12/03/24
September 01, 2007
Where does it end?: 11 living (and three dead) pro wrestlers were "outted" by the WWE as known steroid users. 10 of the eleven wrestlers face a 30 day suspension while another faces 60 days, indicating a second offense. We can also expect a congressional subcommitte hearing to "further explore the situation."
I know that steroids are the cause celebre of the moment, what with the Benoit tragedy and all, but I've got a serious concern here. I find it scary as hell that there is going to be a house subcommittee meeting concerning professional wrestling. Ever. Can anyone else list 100 things they deem more important priorities for the legislature of one of the most powerful nations in the history of the world to resolve/discuss/investigate?! The story's interesting and all that, but, seriously, fuck, now I'm really discouraged. My tax dollars well spent.
posted by tahoemoj at 04:38 AM on September 01, 2007
I have a few problems with the current witch hunt brewing up about steroids in sports (note: my commentary will talk about football a lot because that is the area I have the most familiarity). A. Agree with tahoemoj. Congress, you have far better things to worry about. B. If we want to start kicking over rocks, we're going to find a lot of bugs. Let's look at football, for example. From the 70s until the 90s (and up to today, judging by Shawne Merriman and Rodney Harrison, and the dozens of other guys who have been caught using) pro football was awash in performance-enhancers. For college ball, the same is true from the mid-80s to today. Do you really want to go back looking through those eras? C. How do you punish people who used back in the day? For football, does one user on a team discount the teams accomplishments? If he's a backup, probably not, but if he's a starter, what then? Do you want make John Elway 0-5 in Super Bowls because Bill Romanowski(sp?) admittedly used steroids? What about the Steeler teams of the 70s (Steve Courson, who said that he and about 75% of the team's offensive linemen were juiced) and the 80s (Jim Haslett, coach and admitted former user)? Where does the line go? D. We didn't care at the time, why should we care now? Everyone loved the home run race between the equally inflated Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. No one thought to ask if this was achieved naturally or artificially (although I remember even at the time it was known that both used supplements). Even now, we don't care too much in football, where no one blinks an eye at 6-5 240lbs guys running 4.4 40s, or guys putting on 30lbs of muscle in a summer without losing speed. We know, deep down in the depths of our hearts, that these things do not occur naturally ("...hitting a pro weight room." Yeah, right. "That kid has great genes." If Genes are the names of his suppliers, then yes."). But we seek entertainment. We want bigger, faster, stronger, more impossible feats every week. But when the truth comes out, everyone will act shocked and morally outraged. Please.
posted by Bonkers at 08:23 AM on September 01, 2007
tahoemoj, I think the steroid problem is a national issue because we are going to start seeing kids needing to use them to keep up with their competition. For years steroids have been getting a nod and a wink from all the sports. While some have done better at controlling it than others, the fact remains it is widespread in the sporting world. If they would clean it up themselves then it wouldn't be a problem. Think about the business side of sports. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB and "WWE", how much money do you think those sports control. Each one of them is a major corporation by themselves. When you combine them and then see how they influence society then you can see the need for intervention. This industry is "asking" it's employees to use illegal drugs to increase productivity (Higher ratings and revenue). What if this was the factory down the street, would that still seem unimportant?
posted by Familyman at 08:27 AM on September 01, 2007
I know that steroids are the cause celebre of the moment, what with the Benoit tragedy and all (a) I'd be careful not to chock the Benoit tragedy up solely against the "he used steroids" argument. There was way more involved than just steroids there. Steroids, sure, but compounded by a host of other drugs and bigger issues. (b) Let's face it, drugs (performance enhancers) have looooong been a part of modern sport. Citius, altius, fortius. As long as that's our dream for sport ... there'll always be the "need" for these kinds of supplements. I don't think it takes yet another discovery hearing to make this known to us. I think the steroid problem is a national issue because we are going to start seeing kids needing to use them to keep up with their competition. Start? Familyman, I don't think we "are going to start seeing" this ... it's been going on for quite some time already. In sports and places that you'd never expect too.
posted by Spitztengle at 12:21 PM on September 01, 2007
All I can say is, as someone who truly despises what Vince has done to wrestling, I'm really enjoying seeing him suffer. It seems every week, when you think it can't get any worse for him... It does.
posted by Drood at 03:31 PM on September 01, 2007
Only 11? I recall an interview in, I think, the 90s with a pro bodybuilder who was quitting when the Weiders announced they'd start doing drug tests, because he claimed everyone in top level bodybuilding was crammed full of junk, and it was just a way for the Weiders to get rid of competitors they didn't like, while milking some PR. See a parallel?
posted by rodgerd at 05:15 PM on September 01, 2007
I'd be careful not to chock the Benoit tragedy up solely against the "he used steroids" argument.From the article:
Former WWE stars Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, and Brian Adams, who have all died since 2005, were also named as customersBut don't blame steroids!
posted by rodgerd at 05:17 PM on September 01, 2007
As an earlier poster said, it wasn't JUST steroids. Sure, steroids played a part. Just like the Xanax did. And the marital problems etc... To hang the whole Benoit thing on steroids has been the crutch the media have used because it sounds good, but the situation is much more complicated, and to pin the whole thing on steroids shows a willful lack of examination of other factors. Like saying World War 1 started because Archduke Ferdinand was killed. Yes, TECHNICALLY correct, but there was a hell of a lot of other things going on beyond that one catalyst. Far easier to attribute it to one thing. The media get their soundbite and move on to the next attrocity, and the public at large are satisfied and move on, when the world is never EVER that simple.
posted by Drood at 08:14 PM on September 01, 2007
Only 11? I recall an interview in, I think, the 90s with a pro bodybuilder who was quitting when the Weiders announced they'd start doing drug tests, because he claimed everyone in top level bodybuilding was crammed full of junk, and it was just a way for the Weiders to get rid of competitors they didn't like, while milking some PR. See a parallel? Do not put the Weider's up for standing up against their athletes using drugs. The Weider's stood up against their bodybuilders using drugs other than theirs and promoting them. They drug tested what would not show up in their own products, they ironically were among the strongest opponents of FDA testing of their products (athletic supplements). I do, however, see the parallel. Good point even if I do not agree in how it was made.
posted by urall cloolis at 09:28 PM on September 01, 2007
Do not put the Weider's up for standing up against their athletes using drugs. The Weider's stood up against their bodybuilders using drugs other than theirs and promoting them.That was kind of his point - everyobody used, the only guys who would get banned would be ones who pissed off the franchise owners. I wish I could remember who it was. And yeah, it was what I wanted to illustrate - the McMahons will, no doubt, let a few guys go to the wall, and will protect their big-money guys.
posted by rodgerd at 01:28 AM on September 02, 2007
When Randy Orton, Edge, Batista, Booker T, Umaga, and Mr. Kennedy are among those being suspended, who are the "big money guys" you see being protected? These are all main-eventers, and I'd definitely call them "big money guys."
posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:19 AM on September 02, 2007
All of this is just the sorry ass state of sport in America today.EVERY one of the big 4 has or just recently has been humiliated or held up for ridicule. Wrestling is just going with the flow.Of course, when you compare the physiques of today's star pro wrestlers with those of the 50s & 60s it tends to be illustrative..ya think?
posted by sickleguy at 08:42 AM on September 02, 2007
When Randy Orton, Edge, Batista, Booker T, Umaga, and Mr. Kennedy are among those being suspended, who are the "big money guys" you see being protected? Yea, there's not many left, though John Cena, The Undertaker, and HHH come to mind- the later of whom I'd be absolutely shocked if he hadn't use steroids in the past. I wouldn't lament Orton getting suspended. He has zero personality. Of course, when you compare the physiques of today's star pro wrestlers with those of the 50s & 60s it tends to be illustrative..ya think? You can get massive muscles without steroids. The difference is McMahan has placed a huge emphasis on ripped physiques- steroids or no- which wasn't there before.
posted by jmd82 at 10:51 AM on September 02, 2007
I don't think the steroid use in the WWE is purely based on building a bigger wrestler. These guys are on the road 300 days year, wrestling in house shows in between weekly TV tapings and participating in live events. I think the harsh scheduling is a major contributor to the seemingly wide spread steroid abuse. Pain killer abuse is also rampant in the WWE and I believe the way the WWE is run what causes the abuse. I wonder if steroids are as prevalent in the number two promotion in the States, TNA. TNA runs shows out of one area, tape just once a week with no house shows in between and only travel once a month for one weekend to do a pay-per-view. Several wrestlers who have left the WWE for TNA say they promote a much "healthier" work enviornment, and are very accommodating when it comes to time off. TNA also puts out a better product because thier talent suffers so much less wear and tear. Hopefull WWE can take a look at thier main rival and change the nature of thier business.
posted by HATER 187 at 11:09 AM on September 02, 2007
Good points about TNA, HATER. It probably also helps that Jeff Jarrett, a former wcw/wwf wrestler, founded the company along with his dad.
posted by jmd82 at 03:17 PM on September 02, 2007
Vince McMahon presides over a death factory. It's ridiculous. The juggernaut is out of control.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:12 PM on September 04, 2007
Sorry it was Sports Illustrated who "outted" the preformers not the WWE. They haven't relased the names just yet.