|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:29:21 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. Not trying to be rude here: But are you a doctor? I don't know a greal deal about the subject myself, but I know what various wrestlers have said about it. I'm going by that. What are you going by? Could Terry have long term effects of that chairshot? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know; so how can you? So, TNA can behave irresponsibly, recklessly, even criminally, but because no-one gets hurt THIS TIME it's okay? Not really. He shouldn't be doing it anyway. But the fact that nobody cares how many times Abyss mutilates himself and it's not making any difference to TNA's business is the icing on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:33:05 GMT -5
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. That they even talked about bringing him back was the problem. Also: Waltman, Hall, Angle, Jeff Hardy, Raven, Sandman, Neidhart...are just some of the wrestlers with proven drug problems that TNA have used. You can maybe include Matt Hardy as well since everyone is sure he's coming in too.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 14:36:12 GMT -5
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? 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. Where is the indisputable proof that TNA allowed or scripted it? If the indsider wrestling news sites (who are far from 100% accurate) claimed that the chairshot was an unscripted event planned by the two wrestlers and both got in trouble with TNA over it, would you believe that? That they even talked about bringing him back was the problem. Where is the proof they talked about it? If the only proof is claims made by insider wrestling news sites, I would suggest that is far from proof and the sheer amount of reports that are later proven false really muddy things.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 21, 2010 14:40:25 GMT -5
As for me...no. I think it's foolish to try pointing fingers at any one person for the chairshot. However it came about, it happened on TNA's watch, and so the company as a whole bears the brunt of responsibility for it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 14:40:44 GMT -5
Not trying to be rude here: But are you a doctor? I don't know a greal deal about the subject myself, but I know what various wrestlers have said about it. I'm going by that. What are you going by? No, I'm not, but I know a pattern when I see them. Looking at every match Terry had, this is the only time he's done something like this. One chair shot to the head, may or may not have been safe to take. Compare that to Benoit, with all the times he took the flying headbutt directly, all the times he headbutted a guy repeatedly, all the times he thrust himself into the corner full force to sell, all the damage he took. Think of Foley and all the shots he took, all the hardcore matches he had since he was in his 20's, all the objects he hit himself with and all the danger he had. Think of Kanyon and his style and what he took to deal with pain and what he had to go on in his career. How is that at all comparable to Terry? I don't know either, but you seem so damn sure of yourself this will lead to the same thing that occured with the examples you bring up, I need to be the counterbalance and mention how they don't match up, and how TNA actually does have the new policies that remove those chairshots and have shown on occasion the ability to actually care about people and their well being. How is it criminal? You say it is because they did it after studies, but that doesn't make it illegal, especially when the whole point is to not cause as much damage as possible while making it look lethal. That's the whole point. Now you're just trying to put position as a reason to not do anything, no matter if it might call for it, or how much preparation can be done.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:41:39 GMT -5
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. Where is the indisputable proof that TNA allowed or scripted it? If the indsider wrestling news sites (who are far from 100% accurate) claimed that the chairshot was an unscripted event planned by the two wrestlers and both got in trouble with TNA over it, would you believe that? Every credible news source going made it clear it was something argued over by management before it happen. And please, none of that "NEWZ" since I'm pretty sure Meltzer and Keller would have been sued 10 times over if they just lied. Also: it clearly was an angle to get Terry over as a monster. Go back and look at it again: it was nothing something they made up on the spot. Homicide hits him with the chair, thinks he's done, Terry gets right back up, Homicide does a cartoonish face of shock. Message: Terry's a monster and the new Goldberg. I do not believe TNA wrestlers can script their own angles mid-match anyway. Also: about a few weeks before the Terry angle happened on tv, Bischoff indicated on his FB he thought the chairshot stuff was mainly hysteria.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 14:46:24 GMT -5
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. That they even talked about bringing him back was the problem. Also: Waltman, Hall, Angle, Jeff Hardy, Raven, Sandman, Neidhart...are just some of the wrestlers with proven drug problems that TNA have used. You can maybe include Matt Hardy as well since everyone is sure he's coming in too. So, Ed Leslie says that he was coming in, unknown to TNA, and it's TNA's fault anyway? Dixie wishes the guy well on his rehab, and it's reported he might come back somewhere else, and it's TNa's fault? Does that mean if I made up a story of how TNa was gonna bring in Jimmy Snuka or if Borash had a picture of Arquette and it was reported he was coming in, it's TNA's fault cause they might have thought of it even with no involvement in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:50:32 GMT -5
Not trying to be rude here: But are you a doctor? I don't know a greal deal about the subject myself, but I know what various wrestlers have said about it. I'm going by that. What are you going by? No, I'm not, but I know a pattern when I see them. Looking at every match Terry had, this is the only time he's done something like this. One chair shot to the head, may or may not have been safe to take. Compare that to Benoit, with all the times he took the flying headbutt directly, all the times he headbutted a guy repeatedly, all the times he thrust himself into the corner full force to sell, all the damage he took. Think of Foley and all the shots he took, all the hardcore matches he had since he was in his 20's, all the objects he hit himself with and all the danger he had. Think of Kanyon and his style and what he took to deal with pain and what he had to go on in his career. How is that at all comparable to Terry? I'm not sure how this defending TNA. Did TNA script him to take 100 chairshots? No. Just one. That's bad enough. I can't imagine TNA arguing in court "Hey, we know they're incredibly dangerous and did it anyway but we were nice guys and we didn't want him to take as many as Mick Foley; just one." Terry probably won't end up with as much damaged as Benoit. But how is that defending TNA? It was still wrong to script that. Yes, but the problem is this came way, way too late. What did they know by October (when they were banned) that they didn't know in April? Okay, say a company is told something is dangerous to the health of their workers. There are credible, medical studies about how dangerous it is. In whatever field the industry is in, these reports are accepted as the truth. Other companies started listening to these studies and stop doing whatever the dangerous thing is. But one company continues whatever the business practice in question is, with the full knowledge of the studies...because it makes them money. In a civil lawsuit, this company will almost certainly be found guilty and forced to pay out. I'm not sure how Abyss can properly prepare for slicing his arm up with a broken bottle, even if it was a much needed part of the angle.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 14:53:24 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. You know how much a lawsuit costs to go through court? $1 million isn't a lot for a company to spend on legal council, especially if the outcome isn't certain. And yeah, they got sued, that doesn't mean they're a barrel of lawsuits, it just means they pissed off someone who was willing to go to court. To be honest, I think TNA has fewer lawsuit threats than WWE by far.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 14:55:47 GMT -5
Settling was, from what I understand, worse for TNA in the long run.
Basically, once you've settled or been found guilty for mistreating employees, it leaves you open to even more lawsuits. Whether it opens a can of worms or you have more people trying to cash in, Don't know if they were't aware of this or not when they paid off Konnan but I think it was interesting.
I was told that's why a lot of companies will try and fight things like this in court if they can. Otherwise, you just declare hunting season on yourself.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 14:56:41 GMT -5
Every credible news source going made it clear it was something argued over by management before it happen. And please, none of that "NEWZ" since I'm pretty sure Meltzer and Keller would have been sued 10 times over if they just lied. I don't think they have proven themselves to be credible enough to be more than hearsay. Plus when most wrestling news sites get their info from the same sources, it appearing on multiple sites doesn't really convince me more than seeing it on just one. Are you implying that false stories never hit these "credible" sites? Also: it clearly was an angle to get Terry over as a monster. Go back and look at it again: it was nothing something they made up on the spot. Homicide hits him with the chair, thinks he's done, Terry gets right back up, Homicide does a cartoonish face of shock. Message: Terry's a monster and the new Goldberg. I do not believe TNA wrestlers can script their own angles mid-match anyway. Also: about a few weeks before the Terry angle happened on tv, Bischoff indicated on his FB he thought the chairshot stuff was mainly hysteria. Again I have trouble seeing any proof here. Wrestlers have gone against booking plans and added flourishes they later received grief for many times. It is a story as old as wrestling. Using your logic, the WWE allowed Mankind to be thrown off a Hell in a Cell. Its obvious they knew this was extremely dangerous. Should they be sued? Again to reiterate I am not trying to argue whether or not TNA is in the wrong. I am arguing that there has been no proof offered up to back up the claims. I will reserve judgement until then.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 14:59:46 GMT -5
Honestly, I think you understood wrong then. They are just as open to lawsuits before Konnan as after Konnan. Any one of their employees can sue them. That's their right.
Settlements don't change that at all. They don't set legal precedence. They can't be used as justification to file a suit.
And most companies actually don't fight the majority of lawsuits. If a case isn't thrown out immediately, the vast, vast majority of lawsuits brought up in this country are settled. Only 2 percent of all lawsuits brought up in this country actually go to trial. Everything else is thrown out or settled.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 15:00:33 GMT -5
I'm not sure how this defending TNA. Did TNA script him to take 100 chairshots? No. Just one. That's bad enough. I can't imagine TNA arguing in court "Hey, we know they're incredibly dangerous and did it anyway but we were nice guys and we didn't want him to take as many as Mick Foley; just one." Are you really not getting this, that all these things about Foley and Kanyon and Benoit and anyone who ever suffered to that extent are NO WAY COMPATIBLE to Terry and his ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, moment of it, which didn't injure him?! When your entire point, cenamark, is that this shot will cause the same amount of damage in one moment that Benoit gained during the course of 22 years of wrestling, that is a defense. I'd even go so far as to argue if there was any damage from that attack at all. Enough to avoid having this occur years from now, where the damage would really pile on and affect those guys? And if something is dangerous, but still essential to the whole work, they usually have safety measures to prevent unneeded injuries, and that includes prior preparation that would have occurred here. This isn't some guy who had no experience asked to do this, it's someone who's whole job revolves around this. The same way you can prepare when someone falls i barbed wire or anything sharp, where you try to make it fast to lessen the impact.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:05:24 GMT -5
Every credible news source going made it clear it was something argued over by management before it happen. And please, none of that "NEWZ" since I'm pretty sure Meltzer and Keller would have been sued 10 times over if they just lied. I don't think they have proven themselves to be credible enough to be more than heresay. Plus when most wrestling news sites get their info from the same sources, it appearing on multiple sites doesn't really convince me more than seeing it on just one. I don't know how much knowledge you have about wrestling news, but here goes: The news sites take their news from credible sources. Sometimes they exaggerate or distort things, hence the "Newz" stuff. If Meltzer or Keller, after 40 years in the business combined, told lies, they would have been sued long ago. Neither has ever faced legal action from TNA or WWE. This is partly why it's ridiculous to claim neither is credible or makes up things. As far as the "heresay" accusation goes, Meltzer won't write something unless 3 sources close to the situation have told him the same thing. Don't know about Keller but I would assume it's the same. Sure, but mostly because the sites in questions are jokes and have nothing to do with credible news journalism. I'm sorry: there is no way they made that up by themselves. It was an angle: Homicide tries to kill off the monster, Terry gets right back up. You cannot seriously claim TNA had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Also: when they got the barrage of bad publicity, why didn't they say "they did it on their own"? Because they couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:13:24 GMT -5
Are you really not getting this, that all these things about Foley and Kanyon and Benoit and anyone who ever suffered to that extent are NO WAY COMPATIBLE to Terry and his ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY, moment of it, which didn't injure him?! Except the ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY incident was done after numerous studies about head shots and concussions. At least the people employing Foley, Kanyon and Benoit can claim ignorance, TNA can't. Even Heyman has said he would have never done all that stuff if he'd known. Point out where I said this. Irrelevant. It was still a stupid thing to do. He could very well be fine; but how does this excuse the actions of TNA? I'm not sure what your point is. Explain to me how the Rob Terry chairshot was "essential." Also, I don't think every head injury was caused by people who didn't know what they doing. Was Mick Foley just working with sloppy opponents his entire career? No. Indeed the Rock was known for being a very safe and careful worker. Taker too. Doesn't matter how good Homicide is, he can't guarantee anything. It's easier and safer to just not do it. Or....TNA could just tell him not to do it for the sake of his health.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 15:14:38 GMT -5
I don't think they have proven themselves to be credible enough to be more than heresay. Plus when most wrestling news sites get their info from the same sources, it appearing on multiple sites doesn't really convince me more than seeing it on just one. I don't know how much knowledge you have about wrestling news, but here goes: The news sites take their news from credible sources. Sometimes they exaggerate or distort things, hence the "Newz" stuff. If Meltzer or Keller, after 40 years in the business combined, told lies, they would have been sued long ago. Neither has ever faced legal action from TNA or WWE. This is partly why it's ridiculous to claim neither is credible or makes up things. As far as the "heresay" accusation goes, Meltzer won't write something unless 3 sources close to the situation have told him the same thing. Don't know about Keller but I would assume it's the same. Yeah, I can say from being in the journalism industry, libel suits are about more than whether a person was lying, even if that is a big part. Libel also requires damages, hence why McDonald's doesn't sue everyone who claims that their meat isn't meat because a small cheeseburger won't mold in certain conditions. If Meltzer or Keller wrote something that caused provable monetary damage to the company that exceeded the court costs of doing so, then they might get sued. The fact that they hasn't doesn't necessarily mean that they're always right in everything they report. Again, just speaking semantics, since I actually do have a grasp of how libel laws work. I'm not saying they're reliable or not either way (well, accept that I don't like how every source is anonymous, even if I understand why they are).
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:16:28 GMT -5
I don't know how much knowledge you have about wrestling news, but here goes: The news sites take their news from credible sources. Sometimes they exaggerate or distort things, hence the "Newz" stuff. If Meltzer or Keller, after 40 years in the business combined, told lies, they would have been sued long ago. Neither has ever faced legal action from TNA or WWE. This is partly why it's ridiculous to claim neither is credible or makes up things. As far as the "heresay" accusation goes, Meltzer won't write something unless 3 sources close to the situation have told him the same thing. Don't know about Keller but I would assume it's the same. Yeah, I can say from being in the journalism industry, libel suits are about more than whether a person was lying, even if that is a big part. Libel also requires damages, hence why McDonald's doesn't sue everyone who claims that their meat isn't meat because a small cheeseburger won't mold in certain conditions. If Meltzer or Keller wrote something that caused provable monetary damage to the company that exceeded the court costs of doing so, then they might get sued. The fact that they hasn't doesn't necessarily mean that they're always right in everything they report. Again, just speaking semantics, since I actually do have a grasp of how libel laws work. Maybe, but they also write in-depth about WWE. A company which has shown time and time again they will not hesitate to sue someone and they have the manpower and money to do this easily. This is the same company that sent a legal letter to TNA because they once referred to TNA wrestlers as TNA "superstars." TNA did that just once. Would they really have put up with Dave Meltzer telling lies about them for 30 years?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 15:20:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I can say from being in the journalism industry, libel suits are about more than whether a person was lying, even if that is a big part. Libel also requires damages, hence why McDonald's doesn't sue everyone who claims that their meat isn't meat because a small cheeseburger won't mold in certain conditions. If Meltzer or Keller wrote something that caused provable monetary damage to the company that exceeded the court costs of doing so, then they might get sued. The fact that they hasn't doesn't necessarily mean that they're always right in everything they report. Again, just speaking semantics, since I actually do have a grasp of how libel laws work. Maybe, but they also write in-depth about WWE. A company which has shown time and time again they will not hesitate to sue someone and they have the manpower and money to do this easily. This is the same company that sent a legal letter to TNA because they once referred to TNA wrestlers as TNA "superstars." Would they really have put up with Dave Meltzer telling lies about them for 30 years? There's no maybe about it, what I said about libel is how it works. For the second bit, no offense, but WWE's lawyers also have a hell of a lot better grasp of the law than any of us here have. They know if it's worth it to file a suit, or if it's worth it just to ignore someone. TNA represents a competitive threat to WWE. Dirt sheet writers really don't. No, they may not be fans of them, but that doesn't mean they're in shaky legal grounds. If WWE's lawyers can prove that they didn't lose money because one of the writers wrote that people backstage were unhappy with a performer, then they know they would waste money trying to bring a suit against them. And if there's one thing I think Vince and Co. would do above anything else, it's act to maximize their profits. And, truthfully, they haven't sued a lot of their critics.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 15:22:20 GMT -5
I don't know how much knowledge you have about wrestling news, but here goes: The news sites take their news from credible sources. Sometimes they exaggerate or distort things, hence the "Newz" stuff. If Meltzer or Keller, after 40 years in the business combined, told lies, they would have been sued long ago. Neither has ever faced legal action from TNA or WWE. This is partly why it's ridiculous to claim neither is credible or makes up things. As far as the "heresay" accusation goes, Meltzer won't write something unless 3 sources close to the situation have told him the same thing. Don't know about Keller but I would assume it's the same. Meltzer and Keller are both completely capable of reporting things are false. What they report on is hearsay they have heard from people. If every report Meltzer posted was proven false, the WWE still could not just sue him. Meltzer could always say he was not lying he was misinformed. You usually don't get sued for being wrong. Also, if Meltzer only uses sources close to what he is reporting on, why does he ask people for news tips? Serious question here. If he has inside sources, why ask random people on the net for tips? When he gets the tips emailed to him, how does he know they are close to the source? You cannot seriously claim TNA had nothing to do with it whatsoever. I can. As far as I know Homicide was supposed to go after Rob with a chair from behind but Rob was supposed to turn around and stare him down. The storyline being Homicide was scared of Rob even when he had a chair. How do you prove that is not what was booked? Also: when they got the barrage of bad publicity, why didn't they say "they did it on their own"? Because they couldn't. They could have. TNA does not address every issue the wrestling insiders report.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:23:51 GMT -5
If Meltzer just told lies, he would not have so many friends in the business. Bret Hart has spoke glowingly of him, Foley too. And he is a legit journalist: he does a great deal of work for yahoo.com's site.
To say this is a conman peddling lies is absurd. Not that you were saying that, but that's how he's been described, and it's ridiculous.
|
|