Ashley Massaro Dead at 39

[The Gaffer]

Not had the Network for awhile. It's mad, my days were full of invasive thoughts of resubbing, but there's no chance of that happening now. My mentality is probably closest to that of Rick's. WWE just have a content stranglehold on so many moments that fizz and whir with an overwhelming nostalgia in my brain that to not have it is quite the change. I'm pottering around during work watching YouTubers who are only alright, getting myself optimistic about AEW where I normally wouldn't be arsed, I even got a month trial of Impact Plus for fuck sake. Does anyone really want to relive entire TNA ppvs? 

I'm finished with these lousy pricks, though. I wonder if I'll even make it to the NXT tent at Download next month for what amounts to a free show. They can sanitize themselves all they want but Vince is still clearly in control of this vanity project, and the contracts are still something my dad would give me a clatter around the head for signing my name away on. 

In a weird way my best wrestling memory of the year is seeing the UKFF not just get up in arms, but busy itself with getting this story out there more. Well done, chaps. 

[IANdrewDiceClay]

15 minutes ago, Chris B said:

Anyone have a copy of how Meltzer covered it?

 

[unfitfinlay]

Does anyone have a list of WWE's current sponsors? I can't cancel the network, because I already did, but I can certainly stop drinking Coke. Or eating Mars Bars, and I'm more than happy to let those companies know why I'm doing it.

[DEF]

Surely Meltzer can't just bury her now it's in a legally binding affidavit. It HAS to be taken seriously. It SHOULD have been taken seriously the first time round.

[PJ Power]

Something just hit me about Ashley Massaro and that fake Stephanie McMahon twitter account from about four years ago. Given what she has spoken about during and beyond her time as an "independent contractor" at the WWE, why did she respond to the fake invite to Raw the way she did? In hindsight, the way she had responded in that incident is now a fair bit less amusing given what is now out in the open.

[RedRooster]

1 hour ago, Chris B said:

I'd include most wrestling journalists in this. It needs to be picked up by mainstream journalists. This isn't a Meltzer thing.

It was the same during the Me Too movement. Wrestling journalists let most accusers down by completely ignoring their allegations. They should be leading the charge, creating a noise that mainstream journos can’t (or at least shouldn’t) fail to notice.

 

[Loki]

53 minutes ago, PJ Power said:

Something just hit me about Ashley Massaro and that fake Stephanie McMahon twitter account from about four years ago. Given what she has spoken about during and beyond her time as an "independent contractor" at the WWE, why did she respond to the fake invite to Raw the way she did? In hindsight, the way she had responded in that incident is now a fair bit less amusing given what is now out in the open.

Because for many ex WWE stars, the Fed is still they're best chance of a pay day.  They're almost the only show  in town.  So you eat shit and like it - Roddy Piper said as much  

[d-d-d-dAz]

Following it online is fairly interesting.

It seems as if, unprompted, they released a 7month old email from Ashley to the press. A) that’s a fucked up thing to do, B) they fucking KNEW this could blow up in their face and C) the email doesn’t invalidate the original claims in any way. 

What’s sticking in my throat is that before this became a storm on twitter, they were prepared to release that knowing they could be potentially implicated in driving a young woman to take such drastic action. If you know it’s THAT bad, help her... don’t arrange your alibi.

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by d-d-d-dAz

[Chris B]

Begun to get some traction. Had some people pushing the narrative that she was a liar, as proved by her apology, and that the lawyers aren't the best source. Also had someone dm me that WWE killed her and covered it up, which just goes to show how much people will try and prank even in situations like this. But most people seem upset and angry.

[garynysmon]

Every now and then I subscribe to the network for a few months just for the ease of watching old TNT shows or PPV's etc without arsing around with torrents.

If truth be known I've never really liked doing so as I feel it 'legitimises' their current product, which is about as far from what I enjoy as you can get. 

But after reading all of that? Good grief...

Fuck 'em, just cancelled (again).

Edited May 19, 2019 by garynysmon

[David]

21 hours ago, Chris B said:

They also rehired Maria Kanellis the year after Massaro's testimony. I don't think Jimmy Hart works there any more, but I can't see him ever rocking the boat. I almost tweeted Foley, considering his past with supporting RAINN, but who am I kidding? Nobody who has a stake in it is going to confirm this story.

The problem with this story isn't so much that it paints WWE in a bad light, as I'm sure there's more than a few journos and public figures who'd have no qualms going after them if they figured it was worthwhile doing, the big sticking point here is that anyone who covers this is going to have to run the risk of appearing critical of the US armed forces.

Anyone who has experienced US society firsthand knows how much of a touchy subject that can be, where even attending a sporting event and refusing to acknowledge the obligatory armed forces personnel that they wheel out at every fucking opportunity is enough to see you branded with treason.

If this thing is swept under the carpet or blatantly ignored it won't be because of a reluctance to shine a light on WWE, it'll be because absolutely no one will want to be seen as critical of those who "put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedom."

[Otto Dem Wanz]

8 minutes ago, David said:

The problem with this story isn't so much that it paints WWE in a bad light, as I'm sure there's more than a few journos and public figures who'd have no qualms going after them if they figured it was worthwhile doing, the big sticking point here is that anyone who covers this is going to have to run the risk of appearing critical of the US armed forces.

Anyone who has experienced US society firsthand knows how much of a touchy subject that can be, where even attending a sporting event and refusing to acknowledge the obligatory armed forces personnel that they wheel out at every fucking opportunity is enough to see you branded with treason.

If this thing is swept under the carpet or blatantly ignored it won't be because of a reluctance to shine a light on WWE, it'll be because absolutely no one will want to be seen as critical of those who "put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedom."

Really? I'm not sure the US media operates on that basis at all - how did people find out about the atrocities that went on at Abu Ghraib? And that was in the middle of a war.

[LCJ]

Someone has already tweeted Foley about this. I also wondered whether because this involves the US Armed Forces, then that might make US Media in particular less likely to want to report anything.

[Hannibal Scorch]

Well, skimming the results of MITB it seems like it was indeed the perfect time to cancel subscriptions with this going on. Missing nothing. I used to share an account with my best mate, but I share this with him yesterday and cancelled it.

[David]

22 minutes ago, Otto Dem Wanz said:

Really? I'm not sure the US media operates on that basis at all - how did people find out about the atrocities that went on at Abu Ghraib? And that was in the middle of a war.

The Abu Ghraib story first came to light in November 2003 when the AP ran with it, and the US military even officially recognised and acknowledged it in early 2004. At that point there was virtually zero interest from the US media.

We'd seen an announcement by the military of an official investigation, the announcement of 17 soldiers being suspended, and charges filed against six of them being announced, all which took place over the course of three months with no significant coverage in the mainstream press.

When photographs eventually surfaced 60 Minutes planned to run a story on the issue, simply because it had become common knowledge then that with the photographs out there in the public it was just a matter of time before it became "a thing" and the only question now was which media outlet would get the credit and the publicity of running it first. And even then the Department of Defence managed to get the story delayed by weeks.

It's blatantly clear that this was a story that no one wanted to fucking touch, and only did so when the toothpaste was already out of the tube, so to speak.

Also, this was a situation involving what Conservative media painted as "prisoners of war," and soldiers who were operating under extreme mental stress, not to mention the old "all is fair in love and war" scenario that was hinted at.

This Massaro situation is totally different, and in many ways could be way more damaging in my opinion.

We're not talking about faceless brown men who were claimed to have picked up arms against the US, and as such were seen by many as "fair game," we're talking about accusing US armed forces of facilitating the rape of a white, blonde, US-born semi-celebrity female who was under their protection.

Edited May 20, 2019 by David