Paul Heyman on Chris Benoit

This was published back in February, and boy does it hit home in a major way.

This is what I admire about Paul Heyman. He pulls no punches and speaks his mind, even when (as the article indicates) he is at a loss for words. A rarity for Paul E.

I remember back to the first One Night Stand pay per view and his shoot on Eric Bischoff, Edge and JBL (the JBL one was apparently completely impromptu - the other two were pre warned). Paul didn't mince words. Neither do I - even though the way I present that has changed. I fancy the same is true of Paul. But I digress...

In this article, Paul reflects on that weekend in June 2007. Like everyone else (myself included) everyone has theories about what happened. The reality is no one will ever know for sure. All we have are medical reports talking about brain damage and the first signs of dementia. And the toxicology reports - which to me ask more questions than answer them. In the immediate aftermath in 2007 I made a comment on the AAW forum stating that "No one has the right to take the life of a child" - a remark that got agreement from even my enemies. And this actually brought into the equation the forgotten victims, as Paul also quite rightly reflected. Chris's parents and siblings. Nancy's parents and siblings. Chris's kids from his first marriage.

It's when Paul talks about understanding that he really hits the heart of the matter. And this is the root reason for this update. Who knows? You can apply that to numerous acts across history. Cho. Martin Bryant. The list is long and goes back to Jack the Ripper. Then you add those who commit acts that are legal and not criminal - just controversial, or seen as such. Now this is where it gets personal for me, because what Paul is saying about Chris Benoit also applies to my wrestling enemies when they talk about me. They talk in theory. They don't know.

Now I'm not writing this to seek to justify myself alongside the likes of Benoit and the other murderers I mentioned. Of course not. But at least in the case of Bryant - given that there is a nagging (albeit unconfirmed) note that he's an Aspie - there is a sort of empathy. Not the sympathetic variety mind you - more like a "I understand and this is what to do to avoid that". It's why I'm so keen to be understood.

The trouble is too many people don't want to know. They take the face value and run with that. Great example, and I go back to the Benoit media coverage for it. The face value presented was steroid rage. WWE was onto that and defending itself with everything it could. I would have thought TNA and the NWA at least would have done the same thing (to my knowledge they haven't). The person who was great during this period was Chris Jericho on Larry King - comparing roid rage to caffeine rage. Brilliant.

I consider my wrestling enemies to be that media. Running with a face value because of a history and whatever else they can get their hands on. But just like Paul Heyman said about Benoit, "We don't know". In Benoit's case of course we never will.

In my case - that's not quite true. The question is;

Who WANTS to know?

Those that do are the ones who - for the most part - have become great friends. I am still yet to work out though what the trick is to understand. My present theory is that the other person is either a trained or natural educator, or they've been subjected to severe prejudice for something that is a part of their life. For some of my friends it's clear - Sync is an Aborigine. Wally has a homosexual son and a second son who is married to a Muslim girl. They're the obvious ones. The ones who have actually seen and experienced what I have also tend to side with me, such as Scratcher. On the education side you have Coach, and he has got his fair share of prejudice in employment on top of that (that I can certainly empathise with!). There's also Tex and Andy, who are both in the legal field (Tex in the past and Andy in the future) and I think the really good lawyers are great educators - as opposed to the rotters.

Meeting me IRL isn't the whole answer. After all I have met a lot of my enemies IRL. Not all of them of course - I've never actually had it out face to face with Ayling even though I've seen him. The same goes for Teakle and Peters.

Even the more recent issues with others are with people I have never met IRL. They THINK they know me, judging on chosen pieces of my life that paint me at my worst. It's like judging Benoit solely on what he did at the end of his life. Heyman said the same about OJ Simpson. What both of them did in their respective professions gets forgotten. My proud moments in football and what I have achieved in wrestling is getting swept under the carpet. And for what? For some cheap bully points - and nothing else. None of my wrestling enemies - either the noted ones, or the others like Read, Pornstar/Perry and so on - fulfil the category of educator. They're too lazy. That also applies to my other enemies - with Fore Sam at the top, followed by Lumbus and Joeker.

But what will it take to turn that around? The defamation action against Tenana? That's only him taken care of, so no that won't do it. And why should I apologise when I've done nothing wrong? Unlike Benoit and (if you believe the civil system in the US) OJ. It's a bad example I know, but the perfect comparison here is Michael Jackson. He's innocent of any wrong doing and yet there are those who continue to pursue him because he leads a unique life. I don't have the luxury he has of having access to money to make things right. I'm innocent and I know it. So I do what I can with what I've got. Will that stop the rot?

Who knows?