The Unknown Poster

I don't disagree. I really like the guy playing Ambrose but he's done well in spite of awful booking. Should hve been booked like Steve Austin not some goofy mid card crazy guy. Even booked like Brian Pillman would have been good. But it's hard to get someone over as a lunatic with the awful announcing of yuk yuk cole every week. i also subscribe to the notion Brock should be murdering guys. But he's not really a TV draw anymore due to his booking. And they won't push him as top dog working part time. I expect he wins. But if they go with Hunter over Roman, Ambrose makes sense as the next top guy especially if roman turns heel play their cards right and the main event of WM next year is a triple thread of Ambrose vs roman vs seth

On a lighter note, The Pal to open in Whiskey Dix location. Has there ever been a crappier bar receiving so much hype?

Batman V Superman reviews are in. I've read a few non spoiler reviews. I'm usually a spoiler junkie but I have tickets for Friday and since batman is one of my all time favs I'm going to refrain. Any way...reviews seem to be tremendous.

Yeah, Maurice said if they were in a playoff fight, he'd deal with the pain and keep playing but it was getting worse and impacting his play, so no sense in keeping him playing.

I would suspect that sympathizers might be more radicalized or more inclined to develop a strong determination to strike back in retaliation. But as you said, its not like if we ignored them they would embrace a life of peace and harmony. One of my co-workers, his daughter just told them she has an opportunity to go to Europe as an exchange student. Where? You guessed, Belgium.

One interesting thing I picked up on was them referring to the HIAC as the "main event". it could just be a matter of referring to any big match as the main event but I wonder if there is really talk of making that the last match. That would fly in the face of usual Hunter logic. But if they decide to have the Authority screw Roman and Hunter win, do it earlier so there is even more pressure on the HIAC. Then you have the option of having Roman interfere on behalf of Shane to try and get him cheered. Really, if you need a lot of smoke & mirrors you could have a ton of interference with the idea that no one wants Hunter & Steph in charge. I'd expect to see Foley involved and Cena. The referring to Undertaker as Vince's ***** could be to lay the groundwork for Undertaker sacrificing himself. I suspected this was Undertaker's last WM ages ago as he was far more active this year than past years and I thought the reason might be that he decided to retire and was working more dates than usual to finish up, knowing he could recover later. Who knows. Logic would dictate he'd win his last match. But with Flair and Michaels both going out on their backs, I could see Taker insisting he do the same. What better way to "go out on your back" then to do so willingly as part of a major angle that changes the direction of the company... The diminishing Roman might indicate a plan change. Its one thing to "protect" him from hostile crowds but WM will be the most hostile crowd there is. If you have to protect him, then the push is all wrong, which it is. But maybe now they know it. Hunter winning at WM would be a nice "surprise", especially if its not the main event. If Shane wins it gives him something big to do on Monday and conspicuously, there have been no Hunter/Shane promos at all...so it sets up a big confrontation between the former heir apparent and the current heir apparent. If they went that way, I'd have Shane rip into Roman too, for being pushed without deserving it and lead to him turning heel. Have Ambrose beat Brock and be set up to face Hunter next and win...Hunter is "vanquished" and Roman is Ambrose' first program and the big summer feud.

Melchiori was recalled. Interesting hearing Maurice discuss Toby. He's been hurt since November.

You're making judgements about intent when you have no idea. Never been in the position. Never been in a scenario where its your career and making those choices. Laroque's remarks certainly dont come across as whining. Unless he's lying, he engaged the PA earlier in his career about steroids because of his fear of fighting guys on drugs. So he "quietly" tried to make changes. There is a culture in sports where you dont speak out. I think people are not taking into account the pressure of that culture. Should we tell Laroque to shut up because he didn't quit and speak out way back when no one would have cared, no one would know who he was or why what he said mattered? Boogard is somewhat different in that its legalese and its going to come across differently. But a link between the pressures of being an athlete, taking repeated blows to the head, getting hooked on painkillers, OD'ing or whatever? I can buy that. We've seen it many times in many sports (or entertainment).

So you know the intent and feelings of every hockey player? How do you know this?

Here's a story on Derek Boogard from the National Post: CHICAGO — The family of a National Hockey League player who died of an accidental overdose of pain medication and alcohol has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the NHL, blaming it for brain damage he suffered as an enforcer and for his addiction to prescription painkillers. Derek Boogaard, who was found dead on May 13, 2011, at age 28, was posthumously diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain ailment that can be caused by repeated blows to the head, according to the 55-page lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court late Friday. “Prior to and during Derek Boogaard’s career, the NHL knew, or should have known, that the Enforcers/Fighters in the NHL had an increased risk of brain damage due to concussive and sub-concussive brain trauma and were particularly susceptible to addiction issues,” it says. “To distill this to one sentence, you take a young man, you subject him to trauma, you give him pills for that trauma, he becomes addicted to those pills, you promise to treat him for that addiction, and you fail,” William Gibbs, attorney for the Boogaards, told The New York Times.

No one here is in the game of hockey at this level so we can discuss it but we dont understand it like the players and others around the game do. George Laroque: Lots of hockey fans think that every tough guy loves the fighting part of his job. Nothing could be more wrong. I know them all, and throughout my career I’ve met only four guys who really loved to fight. Every other tough guy in the league would rather do anything but fight on the ice. They would love to score tons of goals, become more and more talented, and earn bigger salaries, all the things hockey players dream of the moment they become hockey players. And I was one of those. I never enjoyed fighting. I did it because it was my job and the only way for me to keep playing in the NHL. Period. I could be injured, hurting everywhere — it didn’t matter. If I had to go, I simply had to. When my team was being dominated, I had to go. If my team was running up the score, I had to be ready to be jumped at any moment. In hockey, a lopsided score means there’s going to be trouble, and if there’s trouble, guys like me have to go to work. I remember a few times when I hoped the score would remain tight between the two teams just so that I could catch my breath. Even then, if one of the top players on my side was being harassed by an opponent, same thing, I had to go. The state of stress it put me into was sometimes unbearable. I really believe that those permanent feelings of anxiety and stress, when you add them to the constant fear, are pretty rare in professional sports. I really want the families of the three tough guys who died dramatically while this book was being written to accept my deepest and sincerest condolences. Those guys did a tough job, a job they probably didn’t want to do most nights. No matter what anyone says about that job, it takes a lot of courage to always be accountable and to always stand up for your teammates, whether you feel like it or not. When our soldiers come back from a dangerous mission abroad, more often than not they are left out in the cold. They experience psychological problems that often prevent them from being able to fully reintegrate into society and to find jobs. The stress they went through when they were doing their jobs often leads them to fall into drug and alcohol abuse. Well, the same goes for some of the NHL tough guys after their careers — with a couple of huge differences, though. First, soldiers are national heroes defending and protecting their countries. And, second, they don’t get paid nearly as much as hockey players do. So, yes, it is urgent we take some action to protect the NHL tough guys during and after their careers, but it is even more urgent we do the same for our true heroes.

is it whining and complaining or is it, free from the politics and consequences of speaking out, a way to try and effect change or educate other players and fans?

Sure, there is the personal responsibility aspect. But again, just far too simplistic. Its easy for us to say if we were presented with the option and pressure of having to play that role that we'd say no and walk away. But there is human nature and psychology that plays into this.

Well that's sort of the problem of politics, especially in the US right now. Is that the game is to win, not to campaign on your ideals. Trump's strategy is effective. If he did win the general election, I think you'd see a pretty stark change in how he acted. He's even said as much. I dont think he'd be a very effective President because I think he'd be battled at every turn by Congress and the media. But I dont think he'd do anything overly "crazy". Its such a contrast between Trump and Hilary that it would make for an entertaining campaign if nothing else. I assume Trump would choose a more moderate and experienced running mate to try and blunt some of the criticism. People might have sober second thoughts when it comes down to actually voting for him. Clinton needs a good running mate too...she's getting up there in age. If it's Trump/Palin though...ugh Im surprised to see JT label the bombings today as terrorism. Baby steps I guess.

No I dont feel sorry for them. You understand my personal feelings as well as you do this issue. Which is to say, not very well. To suggest its as simple as a player choosing to do it or choosing to quit is naive. Its very obviously not that simple. Can you imagine being in their position? And just quitting as a solution? We can compare it to the concussion issue too, which is somewhat related. We're seeing some young athletes quit. But that's the exception to the rule. I dont have all the answers, not at all. But the issue isnt that simple. If it was, we wouldnt be discussing it.

The NHL could eliminate fighting tomorrow. They dont. But they could. And they could also make the game as clean as it can be. Consequence guys who break the rules. If Im a dirty player, my goon fighting your goon is not a deterrent to me. Sure, your goon jumping me and beating me up might be a deterrence, but that can still happen today. But most fighting is one team's tough guy versus another team's tough guy. If those two tough guys weren't there, no fight takes place, no one is the wiser. If I'm a dirty player, the NHL should make it very very difficult for me to continue playing that way. Hurting my pocket book and hurting my team is a much stronger deterrent. Taking away something a player loves is a deterrent. Its the same way in life. When I worked in bars, threatening to beat someone up was almost never a deterrent to bad behavior. Banning them and their friends almost always was.

I think you're failing to understand the point. Let's assume you have an office job (I have no idea what you do). And if everyone around you wore red sweaters because the boss liked red sweaters, but you hated them, would you quit? Maybe. What if your job paid you a lot more money than any other job you could get? And it was something you wanted to do and loved doing since you were 5 years old? But to stay in your job and make that money, you had to wear a red sweater every day. You'd do it. A darn silly comparison. But to ignore the psychology and pressure of the situation, especially in past years when fighting was more prevalent is equally silly. Again, using the WWE example from the 80's and 90's...a guy who doesnt want to do drugs can quit. But a guy who wants to provide for his family in a pressure filled environment where he believes, probably true to a large degree, that he has no other option to make the money he can, put drugs in his body because it gave him an opportunity. Even when the boss said "we dont want our guys doing drugs" "We do not push guys who are on drugs", they did. So you did what you did to have the same opportunity. Its as easy to say "thats their problem, they can quit" as it is to throw stones in a glass house. Its a failure to understand the entire issue.

His Wall idea offends a lot of people because the idea of building walls in a post Berlin-wall world sounds awful. But the idea of doing something about illegal immigration is too often met with accusations of racism. It's hard to have that conversation in a civilized way with people who dont want to have it. I certainly havent studied the issues. But I listened to an interview with some guy who's name and credentials escape me - he was actually on CJOB. He was rattling off numbers that would see illegal immigration truly hinder the US in a matter of years if it continues unchecked. *Illegal* Immigration should not be allowed. How much drugs stream over that border? The idea of a wall was Trump's big trial balloon in seeing if his "unpopular" rhetoric would resonate with the average American. And it did. Big time. He says populist things. When his enemies attack him as racist and misogynistic and he continues to poll so strongly, they are attacking a large number of Americans. His idea of banning Muslims is ridiculous. But it speaks to a lot of American's who feel unsafe and feel Obama has not done enough to battle Islamic Extremists and to assure American safety. Trump's voice is the loudest and most common in a void. He's speaking to people's emotions. He doesnt sound like a politician. That appeals to many people. When Obama first ran for the Presidency, he did so in a similar but different way. He said "change" and nothing of substance. It spoke to people's innate desire for betterment. He made sure not to say anything substantial because he knew he was tapping into emotion which didnt require sense. Trump is doing the same.

That SOA rumor has been around a long time. With Brad Pitt as the father. I liked SOA but it was "good" not "great" television. Just stayed up late to finish House of Cards. Tremendous.

Luke Harper did leave under his own power though being helped. So that could be good news. A fan attacked Strowman too, was dragged out be security. Too bad that didn't happen on the show. Would have been the most exciting thing that happened

Luke Harper was hurt after RAW. Looked pretty serious (torn knee?). What a lousy RAW. However the Shane videos were tremendous.

Isn't it similar to the Ole Ole song? He used that pre-WWE...

Toronto wins!! One point separates the Moose and the Marlies....