Jump to content

Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut


Keith Houchen

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

There's also the point that not all of this behaviour is prosecutable, or strictly illegal. But it's behaviour that would see you disciplined if you tried to get away with it in the workplace, and all we're asking for is consistency.

Taking the example of Travis Banks entering into an abusive relationship with Millie McKenzie while she was 17, and he was her trainer, if he had been a teacher and her a student, that would be illegal. If he had been a youth worker, care worker, or in almost any other position of authority over her, it would be illegal. But the law doesn't currently cover sports coaches. That's likely to change next year, and there's significant political pressure behind that - but in order for wrestling to be covered by that change, it needs to make sure it's part of the conversation.

When we're talking about whether wrestling is a sport or not, it's not some existential question, it's purely about whether or not wrestling schools should be in a position to access the same resources, and be covered by the same protections, as any other training/coaching facility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sports organisations have recognised that it doesn't sit with them , so for all its similarities with actual sports training, reaching out to organisations that aren’t going to touch it is wasting time and effort that could be used to get progress and something meaningful in place. things aren’t moving forward, they are still the same place now as they were before all this. The longer it goes with no change, the less likely any actual change taking place gets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
9 minutes ago, Louch said:

 things aren’t moving forward, they are still the same place now as they were before all this. 

That isn't true, though. One can make arguments about the efficacy of either one, but we're in a position where MPs are seriously looking at regulation of wrestling for the first time since maybe the 1950s, and where wrestlers have the option of union representation for the first time since maybe the '70s. 


A large part of what Equity and the APPG are trying to achieve is to convince either sports organisations or any other governing body that it does sit with them or, if it doesn't, to build some form of governance in its place.

Edited by BomberPat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
3 hours ago, Louch said:

Martial arts are usually a legit competition are they not? If display teams aren’t in a competitive end goal, then yeah that’s not a sport either 

Wrestling is a legit competition until the opponents start assisting each other to pull off intricate feats of athleticism for the sole purpose of entertaining the audience.

Tae Kwon Do is a legit competition until the opponents start assisting each other to pull off intricate feats of athleticism for the sole purpose of entertaining the audience.

Slappy thigh wrestlers don't even pretend their kicks are making contact anymore. Flippy TKD guys doing breaking displays aren't even pretending their kicks are making contact with the sheets of balsa anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

That isn't true, though. One can make arguments about the efficacy of either one, but we're in a position where MPs are seriously looking at regulation of wrestling for the first time since maybe the 1950s, and where wrestlers have the option of union representation for the first time since maybe the '70s. 


A large part of what Equity and the APPG are trying to achieve is to convince either sports organisations or any other governing body that it does sit with them or, if it doesn't, to build some form of governance in its place.

MPs working groups rarely deliver anything, they are opportunities for back benchers to get publicity. Getting anything through parliament that doenst have a wide impact is a different matter from photo shoots by the Thames.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

There are two ways of looking at this and, to an extent, both need to be done.

1 - What needs to happen?

2 - What can be done right now?

Concentrating purely on 'what can be done right now' will mean half-measures that won't address the issues in the way they need to be addressed. Concentrating purely on 'what needs to happen' could mean that you don't take advantage of positive changes that can be made now, with the concern that the larger changes may not happen soon or ever.

Realistically, this time needs to be spent modelling what it needs to look like (and realistically, this does mean convincing governing bodies that this falls under their regulation), while also finding out what funding and infrastructures can be created in the meantime. 

WWE really should be funding some of this. Not having a say in any of it, but they should be fucking throwing money at it, even just for their own self-interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

right, may as well give up then.

Not saying people should give up, but needs to be alternatives being looked at and not everyone expecting this to be the cure all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
10 minutes ago, Chris B said:

WWE really should be funding some of this. Not having a say in any of it, but they should be fucking throwing money at it, even just for their own self-interest. 

Frankly, I want WWE as far removed from this as possible. It bothers me enough to see some of their talent lurking around the outskirts of Equity meetings, given their track record when it comes to unionisation.

8 minutes ago, Louch said:

Not saying people should give up, but needs to be alternatives being looked at and not everyone expecting this to be the cure all 

I don't think there is anyone expecting this to be a cure all, unless I'm really missing something. What people are expecting is for this to be the start of the conversation, which it absolutely is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several conversations to be had though. 
 
training - making training a safe place, and consequences for actions. If not linked to sports, what’s the plan b? And as per example I have provided before, equity don’t make things fully safe, so what’s the back up over and above what they suggest? 

shows - behaviour and safety between fans and talent. Where are the lines here? Banning all interactions won’t work, people who mix in same circles will always make contact and not every wrestler/ fan interaction is toxic so realistic lines need drawn here

retrospective actions- what are the punishments for those spoken about that don't cross the criminal line?  Not all acts are equal, haven’t seen anyone suggest what the levels of punishment are going to be. Where is the line of expulsion and where do those who learn and better themselves come back in if at all? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
29 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

Frankly, I want WWE as far removed from this as possible. It bothers me enough to see some of their talent lurking around the outskirts of Equity meetings, given their track record when it comes to unionisation.

While I understand and agree with that to an extent, a strong oversight group will probably need to be well-funded. WWE could help with that, and it could cause them to have to do more elsewhere as well. I don't think they should have any say at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Louch said:

retrospective actions- what are the punishments for those spoken about that don't cross the criminal line?  Not all acts are equal, haven’t seen anyone suggest what the levels of punishment are going to be. Where is the line of expulsion and where do those who learn and better themselves come back in if at all? 

In a self policing industry, blackballing can occur [as we have seen recently] - in some instances [David Starr, Joey Ryan] that's great. In other instances [Pollyanna] it's really not.  
In an externally regulated industry it is possible that 'lesser offences' would be viewed in the same way disciplinary action etc. are at work and that 'abusers' will still be afforded work after a warning or period of rehabilitation.

Similarly, as we have seen, a self regulated industry means a potential conflict of interest and the 'buddy system' protecting some people and not others where an external company would have no such interest.

It really is a massively complex issue. Ultimately, everybody wants the same thing - the problem is the best way of going about it
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'trainer in a relationship with a student' angle everybody is covering forgets the main issue surrounding it, what constitutes a trainer?

I've seen places advertise 'ALL TRAINERS DBS CHECKED' and that on paper sounds nice but what about Jeff, the top trainee who has been there 2 years? Jeff is often asked to take the beginners aside and show them certain stuff whilst the head trainer takes the rest off for something else. Jeff is both trainee and trainer, but isn't classed as a trainer.

Now if Jeff has a relationship with Susan under the proposed law for pro-wrestling of forbidding teacher/student relationships, Jeff's role is a grey area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...