mistreated workers rallying against corrupt management and forcing change. The fact that wrestlers can't be bothered to unionize or anything along those lines means that they shoulder some of the blame for being mistreated. But that doesn't mean it's OK to mistreat them in the first place.

 

Also, what's to say everyone who wants to be a wrestler is fully aware of how the business is run? Maybe they think it's just the indies that run this way and once they get to WWE everything will be different.

I'd think Vince McMahon's scumminess is better documented than that of any indy promoter, but otherwise you make a good point. I was coming at this issue from the perspective of an all-seeing, all-knowing internet wrestling fan, which may not accurately represent everyone who gets into the business, so yeah.

[tomk]

They shouldn't, but there are plenty of examples throughout history of mistreated workers rallying against corrupt management and forcing change. The fact that wrestlers can't be bothered to unionize or anything along those lines means that they shoulder some of the blame for being mistreated.

There are about 63 wrestler spots currently on RAW/Smackdown/ECW.

And a good 630 who could fill each of those roles.

Take a look at the current roster.

One might argue that Undertaker, Cena or Rey aren't replaceable.

But honestly the WWF has booked all of them as though they are.

 

Few paying jobs (fewer well paying jobs) + a large applicant pool + management who sees employees as being as disposable and replaceable as goldfish= an awful enviroment for unionization.

[S.L.L.]

They shouldn't, but there are plenty of examples throughout history of mistreated workers rallying against corrupt management and forcing change. The fact that wrestlers can't be bothered to unionize or anything along those lines means that they shoulder some of the blame for being mistreated.

There are about 63 wrestler spots currently on RAW/Smackdown/ECW.

And a good 630 who could fill each of those roles.

Take a look at the current roster.

One might argue that Undertaker, Cena or Rey aren't replaceable.

But honestly the WWF has booked all of them as though they are.

 

Few paying jobs (fewer well paying jobs) + a large applicant pool + management who sees employees as being as disposable and replaceable as goldfish= an awful enviroment for unionization.

 

This is true.

 

To really do it effectively, it would have to be an industry-wide (or at least nationwide) thing, but good luck ever getting that to happen.

[ohtani's jacket]

Just unionising isn't enough. You'd need a regulatory body and a licensing comission. If all you had was a union, McMahon would soon find a way to weaken the union's strength.

[S.L.L.]

Just unionising isn't enough. You'd need a regulatory body and a licensing comission. If all you had was a union, McMahon would soon find a way to weaken the union's strength.

Also very true.

 

I mean, even without all of that, labor still has to carry some blame just for sticking around in a clearly fucked up situation. But then that means the choice is between "wrestling is the last vestige of the Gilded Age" and "wrestling doesn't exist", so obviously the situation is fucked up beyond belief, and that's first and foremost because of the decisions of management. Some of the blame can be pawned off on others for letting it happen, but ultimately, management has to take responsibility for it's own actions. Which it won't. So...yeah.

[Dylan Waco]

Regulation would strengthen Vince dramatically.

 

Not saying that in itself is an argument against it, but it would bury all the independents and make any upstarts totally impossible.

[ohtani's jacket]

Well, it always goes back to the same thing. Wrestling fans wanna have their cake and eat it too. I'm not talking about you specifically Dylan, but most fans want to enjoy the status quo without the guilt of knowing that someone else has died, so they'd never accept any radical change. Besides, it's all pie in the sky stuff unless the governments in Japan, Mexico and the US cared, which evidently they don't.

 

Mind you, you have to wonder how much longer professional wrestling can actually last. It may be best if it just withers away and dies.

[Herodes]

Unionisation is pointless for the reasons tomk gave. The brand is bigger than any star. 10 guys leave, 10 identical replacements are summoned from the farm in Florida. Maybe in the 80s it would have been more viable when the balance between star and brand was less skewed than it is now and Hogan, Piper, Savage, Andre, Warrior etc were involved, but even that's debatable - aside from Hogan they were all disposable to a degree, and it wouldn't have lasted.

 

The bottom line is that if people really gave a fuck about these things they would have stopped watching after Benoit went psycho but that didn't happen for the most part.

[kjh]

Speaking of the dangers of headdropping, Andrew "Test" Martin was suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy at the time of his death.

 

Which is a bit worrying given that Test wasn't a wrestler renown for taking nutty risks in the ring like a Chris Benoit or Mike Awesome.

Irv Muchnick has apparently caught WWE bending the truth in response to the ESPN article I linked above:

 

WWE's Medical Director Met With Chris Benoit Brain Experts in 2008

 

Mike Benoit via Irv's blog has also resurfaced in the light of the results of the research on Andrew Martin's brain. He claims that his grandchildren could take legal action against WWE up to two years after their 18th birthday, so they have 7 years left to take such action. He also claims that a doctor with links to Jerry McDevitt contacted Dr Kris Sperry, Chris Benoit's coroner, suggesting that there was a strong probability Daniel died first and urged him to test Daniel for fragile X.

[Bob Morris]

Unionisation is pointless for the reasons tomk gave. The brand is bigger than any star. 10 guys leave, 10 identical replacements are summoned from the farm in Florida. Maybe in the 80s it would have been more viable when the balance between star and brand was less skewed than it is now and Hogan, Piper, Savage, Andre, Warrior etc were involved, but even that's debatable - aside from Hogan they were all disposable to a degree, and it wouldn't have lasted.

 

The bottom line is that if people really gave a fuck about these things they would have stopped watching after Benoit went psycho but that didn't happen for the most part.

This actually does boost smkelly's points a bit... but that being said, I will add this:

 

My problem with smkelly's post is that he seems to want to absolve the promoter of ANY responsibility with regards to wrestlers dying young.

 

He's not wrong to point out that wrestlers and fans bear responsibility for it. The problem with his argument is that, in part, it's not an effective argument... and it's also wrong to say that because wrestlers and fans bear responsibility means promoters don't.

 

Bruce Mitchell wrote a very good column back when Eddy Guerrero died, going over who was responsible for wrestlers dying young, and while he did go over those people in a certain order, the style of his writing made it clear he was not assigning "how much blame" but simply saying "they all share in the blame."

 

And that's the problem with a lot of arguments on this subject... they often assign a certain amount of blame, or in some cases, no blame at all. And that will never do anything to solve the problem.

 

I will say, though, that wrestlers, promoters and fans alike seem to be less sensitive to these issues and become more defensive than the players in just about any other business.

 

As an example, in the NFL, players are more likely to contemplate retirement when injuries pile up than wrestlers are.

 

In the NFL, things aren't perfect with the way they approach performance-enhancing drug usage, but they do a better job of it, and are more responsive to it, than any wrestling promoter out there.

 

And when it comes to NFL fans, you'll find your share who rally behind their favorite player... but if it becomes evident a favorite player needs to retire, you are likely to find plenty of fans who will admit to it. Try that with a pro wrestling fan and his/her favorite wrestler, and that's a lot harder to come by.

 

Until that defensive mentality regarding pro wrestling is broken, you aren't going to see changes.

[ohtani's jacket]

Pro-wrestlers don't get paid the kind of money that NFL players do, and even then a large number of NFL players wind up broke. It doesn't matter what opportunties you give a person, we're all perfectly capable of fucking up our lives. Even if you made pro-wrestling the safest environment it can be, people would still fuck up, just like you or I are capable of fucking up without the use of steroids or painkillers.

 

The best you can do is provide deterrents, but at the end of the day it's up to the pro-wrestler to navigate their way through a wrestling career. Unfortunately, the difference between a pro-wrestler living to a ripe old age or dying young appears to be whether they're smart or not. The wrestlers themselves need wising up, because at the end of the day no promoter of any sort gives a shit about their talent. They're only interested in ringing as much cash out of you as they can until you expire.

 

EDIT: And another thing, the fans have no bearing on what happens. Some dude downloading a wrestling match on his PC is not responsible for what happens in a wrestler's life, regardless of what comments or attitude he has about wrestling. To claim even partial responsibility is just a guilt trip.

[S.L.L.]

Pro-wrestlers don't get paid the kind of money that NFL players do, and even then a large number of NFL players wind up broke. It doesn't matter what opportunties you give a person, we're all perfectly capable of fucking up our lives. Even if you made pro-wrestling the safest environment it can be, people would still fuck up, just like you or I are capable of fucking up without the use of steroids or painkillers.

 

The best you can do is provide deterrents, but at the end of the day it's up to the pro-wrestler to navigate their way through a wrestling career. Unfortunately, the difference between a pro-wrestler living to a ripe old age or dying young appears to be whether they're smart or not. The wrestlers themselves need wising up, because at the end of the day no promoter of any sort gives a shit about their talent. They're only interested in ringing as much cash out of you as they can until you expire.

 

EDIT: And another thing, the fans have no bearing on what happens. Some dude downloading a wrestling match on his PC is not responsible for what happens in a wrestler's life, regardless of what comments or attitude he has about wrestling. To claim even partial responsibility is just a guilt trip.

Fans can claim responsibility insofar as they financially support a fucked-up system. No more, no less.

 

I want to say that claiming that wrestling promoters are only interested in wringing money from wrestlers may actually be giving them too much credit, as I honestly don't see how an epidemic of wrestlers dying young is in any way financially beneficial. Want to say they're just reckless, wasteful idiots who put their egos even before their wallets. But I'm not that well educated in this regard...would the cost of keeping wrestlers healthy (or at least something vaguely resembling healthy) really outweigh the long-term costs of grinding your roster into a fine powder so you can make money off of them now?

[Ditch]

Keeping them healthy means some combination of fewer shows, a less-flashy style, and less-flashy physiques. Especially in the case of WWE that's going to mean a lot less profit.

[kjh]

Unfortunately, the difference between a pro-wrestler living to a ripe old age or dying young appears to be whether they're smart or not.

There's a lot of luck involved too, unless you live a clean life like Lance Storm. For every premature death, there's someone who dodged a bullet and is still living.

 

Keeping them healthy means some combination of fewer shows, a less-flashy style, and less-flashy physiques. Especially in the case of WWE that's going to mean a lot less profit.

I don't think that necessarily follows. I think WWE could easily reorganize their company so that they make the same profits while giving their wrestlers more time off, if they set their hearts on it. House shows only contribute about 20% to their total profits and most of that comes disproportionately from their international tours of Europe, Mexico, Puerto Rico and Australia.

[Al]

Just from an unsubstantiated observation, it seems like the biggest immediate concern is wrestlers not receiving adequate medical care after their careers (or time in WWE/WCW, for lack of a better term).

[Ditch]

They're already letting a couple big names not work house shows. They can only put so many on TV, and they need a certain number of matches, so it's kinda difficult to let more than another ~10% of the roster miss the average show. 10% fewer house shows isn't going to cut it as far as significantly reducing wear & tear, so to be realistic we're talking fewer shows. If it's me running things, I have no problem cutting the marginal 15% of house shows a year, which would reduce injuries and let management (Vince) focus more on the TV product. But Vince isn't willing to make that sacrifice to the bottom line, even if it is a small one. Plus it's not always easy to identify which shows are marginal in advance.