DJ Kris

Firstly, that article doesn't specifically say anything about roid rage being to blame for the Benoit deaths. It says that "it is feared" that that Benoit was under the influence of steroids when he killed his family. That much is true. The rest of the article is about the legitimate problems that steroids are linked to, and merely uses the Benoit issue to bring things into sharper focus. Really, as long as Vince can defend himself against blame for so many wrestlers' deaths by saying "hardly any of them were working for me at the time," and yet ignore the fact that the likes of Crash Holly and Mike Awesome had only been out of the company a very short time, or that 90% of Davey Boy Smith's non-British career was with the WWF, it's going to be a real struggle to change anything at all.

While you busy holding Vince McMahon (and the WWE fans) responsible for all these deaths, how about you mention the fact that while Bulldog spent a lot of his career in WWF, he actually had a serious pain killer addiction stemming from the back injury he sustained in WCW. In fact if I recall correctly Vince McMahon paid for him to go into rehab while back in WWF, he didn't get clean and refused to go back in so Vince released him.Earlier someone mentioned Chris Candido, now while he may have worked for Vince in the past, the fact is he suffered an injury in a TNA ring, an injury that led to a blood clot that killed him, so his past in WWE played no part in that.I accept that to some WWE IS wrestling, but surely we should know better?

There was a massive steroid scandal (you may have read about it!!!!!) that led to them getting rid of the LOD, Hulk Hogan, Bulldog and others, and they put the belt on a far more normal looking guy to try and divert some of the heat.and???They did that because they had to, not due to a change in tactics that Vince just decided on. The fucking Feds were on their case. So, yes, they focused on Hart and Michaels for a bit, then when things settled down again they re-hired Hogan, Sid, Bulldog, LOD and many others.

I think you need to really look at your time frame on this somewhat.

Can anyone give a bit of a rundown? It's hard for me to listen to interviews properly at work.

Why would he throw in the bit about her being into devil worship then? If he wasnt trying to shift the goalposts? Sure he said devil worship was part of her character, but that she was someone who gets into her character too much - believes her own publicity. Thats clearly implying that she was into devil worship outside of wrestling too.

I've no idea why he said that, but then I don't know what questions he wa asked. I'm pretty sure he wasn't just asked for a statement, he must have been asked specific questions, for example what was Nancy like in WCW? Well that could logically lead to that answer. Or perhaps "Well she was really into her part" at which point he maybe asked in what way or to give an example and there you have your quote. You have to remember that the quotes we see there are likely part of a larger interview and don't really give a picture of the conversation taking place. Lots of actors/actresses like to get really into the parts and in some cases become the part for the duration they are playing it, it's really not uncommon. What he said only implies that she did this stuff for her character and chose to really get into it and continue it away from WCW, something that likely stopped when the character did.

So what was so terrible about his comments? The hypocrisy was obvious, but aside from that there was nothing particularly bad, at least not from the small quote on here.

"Nancy was to blame because she was into devil worshipping stuff" doesn't seem bad to you?

It would be if that's what he actually said, but it wasn't, at least not from the quotes on here.

Lets see...

Wrestling superstar Hulk Hogan was shocked when the WWE

So what was so terrible about his comments? The hypocrisy was obvious, but aside from that there was nothing particularly bad, at least not from the small quote on here.

"Nancy was to blame because she was into devil worshipping stuff" doesn't seem bad to you?

It would be if that's what he actually said, but it wasn't, at least not from the quotes on here.

And just as a finishing point - Hogan's comments made me want to vomit. Okay, he wasn't the only one, but he springs to mind. I hope they bury him in something flame-retardant. He'll need it.

So what was so terrible about his comments? The hypocrisy was obvious, but aside from that there was nothing particularly bad, at least not from the small quote on here.

No, I've very specifically made a point of not saying wrestling is "to blame" or "responsible" for any of the deaths. As I said, there are very few careers of any kind where you can specifically point to the job as the direct cause of deaths.But clearly the whole package of being a wrestler (working matches, injuries, painkillers, star status, travel schedule, body building drugs, recreational drug abuse) contributes to making it more likely that a wrestler will die early.

Surely the point of the article was to highlight the problems with Wrestling and to further the argument that something needs to be done, in which case, those accidental deaths don't really support the arguement in the same way that heart attack deaths may do and while you made a point of not saying wrestling was responsible or to blame, you also didn't point out that it wasn't in certain deaths. I think a lot of people reading that article at this point it time would come away with the impression that most of the 104 would still be alive had it not been for their involvement in this profession.

A car accident can happen anywhere at any time regardless of your job so to create in link to pro-wrestling as really clutching at straws and grossly unfair to the profession.

I disagree. Yes, a car accident can happen any time BUT somebody who regularly drives very long distances in the early hours of the morning (literally thousands of miles a week in the territory days, usually requiring very high speed) is much more likely to have a crash than somebody who drives a couple of miles to and from work in rush hour traffic.

So you've established a link (assuming those accidents happened to or from something wrestling related) but are you seriously suggesting that wrestling is therefore to blame or responsible for those accidents?

With the part-timers, I don't think you can really make any analysis as there's such a varying degree of involvement in the business.With the full-timers, it's not clear-cut because (unlike, say, motor racing drivers crashing) wrestling is more likely to contribute rather than directly cause a death. There are very few cases where you can directly state that wrestling was directly to blame for a death, but similarly there are very few cases where you can say it definitely played no role whatsoever. Originally the piece was going to break it down that way, and it was simply impossible to say.On one hand, you can take pretty much any of the heart attack or overdose deaths and say that they could well have happened even had the guy never wrestled. But on the other hand, you can take some of the purely accidental deaths like the crashes of Brady Boone or Adrian Adonis and point out that they were much more at risk of a crash because they drove far more often, far longer and late at night.

With the heart attack victims I'm sure it could be argued that it may have happened anyway, but there is at least enough evidence to say their lifestyle played a prominant role. A car accident can happen anywhere at any time regardless of your job so to create in link to pro-wrestling as really clutching at straws and grossly unfair to the profession. there's also a lot of unknown causes, which again you can't link to pro-wrestling because you have no idea what it was.My feeling is that it was a very good article but would have been much more balanced had it pointed out the difference rather than give the uninformed the impression that wrestling is responsible for all these deaths.

Yeah it was a good read, it certainly made clear that all of wrestlings problems don't lie at WWE's feet, however what it didn't point out is that it would be unfair to like 74 of those deaths to Pro-Wrestling. That's not including people who commited suicide or died of aneurysm and other such brain related problems. I did however, include Mike Awesome since he'd already left the business and made a new life for himself.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2003560001-2007310067,00.html" Sun article on the wrestling death toll of the past 20 years://http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,...e past 20 years://http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,...e past 20 years.

It's not coming up, can you cut and paste?

warrior interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TLdhN886Io

I'm suprised at the direction that interview took. I was expecting Warrior to bury WWE, but he didn't, he gave his honest opinion, and I've gotta respect him for that. He also made some good points, it's just a shame the interviews did their best to ignore these.

Not good, he openly said the testing was a ruse (He made that one perfectly clear), and the roids are pretty much common in pro wrestling.

How the fuck would he know?On the subject of not watching WWE out of protest, surely that's completely pointless unless you have a barb box or whatever the hell they call them? I would suggest I more effective protect would be not to attend the live events. Even then, chances are, you'll be the one sat at home missing out, while someone else comes along and buys the seat you would have had.

What sounds better for them?"Benoit his son" or "Benoit choked his son to death"or"Benoit used his trademark wrestling move the "Crippler Crossface" to kill his son"

They both sound the same because they both translate as "Benoit killed his 7 year old son"

I can except that it's parhaps all the same to you, but can you except that it isn't to a lot of other people? After all, if there was no different there would be no story in using his finisher to kill his son.

Good god are you serious? That is slander you know! If it was Kevin Sullivan then how did he get out of the house? If i recall correctly the house was all locked up from the inside which makes it certain that the killer (Benoit) was in the house.

Didn't one of the text messages Benoit sent state that the garage side door was open?Does anyone have a direct quote from Meltzer saying that Benoit used a cross face type move? and a quote from the police that supports it? I'd also like to see a direct quote from Meltzer saying someone in WWE told him prior to Raw that Benoit killed them, because frankly I don't believe nor do I see how WWE knew at that time.

Can anyone post me a link to a direct quote where the investigators say they are investigating the posibility that the murder's were a result of roid rage?They just played a clip on Radio 1 of Vince McMahon from ECW last night. Why are people calling this an appology? He didn't appologise for anything, nor should he.

WWE Chairman Vince McMahon will apologize for the three-hour USA Network tribute to pro wrestler Chris Benoit that aired Monday night, sources said.The WWE and USA Network have received complaints about the tribute, which was hastily produced after Mr. Benoit, his wife and their son were found dead in their Georgia home Monday afternoon.

He has absolutely nothing to appologise for regarding that show. Aside from Chris Benoit the performer deserving a tribute, the facts were not known at the time, so to complain about or to appologise for something that was done prior to these facts coming out is just wrong.As for the roid rage, I think WWE's statement is fair, the media seem to be using roid rage in circumstances that just don't fit.Anyway I'm tired, it's been yet another late night and regardless of how some feel, personally I think this is a very tragic and sad situation where 3 people needlessly died.

Vince will protect his company first before anything. That is why I'm a little surprised he isn't taking a week off at the very least and not having the ECW/Smackdown show tonight go ahead.

He has a responsibility to broadcasters to provide a certain amount of original TV, so just dropping tapings like that isn't so easy. I was suprised they did it, I can only assume no one was up to it.EDIT: Regarding the Vince memorial, before everyone get's up in arms, it's not that they've replaced Benoit, with Vince, it's just that they've rolled back to page to before the update, back to when Raw was still to be a memorial to Vince. It means very little.

Now would be a good time to dip into that extensive video library though. I'm sure they would get away with filling one episode of Smackdown as a 'Best of.....' and actually putting the best matches on it.

That wouldn't be original TV though. Nor would it do anything to the thousand who expect to attend. Remember it's not just Smackdown, it's ECW they tape on the same show.

Vince will protect his company first before anything. That is why I'm a little surprised he isn't taking a week off at the very least and not having the ECW/Smackdown show tonight go ahead.

He has a responsibility to broadcasters to provide a certain amount of original TV, so just dropping tapings like that isn't so easy. I was suprised they did it, I can only assume no one was up to it.EDIT: Regarding the Vince memorial, before everyone get's up in arms, it's not that they've replaced Benoit, with Vince, it's just that they've rolled back to page to before the update, back to when Raw was still to be a memorial to Vince. It means very little.

As the WWE has only in the past given passed wrestlers a single memorial show i would be surprised if they changed that in this circumstance.

When Eddie passed away, both Raw and SmackDown were memorial shows.

I appreciate what you are saying here but things are a bit different with Benoit's. There is a large cloud hanging over this one. i think whoever stated they should take a few weeks off has got it spot on. This means they don't do anything thay may embarass them in the future, it gives the other wrestlers time to come to terms with this and lastly (and less importantly) it gives Creative the time to come up with a totally new direction.

More than just that though, both Raw and Smackdown were being filmed on the day Eddie died, so they really had little choice.

It depends on how strongly his friends lobby for that to not happen.I agree with the poster above who said that for your very close friends or family, it doesn't matter what they've done, you'd still support them and fight for them. I hope that those who spoke so tearfully on Raw will fight for the memory of his career to last even if his life ended so tragically and, apparently, dishonourably.

If my friend had killed his own family then I would never want to be associated with that person again.

Then perhaps you're not as close to your friends as you think you are? That's not really a dig, it'd be a pretty big thing to stand by them through, but I couldn't turn my back on someone when they needed me the most because they suffered some sort of breakdown. Now when that person is also dead, it's got to be so much harder.

There are other things you could do rather than killing your seven year old son, if a friend of mine did that then no way would I try to defend or justify their actions. It's sick and demented.

Who said anything about defending or justifying? That's not the point at all.

It depends on how strongly his friends lobby for that to not happen.I agree with the poster above who said that for your very close friends or family, it doesn't matter what they've done, you'd still support them and fight for them. I hope that those who spoke so tearfully on Raw will fight for the memory of his career to last even if his life ended so tragically and, apparently, dishonourably.

If my friend had killed his own family then I would never want to be associated with that person again.

Then perhaps you're not as close to your friends as you think you are? That's not really a dig, it'd be a pretty big thing to stand by them through, but I couldn't turn my back on someone when they needed me the most because they suffered some sort of breakdown. Now when that person is also dead, it's got to be so much harder.

So in essence it is more or less another tribute show?

That's not what they said at all. The report clear said "The attempt to put together a show was difficult because the crew and creative staff were said to be both emotionally and physically wrecked after yesterday." as the reason. I'm sure they intended some sort of memorial and 10 bell solute, but the only way I can see that happening is if the wrestlers still feel it's required, even then Vince may say no.

Something must have happened that put him over the edge. His wife was playing away, or wanted a divorce something along those lines and Benoit Snapped. Something must have caused him to go ape shit.

I think it's almost a given that something pushed him over the edge, but what could be so bad that he felt he had no way out other than to kill himself and take his family with him? So far I think the assumption (if he did this) has been that something caused bad blood between him and Nancy so he killed her, the kid and then himself because he couldn't live with what he's done. Perhaps the suggestion that he was depressed has more merit, perhaps he felt they'd be together on the other side, and finally at the weekend something happened that hit a raw nerve. Or maybe it was just simple vengance.

I was thinking at lunch about whether his peers and such would lose the respect they have for him. I imagine some will, but I actually think it's easier to lose respect if you don't know someone, because the bad stuff quickly overshadows the good.If you did know them and perhaps even loved them, something that was catastrophically bad but out of character might not blot their copy book so much. Then again, how could you ever, ever, ever justify or respect someone who killed their child?

The way I see it, I have quite a few mates, but only a very small group who I would consider myself really close to, people I've known most of my life. If anyone of those got themselves into a situation, whatever it was, I'd stand by them and hope they would me. If something happens that results in you killing your family, at that point surely you need help more than anything?Something I've been thinking about alot, is the stories that say Daniel was killed on the Sunday evening. Some reports have suggested that Chris Benoit sent these text messages on Sunday morning. If all that's correct, then if someone had acted sooner, whether that be the person who got the texts or the police it was reported to, both Daniel and Chris may still be alive. I just can't seem to shift that though.