For his swan song as chairman of the House's government oversight committee, Henry Waxman picked a very touchy topic: steroid use by professional wrestlers. Waxman's findings, released on January 2 and based on documents he gathered from the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and Total Non-stop Action (TNA), portray wrestling as a dystopia, where size determines your future, and where management repeatedly turns a blind eye to illegal drug abuse. The investigation began after the death of wrestlers Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit. In Benoit's case, an autposy showed his testosterone levels to be three times as high as they should be. Guerrero was a lifelong abuser of drugs. Waxman, whose committee's investigation of steroid abuse in baseball resulted ...
Between 2006 and 2008, after instituting a new testing regime, 40% of WWE wrestlers tested positive for steroid use, according to the WWE's own documents. 23 other wrestlers were caught using a variety of other narocotics, and even cocaine.
Surprise: wrestling is not baseball, and wrestlers don't compete directly with each other. But -- that's not really the case. The outcome of matches is predetermined, but the lockerroom jostling to be booked for the big match produces intense competition. And Vince McMahon is rumored to like his wrestlers to be big and muscular. And Vince McMahon is the guy who determines whether you'll get a push or not, whether you'll become a champion or not. Waxman's results are sobering for any wrestling fan. Yes, WWE adopted an NFL-like testing program in 2006. But McMahon asked for an amendment; certain wrestlers who were suspended could be booked for select matches on money-making pay-per-view shows, or on one the WWE's three weekly telecasts. Here's McMahon's justification:
Q I thought that the current policy is that a wrestler who's suspended because of a positive test result cannot appear on television or pay-per-view?
A No. The intent here is to obviously punish the performer. Not punish the performer, certainly not reward the performer. So you're sure as heck not rewarding the performer or his characterization by further putting him on television and having that person look less than favorable. And it's important to conclude a story. There's no advantage -- if that's where you're going, there's no advantage to someone appearing on television even though they've tested positive at all. Because when they do appear on television and/or pay-per-view, then theydon't look too favorable.
Q Because they lose their belt, is that why?
A Well, yeah. I mean they will do, quote, the honors as we call it. You know you will conclude a story line. And generally speaking in concluding a story line you know someone who has tested positive is not going to -- they're not going to fare well, they're not going to win in the story line. You need to conclude that, okay. And it normally takes us about a week to conclude some of those stories. Now, if you're not involved in a story line then we don't put you on television, period.
The idea is that WWE itself shouldn't be penalized for the conduct of its wrestlers. And McMahon implied that the wrestler's particular storyline would be wrapped up quickly; if he had a championship belt, he would lose it.
Elsewhere, a doctor on contract to WWE told Waxman's investigators that seven wrestlers had won an exemption from the policy because their personal doctors had prescribed testosterone enhancements for unspecified medical reasons. Those excuses aren't cross-checked.
In WWE's defense, they're the only wrestling company to have such an extensive wellness program, they've spent a lot of money on it, and wrestlers are randomly tested about four times a year. And -- it's true -- wrestlers tend to be a lot smaller these days than they did in the 80s, when cocaine was the drug of choice.
So what's to be done with all of this?
Waxman is moving on. As of this week, he's now the chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Wrestling is commerce -- in fact, Commerce seems to be driving its decision making, so Waxman could well assert jurisdiction. The new oversight committee chair, Rep. Edolphus Towns, probably won't continue the investigation. After the jump, read some of the more interesting exchanges at Vince McMahon's deposition. A WWE spokesman did not return an e-mail seeking comment.
Investigator: What would you tell WWE talent who asked you if there were long-term health risks from using steroids?
McMahon: I would tell them the very same thing I just told you. I'm not a doctor. I don't know if there are really any long-term effects of steroid usage.
....
Investigator: Is it safe to say that wrestling can be a dangerous activity or sport? Professional wrestling, I'm talking about.
McMahon: It's not a sport. We know this is entertainment.
Inv: Can it be dangerous?
Vince: Yes, it can.
Inv: Can it be dangerous to the wrestlers?
Vince: Yes, of course. They're the one wrestling.
....
Q What about involvement in creating story lines? Are you involved in that process?
A Sure.
Q In what way or at what stage in the process?
A It depends. We get story lines from our writers, we get story lines from our talent, things of that nature. In the newspaper, or whatever, we try to come up with things that are relevant to what's going on in today's environment and try to relate to that.
Q But where do you fit into the process?
A Ultimately, if it's top talent, I'll fit in at a very high level.
Q Meaning?
A Meaning I will be very much involved in the development of that talent, of the story line.
Q By top talent, is that like the champions in the divisions?
A Not necessarily champions, but top talent.
Q What does top talent mean to you?
A Top talent means to me that the people that are drawing the money and people with popularity of them coming into the arena.
Q Do you have any role in determining which wrestlers receive top billing within the organization?
A Sure.
Q And what role is that?
A Determining whether or not they receive top billing.
Q Do people make recommendations to you or do you come up with the particular wrestlers yourself?
A A combination.
Q Do you have any role in assigning wrestlers to specific divisions within the company?
A What do you mean by specific divisions?
Q ECW, Raw, SmackDown?
A Sure, I have a role in that.
Q And what role is that?
A Supervisory role, general oversight.
Q What about choosing talent to appear at pay-per-view events?
....
Q How do you assess whether someone has "it" or not?
A By listening to the audience and watching the audience.
We pretty much have, I guess ‐‐ what would you call "it"? We have an experience almost every night with our our audience is very vocal, like a test kind of environment. So they'll tell you whether or not they're reacting to a talent, be it positive or negative. And if they don't react to a talent, that tells us that's not good.
....
| 
