Ask the Editor ASK THE EDITOR: Keller answers reader questions about Benoit Family Tragedy Jul 10, 2007 - 7:34:00 PM

CLICK FOR BIO

Email This Article- Contact Us - VIP Sign-Up - Back to Home Page

|

QUESTION: Jason Western of Australia writes: Wade I like your idea about the weight divisions and I think it could work. It is quite a drastic change from the norm because right now we have wrestlers of all sizes interacting with each othe. However, if given enough time to build, I believe it could work. WWE has three shows and I think they could have Raw as Heavyweight, ECW as Welterweight, and Smackdown as Light Heavyweight. Would this work, though - separating the divisions into each show? I just see it as a bit too hard to incorporate all the divisions into each show without storylines interfering and as result we see weight divisions clash. If they are separated into each show, WWE can create more stars.

WK: It's one approach. It might work. PPVs would be the place where all the talent came together, with each division's title match rotating from month to month in terms which was the final match on the PPV.

***

QUESTION: Jack writes: I was wondering if you could give us the latest word on whether Daniel Benoit had Fragile X Syndrome or not. "People" magazine states that medical records and his grandparents, plus teachers all seem to say that it's not true. Who besides WWE has stated that Daniel had the disease? I guess my question is what are the facts? Do we KNOW Daniel had problems and if so how severe? The WWE released the Fragile X info right as all the steroid talk was going on, so it seems like a distraction. What are the facts as of now?

WK: We don't know. We know that a woman in Canada originally publicized through a Vancouver radio station that her late husband had talked to Chris about each of their sons having Fragile X. It seemed innocuous and genuine for the woman to step forward and provide such info. From there, WWE asked around and at the very least had heard there may have been issues with Daniel, so they promptly began pushing the idea that Fragile X was the source of Benoit's stress and actions, not steroids. The force and presumption with which they pushed that theme matched much of the media's attempt to pin Benoit's actions entirely on steroids just a day or two earlier. Linda McMahon on ABC's "Good Morning America" was especially shameless in pushing that idea as if it were practically a given. (Look it up on YouTube; in retrospect, it's quite a sight). We have had disputes from family members and school, so if Daniel had it, it sounds as if it was a mild form of it and Nancy and Chris decided to hide it from everyone. Otherwise, the woman in Canada was either mistaken or lying, or Daniel was originally misdiagnosed.

***

QUESTION: T. Batts of Louisiana - Torch subscriber since 2005 - write: Regarding this whole circus known as the Chris Benoit tragedy, I have to ask how do you, as a wrestling journalist, decipher between what the media says that may or may not be true? How are you able to weed through all of the crap and uneducated and misinformed people to get to the true gist of the story? And what can we, as fans, do to push the wrestling organization(s) to remedy these problems before more performers die?

We all know, at least now, that Benoit had a problem that may have been caused by the use of steroids, but that it may have also been an injury because Benoit did do a lot of headbutts in his time or the fact that he might have been drinking beer and/or wine which compounded with stress, has a tendency to make all of us do things that we would not have done. I am one who is waiting to see what the toxicology reports have to say before I make a judgment that it was roid rage or drugs played a factor. I just wish the sensationalism that the media has for the sport would not overshadow true picture here.

Basically, why can't more journalists do their research like you do before they start with trying to make this a circus?

WK: When something like the Benoit Family Tragedy happens, it's natural for people to want answers right away. Steroids did not become a primary factor in the story because authorities decided it was a major factor. The reporters at the press conference pressed the issue and finally got the D.A. to admit steroids were among the drugs found in the house - but it took asking him three times before he would get specific. From there, it was a "steroid story" which WWE fed into with their ill-advised, poorly written press release overreaching by stressing what they claim authorities asserted - that "steroids did not and could not" have caused the deaths of the Benoits.

I do believe there are reporters who believe that, as Chris Jericho aptly put it last night on Larry King Live, if you take steroids, it's like PCP or Angel Dust and you can go into an instant psychotic rage. Steroids are used too widely by people who live functional lives with normal appearances for that to be the case. The problem with reporters, especially on TV the first week, is many seemed to choose a theme and ask leading questions that fed that theme, while literally interrupting anyone who broke from that theme.

The answer, I believe, after talking to and emailing numerous reporters and producers for these shows is for the hosts who are asking questions to become more directly involved in speaking to guests before the segments on the shows air. Even just a five minute conversation would do wonders (although 15 minutes would be better). The hosts should begin by explaining what they believe are the key issues and why, then ask the guest if they think that's oversimplifying the situation or if they should learn additional key facts. When you have producers picking and pre-interviewing guests, then acting as a middle-person with the host, too often the hosts just have even the very basic facts wrong, or are missing key facts, or are too new to the debate and get bogged down in obviously lines of reasoning that should easily be rebutted even before they make the air.

It's a false idea that we have to wait for toxicology reports to have an intelligent discussion about what might have caused Benoit's actions, or problems with the pro wrestling industry that might be worth a changing. Just because a toxicology report shows Benoit had certain drugs in his body won't necessarily mean they were a primary contributor to his actions. Barring a surprise such as PCP, the toxicology report will show a variety of more subtle contributors which manifested and led to (a) him snapping and choking Nancy to death, and (b) a completely different mindset that led to the more calculated killings of Daniel and himself a day or so later.

QUESTION: David Carey writes: Continuing great coverage of all the news, Congrats on being the most viewed wrestling website through this. I agree that there are still a lot of angles to cover on this. One I haven't heard yet is any tie in to PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). It has gotten some press mainly with the military returnees (one of my medics in OIF I and III has it). Some of the symptoms are there (constant stress, lack of family time, multiple serious incidents, lack of counselling, fatalism) and I would guess that several wrestlers have at least the beginning stages of it. Just another small angle to look at. Keep up the great work.

WK: Yes, it's worth considering that possibility. Between the deaths of one of his best friends in Eddie Guerrero and his pal and neighbor Johnny Grunge, along with a dissolving marriage, a lack of family time with his son (special needs or not), a body beginning to break down at age 40 both in terms of how it looked and how it performed, a lack of a push professionally (including a complete reduction in his TV push after he took four months off - what kind of a message did that send to the rest of the roster?), drug addiction and side effects from years of use, and whatever else was eating away at him mentally - it adds up to someone with a lot of issues manifesting at once, especially if he had never fully been able to deal with the shock of losing Eddie and Johnny.

QUESTION: Dan Lucas writes: What have authorities said about how Nancy and Daniel were killed? Were there differences that might give us clues as to Benoit's state of mind between the time he killed Nancy and when he killed Daniel?

WK: Nancy was found with her hands and ankles tied together and a cord wrapped around her neck. Daniel was found dead from asphyxiation, but there were no marks on his face or neck and no signs of a struggle. The D.A. said "through a process of elimination," they believe he died of a chokehold, although there was evidence of that. There are several ways each situation can be interpreted. For instance, Nancy may have been tied up after Chris choked her because Chris didn't realize he had killed her. Or maybe he was worried that if she came to while he was passed out or sleeping, she may have hurt him or run away with Daniel - or both. He might have tied her up first because she was getting physical with him in a fight, and he overpowered her, and then after more arguing he killed her. There are many other scenarios consistent with what D.A. Scott Ballard has said so far about the crime scene. If there were marks on Nancy's wrists and ankles that indicated she struggled while tied up, it would confirm she was tied up while alive and awake. If there are no marks, she may have been tied up afterward - which might point toward Chris in his state of mind not knowing what he done. The way Daniel died is consistent with what we can only hope was a case of Chris basically cutting off Daniel's air as peacefully as possible, perhaps after Daniel was already knocked out from some of Chris's pills. At least then, Daniel wouldn't have known what was happening and wouldn't have struggled for breath. The experts should be able to rule in and rule out a variety of clues and indicators and provide a smaller range of likely options as to what happened to Nancy and Daniel.

Send your questions (on any subject you'd like me to address here) to the "askthetorch07" email link at the bottom of this page and put "ATE" in the subject box so I know it's for "Ask the Editor" text version not "Ask the Torch" VIP audio version.