Ask the Editor ASK THE EDITOR: More thoughts on the fallout from the Benoit Family Tragedy Jul 13, 2007 - 2:28:00 PM

CLICK FOR BIO

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

|

QUESTION: Dan Cartwright writes: You wrote that if WWE gave Benoit "six weeks off twice a year to go on a cruise with his wife and be a father for his kids for more than a 48-72 hour stretch when he's recovering from a road trip and preparing for the next one, then Chris, Nancy, and Daniel would still be alive. I might be wrong, but that's my opinion, and it's based on more than a hunch and not some ulterior motive." Wow... That's pathetic. You are living in a dream world and I sometimes wonder if you have ever watched a wrestling show or have any idea about human nature. To say something so blatantly stupid totally shows why nobody can take anything you say seriously. Shut up. Talk wrestling storylines or information. Leave the ranting on the good and bad of the industry to people who might have a clue.

WK: First, thanks for your thoughtful letter on this serious matter. I print your letter because it represents several emails I've received that are similar. Just to be clear, there is a difference between explaining a chance of circumstances that could have prevented a death and using that to absolve the guilty part of his actions. Benoit did what he did. Unless somebody injected his body with drugs and poured wine down his throat or made him drink it at gunpoint, he's as guilty as any drunk driver out there who lost their sense of judgment and killed somebody while driving.

At some point, there is that fateful, heinous decision that is made, and that person who makes that decision has to be held responsible for his actions at that point. That does not preclude me from saying that if Benoit had time to clear his head a couple times a year for a month or longer, built some precious memories with his wife and son, dealt with other personal business that takes more than a couple days at home a week to deal with, and if that was the case over the course of his entire WWE career, I do think he would have been a different person last month and probably wouldn't have snapped as it appeared he did.

I also believe if WWE hadn't waited until Eddie Guerrero died, despite tons of warning signs that money-drawing wrestlers on their roster were abusing pills, to start drug testing, but instead instituted a comprehensive Wellness Policy (loophole-free to the best of their ability), wrestlers with prescription pill issues could have been dealt with sooner. Saying that doesn't mean WWE is to blame for the consequences of not doing that - that's a debate for another day - but it is saying I think if they had, the roster would have been happier, healthier, and more stable today.

***

QUESTION:Mike Berdeguez writes: Many good ideas were put forth in this article, but I'd like to add an alternative that I think would work. Why not give a rotating group of the wrestlers a month off of house shows? You'd still have everyone there and available for the TV shows, which have a much larger audience than the combined house shows and besides, in my, admittedly limited, experience not a lot goes on at the house shows that advances storylines anyway. So would it really hurt anything if a wrestler from even a big/current storyline were to miss the shows for a month?

WK: After talking to a lot of current and ex-wrestlers about the schedule over the years, I believe extended, uninterrupted time off is vital. If wrestlers still had to travel once a week to TV and still look perfect in their wrestling tights, they don't really get that full break from the grind of having to think about travel, prepare for travel, actually travel, perform in the ring, look like they usually look, and then return home. The whole point of mandatory, predictable, extended time off is to give the wrestlers a chance to just skip the hard workouts (or any workouts) for a few weeks before getting ready to return. It's to give them a chance to truly get away such as for 14 days on a cruise or a vacation with their family. Any interruptions in that really eliminate perhaps the most important key in the whole proposal. If WWE had wrestlers work just once a week year-round, I'd still advocate a full month or six weeks off twice a year. It's that total physical and mental break from the grind and the need to keep the body in physically perfect shape that just adds up after five and ten and fifteen years.

***

QUESTION: Michael Moore of Casper, Wy. asks: Just wondering what sort of response you've gotten (I know you can't print everything) from readers who have tuned out of WWE since the Benoit tragedy? Personally, I can't watch WWE's programming anymore. Like most fans the last few years, I've complained about the lack of any direction and poor storylines, but I always came back a few weeks later. This is different. I can't stand the thought of tuning in and seeing another show memorializing a wrestler whose death could have been prevented. I honestly believe the ratings this week are an indication that some fans have had enough. I've been a fan of WWE since 1985, but I'm done. The only way I've followed it the last couple weeks has been through the Torch (and by that I mean the Benoit developments; I could not care less what happens on Raw and Smackdown). It's not even worth reading or listening to the words of guys like Jim Ross or John Cena; they're company shills and will continue to act as such. Keep up the excellent work.

WK: First, on a personal note, I haven't watched much WWE programming since the Benoit Family Tragedy news broke. That's not for any reason other than I've been immersed in trying to sift through the good and the bad of the media coverage and WWE's response and learn as much as I can about what's happened to try to figure out what solutions there might be to prevent any more of the wide variety of deaths and tragedies we've seen too many of in recent years from my perspective as someone looking on from outside the bubble, but a strong working knowledge of the industry after covering it full time nearly 20 years.

Even before the Benoit tragedy, I was disgusted with WWE's decision to emulate the sacred ten bell salute and stage gathering scenes for a fake death (of Mr. McMahon) when those scenes had previously been reserved as real-life, break-from-script tributes to real deaths of colleagues. It was a crass, shameful cashing in on the real-life deaths and the genuine emotions they generated at the time and it cheapened the meaning of the tributes to those who had really died (or die in the future).

Since the Benoit tragedy, I really believe there is a worse taste in my mouth about WWE due what they've said and done afterward than from the Benoit incident itself. The usual defensive posturing by WWE in the last few weeks has been difficult to accept. Everyone is still emotionally charged after this, and I do understand a certain level of intensity and defensiveness because there have been people who are uniformed jumping the gun on sensationalist aspects of this story. WWE lost any chance to take the high road, though, with that lousy steroid press release. They lost any sympathy when it came to media coverage after Cena implied that the mainstream media, other than Larry King, won't give a voice to anyone in WWE, when on the contrary WWE has (as is their right) chosen not to send representatives to speak on the matter on cable shows or in newspapers other than an occasional spokesman quote or attorney appearance (to try to clean up the Fragile X matter). But if that's their choice, they lose credibility when blaming others for not giving them a voice on those shows.

But as I have in the past when I've been taken aback or even disgusted by various wrestling promotions, wrestlers, or promoters - and it's been plenty of times over the years and far from a WWE-exclusive, believe me - I'll go back to evaluating the shows, matches, performances, and angles on their merits. But I'll also be keeping a more-than-peripheral view on the big picture.

As to your specific question, I've received a lot of emails about people saying it's just not fun to watch WWE right now. I get that. Different people react differently. WWE has some work to do to restore faith with a certain percentage of their viewers so they can stop wondering if their favorite wrestler on the screen is the next to go down. WWE is in a tough position. How tough? I don't know yet. TV ratings, house show attendance, and PPV buys are more telling than the emails I receive from PWTorch readers saying they're not sure if they'll be able to go back to watching WWE the same way ever again. Time can heal wounds, and in most cases probably will. So can WWE doing the right thing from here on out. Accusing those who are suggesting changes to try to save or improve performers' lives in the future of being sanctimonious is a bad start.

The key in all of this is what is motivating people to say or do the things they do. If their heart is in the right place, I'm all for giving anyone slack as they try to make sense of what Benoit did, the reaction to it, and the all-to-common deaths of pro wrestlers over the years. If someone uses this story to get themselves over, on either supposed side of this discussion, or just espouses the status quo for selfish monetary reasons or to absolve themselves of guilt over perhaps not having done enough in the past to change the system for the better, then there's less slack, obviously.

Send feedback on this article to pwtorch@gmail.com and we'll regularly publish reader feedback in the "Torch Feedback" category on the Main Listing.

For more BREAKING NEWS on WWE, TNA!
VISIT OUR AFFILIATE - PROWRESTLING.NET

For UFC & MMA NEWS & BLOGS:
VISIT OUR SISTER SITE - MMATORCH.COM

Upgrade to PWTORCH VIP: DETAILS & SIGN-UP INFO

(c) 1999-2009 TDH Communications Inc. - All rights reserved.