|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 15:26:28 GMT -5
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 know. Yeah, you said it already, we all know the studies occurred. Again, though, Terry didn't do even a fraction of what guys did in ECW or the old WWF/WCW days. What he did was an isolated incident, with a method of protection to avoid damage, and was not put in a position repeatedly enough to cause permanent long-term damage as has been done before the studies were done. So, even with saying "They know now with studies" doesn't mean this was the same thing Foley took in WWE vs The Rock or people in ECw took week to week. Considering you keep bring up those guys and how serious it was like they had, it was only natural.... That is not irrelevant. Usually, when litigation is involved, it has to do with damage occurred. when there is no damage, even with the studies, there's no issue. My point was that there are two types of damage pointed out here: Those that occur when it happens, and those that occur over years. With the more guarded style now implemented with caution of chairs, it lowers the chances that it could occur, thus adds more safety to the performer. And the same can be said about any wrestling move. There's always the risk, be it for wrestling, for dancing, or for any stunt work or high risk thing. Trying to act like you should avid anything risky altogether is not really applicable here, cause the entire business is risk. And, really, it doesn't only happen to sloppy workers or guys who don't know what they do. That's why experienced people try to lower this as much as possible, and spread it out to avoid any kind of issue down the line. Going "well, they shouldn't do it in the first place" doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2010 15:27:31 GMT -5
Again, I'm not speaking one way or another about his credibility. I'm just saying "he hasn't been sued for libel" isn't evidence that he always is right about everything. They're two different things, and successfully suing takes a lot. I think he's more accurate than not about most things, although certainly he doesn't bat 1000 just by th enature of what he does.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:32:33 GMT -5
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? Ummm....you realize that he's not asking for actual insider info, right? The news tips thing is just "The Miz had an interview with the Miami Herald" or "Tiffany said on twitter she'd never go back to WWE." Look, I can't keep arguing about this: the way it was presented it clearly was in the script, and not something Homicide came up with on the fly, it was reported that way by creidble people, former employeers blasted them for allowing to happen, it caused a lot of fuss in the company because they scripted it, and no-one at TNA has ever denied it was in the script (and you'd think they would have). Raven even wrote a blog when he was in TNA defending TNA for scripting chairshots. TNA made a big deal of the fact that the Hardy chairshot to Ken Anderson's head was not intentional and was aimed at his back. And that didn't cause nearly the fuss the Terry chairshot did. So, if they denied it after the Anderson chairshot, why not after Terry thing? Because the latter was in the script.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 15:34:46 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. I disagree with that assessment of him as well. I don't think he is a liar. Still, I do think he has been and has the capability to be wrong. He does rely on hearsay and sometimes people do intentionally lie to reporters like him. That doesn't make him a liar, but it doesn't prove everything he says.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 15:41:18 GMT -5
Yeah, you said it already, we all know the studies occurred. Again, though, Terry didn't do even a fraction of what guys did in ECW or the old WWF/WCW days. What he did was an isolated incident, with a method of protection to avoid damage, and was not put in a position repeatedly enough to cause permanent long-term damage as has been done before the studies were done. So, even with saying "They know now with studies" doesn't mean this was the same thing Foley took in WWE vs The Rock or people in ECw took week to week. Again, we go back the the defense of "Well, okay, it was reckless and irresponsable, but it only happened once" which wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Once is enough. So: no, you can't point out where I said it. Even if Terry didn't sue, and someone else did for wrestler mistreatment, that chairshot would likely come up again. Because it proves they don't care about wrestlers. A chairshot is not "any wrestling move". There have not been mountains of studies about "any wrestling move." Christopher Nowinski has not had meetings with wrestling promoters about "any wrestling moves." Numerous wrestlers, journalists and fans have not campaigned to get rid of "any wrestling move." Why not? Can you point out an angle where business and money relied on someone taking a chairshot to the head? Would TNA be much worse off if they hadn't scripted the Terry/Homicide thing? I doubt it. They'd be in exactly the same spot. So why do it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 15:55:18 GMT -5
Again, we go back the the defense of "Well, okay, it was reckless and irresponsable, but it only happened once" which wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Once is enough. I think what you are missing is whether this was irresponsible at all. It's not about the action, but whether it actually did what you are accusing it of doing, namely causing damage that would lead to issues today or down the line. We know one is proven false, and another has low chances due to his style and the environment he's in. You seen to think that getting a chair shot is all it takes, no matter what occurs down the line or what even happens when the shot is taken. How? it's a planned move that caused no damage and done by a professional. This is not taking liberties with anyone, or causing anyone any stress. How does it possible show they don't care? Cause chair shots can hurt? No s***. So does everything else. Except chair shots weren't the only thing that Benoit did, chair shots weren't the only thing Mick Foley took during his career, Kanyon didn't spend most of his time taking chair shots. Both had equal amounts of blame in this, but you seem to base this entire thing on one part, ignoring all the other factors that build up along with the chairs. Cause it told a story. It told how Rob was tough and freaky. It set up Homicide and his crazy gimmick he was doing at the time. It gave enough to establish what they were trying to, no matter what occurred after.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 21, 2010 15:59:57 GMT -5
As far as Meltzer and libel suits go, you can't just sue someone for libel for printing lies. There has to be provable malicious intent on the writers' part (meaning they were knowingly printing lies in order to profit off of the affected person's/organization's lowered reputation).
A lot of libel lawsuits also go unnoticed. One of the most common targets of libel suits is tabloid newspapers like The National Enquirer. Basically, affected party sues them, tabloid quietly settles, rinse and repeat. They operate their business with these lawsuits in mind and still profit fairly handsomely off their lies.
So they just might not see it worth it being that they can't prove Meltzer et al were intentionally printing lies. Obviously, Meltzer's sources could be lying, but that's on the sources' heads, not his. Though I believe it is his responsibility to print a correction if he learns information he received was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 16:07:16 GMT -5
Again, we go back the the defense of "Well, okay, it was reckless and irresponsable, but it only happened once" which wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court. Once is enough. I think what you are missing is whether this was irresponsible at all. It's not about the action, but whether it actually did what you are accusing it of doing, namely causing damage that would lead to issues today or down the line. We know one is proven false, and another has low chances due to his style and the environment he's in. You seen to think that getting a chair shot is all it takes, no matter what occurs down the line or what even happens when the shot is taken. No; I think that one chair shot proves negligence. But it easily could have. And it happened AFTER all the studies came out. That's what makes it morally wrong, and likely legally wrong too. True; but getting rid of chairshots is the first step. And it's simply easier to eradicate them than trying to change the way someone wrestles. Now that will likely happen eventually, but you have to take what you can in a business notorious for people being unwilling to change. And then Terry's push stopped. And he disappeared for 6 months. So, what did it accomplish? And please don't tell me fans will remember it. This is a company with 46 heel/face turns in 46 weeks, people forget everything because so much happens.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 16:19:01 GMT -5
No; I think that one chair shot proves negligence. No, it doesn't. Negligence would have to mean that they would be doing the same things advocated in the reports, and as said before, a chair shot is not the same thing as repeated chairshots along with repeated traumas to the head via other means. No, it doesn't. To be legally wrong, there would have to be some kind of law put in place first. This is like smoking, where people know it's harmful, and they put it on the cartons itself, but they still smoke it. It could be harmful, but it's not illegal to own a pack. Hell, it's not even morally wrong, since no one was wronged here. And even if it went wrong, it isn't negligence, it's an accident at that point. It would be the same as when Tara got injured taking the final move from the cage match. Yeah, but what you are saying about Terry's shot is that it's the defining factor, and that's missing a huge chunk of the story. That's actually worse than how you're presenting the chairshot, cause ignoring things like workload, style and even what the guy does before and after an incident like that is much more important. Considering it keeps getting brought up around here all the time, it's not that easy to forget. It doesn't even matter how it's brought up. If they were to reference that next week, people would know what the hell they were talking about.
|
|
Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Dec 21, 2010 16:42:04 GMT -5
'It only happened once.'
Yeah, that chairshot happened once. Just like Bret Hart was kicked once. Then he kept on wrestling because no-one would step up and ask him to stop. So he got more concussions. And eventually had to retire because of it.
The 'it only happened once' defence is not a solid one. Putting a wrestler in a situation where he has a chance of getting a concussion is dangerous and unprofessional -- and yes, this was a situation where Rob Terry could have relieved a very nasty concussion. I don't know whether he did because it wasn't reported either way, but TNA couldn't have known that he wouldn't given the unprotected nature of the shot.
So yes, I'd say they did leave themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit. All it'd take is a doctor to diagnose Terry with post-concussion syndrome, and they could argue the unprotected chairshot started it.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 17:00:18 GMT -5
So yes, I'd say they did leave themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit. All it'd take is a doctor to diagnose Terry with post-concussion syndrome, and they could argue the unprotected chairshot started it. Wouldn't they first have to prove that, as you said, TNA put him in that position? Wouldn't that require proving the spot wasn't improvised? If someone showed up with a printed script that said "unprotected chair shot here" how could they prove that was a real script? How could they prove convincingly that it wasn't Terry's idea? They may be vulnerable to a lawsuit, but without any evidence and relying solely on one person's word vs another's, I don't think it would be a very legitimate lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 21, 2010 17:26:07 GMT -5
'It only happened once.' Yeah, that chairshot happened once. Just like Bret Hart was kicked once. Then he kept on wrestling because no-one would step up and ask him to stop. So he got more concussions. And eventually had to retire because of it. The 'it only happened once' defence is not a solid one. Putting a wrestler in a situation where he has a chance of getting a concussion is dangerous and unprofessional -- and yes, this was a situation where Rob Terry could have relieved a very nasty concussion. I don't know whether he did because it wasn't reported either way, but TNA couldn't have known that he wouldn't given the unprotected nature of the shot. So yes, I'd say they did leave themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit. All it'd take is a doctor to diagnose Terry with post-concussion syndrome, and they could argue the unprotected chairshot started it. You mention Bret Hart. Well, how did he know he was concussed? How did Anderson known about his concussion? What about Daffney? There would have usually been something to indicate there was some kind of damage. Well, it's been about 8 months since the incident, and while most people were going on about what might happen, was there any definite signs of damage to rob Terry? Really, the chairshot wasn't the issue, it was what happens after. You said yourself that Hart kept going and made it worse. Terry didn't do anything to agrivate any kind of tramua, nor was put in a position to suffer from it.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 21, 2010 18:04:51 GMT -5
So yes, I'd say they did leave themselves vulnerable to a lawsuit. All it'd take is a doctor to diagnose Terry with post-concussion syndrome, and they could argue the unprotected chairshot started it. Wouldn't they first have to prove that, as you said, TNA put him in that position? Wouldn't that require proving the spot wasn't improvised? If someone showed up with a printed script that said "unprotected chair shot here" how could they prove that was a real script? How could they prove convincingly that it wasn't Terry's idea? They may be vulnerable to a lawsuit, but without any evidence and relying solely on one person's word vs another's, I don't think it would be a very legitimate lawsuit. It was well known in the company that the chairshot would happen. The higher-ups even argued over it. I don't think everyone in management, and everyone else in the company will lie and say it was Terry's idea. Konnan had a few guys, including Xpac, backing him up over the racist accusations. I'm sure there is a script floating around somewhere too. And like I said, no-one in TNA has ever denied it was scripted and claimed that it was Terry's idea. They have no grounds for a denial whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Dec 21, 2010 18:11:12 GMT -5
How is it well known is my question again.
Is it known from a credible wrestling journalist? How does that journalist know it? From things he was told and did not witness?
Still sounds less like a known and more like hearsay to me.
|
|
|
Post by quirkalicious on Dec 21, 2010 20:15:48 GMT -5
"A credible source said..." "A reliable source said...." "It's well known that..."
When someone directly involved with the incident comes along and makes a statement, then I'll give the thought of a lawsuit some credence. Until then, this sounds like "TNA did something I didn't like, call Judge Judy."
Has Rob Terry been diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome? Can you prove that it can it came from the chair shot and not from any other time he had a head injury? Does he have a history of concussions? Has he had any baseline neurological tests? Do we know that he didn't agree with the chair shot idea (it doesn't have to be his own)?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 21, 2010 20:25:20 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. Not just defending him because he's like, one of my all time favourites, but Raven's been clean since like, 2000. That was the only way he was able to get in WWE in the first place since he had a previous problem. It's affected him later in life without question, but that's kinda not fair to lump him in. Angle, nothing has been said about any drug problems while in TNA. Just because someone was a drug addict, doesn't mean they should be shunned like a leper for the rest of their lives.
|
|
Ian Austin
Don Corleone
All will be well
Posts: 1,516
|
Post by Ian Austin on Dec 22, 2010 2:39:50 GMT -5
No to all of the above.
But I think a reasonable assertion, were he to get post-concussion syndrome, would go back to a point where he got smashed full-on in the head with a chair sufficiently to cause blood.
If that happened to me? I'd be sent immediately to the hospital. And like it or not, wrestlers can't train the head to take that kind of punishment and come out unscathed.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 22, 2010 8:46:10 GMT -5
Still debating the Rob Terry chairshot...?
I can't help but be amazed that, given what we now know, some people still think there's some defense for that. There isn't. TNA was wrong. They haven't done it since (that I'm aware), which would seem to indicate they understood it was wrong, as well.
|
|
|
Post by quirkalicious on Dec 22, 2010 8:57:11 GMT -5
No to all of the above. But I think a reasonable assertion, were he to get post-concussion syndrome, would go back to a point where he got smashed full-on in the head with a chair sufficiently to cause blood. If that happened to me? I'd be sent immediately to the hospital. And like it or not, wrestlers can't train the head to take that kind of punishment and come out unscathed. I agree that no one can be trained to take no damage from an unprotected chair shot, but I wonder if there's a way to minimize it. I watched the video a couple times and Homicide throws the chair at him, and Terry lowers his head into the top of the chair. I'm not saying I want to run studies or anything, but I wonder if the approach made a difference. Also, I could only agree with that assertion if I knew it was Terry's first time. Was it? Anybody know?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 22, 2010 13:22:51 GMT -5
strangely i'm guessing they don't do hospital bills because of what konnan did
|
|