US Senator recommends steriod regulations

[geniusMoment 0]

U.S. government senator Henry Waxman issued a letter to the Officer of the National Drug Control Policy dated today with a recommendation that pro wrestling organizations, namely WWE and TNA, have not effectively dealt with pro wrestling's steroids issue.

 

After conducting interviews with WWE's Vince and Stephanie McMahon and TNA's Dixie Carter, Waxman concluded: "the information provided during interviews indicate that steroid use is pervasive in professional wrestling and that the organizations involved have not taken adequate steps to address this problem."

 

The letter reveals that during WWE's first year of steroid testing under the new Wellness Policy, 40 percent of wrestlers tested positive for steroid use "even after being warned in advance that they were going to be tested."

 

Subsequently, regular exemptions were made to lax the policy. Dr. David Black, the independent third party hired to administer the drug testing policy, became fed up with the program and WWE's handling of it.

 

Waxman quoted Dr. Black that "it was becoming difficult to deal with talent who were being suspended" and he was "unaccustomed to programs that suspend and you're not suspended," referring to WWE amending the policy that a violation of the policy would lead to certain suspensions, but not from PPV and live TV.

 

Related to TNA, the letter from Mr. Waxman states that when TNA installed its drug testing policy 12 months ago, 15 out of 60 wrestlers tested positive for steroid use and an additional 11 wrestlers tested positive for other drugs.

 

Waxman concludes: "The evidence obtained by the Oversight Committee indicates that illegal use of steroids and other drugs in professional wrestling is a serious problem that the wrestling organizations are not effectively addressing."

 

He recommends the National Drug Control division "examine steroid use in professional wrestling and take appropriate steps to address this problem."

 

--------

 

I must have missed it, is Black gone from WWE? After that quote he will be gone if he isn't already.

 

Note from Venkman - Here's the link to all of the interview documents and what have ye: http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2298

[JPopStarKami 0]

Good, maybe there will finally be some real changes now.

[DerangedHermit 0]

Not a senator, but a member of the House of Representatives.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Waxman is one guy I wouldn't want on my ass either. Vince also took some heat for claiming that he doesn't have to take part in wellness testing. Maybe that's why he's been written off for so long...

 

Only way to cut the pot numbers without spiking painkillers/drinking is to have an off-season. I still contend that WM could be the "season finale" if pushed back to late April, with Summer Slam the "Season Premiere".

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

Waxman is one guy I wouldn't want on my ass either. Vince also took some heat for claiming that he doesn't have to take part in wellness testing. Maybe that's why he's been written off for so long...

 

Only way to cut the pot numbers without spiking painkillers/drinking is to have an off-season. I still contend that WM could be the "season finale" if pushed back to late April, with Summer Slam the "Season Premiere".

 

Yeah, no. That would never work. Mandatory time off for all talents? Maybe.

[Turbo Lion 0]

My guess is the Summer is far too lucrative for Vince to even fathom any kind of break.

[spman 0]

An "off season" so to speak would never happen in a million years. It would result in millions of dollars in lost revenue that would destroy a publically traded company like WWE. The only reasonable solution is rotating schedules where guys get say 3 or 4 months off at a time. Maybe use it to extend the brand split, give RAW a vacation for a few months and have an extra Smackdown / ECW show every week on Mondays, then give Smackdown / ECW a vacation for a few months while RAW gets the Tuesday and Friday night slots. If WWE had a much deeper roster than they currently do, this would work fine, but given the fact that they don't, and contractual obligation they have for advertisers and television networks, it will never happen.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

They could work less house shows. All that traveling around the world can't be good for them.

[LuckyLopez 0]

Giving time off wouldn't require an offseason or a whole brand laying back. It would just take some planning and organization to cycle guys around. For example, if you determined that Cena, HHH, Orton, Batista, Taker, and HBK were the top 6 guys in the company than you work out a schedule. Cena and HHH have off April to June, Orton and Batista have off July to September, Taker and HBK have off October to December. January to March would be the mandatory on time where the whole roster was available from Rumble to Mania, in theory making that period more special thanks to a larger roster and creating automatic "returns" for the Rumble. You'd have to work down the roster to break it up.

 

You could cut the breaks from 3 months to 2 if that seemed reasonable, thus meaning you could fit in 4 cycles and have less guys missing from the roster. If Cena got hurt in July after he returned from his break then you could adjust the schedule to have Orton return a month early but grab a month of rest somewhere else when HBK returns a month early. If you planned it all out very well then it could improve the product by keeping wrestlers away from each other for large periods of time and building anticipation for matchups. It would open doors for midcarders to punch through into the main event, it would make it harder for a guy like Punk to be lost in the shuffle, and if you happened to make a new star in April than the combination of the breaks and cross brand stuff could mean he'd go 6 months before facing off against a big star.

 

It would take organization and planning and it would take a certain level of commitment. It might even end up killing the brand split but that's basically dead as is. But if they ever decided they wanted to do it they could do it without having to take months off and losing a ton of money. Of course giving talent time off risks diluting the product but forcing yourself to be without key stars for a certain amount of time also forces yourself to elevate and use new talent. Such a plan would probably require the Tag, IC, and US title divisions being handled better. It would take a large change in booking since WWE is all about the main event stars, but if they wanted to it could be done.

 

Of course they don't want to so its moot. I just think that even as pointless as it is to discuss an "off season" it should be noted that you don't need to give EVERYONE the same vacation and close up shop in order to make sure everyone gets the same amount of rest.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

This got posted over at DVDVR, but here's a link to a bunch of interviews, policies, etc. used in the investigation.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Lucky, I understand your premise but don't think you could have off-time for all wrestlers because how would that work inside the story? Would all be written out because of injuries/suspensions or would it simply become part of the story that wrestlers needed mandatory time off?

 

I think Brands would have to take the time off, but I agree you could cycle it something like this -

 

Raw - August - May (June and July off)

SD! - Dec - Sept (October and Nov off)

ECW - April - Jan (Feb and March off)

 

Raw and SD! would overlap Dec to May which would be WM Build-up between RR and WM. If WM was pushed back into April, then all three brands could take part, with it opening ECW's season and Basically closing Raws.

 

 

 

[Atticus Chaos 0]

I've heard somebody say Vince's interview was like a mob boss on trial, which is spot on. The lawyer kept interupting, he was so defensive, and, the promo at the end was cringeworthy.

 

Stephanie came off well, even if a few of her answers were quite suspect.

[LuckyLopez 0]

Wrestlers disappear routinely so I don't know that it would be a big issue. I honestly don't think it would be a problem to just leave it out there and let people assume the truth. "So-and-so is taking time off to rest and be with his family." But even if you wanted to keep kayfabe sure, you could write people out with injuries, suspensions, and other stories. It would make it a bit more involved but not that much more difficult, as long as you didn't get too redundant with stories.

 

I mean I get your point. It could become overly gimmicky and redundant if a dozen guys were suspended or injured on August 31st and then all recovered/returned January 1st. But I don't think it takes too much more effort to do it a bit more casually. Undercard wrestlers disappear from TV all the time. We've seen a number of midcarders and main eventers take time off after a story finishes up (like Edge when Taker "sent him to hell"). How many guys just disappear for months on end after the Draft, some we STILL haven't seen surface on their brands and a guy like Deuce Snuka who went forever. Its a bit harder to make that top 3rd of the WWE roster disappear but with Orton punting people in the head and Taker sending people to hell and HBK wanting time away with his family... I honestly don't think its THAT hard to do.

 

The problem with the brand cycling is that it screws with WWE's money and their TV schedules. ECW can't take up the house show slack for RAW when they have off and USA certainly wouldn't want to lose RAW for 2 months nor take ECW in exchange. There's complications with a general roster cycling but they seem MUCH bigger with entire brand cycling. Losing half a dozen guys from RAW at most, 2 or 3 who had serious roles, threatens to dilute the RAW product a bit. Something which can be lessened a bit with the cross branding they've done the last couple of years.

 

And of course there are other ways to play it. Santino could take his 3 months off and still fly in every Monday to cut a promo. JBL could take his 3 months off but still sit in on announcing. Regal could take his and be acting commishioner. Orton could be the mouth piece for Legacy. Or WWE could even fly CM Punk in every other Monday to wrestle a 8 minute match and keep him fresh in our minds even if he doesn't have an active story. As long as they're still getting 6 days a week off and not living that brutal travel schedule.

 

And really, in the brand cycling it seems like you HAVE to just acknowledge to the audience that an entire brand needs time off to rest in their "offseason." So if you're willing to do it there then I see no big reason not to just be able to say "Randy Orton is taking time off after his failed bid to win back the title to rest up some injuries and regroup."

 

Its certainly not an idea without complications or risks to the WWE product. It just strikes me as much less disruptive than full blown offseasons for brands or the roster as a whole. If RAW needs to run for 2 months without Cena and JBL that might hurt them a bit, but it has to be better than doing nothing. And in theory if WWE is competent enough it should lead them to building stronger rosters to compensate.

 

EDIT: But again, I don't believe its any more likely to happen than a full blown offseason. I'm just talking.

[spman 0]

The problem with simply rotating wrestlers in the manner you describe is that it becomes impossible to make any long term plans, particularly in regards to titles. If Cena is the champ, and everyone knows his time off is coming, then everyone also can assume that he's going to be dropping the belt as well. Kayfabe may be dead, but a change like that would alter the entire dynamic of what pro wrestling is, and would essentially just change it into a serialized television show.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

Does Raw have to be live every week? If the year round schedule cannot be changed, what about Raw adopting the live/taped schedule that would open up the possibility for more time off/less travel time for the wrestlers.

 

I know this might seem like a digression, however I don't think you can expect wrestlers to work the current pace and schedule and not be on PED's and/or self-medicating to be able to work the grind and thorough the toll it takes on your body.

 

Of course TNA has the much better schedule and had more than it's share of drug users - maybe it's more of a wrestling cultural thing.

 

 

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Honestly, I don't see this being a big problem for WWE. Everyone knows professional wrestling has a steroid problem. It has been a running joke for upwards of 30 years now. The problem is that the general public simply does not care. There is no pressure on Congress to do anything. And if they did, they would encounter several problems. The main problem is that enacting a policy of steroid testing would require the creation of a Federal sporting commission. This is something that boxing has resisted fiercely in the past. Would the general public encourage Congress to spend more money in this economy on something seemingly as unimportant as professional wrestling? Quite the opposite.

 

We all want to see wrestling make changes. But Congress getting involved is not a good thing.

[Thanks for the Fish 0]

But the wwe is not a sport. So it would have to be a commission that would test Broadway actors, movie actors, singers and back-up dancers and stuntmen and the like as well. I don't think some of these old timers in Government realize it's all fake.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

I've heard somebody say Vince's interview was like a mob boss on trial, which is spot on. The lawyer kept interupting, he was so defensive, and, the promo at the end was cringeworthy.

 

I would have to agree. A lot of playing dumb and doing his best to hinder potential sub questions.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

After looking at the Vince interview again, I have to say, I almost want to see McDevitt as an on screen character, now. He does the comedy stooge thing better than Coach ever did.

 

Q In your trial, in the trial of Dr. George Zahorian, you admitted to having used steroids on at least one occasion.

 

Mr. McDevitt. That's false.

 

BY MR. LEVISS:

Q You didn't admit to using steroids?

 

Mr. McDevitt. He didn't even testify in his trial. He didn't have to testify in his trial. We whipped the government's ass in 19 days without putting a witness on. Get your facts right. He didn't testify in the trial.

 

BY MR. LEVISS:

 

Q Is it true that your lawyer in that trial, Ms. Laura Brevetti, submitted that you had received steroids from Dr. Zahorian for personal use?

 

A I believe so.

 

[LuckyLopez 0]

The problem with simply rotating wrestlers in the manner you describe is that it becomes impossible to make any long term plans, particularly in regards to titles. If Cena is the champ, and everyone knows his time off is coming, then everyone also can assume that he's going to be dropping the belt as well. Kayfabe may be dead, but a change like that would alter the entire dynamic of what pro wrestling is, and would essentially just change it into a serialized television show.

Well again, I just think that's more nuanced scheduling. Cena wouldn't HAVE to take a break on April 1st or whenever he was scheduled. He could easily work another month and just come back a month later. If a wrestler was deemed healthy enough he could certainly work an extra grind and go a year or more without time off. A lot of this would be rooted in

 

Setting a frozen schedule and abiding strictly by that would fall apart within 6 months. Wrestlers would get hurt, others would get suspended, others would get hot right before their break was scheduled. Obviously leeway would be needed with such a system. And responsible individuals would have to run it. Doctors who gave responsible and credible health reports, testers who gave legitimate test results, wrestlers who were honest about how they felt, and bookers who handled this all properly. It would be a culture change and would take people paying attention.

 

But at the same time it sounds overly complicated when it really amounts to "every wrestlers gets 2-3 months off a year from the travel schedule." If a wrestler ended up going 10-12 months without a break then there should be someone there keeping track and saying "Hey, you know he worked through his 'break' for booking plans but maybe we should give him some cooling off period." Or a wrestler that has only had 5 months since his break could say "I'm hurting so we might have to move this up." Its wrestling. No one would stay healthy on schedule, suspensions and personal issues wouldn't disappear, and hot runs and good angles would necessitate changing things up.

 

But if 10 wrestlers are "scheduled" to a take a break on April 1st and 8 of them do that helps (in theory) to lessen the wear and tear and need for drugs on the roster as a whole. Then the issue becomes making sure those 2 who kept working don't end up going 18 months without anything resembling a break.

 

Of course the wrestling world isn't too good at self control and discipline, which is basically the problem.

[bob_barron 0]

We all want to see wrestling make changes. But Congress getting involved is not a good thing.

 

Is it a bad thing?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

We all want to see wrestling make changes. But Congress getting involved is not a good thing.

 

Is it a bad thing?

It depends on your perspective. It's possible it could lead to the destruction of the industry. That's unlikely, but how would you react?

[bob_barron 0]

We all want to see wrestling make changes. But Congress getting involved is not a good thing.

 

Is it a bad thing?

It depends on your perspective. It's possible it could lead to the destruction of the industry. That's unlikely, but how would you react?

 

That would never happen, so it's pointless to discuss, since there's too much $ in it.

 

It's obvious that wrestling needs to clean itself up and do something, and I see nothing wrong with Congress looking into it. They should look into it, given the horrifying death rate

[Diamonddust 0]

Stephanie's interview is actually a pretty interesting read, although she seemed to forget her husband's jokes about Chris Masters suddenly looking small. I also got a kick out of the fact the people didn't mention that Stephanie was the one wanting to give Candice Michelle water after her injury.

[Turbo Lion 0]

Vince's actually cracked me up. He was shilling the wellness policy like it was curing cancer in the talent or something. And shilling himself by proxy of WWE for caring so much about the workers that they actually instituted such a policy. And he and his lawyers are fucking crafty.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

What, you don't believe Vince when he says that he has never thought about steroids or the negative effects they might have ever?

[The Metal Maniac 0]

So, Vince is either dumb or a liar. Apparently he knows of no WWE employee ever telling a prospective worker they need to gain weight? Has he not seen Beyond the Mat, where JR tells that rookie that he needs to work on his upper body, and get more muscular, before he can really get "in the hunt"?

[Floridian Cool 0]

Having to take 3-4 months off would also mean lost income (missed PPV payoffs, possible drop in merch sales) for the wrestlers.

[The Niggardly King 0]

WWE has the roster to realistically pull it off. You'd need your core guys (Cena, HHH, Orton, Edge, etc.) to be around a little longer, but you could realistically have guys on the road for 3-4 months, then take a month or two off. Problem is that you'd have to elevate quite a few more guys to an upper card level... shouldn't be a problem, but with the insecurities of a lot of guys on the roster about their placement, and such... that would be a problem.

 

But it's something that's not entirely unrealistic.

[Precious Roy 0]

Is the schedule really all that brutal anymore? It's kind of an outdated cliche.

 

In a typical week there are 3 or 4 days off. There are never shows on Wednesday or Thursday, and with the new Smackdown taping schedule those guys now have every other Tuesday off, and of course the RAW guys always have Tuesday off. A full plate of weekend house shows for one brand is the exception now and not the norm. A brand might go Friday on, Saturday off, Sunday on, or Friday/Saturday on, Sunday off, you get the idea. Occasionally SD has a Monday house show, but when that happens it means they had one less over the weekend or I guess now it would be done in the off week of taping TV.

 

And the loops they work generally make geographic sense. The days of guys crisscrossing the country by air and 12 hour car rides are long gone. The travel is not unreasonable.

 

A quick look at WWE.com tells me RAW this month has 15 live dates, and that's including TV and the Rumble. Smackdown has 14.

 

It's not like guys are constantly on the road and working every night, there is a lot of downtime built into the schedules.

 

Really the easiest thing to do would be to give guys a week off between TV here and there rather than mandatory scheduled months off. A lot of guys wouldn't want that much time off. It would be a lot easier convincing someone to skip the weekend house shows than to sit at home for a month or two off of TV collecting their downside.