|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 12:59:58 GMT -5
Like I mentioned when this actually happened, a few things that people really need to learn aobut the Terry shot:
1) Homicide was the one who did the deed, and has experience on how to pull that off without serious injury.
2) The whole after effect of the Terry shot can be replicated easy enough with a blade beforehand and some liquid skin
3) Considering if it was scripted, so there was some kind of prior warning and preparation for what happened to avoid any issues.
4)The whole issue seems to stem on what might happen instead of anything that did.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 13:06:15 GMT -5
Like I mentioned when this actually happened, a few things that people really need to learn aobut the Terry shot: 1) Homicide was the one who did the deed, and has experience on how to pull that off without serious injury. Doesn't matter. You think Chris Nowinski has ever said "No chairshots to the head...unless the person knows what they're doing?" No. That's what makes it worse. That they knew about it. Oh, come on. We're dealing with liability and legal issues here. Doing something stupid and possibly criminal and getting away with it, doesn't make it okay.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 13:15:17 GMT -5
Doesn't matter. You think Chris Nowinski has ever said "No chairshots to the head...unless the person knows what they're doing?" No. Except if someone knew what they were doing, there would be no damage done to a person. Really, you can say the same thing about wrestling moves, when you have someone who knows what they're doing, the risk of injury goes down. How? If they know, they would have known how to actually do it. They would have rehearsed it, would have made sure it was not going to be any issues with it. So, it's criminal to have a spot in a wrestling match? It's not criminal at all. Saying that TNA should be criminally responsible for this spot is like saying TNA should be held criminal responsible for the Abyss spot or Elix Skipper's cage walk or any of the Tower of Doom spots. Really, for any indication of wrongdoing, you would need Terry to be forced into this issue and had caused actual injury with lasting effects due to negligence, and NONE of that occurred.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 13:24:10 GMT -5
Doesn't matter. You think Chris Nowinski has ever said "No chairshots to the head...unless the person knows what they're doing?" No. Except if someone knew what they were doing, there would be no damage done to a person. Really, you can say the same thing about wrestling moves, when you have someone who knows what they're doing, the risk of injury goes down. How can you ever guarantee an unprotected chairshot to the head will be 100% safe? You can't. Granted, the same could be said for all wrestling moves, but unprotected chairshots to the head are by far the most controversial, especially after the Benoit incident and Kanyon's suicide (who took many unprotected chairshots and said he felt they were partly to blame for his problems), and there have been years of studies put into trying to eradicate them from the business; unlike most other wrestling moves. Again: How can you ever guarantee an unprotected chairshot to the head will be 100% safe? It's criminal because of all the studies that were out and well known about how dangerous they were. Has Chris Nowinski ever campaigned against an Abyss match? Did Benoit get screwed up in the head due to regular wrestling moves or all the headshots? How can you know Terry had no lasting effects? It only happened a few months ago. Maybe in ten years, only Terry could answer that. Not now. As for whether Terry got forced in it: I don't know. Ask Alex Shelley or Chris Sabin (who got depushed for years after refusing to blade) how TNA management like getting told no to something. Seriously: I get that it might be shaky legal grounds with independent contractor issues and all. But diehard TNA fans trying to defend their KNOWN business practices is mind-boggling.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 13:32:19 GMT -5
It seems to me that most of these are based on he said/she said types of incidents. If there were some evidence to these claims things would change, but I am not aware of the evidence so it's a bit tough to judge. The burden of proof lies with the accuser and I don't see any of that proof. The burden of irrefutable proof lies with the accuser in a criminal case. In a civil case, which is what I think most people are asking, it doesn't have to be that black and white. It's been said, but if someone in the company can prove that Jeffy Hardy is using drugs and TNA is aware of it to some extent, the company could be in a world of hurt. True, but again proof would have to arise before TNA would likely be found guilty. If someone can prove it that does change everything. Things haven't changed yet though. It wasn't. Bischoff was a fan, and either him or one of his allies came up with it to get him over. But they weren't. It was scripted. Again, it was scripted. Management even argued over whether to do it. Maybe I am misunderstanding but as far as I am aware all of those responses you gave are based on hearsay. If there is proof out there that Bischoff scripted it, that would change my opinion. Nailz said that Vinnie Mac told him to take steroids. That does not make it true.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 13:33:49 GMT -5
How can you know Terry had no lasting effects? It only happened a few months ago. Maybe in ten years, only Terry could answer that. Not now. As for whether Terry got forced in it: I don't know. Ask Alex Shelley or Chris Sabin (who got depushed for years after refusing to blade) how TNA management like getting told no to something. Seriously: I get that it might be shaky legal grounds with independent contractor issues and all. But diehard TNA fans trying to defend their KNOWN business practices is mind-boggling. I could count the number of TNA episodes I've watched this year on 1 hand, but I still doubt that TNA is a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen. I think there's a lot of grasping at straws and extrapolation going on. At best, there'd be a potential suit if they knew Hardy was unsafe and had him work anyways. Other than that, I don't think the majority of the issues are things that they could be sued for.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 13:36:06 GMT -5
How can you ever guarantee an unprotected chairshot to the head will be 100% safe? You can't. Granted, the same could be said for all wrestling moves, but unprotected chairshots to the head are by far the most controversial, especially after the Benoit incident and Kanyon's suicide (who took many unprotected chairshots and said he felt they were partly to blame for his problems), and there have been years of studies put into trying to eradicate them from the business; unlike most other wrestling moves. Except that not every shot they took was a chairshot. Benoit's whole moveset revolved around a shot to the heat with his finisher and some of his signature moves and style. You seem to act like there could be no way to prepare for a dangerous spot because people know it's dangerous. It's the whole basis of stuntwork, after all. No guarantee, as there's no such thing, but you can tip the balance when you have someone experienced with issues, when you take it a different method (Homicide threw his instead of just a swing), and when you prep this out beforehand that will figure out how it goes. The keyword in stuff like Benoit and Kanyon is 'shot s' meaning more than one. Usually a career full of dangerous spots like that. Here, you are taking one shot and trying to compare it to a lifetime of career decisions like what occurred back with Kanyon and Benoit. And, besides that one shot, Terry hasn't been making a career taking those shots like the other guys had. 10 years? If there was any damage, you'd know right away. Daffney's current issues didn't occur 10 years in WCW during her wedding gown match with Stacy. Ken Anderson's issue didn't occur 10 years in OVW. They all occurred as they happened. So, any kind Except that wasn't an issue of safety, more of a personal choice, as if I remember right, the issue was that Shelley refused on the basis that he never bladed before and never intended to.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 13:46:25 GMT -5
Except that not every shot they took was a chairshot. Benoit's whole moveset revolved around a shot to the heat with his finisher and some of his signature moves and style. But it was still a big part of it (Kanyon spoke about Benoit taking a chairshot to the head in WCW and being ill after it). Mick Foley openly admits he's messed up due to chairshots. Are there other issues? Of course. But they're sitll a big deal. Tell that to Mick Foley. Instead of trying to "tip the balance", why do them at all? I don't think it's okay for TNA to script one unprotected chairshot under the promise of "Well, we won't ask you to endanger yourself again; just this once." Kanyon said he didn't realize how messed up he was till later. Foley said knew he had issues as soon as he did things but didn't realize how bad it was till years later on. Even when Nonwinski got into WWE, he didn't realize he already had post concussion syndrome before that. It's still an issue of a talent turning down a hardcore angle they're uncomfortable with and being punished. And why does it even matter if he was forced into it? I fully suspect that if Terry cut ties with TNA and said they pressured him into taking that chairshot, you would still find a way to defend TNA.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 13:49:15 GMT -5
I could count the number of TNA episodes I've watched this year on 1 hand, but I still doubt that TNA is a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen. I think there's a lot of grasping at straws and extrapolation going on. At best, there'd be a potential suit if they knew Hardy was unsafe and had him work anyways. Other than that, I don't think the majority of the issues are things that they could be sued for. But they have gotten sued over it before. Now we can argue over whether they just wanted to avoid the stress and settled or whether they knew they didn't have a case ($1 million dollars, what Konnan got, is a lot to avoid a little stress though, especially for a struggling company) but someone sued them and got a considerable amount of cash out of it. And I wasn't accusing you of being a die-hard TNA fan who'll defend them no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 14:01:55 GMT -5
I fully suspect that if Terry cut ties with TNA and said they pressured him into taking that chairshot, you would still find a way to defend TNA. I realize this was intended for someone else but I feel the urge to comment. This isn't a defend or attack TNA issue. Just because some people think there is a distinct lack of anything other than rumors does not mean we are all just fan boys and girls. If Terry left TNA and made the accusations you listed, that would not convince me. If he offered some sort of proof he could sway me but his words could not convince me either way. That is why I brought up Nailz. That is just one example where someone left a big company, made accusations, and then did nothing to back up those claims. It didn't convince many people and I don't think Terry would either.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 14:03:09 GMT -5
But it was still a big part of it (Kanyon spoke about Benoit taking a chairshot to the head in WCW and being ill after it). Mick Foley openly admits he's messed up due to chairshots. Are there other issues? Of course. But they're sitll a big deal. And, AGAIN, the key work is shots. Really, compare the careers of Kanyon and Benoit while taking those risks and apply them to Terry, and it's not even close to being similar. Comparing the two makes even less sense considering that TNA actually has taken steps to remove those issues from occurring again. Cause it was for a Terry push, and it would have established him as the Freak he was billed as during his feud. and it was effective there, amid all the, unfounded imho, claims posted here. But there would be something that occurs at moment of impact. There would be some kind of damage done at the moment that hit him in the head to cause some concern. There wasn't in this case, and chances are, this one event is not gonna cause him the same damage that occurred with others, who made careers with those stunts. Even though it was for two very different reasons that aren't comparable? Plus, what a depush, that only led them to losing a few matches that they would have before, leading to a good run in the World X-Cup, as title contenders after that, and eventually world tag champs. And I bet if he was cool with it, you'd still be rallying to get them in court while saying how Terry was defending them cause he was interested in getting a job back.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:05:49 GMT -5
I fully suspect that if Terry cut ties with TNA and said they pressured him into taking that chairshot, you would still find a way to defend TNA. I realize this was intended for someone else but I feel the urge to comment. This isn't a defend or attack TNA issue. Just because some people think there is a distinct lack of anything other than rumors does not mean we are all just fan boys and girls. If Terry left TNA and made the accusations you listed, that would not convince me. If he offered some sort of proof he could sway me but his words could not convince me either way. That is why I brought up Nailz. That is just one example where someone left a big company, made accusations, and then did nothing to back up those claims. It didn't convince many people and I don't think Terry would either. Again, I didn't mean everyone. But Mikey Cee defends them no matter what. I don't feel the Nailz thing is a good comparision: we all saw the thing that Rob Terry could sue about. Anything Nailz complained about didn't happen on tv for everyone to see. As far as Terry's (possible) accusations go: well, he'd be talking about a company known for punishing wrestlers who didn't go along with certain physical angles and have a history of treating talent like crap. This alone would be enough swing me towards what he says.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:11:34 GMT -5
But it was still a big part of it (Kanyon spoke about Benoit taking a chairshot to the head in WCW and being ill after it). Mick Foley openly admits he's messed up due to chairshots. Are there other issues? Of course. But they're sitll a big deal. And, AGAIN, the key work is shots. Really, compare the careers of Kanyon and Benoit while taking those risks and apply them to Terry, and it's not even close to being similar. Comparing the two makes even less sense considering that TNA actually has taken steps to remove those issues from occurring again. WCW and ECW were doing chairshots before the studies. TNA did them after. That's the difference and one that would matter in a court of law. What happened to Terry's push? He disappeared for months after it and has only now resurfaced. Some push. "Chances are he'll be fine" is not a defense of TNA, you know. That just makes them look lucky that wasnt, seemingly, screwed up. And, yes, my original point still stands: wrestling is filled with wrestlers who didn't realize how badly brain damaged they were till later. They still got punished for turning down a physical angle. Him being fine with it is not a defense of TNA at all. They should be protecting wrestlers from themselves, if they have to. Like WWE did when they banned chairshots, or any other type of shots to the head. For example, I doubt Abyss has ever been forced into doing any of the hardcore stuff. He genuinely seems to love it. But it's still wrong for TNA to allow him to mutliate themselves to 1000 indifferent fans at the impact zone in angles that mean nothing.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Dec 21, 2010 14:12:19 GMT -5
TNA has lawyers and legal council that wouldn't let them let Hardy wrestle impaired its simply too stupid for them to do if anyone got hurt from Hardy it would be an easy 6 or 7 figures. The rest TNA is in the legal clear on.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 21, 2010 14:16:08 GMT -5
In all fairness - every wrestling promotion is a barrel of potential lawsuits. This, actually. As for Rob Terry, the chairshot should never have happened. Period. I'm all for giving credence to both sides, but not this time. There is no gray area in this one. Given what we've learned in the past decade regarding the dangers of concussions and head trauma, it's unforgivably irresponsible for any promotion to allow that to happen. TNA was wrong, and that's the end of it. They weathered a s*** storm of bad press as a result of it, too, which hopefully taught them a lesson.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:17:31 GMT -5
TNA has lawyers and legal council that wouldn't let them let Hardy wrestle impaired its simply too stupid for them to do if anyone got hurt from Hardy it would be an easy 6 or 7 figures. The rest TNA is in the legal clear on. They were thinking of bringing back Scott Hall once he finished his most current stint in rehab. That tells you everything you need to know about how stupid they can be. If TNA had a real legal team they would have been told straight not to do the Terry chairshot. Maybe it wasn't put past them or whatever. TNA would also have real drug testing, where congress to ever come calling again. At this point I'm convinced that that skit with Dixie's dumbass lawyer and Bischoff where the lawyer more of less accepted Bischoff had outright committed fraud and Dixie was powerless is representive of TNA's real legal counsel.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 14:18:08 GMT -5
I don't feel the Nailz thing is a good comparision: we all saw the thing that Rob Terry could sue about. Anything Nailz complained about didn't happen on tv for everyone to see. We saw a chairshot hit Rob Terry. We did not see him forced or threatened into doing it, and we don't know that he wasn't behind it. If us seeing Rob hit with a chair proves he was forced into it, doesn't Nailz being in the WWF prove McMahon made him take steroids to be there? As far as Terry's (possible) accusations go: well, he'd be talking about a company known for punishing wrestlers who didn't go along with certain physical angles and have a history of treating talent like crap. This alone would be enough swing me towards what he says. TNA is alleged to punish wrestlers for opting out of things too physical to them. There is a huge difference between alleged and being know to do something. Again, if we treated every similar claim against the WWE as legitimate that would be much more of a mess. We don't though. We all realize that disgruntled employees do have a tendency to want to make their employer look bad. EDIT: I just thought of a good example. I have read some horrible accounts about the backstage antics of JBL in the WWE. Does this mean we can claim he is a know rapist? No it means that is the type of accusation that has come against him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 14:24:01 GMT -5
"Chances are he'll be fine" is not a defense of TNA, you know. And "There's the chance he will suffer like Kanyon" isn't an accusation of TNA, either. However, my defense makes sense since comparing Terry with guys like Kanyon and Benoit avoids a lot of the differences that only serves to patronize what was found. Again, stuff like Kanyon and Benoit were fter repeated shots and dangerous styles. Something like Terry would be more like Anderson and Daffney, where it was caused at the moment of impact and that didn't happen. And all those had enough chances to occur over the course of their career. The same can not be said for Terry. Period. How is that not a defense? If he's fine, showing no damage from it, and doesn't even regret any of it, how does that no mean it's out of proportion? Now you're just advocating it when there's enough people to watch it instead of just in general.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:25:46 GMT -5
I don't feel the Nailz thing is a good comparision: we all saw the thing that Rob Terry could sue about. Anything Nailz complained about didn't happen on tv for everyone to see. We saw a chairshot hit Rob Terry. We did not see him forced or threatened into doing it, and we don't know that he wasn't behind it. If us seeing Rob hit with a chair proves he was forced into it, doesn't Nailz being in the WWF prove McMahon made him take steroids to be there? As far as Terry's (possible) accusations go: well, he'd be talking about a company known for punishing wrestlers who didn't go along with certain physical angles and have a history of treating talent like crap. This alone would be enough swing me towards what he says. TNA is alleged to punish wrestlers for opting out of things too physical to them. There is a huge difference between alleged and being know to do something. Again, if we treated every similar claim against the WWE as legitimate that would be much more of a mess. We don't though. We all realize that disgruntled employees do have a tendency to want to make their employer look bad. The fact that it was a chairshot is the main problem. Maybe he was pressured, maybe he wasn't. But there is undisputable proof that TNA allowed an unprotected chairshot to happen even after all the studies had been done. That's the problem. It's one thing to make vaugue accusations of steroid use, but it's not like Vince was on tv claiming steroids were good and everyone should take them. The fact that TNA were morally corrupt enough to script a chairshot would also plant the seed of doubt in a juror's mind: "Were they corrupt enough to pressure someone into taking one when they didn't want to." Can this ever be 100% proven either way? No. But as someone mentioned things seldom have to be black and white in civil cases.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 14:26:25 GMT -5
TNA has lawyers and legal council that wouldn't let them let Hardy wrestle impaired its simply too stupid for them to do if anyone got hurt from Hardy it would be an easy 6 or 7 figures. The rest TNA is in the legal clear on. They were thinking of bringing back Scott Hall once he finished his most current stint in rehab. That tells you everything you need to know about how stupid they can be. Yeah, and Scott Hall has been out of rehab for MONTHS now, so the where the hell is he? Same with Ed Leslie, where he said in an interview he was headed for TNA. Cue months later, and no barber has been sighted.
|
|