WWE Chris Benoit Dead

[Redmage]

I wasn’t aware we were doing anything else. Scanning back I see I don’t mention the word “professional”, but I didn’t have any other kind of athlete in mind at the time (assuming that amateurs just don’t put in the same amount of manhours and don't take the same level of risk).

We were talking about steroid use on the part of professional wrestlers, no?

That’s never been the way it’s been done in anything but politics. Politicians and farting lawyers make the rules, in consultation.

Yep, that's how laws are made - including laws against steroid use. Doesn't seem like a system you'd want to defend though.

I never said I should have any say in it. Not me personally. Parliament and, in your case, Congress make the laws.

In theory, those laws are passed because you and I want them. If you're saying that you DO want them, then yes, you are saying that you should be making such decisions for athletes through the proxy of your elected representative.

Foley: Every risk he took was as controlled as it's possible for a stunt fall to be. They were done with people who carried decades of experience each and centuries between them.

And if athletes were allowed to use steroids legally, then their use would likewise be done under experienced medical supervision to minimize risk. "Nanny laws" like this nearly always cause the problems they're claimed to solve.

Regardless, the risk (controllable or not, predictable or not) should be up to the athletes.

Evidently career burglars must hate the idea of laws declaring their profession illegal. Best we scrap them immediately. All the fault of the fuckwit householders for not fitting alarms and owning a .44 magnum or a SPAZ if they get robbed.

Please, you know the cases aren't parallel. Even athletes who don't use drugs do not feel compelled to turn in those who do. If a majority of athletes really opposed drug use then it would be simple for them to rid their sports of the minority who feel otherwise. A simple phone call would do. But they don't. Ergo they must not care about as much as you think they do, or those who do care are greatly in the minority.

The professional athletes taking the risks come what may, I don’t give a fuck about. I’m keen for the laws to protect the interests of gifted sportsmen and women who are world class professionals, yet care enough about more than their sport to want to preserve their bodies for their well earned retirements. In the eyes of any sane individual it would only be fair to them for steroids and their like to remain banned.

In other words the rules should be adjusted to favor the most risk-averse. Sorry, I don't consider that especially sane.

I do know that it's possible to have a bigger physique than Dwayne Jonhson's without taking steroids. Granted you'd have to be a seriously sad fucker with no other passtime, but it's possible.

As I said it works either way. If the Rock took his risks in the form of steroids instead of Mick Foley's crazy stunts, then it balances out. If he got his competitive edge without such risks, then those who do risk steroids aren't competing unfairly. Either way, steroids are not a problem in professional wrestling.

 

[BigJim]

We were talking about steroid use on the part of professional wrestlers, no?

I was talking about professional sportsmen in general, not especially professional wrestlers. Chris Benoit, Mick Foley and the Rock, our examples, are obviously ex professional wrestlers.

Yep, that's how laws are made - including laws against steroid use. Doesn't seem like a system you'd want to defend though.

I have no problem with it and until the human race remembers the talent of mass telepathic conclave, it’s as good as any other system I’ve heard of. How a particularly generation of politicians treats accountability with contempt is a related, but separate issue. That I am hot on.

In theory, those laws are passed because you and I want them. If you're saying that you DO want them, then yes, you are saying that you should be making such decisions for athletes through the proxy of your elected representative.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am saying that because I do not consider it a case of easy personal choice where the only consequence is born by the single person taking the injection/pill/powder.

And if athletes were allowed to use steroids legally, then their use would likewise be done under experienced medical supervision to minimize risk. "Nanny laws" like this nearly always cause the problems they're claimed to solve.

Possibly a point. Science has achieved much, although it does duplicate religious doctrine on some occasions. Who says that the gagillions of dollars in the world of sports sponsorship couldn’t perfect the art of inventing a side-effectless steroid? Whoever did it would be an instant billionaire I imagine. Such a system would be a long way away from being perfected to the point of safe and universal practice though.

Regardless, the risk (controllable or not, predictable or not) should be up to the athletes.

Ibid #2. It is not a matter of personal consequences only. If it were, maybe the matter would be different. An entire sport with untold numbers of practitioners are affected by an elite cabal at the top using steroids and that isn’t fair if there are numbers of them, with equal amounts of natural talent, drive and work ethic, who value their bodies enough not to pollute them. Democracy is not, in theory, about the enforcement of the will of the majority over everyone, it should be about the protection of everyone’s rights as much as it can be.

Please, you know the cases aren't parallel. Even athletes who don't use drugs do not feel compelled to turn in those who do. If a majority of athletes really opposed drug use then it would be simple for them to rid their sports of the minority who feel otherwise. A simple phone call would do. But they don't. Ergo they must not care about as much as you think they do, or those who do care are greatly in the minority.

No, they aren’t parallel. At this point a certain world-weariness and desire to break out of the Ouroboros-like circle we were in had taken over. One does do silly things at two in the AM.

I wouldn’t go for the whole majority-would-oppose-and-fight-against thing. Anyone coming through the ranks of any great profession is far more likely to keep their gob shut, especially in an arena where there is great competition. Carl Lewis took two years to speak out against Ben Johnson after he won the world championship 100m for example, and Lewis was a world class standard athlete by anyone’s standards.

In other words the rules should be adjusted to favor the most risk-averse. Sorry, I don't consider that especially sane.

You seem to have anarchistic tendencies Arr-Em.
It has nothing to do with favouring anyone, as I’ve made abundantly clear on several occasions. I’ve clarified it to smegging death, haven’t I? It is about protecting everyone’s interests and preserving the right of those who don’t want to cut their life span in half. Law does that in every area of life, why should professional sports be any different?

As I said it works either way. If the Rock took his risks in the form of steroids instead of Mick Foley's crazy stunts, then it balances out. If he got his competitive edge without such risks, then those who do risk steroids aren't competing unfairly. Either way, steroids are not a problem in professional wrestling.

Tell that to Chris Benoit, Curt Hennig, Davey Boy Smith, Louie Spiccoli and Brian Pillman. And tell it to the others who are going to be following them in the years to come.

No it doesn’t work, because the risks don’t even remotely compare. Mick Foley’s biggest problem (accident caused by a variable)in that HITC match against Taker came when a chair fell through the roof when he was laying on the canvas, twatted him in the face and knocked one of his teeth out. Everything else was a risk certainly, but they were managed risks taken professionally and done with assistance of other guys who were the best in the world. Using anabolic steroids doesn’t compare to that and there is a hell of a lot less risk of death landing on a table or in that ring than there is from steroids. Wrestlers with heart and skeletal disorders are now dropping like flies. In the British Bulldog’s case it was both. He was nearly paralysed the year before he died, because his spine was so much chalk after years of abuse and eventually some of his top vertebrae fell almost to dust. The guy who trained me tagged with the guy on one occasion, and he told me that when Smith was getting ready for their match he was laying out about twenty five different needles, all of which he injected locally before he went out. No wonder the fucker dropped dead in his 40’s. In the years to come this is going to be blown even wider open than it is. More wrestlers are going to die prematurely from heart and other problems caused or exacerbated by steroid abuse and more are going to be in wheel chairs because their skeletons could be used for writing on a blackboard. This is going to get way worse than it is now.

Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb anyway?

 

[911]

Just FYI, here in the US pot is illegal even with a prescription.

So if you suffer from MS or something and your doctor prescribes pot you still can't smoke it?

 

[Redmage]

So if you suffer from MS or something and your doctor prescribes pot you still can't smoke it?

That is correct. Certain states such as California have decriminalized medical marijuana, but the federal government refuses to recognize those laws and continues to prosecute those who sell or purchase pot for medical reasons.

 

[Redmage]

I was talking about professional sportsmen in general, not especially professional wrestlers. Chris Benoit, Mick Foley and the Rock, our examples, are obviously ex professional wrestlers.

Um, just a couple of posts back you denied that you had been referring to professional athletes at all (which came as a surprise to me at the time). I've been asserting throughout that professional wrestling is different from other sports in this sense.

Possibly a point. Science has achieved much, although it does duplicate religious doctrine on some occasions. Who says that the gagillions of dollars in the world of sports sponsorship couldn’t perfect the art of inventing a side-effectless steroid? Whoever did it would be an instant billionaire I imagine. Such a system would be a long way away from being perfected to the point of safe and universal practice though.

I wasn't talking about no side effects. I was saying that the medical knowledge exists right here and now to administer steroids and other drugs in ways that minimize risks, but do not eliminate them. It requires careful dosing and regular monitoring and adjustment. But doctors and athletes can't use these methods now because of laws banning steroids. Thus these laws increase the risks to athletes rather than reducing them. This is the common effect of all Nanny Laws.

BTW, remind me to rant about the whole myth of "side effects" some other time.

It is not a matter of personal consequences only. If it were, maybe the matter would be different. An entire sport with untold numbers of practitioners are affected by an elite cabal at the top using steroids and that isn’t fair if there are numbers of them, with equal amounts of natural talent, drive and work ethic, who value their bodies enough not to pollute them.

What this amounts to is some athlete going to the government and saying "That guy over there keeps winning because he's willing to take chances that I'm not willing to take. Pass a law to make him stop."

I'm sorry, but I just don't have a gram of sympathy for that attitude. In sports such as baseball, where fans are paying to see unenhanced competition, that's a different matter. In those cases athletes who use drugs are defrauding paying customers. But there is absolutely no justification for protecting the "rights" of athletes who don't want to run certain risks. There is no such right.

I wouldn’t go for the whole majority-would-oppose-and-fight-against thing. Anyone coming through the ranks of any great profession is far more likely to keep their gob shut, especially in an arena where there is great competition. Carl Lewis took two years to speak out against Ben Johnson after he won the world championship 100m for example, and Lewis was a world class standard athlete by anyone’s standards.

That's my point. If a majority of athletes in any sport were really vehemently opposed to drug use then they would act to rid their sport of the few players who felt differently. This is just common sense: if people don't speak up then either they aren't even close to a majority or they literally don't care enough to do anything about it. There's no other possible conclusion.

You seem to have anarchistic tendencies Arr-Em.

We call ourselves Libertarians in the US. The Libertarian position holds that all other rights commonly recognized in a democracy descend from one basic and fundamental right: the right to be left alone by the government so long as one's actions don't impinge on the safety or property of another person.

It has nothing to do with favouring anyone, as I’ve made abundantly clear on several occasions. I’ve clarified it to smegging death, haven’t I? It is about protecting everyone’s interests and preserving the right of those who don’t want to cut their life span in half. Law does that in every area of life, why should professional sports be any different?

You've repeated it often, but that doesn't make it any more true. What you're saying is that athletes willing to improve their performance by taking risks with their own bodies should be prevented from doing so because this "unfairly" penalizes the risk-averse. This is like saying that a race-car driver who routinely redlines his engine should be forced to install a governor to protect the "rights" of the other racers.

Professional sports should not be different from other areas of life. Nanny laws are wrong in all areas.

Using anabolic steroids doesn’t compare to that and there is a hell of a lot less risk of death landing on a table or in that ring than there is from steroids. Wrestlers with heart and skeletal disorders are now dropping like flies.

I won't be a bit surprised if Mick Foley drops dead one day. The man sustained six concussions in 12 years. He holds the dubious record for the most chair shots taken over the course of a career. If there is not an aneurysm out there with his name on it then that's a minor miracle.

There's a reason why Foley has never been equaled: his colleagues think he's insane. Most of them would far rather take steroids.

Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb anyway?

I've always just taken it for granted.

 

[kered]

The Libertarian position holds that all other rights commonly recognized in a democracy descend from one basic and fundamental right: the right to be left alone by the government so long as one's actions don't impinge on the safety or property of another person.

Didn't Benoit impinge on his wife and young son's safety, or is one exempt from killing family members in this situation? Redmage, my friend, you always have very goods arguements to support your thinking but I can't go along with you on this one. I don't and will never believe that performance enhancing drugs belong in any sport or entertainment event, from ballet to wrestling. I also believe that we may be seeing more of these type stories and in greater numbers.

 

[Redmage]

Didn't Benoit impinge on his wife and young son's safety...?

Of course he did. However first off it's not at all clear that this was the result of steroid use. In fact the deliberate and drawn-out nature of his crimes is just the opposite of the brief outbursts we expect from "roid rage." And second alcohol causes far more violent behavior than steroids do, but we don't ban it. Instead we punish people who fail to use it responsibly.

That is the appropriate way to handle any drug with this potential: in all cases, punish people only if they cause harm to others (or reasonably risk doing so, as in drunk driving). Using alcohol doesn't harm anyone else. Getting drunk and violent does. Likewise steroids.

 

[BigJim]

Um, just a couple of posts back you denied that you had been referring to professional athletes at all (which came as a surprise to me at the time). I've been asserting throughout that professional wrestling is different from other sports in this sense.

In response to you saying,
” Well, since we're talking about professional sports we should probably stick to the attitudes prevalent among professional athletes, who are only a very tiny fraction all human athletes. Those attitudes are as I described “, I said,
” I wasn’t aware we were doing anything else. Scanning back I see I don’t mention the word “professional”, but I didn’t have any other kind of athlete in mind at the time (assuming that amateurs just don’t put in the same amount of manhours and don't take the same level of risk).”

I know I’m shit at using few words, but that seems to indicate to me that I was referring to professional athletes/sportsmen.

Different by its “legitimate” use of steroids you mean?

I wasn't talking about no side effects. I was saying that the medical knowledge exists right here and now to administer steroids and other drugs in ways that minimize risks, but do not eliminate them. It requires careful dosing and regular monitoring and adjustment. But doctors and athletes can't use these methods now because of laws banning steroids. Thus these laws increase the risks to athletes rather than reducing them. This is the common effect of all Nanny Laws.]BTW, remind me to rant about the whole myth of "side effects" some other time.

Remember to have a rant about side effect myths sometime.

You also said you’d legalise various narcotics, didn’t you?

What this amounts to is some athlete going to the government and saying "That guy over there keeps winning because he's willing to take chances that I'm not willing to take. Pass a law to make him stop."

It does, although the context you put it in is warped and slanted. The athlete could bitch that the other guy is willing to train for double the time, so please pass a law limiting training for professional athletes, but something like that doesn’t equate or balance against enhancer use.

I'm sorry, but I just don't have a gram of sympathy for that attitude. In sports such as baseball, where fans are paying to see unenhanced competition, that's a different matter. In those cases athletes who use drugs are defrauding paying customers. But there is absolutely no justification for protecting the "rights" of athletes who don't want to run certain risks. There is no such right.

In this paragraph you seem to be claiming that Al “Mighty” Dollar and consumer power is virtually the be all and end all of why competition laws should be structured a particular way.

As for rights, there is no such thing as a right of any description. No deity laid down an iron-cast law that things called “rights” should exist. Such things only come into being because people created them.

That's my point. If a majority of athletes in any sport were really vehemently opposed to drug use then they would act to rid their sport of the few players who felt differently. This is just common sense: if people don't speak up then either they aren't even close to a majority or they literally don't care enough to do anything about it. There's no other possible conclusion.

The Japanese have a saying.
“If you are the nail that stands out higher than all the others, you’ll be the first one to get hit.” I think that especially applies when you’re in a ruthless oligarchy.

Being close enough to a majority to give you a block vote isn’t the point. As Gandhi said, even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth. But it takes courage or recklessness to speak out against a lie if a lot of people regard it as part of the framework. It takes a degree of bravery to be public. Something I don’t think I have for certain and I’m no coward by any stretch of the imagination.

We call ourselves Libertarians in the US. The Libertarian position holds that all other rights commonly recognized in a democracy descend from one basic and fundamental right: the right to be left alone by the government so long as one's actions don't impinge on the safety or property of another person.

Unless your activity is causing a state of affairs that is creating a detrimental effect on someone else. That’s when you stop being a libertarian and become an anarchist. Where personal freedom becomes a watchword for allowing people to do whatever they hell they like, and be buggered to the consequences.

You've repeated it often, but that doesn't make it any more true. What you're saying is that athletes willing to improve their performance by taking risks with their own bodies should be prevented from doing so because this "unfairly" penalizes the risk-averse. This is like saying that a race-car driver who routinely redlines his engine should be forced to install a governor to protect the "rights" of the other racers.

That’s an inaccurate and highly exaggerated comparison comparison. It would make more sense to say that it’s tantamount to preventing a risky driver from fitting an adapted jet engine from a fighter plane to his car while all the others just manage with NASCAR standard ones.

Professional sports should not be different from other areas of life. Nanny laws are wrong in all areas.

Depends on what you regard as a nanny law. I loathe nanny laws as much as you do, but I define them differently. When it comes to professional sports (in which I include wrestling, even though the events are kayfabe) I don’t think it’s morally wrong to regulate what can and can’t be done to improve a competitor’s physique.

I won't be a bit surprised if Mick Foley drops dead one day. The man sustained six concussions in 12 years. He holds the dubious record for the most chair shots taken over the course of a career. If there is not an aneurysm out there with his name on it then that's a minor miracle. There's a reason why Foley has never been equaled: his colleagues think he's insane. Most of them would far rather take steroids.

Taking steroids has less of a dramatic appearance and is less immediately shocking and painful. That would be my immediate reaction too, but considering it in the cold light of day, I’d call it short term thinking.

I've always just taken it for granted.

Personally, I’ve always wondered who’s tomb is buried under Saint Peter’s Basilica.