The Official UKFF RAW thread (part 2)...

[Snitsky's back acne]

6 hours ago, Supremo said:

Brock Lesnar was implicated in a sex trafficking lawsuit.

Steve Austin beat up his wife and he headlined WrestleMania a couple of years ago. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

10 minutes ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

Steve Austin beat up his wife and he headlined WrestleMania a couple of years ago. 

Not whilst the case was still open.

There's a point with Austin in so much as, do we ever want people to be rehabilitated after a crime, or where we set our personal bar... but ultimately he was charged with a crime, pleaded no contest, took a punishment and then returned to work. 

I've got much less of an issue with that, however unsavoury, than I do someone being implicated in this case which is an open, festering sore on the face of the business and returning whilst it's going on without any resolution. It's almost like they'd be using the TV shows to normalise his presence and allow people to start minimising the allegations against the business and him.

No, let there be some form of resolution and then a decision can be made about whether he's coming back. Having him back now would just feel gross.

[RIDDUM_N_STYLE]

14 hours ago, Supremo said:

 

There was a ridiculously noticeable edit in the Jade match, where something must have gone wrong. A mad, jarring camera cut, and everyone had suddenly teleported about five feet. Something straight out of Smackdown on Sky One on Saturday morning in 2001. They should have cut to that one fella in the crowd they’d always use when a weapon shot landed. That Performance Center, eh? Continues to do wonders for Jade, who seemingly gets worse the more time she spends there.

 

 

There’s video around from the taping last week of that edit, Bianca and Jade are set up to do a combo move onto Kairi, who moves with good amount of timing to the champs making it appear Jade’s slammed Bianca for no reason in a case of bad timing/communication

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

At no time did I debate whether bringing Lesnar back is ethical or not. I'm just saying what I think will happen or could happen.

If you don't think Lesnar is coming back, and when he does, the crowd will go insane, then you have no idea what a shitty world wrestling is. It's going to happen.

And the serial domestic abuser Steve Austin comparison is fair regardless of if he said "sowwy" and got a slap on the wrist for it (one year probation, 80 hours community service, and $1K fine). Hell not that long ago everyone on Twitter and the UKFF were commiserating the passing of a multi time attempted serial killer (who may of actually of killed someone at some point) in New Jack because he had ace music. 

Lesnar, who as far as I am aware is NOT being investigated, receiving nudie pics and video is so low on the wrestling ethical totem pole a toddler could touch it. He's already been referenced on TV, he's tied in to Heyman who has to be returning at some point 

Wrestling is gross and Lesnar is totally coming back sooner rather than later.

 

[RedTwoster]

8 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

At no time did I debate whether bringing Lesnar back is ethical or not. I'm just saying what I think will happen or could happen.

If you don't think Lesnar is coming back, and when he does, the crowd will go insane, then you have no idea what a shitty world wrestling is. It's going to happen.

I think, if he came back today, he would receive a very positive reaction - I don’t disagree with you there. But he’s tied into the Vince McMahon investigation in a way that makes an imminent return seem highly unlikely. They’d have to be absolutely certain that there was no evidence that Lesnar thought what was going on was anything other than consensual, and until there’s progression in the case, I can’t see that happening. Everything is going extremely well for WWE right now - they don’t need to bring him back, so why would they risk it? A returning Lesnar is more likely to cause problems at this stage than it is give them any sort of boost. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

8 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

At no time did I debate whether bringing Lesnar back is ethical or not. I'm just saying what I think will happen or could happen.

If you don't think Lesnar is coming back, and when he does, the crowd will go insane, then you have no idea what a shitty world wrestling is. It's going to happen.

And the serial domestic abuser Steve Austin comparison is fair regardless of if he said "sowwy" and got a slap on the wrist for it (one year probation, 80 hours community service, and $1K fine). Hell not that long ago everyone on Twitter and the UKFF were commiserating the passing of a multi time attempted serial killer (who may of actually of killed someone at some point) in New Jack because he had ace music. 

Lesnar, who as far as I am aware is NOT being investigated, receiving nudie pics and video is so low on the wrestling ethical totem pole a toddler could touch it. He's already been referenced on TV, he's tied in to Heyman who has to be returning at some point 

Wrestling is gross and Lesnar is totally coming back sooner rather than later.

 

'Nudie pics and videos' is an insane way to categorise what happened to Janel Grant, a suspected victim of the worst kind of coercion, abuse and trafficking.

It's a federal investigation into whether a young woman was forced to send 'nudie pics and videos' by a man who she alleges raped, abused and trafficked her, and Brock Lesnar has been named in the lawsuit as a knowing contributor to this cycle of abuse and someone Vince intended to traffic her to. I think it's natural as a viewer to want to know what the law makes of it all before you go back to laughing at how purple he gets after a few suplexes.

And the Austin situation isn't perfect, but it's a resolution through the courts. Which is about as good as you can ask for. Once you start saying THAT doesn't matter, then it's a completely moral free-for-all where you go 'fuck it, who cares'.

And I think people do care, a bit. I'd like the Janel Grant thing to reach a conclusion so the law, and then audience can make up its mind as to who is fine to crack in with their wrestling career.

Edited Wednesday at 07:29 AM by d-d-d-dAz

[Snitsky's back acne]

8 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

 

If you don't think Lesnar is coming back, and when he does, the crowd will go insane, then you have no idea what a shitty world wrestling is. It's going to happen.

 

Absolutely.

We might like to think 'Oh wrestling had Speaking Out, it's better now'. It's not. All it did was move a few guys who were low on the totem pole to personal training, MMA or Mexico. It didn't solve anything. 

Wrestling is a sport where Superfly Jimmy Snuka murdered his girlfriend and still worked for 20 more years. It's an industry where Will Ospreay used his influence to blacklist a female wrestler who accused his mate of rape but, because he does cool moves, we conveniently forget that. It's a business where convicted wife beater Steve Austin headlined WrestleMania and convicted rapist Mike Tyson was used in angles as recently as a few years ago. 

It's a cesspool and we all know it but we love it and watch it all the same. We excuse certain acts and condemn others based on our own moral compass and fandom. 'Yeah Hogans a racist. Fuck him. He was shit and I never liked him anyway! What's that....? Austin beat his wife up? Well, he got done for it and he likes cats now so I guess he can't be too bad. Plus he was a much better worker than Hogan ever was!' 

Lesnar's indiscretions are minor league in comparison to what wrestling has excused in the past and many fans don't live on the internet so don't know what he is accused of.

If there is money to be made, a wrestler will get booked. Bad publicity only goes so far because it's wrestling - the mainstream media has more important things to worry about. 

Edited Wednesday at 07:48 AM by Snitsky's back acne

[LaGoosh]

8 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

Hell not that long ago everyone on Twitter and the UKFF were commiserating the passing of a multi time attempted serial killer (who may of actually of killed someone at some point) in New Jack because he had ace music. 

Hell yeah he did! He also was a great promo, character, decent brawler and did lots of fun balcony dives. But yeah, definitely not someone I'd want to go for a pint with.

[andrew "the ref" coyne]

1 hour ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

'Nudie pics and videos' is an insane way to categorise what happened to Janel Grant, a suspected victim of the worst kind of coercion, abuse and trafficking.

You are blatantly misconstruing what I said there. As far as Lesnar is concerned HE was guilty of receiving nudes and videos.

There's has been very little if anything to imply Lesnar himself was directly involved with coercion, abuse or trafficking directly to Janel Grant.

Does that make him a saint? God no. In fact it's very scummy and gross.

But it's McMahon who has been accused of coersion, abuse and trafficking. Not Lesnar. 

For the record what happened to Janel Grant was horrific.

[d-d-d-dAz]

Just now, andrew "the ref" coyne said:

You are blatantly misconstruing what I said there. As far as Lesnar is concerned HE was guilty of receiving nudes and videos.

There's has been very little if anything to imply Lesnar himself was directly involved with coercion, abuse or trafficking directly to Janel Grant.

Does that make him a saint? God no. In fact it's very scummy and gross.

But it's McMahon who has been accused of coersion, abuse and trafficking. Not Lesnar. 

For the record what happened to Janel Grant was horrific.

I'm not miscontruing anything.

You said all he allegedly did was receive 'nudie pics and videos', and that's completely removing the context from the situation. He's accused of receiving those from the victim of abuse and trafficking who was coerced into doing those things, and who alleges he knew about her situation (amongst others) and that he was going to accept a 'play date' with her as a form of bribe from her trafficker in return for signing a new contract.

I'm not saying you don't think that's awful, I'm not having a go at you at all, but I'm saying I personally need some resolution to the above before I'd be happy watching him have a wrestle.

His defense might well be that he just received videos and photos and knew nothing else and thought it was all good fun, but in this situation I'm not happy to have him back on his word (an instant solution for him, that normalises his presence again) whilst the victim has to go through the rather more painstaking legal process to reach a resolution.

As far as I'm personally concerned, they shouldn't even think about bringing him back until the accuser has some sort of resolution. 

[RedTwoster]

2 hours ago, Snitsky's back acne said:

here is money to be made, a wrestler will get booked. Bad publicity only goes so far because it's wrestling - the mainstream media has more important things to worry about. 

I don’t think that suggestion holds water these days - it was the mainstream media who took down Vince McMahon. And it’s also not just the mainstream media looking into this anymore, there’s a federal investigation. 

WWE can’t exactly fire Lesnar, as that might open them up to a lawsuit from him (he’s not been found guilty of anything, or could potentially claim he himself was coerced) - but they also can’t use him, as that might provide ammunition in the legal case against them, by suggesting they either don’t take these allegations seriously; or by having someone return to work who may become further entangled in this sordid mess. 

There is, I suppose, a chance WWE has been given a heads up to tell them there’s no evidence that implicates Lesnar in any wrongdoing outside of what’s known. But even then I’d be surprised to see him in a WWE ring unless he had been publicly cleared. They just won’t want to risk a furore that could affect sponsorships etc, or  turn some viewers off. I don’t think a returning Lesnar makes any significant positive difference to the company’s finances, and as you rightly say, that’s what they care about.

[FUM]

15 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

There's a point with Austin in so much as, do we ever want people to be rehabilitated after a crime, or where we set our personal bar... but ultimately he was charged with a crime, pleaded no contest, took a punishment and then returned to work. 

There’s a wider discussion due around this of rehabilitation and it actually being allowed. The internet doesn’t seem to allow for rehabilitation for anything. I get there’s certain things that don’t deserve it but you see it where people have made comments when they were younger and are entirely different now including doing things that prove they aren’t the person that one comment or action they made immaturely presents but the internet seems to give no room for forgiveness.

I think Stone Cold is an entirely different person now from the one who battered his wife so that’s where it’s a completely different scenario from someone actively involved in a lawsuit with no evidence to the contrary.

That’s not me saying wrestling isn’t morally corrupt but if you take Orton as an example, I’m actually sitting waiting on him being completely cancelled when you can actively see the man now has learned from the immature mistakes he made because of the culture the internet has created where forgiveness isn’t possible.

Edited Wednesday at 12:12 PM by FUM

[d-d-d-dAz]

13 minutes ago, FUM said:

There’s a wider discussion due around this of rehabilitation and it actually being allowed. The internet doesn’t seem to allow for rehabilitation for anything. I get there’s certain things that don’t deserve it but you see it where people have made comments when they were younger and are entirely different now including doing things that prove they aren’t the person that one comment or action they made immaturely presents but the internet seems to give no room for forgiveness.

I think Stone Cold is an entirely different person now from the one who battered his wife so that’s where it’s a completely different scenario from someone actively involved in a lawsuit with no evidence to the contrary.

That’s not me saying wrestling isn’t morally corrupt but if you take Orton as an example, I’m actually sitting waiting on him being completely cancelled when you can actively see the man now has learned from the immature mistakes he made because of the culture the internet has created where forgiveness isn’t possible.

Whilst I don't have an opinion necessarily on Austin (mainly as he still comes across like a neanderthal dickhead in lots of ways), I do think nuance is lost from the argument of when people should be welcomed back and how that should be handled.

It's why I think the 'GET THEM GONE FOREVER' lot are just as bad as the 'FUCK IT WHO CARES' lot, and both make it impossible to have objective discussions about these things. It's got to be situation and context dependent, and in my personal view the only real firm bar should be whether there is an open investigation or not.

[Duke]

16 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's why I think the 'GET THEM GONE FOREVER' lot are just as bad as the 'FUCK IT WHO CARES' lot, and both make it impossible to have objective discussions about these things. It's got to be situation and context dependent, and in my personal view the only real firm bar should be whether there is an open investigation or not.

Yeah, I think it's important at this point to remember that there are valid points to be made here that don't require descending to twitter level strawmen and bad faith chicanery.

I think in this case, there are two main points

1) Bringing Lesnar back while there's an open investigation and no exoneration makes WWE look like they're not bothered about the accusations, that they only got rid of Vince because it was convenient and that they've not changed at all. They've been working hard to show they've changed, it was be a significant PR blunder to bring him back now. I don't know how many fans it would turn off, but it would create a narrative they're trying to shrug off.

2) Paul "I don't see colour and so couldn't read the lawsuit because it was in black and white" Levesque has shown that how to handle the PR side on sensitive matters isn't his strong point.  In July, he specifically said they were open to bringing him back, and that he was never gone, just at home. I'm not particularly surprised if they are bringing him back in the run up to the Rumble, and I think it's right to say that in the context of the TV show, they're starting to talk about Brock again which likely means he's on the way back.  I don't see what good it does them, but it's hardly out of the question.

Both, I suspect, are true.

Edited Wednesday at 12:44 PM by Duke

[d-d-d-dAz]

At least they'll have the chance to clock the egg coming towards their face before they got their face out in public.

Insane to even be talking about the character of Brock Lesnar on-air at a time of an open investigation which is fast-moving in nature.

**EDIT**

Sorry, just to jump back in here, the following tweet is an example of why it's so dangerous bringing someone back before there is a proper resolution..

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 PM by d-d-d-dAz