By coincidence I just saw a great film noir flick earlier today, Sudden Fear with Joan Crawford and Jack Palance. While Palance is courting her (prior to trying to knock her off), he takes her to a Chicago "acting studio" that expressly trains wrestlers on the fine art of faking it. That film was made in 1952.

The Carole Lombard satiric comedy "Nothing Sacred" is about a woman who's misdiagnosed as having incurable radium poisoning, and who is then given a free trip to New York City, where she becomes an instant media cause celebre. She's falsely held up as a paragon of courage and womanly ideals, etc.

Anyway, at one point she attends a pro wrestling event. Both wrestlers and the referee are inelegantly entangled in the ropes when the announcer interrupts their match to announce that he's just learned that the heroic, doomed girl is seated in the audience. They turn the spotlight on her, and declare a moment of respectful reflection for her bravery in the face of death. Both wrestlers stand solemnly in the ring. Then, respectful reflection over, they and the referee get back into the exact awkward position they'd been in, and resume the bout. The movie is from 1937.

My next wrestling deaths: Scott Steiner, or Big Show.

Randy Orton kills himself in 10 years.

The one guy I'm surprised who isn't dead is Shane McMahon. He's probably had the least training, and has done some crazy ass shiittte.

So Gregor, maybe you can explain to me what it is the attraction of modern day professional wrestling that for anyone with more than 7 functioning synapses?

Okay, when I was a kid, I enjoyed guys like Argentina Apollo, Haystacks Calhoun, Andre the Giant and so on. Heroes and villains and some pretty odd bodies, but nothing at all like the extravaganza you see today.

But if I flash across some of this while channel surfing, it just seems so tawdry and sad. Like a strip club.

Maybe you could enlighten me.

Like a strip club.

DAMMIT STACY KIEBLER IS MULTI-TALENTED

Add in Billy Kidman, La Parka, Jushin Liger, and Ultimo Dragon---even Alex Wright, Psychosis and Sliver King could be entertaining, and Chavo always tried real hard.

Special mention amongst WCW midcarders should go to the short tenure of Blitzkrieg.

He didn't last long (did he get injured?), but was a small dude who could do some moves, and it later came out he was actually a moonlighting computer programmer.

The biggest problem with wrestling is still racism.

For a while, the only Black guy in the show had to be a pimp, and all Asian wrestlers had to have a move in which spitting krap into eyes was involved.

My favourite wrestling story line of all time is when Val Venis had to rescue this Asian chick from a group of evil Asians.

DAMMIT STACY KIEBLER IS MULTI-TALENTED

The sad and tawdry part of a strip club is not the performers.

It's the audience.

the only Black guy in the show had to be a pimp,

Well, it doesn't make financial sense to set up wrestling academies in the inner city.

So Gregor, maybe you can explain to me what it is the attraction of modern day professional wrestling that for anyone with more than 7 functioning synapses?


Maybe that is all I have left, Srul.

I have had two major periods of following wrestling. One was probably mid to late 70s when I was a kid. At that time, my reasoning was pretty similar to yours. Even as a kid, when Vince started making it into a cartoon, buying out the local feds, etc., I lost a lot of interest.

My only real involvement during the 80s was live events. For us folks growing up in the sticks, booking a wrestling card was an excellent fund raiser, and Crockett Promotions was very willing to work with high school groups. I still fondly remember when I was pressed into duty being Dory Funk, Jr.'s driver after he decided to come in by private plane and didn't have a ride from the airport. Dory, to his credit and his then partner Cowboy Bob Orton, Jr., were more than happy to spend time with this marked out kid.

Then I watched heavily again in the early to mid 90s. I think I started watching b/c it was an easy way to relieve stress and tension. But as Szym pointed out, the show really changed during that time. You started seeing bigger productions, and better production values. You started to see better ringmanship with the rosters we discussed earlier. As pointed out by Wok, you went from the Fabulous Mullah to Stacy Kiebler and Tammy Sytch, which had eye candy appeal. Moreover, we had this thing called the internets, and the rise of the "smarks". Wrestling fans that did deeper coverage of the sports and people. Those that thought we knew the real story, but were just feeding the new multi-million dollar oliarchy.

And at any time, I always respect anyone that can orate. Between Naitch, Stone Cold, the Rock, Jericho, the last gasp of Arn Anderson, and Jim Cornette there were great mike moments.

I fell off again in the late 90s, and when the internets bubble crashed, there really wasn't much content anymore. Over the last few years, I've watched some, but that is prob. b/c of the fact that Szym, Wale, Paul D., and at times, JC can make it part of the conversations we have here.

At its best, it reminds me of Beijing Opera. Tales of conflict acted out in a canvas of acrobatics. At its best, it bottles euphoria mania and anger into a three minute sketch like a punk rock classic. At its best, its orators are better than many you find in the courtrooms.

At its worse, it looks and sounds like your neighbors kids butchering the same chord over and over in the garage next door.

But like life, wrestling is a big streaming internet radio station. You may have to take two songs of crap to really discover something wonderful that you aren't going to get in any other outlet.

One of my favourite gags was Al Snow and the JOB Squad. I thought that was funny, but maybe it was just me.

the only Black guy in the show had to be a pimp

Pimping isn't easy. But that's not true, he did have a partner that went by the name "Sexual Chocolate"

For awhile that was definately true. Guys like Ernie Ladd and Ron Simmons should have had bigger careers. Moreover, there was no reason that a guy like Ron Simmons had to be Farook of the Nation of Domination.

But I think African Americans are having a better go at it. They went to stereotype with Shelton Benjamin, but Duane Johnson and Bobby Lashley look like they are having a free run.

I'd say that might be true of Latino wrestlers, but some of that might be just because Konnan can't play anyone other than "the guy from the Barrio" Moreover, Eddy Guerrero's best character was probably the "Latino Heat" persona. Nevertheless, most of the Lucha guys were given free reign to do their Lucha-thing.

Most of the asian wrestlers in the US are supposedly bringing some "mystic arts of the orient" in their characters. The last one I remember that had a different motif was probably Masa Saito or Yokozuna, who just played the big man roles.

Most any Canadian has to resort to some Canadian gimmick too. Occaisionally, you still see a Russian gimmick for anyone that looks Russian, but that died off in the cold war. They milked the Middle East thing during the Iran hostage crisis, but they aren't touching that one in the new days of the War on Terrorism. That's probably b/c one of the biggest fanbases is the US Military.

In response to Kevin's question as to why some are afraid of Congress legislating based upon a high-profile drug death, I say 'Len Bias'.

BTW, gotta love the google ads at the bottom for steroid websites.

Most any Canadian has to resort to some Canadian gimmick too. Occaisionally, you still see a Russian gimmick for anyone that looks Russian, but that died off in the cold war. They milked the Middle East thing during the Iran hostage crisis, but they aren't touching that one in the new days of the War on Terrorism. That's probably b/c one of the biggest fanbases is the US Military.


Let's not forget La Resistance, but French bashing is acceptable.

But that's not true, he did have a partner that went by the name "Sexual Chocolate"

Ah yes, I remember them writing Mark Hendry into a sex hound. God I love the WWE.

I still feel bad for the Rock. He went from Wrestling Superstar to making a Doom movie.

I still feel bad for the Rock. He went from Wrestling Superstar to making a Doom movie.


He's crying all the way to the bank. BTW for any Rock fans, be sure to check out ESPN classic during whatever weekend FSU and Miami plays football. They usually do a marathon of FSU-Miami games. There is one, I forget the year, but FSU is beating up on Miami. At the end of the game, the camera cuts to a young Duane Johnson on the sideline. He's obviously pissed. But I think this is the first appearance of The People's Eyebrow.

Ah yes, I remember them writing Mark Hendry into a sex hound.

Yes, and they had him try to woo Joanie Laurie. There was the short lived, "I'd Rather Be in Chyna" merchandizing (I don't think that was officially licensed though).

Hulk Hogan: Worthless piece of krap, yes or no?

I vote yes

But like life, wrestling is a big streaming internet radio station. You may have to take two songs of crap to really discover something wonderful that you aren't going to get in any other outlet.

That's a really good description.

There's definitely a lot of crap in wrestling, but when you have two guys who really know what they're doing in the ring, the match itself becomes an evolving storyline, and the spectacle around it becomes irrelevant.

Most of the guys mentioned above wrestle using elements from juniors (the lighter wrestlers) in Japan. It's not realistic fighting in the style of UFC, but realistic within the internal rules of wrestling physics.

Here's a quick one on YouTube Taka Michinoku v. Black Tiger II (Eddie Guerrero) from 1994. It's short, but unfortunately, a lot of the longer matches that better exemplify the style that are available online involve Benoit.

A lot of gimmicks are given because guys aren't very good wrestlers and they want to do something with the guy. Mark Henry ended up being Sexual Chocolate because he was a strong guy that Vince McMahon loved and gave a 10-year contract to.

I wasn't really a fan of Guerrero's Latino Heat thing - the high-pitched accent he did was lame and he was paired up with Chyna, who frankly, was a really shitty wrestler (really, the only fundamentally sound female wrestler the WWE has employed since the 80s was Nora Greenwald aka Molly).

Guerrero's Cheat-to-Win schtick was always my favorite. A character who was always good enough to win wrestling honestly, but would cheat anyway simply because he's Eddie Guerrero and you suck.

Forgot to mention Dave Finlay, one of the best brawlers of all time. He had some great matches with people like Regal because they would mutually agree to beat the everliving #### out of each other with their punches to make the matches better.

Nora Greenwald aka Molly

her real name is "Nora Greenwald"? No wonder they changed her name.

Guerrero's Cheat-to-Win schtick was always my favorite. A character who was always good enough to win wrestling honestly, but would cheat anyway simply because he's Eddie Guerrero and you suck.

Agreed, that was a good schtick.

I'm a big fan of the Dudleys, I liked them in ECW, the 3D through a table was awesome (when i was a kid). Not quite sure what's the deal with Spike Dudley, but at least that guy isn't on Roids.

I hate to interrupt talk of the only "sport" that will have anything to do with Pete Rose, but I just wanted to echo what Jeff Wilson said in 235. Len Bias is exactly what I was thinking of when I said that there's criminal and then there's Criminal. Bias's death set off some of the most damaging hysteria -- damaging to civil liberties, far more than the War on Terror -- we've had since McCarthy.

I'm not reading through this whole discussion, but I would like to touch on the Caminiti wiki quote from the first page. Clearly whoever posted that has never been witness to a death certificate being filled out. The rule of thumb is to list absolutely any medical condition that in any way relates to the exact mechanism of death. If Caminiti had grown obese in his final years and died as a result of a massive M.I. triggered by a ridiculously lethal dose of cocaine, the obesity would theoretically have contributed to his death and would have appeared on the death certificate.

Without knowing anything about Caminiti's use other than what little he made public, my guess is that steroid use may have predisposed him to heart problems, but it was not at all a proximate cause of death in comparison to the other factors.

I still feel bad for the Rock.

He has local ties here, so he is always going to be popular here.

Life out here is different. I hate the Phillies, but I am morally bound to root for Shane Victorino.

Phil Mushnick weighs in with his opinion on the Benoit case in the Post: Benoit Tragedy Wakes Up Media

Given that pro wrestling and Barry Bonds are amongst his favorite writing topics, I'm a bit disappointed he didn't tie them together somehow. Perhaps he's saving that for a future column.

Uppers in the morning, painkillers at night, juice in between to sustain those massive physiques, the kind the industry has demanded and rewarded since McMahon took over. That's the regimen. You wanna be a TV star, don't you?
...
Until Monday, and since McMahon became king, pro-wrestling deaths would occur only one at a time. No big deal. If you've ignored one, you can ignore them all. Even during the drug trial that led to the conviction and imprisonment of the WWE's McMahon-appointed doctor, McMahon, himself a former steroid user, escaped media inspection.

Until this week, the only sudden, premature death of a pro wrestler that caused a national stir came in 1999, when Owen Hart died what in pro wrestling relativity constituted a natural death. He didn't drop dead; he was dropped dead, from the rafters in a pay-per-view skit-too-far.

Hulk Hogan: Worthless piece of krap, yes or no?


Yes, because he would refuse to put anybody over during the late-80s/early-90s, leading to some of the most boring and predicable angles in the history of wrestling.

No, because
1. Watching him air guitar Voodoo Chile on the WCW World Heavyweight belt while strutting down the aisle in shades with a black beard and blond Fu Manchu mustache was legitimately awesome.
2. Hogan-Warrior at WrestleMania VI was a legit classic, even though both guys kind of sucked as workers.

As for the Benoit thing, The Harts seem to be as bad off as the Von Erichs in terms of cursed wrestling families. Owen died very needlessly; Bret had a stroke; IIRC another Hart brother died fairly young. Those closely associated with the Harts have had it bad, too- Davey Boy Smith died before the age of 40; Dynamite Kid is close to being paralyzed; Brian Pillman died at 35 of a heart problem; and Benoit killed himself and his family.

Hogan is the cross-over guy between the old school and the current era of pro wrestling. I'll elaborate later, after work.

No Victor Rivera fans here? No Chief Jay Strongbow? No Mr. Fuji? No Professor Toyo Tanaka? Freddie Blassie? The Sheik? The Grand Wizard? Precious Paul?

WTF?

I'll admit it's been some years since I've seen "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead", but I don't remember those characters.

Kevin, you can take the voices in your head to mean whatever you want; you've never been in touch with reality before, and no reason for you to start now.

You are suppose to be the master historian. Did you miss all the times that Dial would do "whatabout bar bar" and I'd respond "I don't want steroids part of that sport either."

I should've clarified. I was responding to this:

192. Chris Dial Posted: June 28, 2007 at 08:21 PM (#2421653)
BL,
I found your comments regarding Benoit odd. You wanted to meet him? He's a tremendous juicer - you've spouted tons of vitriol for "butt injectors" over the years, but you admire all these wrestlers? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Are those wrestlers "cheating", or is there no actual competition involved?


I don't really know diddly about Benoit, but someone (Szym? one of the Loungers?) compared him to Maddux. So I don't know if we knew that he was a tremendous juicer beore this.

Incidentally, it seems ( I said seems) like Chris needs a lower burden of proof that a wrestler is a juicer than a baseball player is. But this probably makes sense.

I hate wandering into these threads. I need a shower.

Dial then pops in and expects me to defend the study through an array of non-relevant socratic questions

They aren't non-relevant to me. You don't want to know the answers. That's your entitlement.

bar bar bar.

Modern wrestlers don't got what it takes. You gotta go back to guys like Dick the Bruiser and Gorgeous George to see real wrestling.

These new guys are sissies, like this url=http://www.bodyslamming.com/other/starr.html]guy[/url].

Everytime I see "Bar bar bar" I think of one of those old time slot machines.

Not unless you're the plastic surgeon making the decision, it isn't. It's pretty much, like most of the things you seem to care about, none of your business.

It's actually the patient's decision -- another obvious point that escapes your grasp. It joins a long list.

I also enjoy your comically self-confident and self-important assertions of what is and what isn't other people's "business." You're the phoniest of "libertarians," supporting as you do federal intrusions on state decisions whether or not to venerate confederate soldiers and government interference with the right to contract. Practically every single thing you've written about the MLBPA, the draft, free agency, Marvin Miller, and steroid testing is about the furthest thing from libertarianism imaginable.

Everytime I see "Bar bar bar" I think of one of those old time slot machines.

When I see it I am reminded that Babar is the king of the elephants.

I'm always amazed by why so many care about athletes taking steroids, especially people who spend 30 years watching professional wrestling.

It's like caring whether strippers get boob jobs.

The body is a piece of equipment to the athlete, a tool of the trade. What people want to do to their bodies is their business. We all know that, deep down. So we fabricate self-righteous reasons to make it all seem noble, heck, downright humanitarian. Just so we don't come off like a bunch of nosey and/or jealous busybodies.

The body is a piece of equipment to the athlete, a tool of the trade. What people want to do to their bodies is their business. We all know that, deep down. So we fabricate self-righteous reasons to make it all seem noble, heck, downright humanitarian. Just so we don't come off like a bunch of nosey and/or jealous busybodies.

The Olympics don't know that "deep down," since they test for practially anything.

Why do the Indy circuit, F-1, and NASCAR have rules on power and engine structure?

Let's get rid of traffic lights too. What people do with their own cars is their own business.

You can't really be as dense as that reply makes you seem. Society has an interest in making sure that cars don't crash into one another. It has no interest in whether Barry Bonds takes steroids. But the busybodies are about to use the Benoit thing to mount a "Reefer Madness" campaign with about as much scientific validity.

You're the phoniest of "libertarians," supporting as you do federal intrusions on state decisions whether or not to venerate confederate soldiers and government interference with the right to contract.

Because "states rights" is such a big tenet of libertarianism? Libertarians may take the side of the state over federal at times because of the practical worry that the federal government has more power than any individual state, but that's not because they believe states have any special rights.

Because "states rights" is such a big tenet of libertarianism? Libertarians may take the side of the state over federal at times because of the practical worry that the federal government has more power than any individual state, but that's not because they believe states have any special rights.

That has nothing to do with the matter; Nieporent and other "libertarians" on the board take the side of the federal government over the states with respect to the confederate flag and memorials. Anyone who would cede the power of decision over such matters to government bodies more removed from local is hardly a "libertarian."

I'm always amazed by why so many care about athletes taking steroids, especially people who spend 30 years watching professional wrestling.

It's like caring whether strippers get boob jobs.

The body is a piece of equipment to the athlete, a tool of the trade. What people want to do to their bodies is their business. We all know that, deep down. So we fabricate self-righteous reasons to make it all seem noble, heck, downright humanitarian. Just so we don't come off like a bunch of nosey and/or jealous busybodies.

Man, I agree. I wish someone would tell Mike Ditka to shut the #### up! Who cares if these guys dent their heads, I mean, "tools?" Doesn't he, don't they, know it really doesn't matter, doesn't he know his "concern" is really just self-righteousness and jealous busybodying?

I also treat firemen the same way. Their bodies are just tools of the trade. And coal miners too. It's their choice to go down into the shaft, not mine, so their working conditions are not my business. The same goes for any other poor suckers who make a living through manual labor. As Aristotle said, some are born to be slaves and some are not. Lucky for us writers/lawyers/professors that's not us.

High five over here, Salfino!!!

like Chris needs a lower burden of proof that a wrestler is a juicer than a baseball player is.

That's a fair critique. I suppose since I don't follow, I accept the stats BL is putting out there about how they are all juicing (and dying from said activity).

1. Watching him air guitar Voodoo Chile on the WCW World Heavyweight belt while strutting down the aisle in shades with a black beard and blond Fu Manchu mustache was legitimately awesome.

Hulk Hogan never once came into "Voodoo Chile", despite what Mike Tenay told you.

The song his "Voodoo Child".

Regarding "states' rights" --

...and not directing it to anyone in particular, I'm curious - has there ever been a 'states rights' that HASN'T involved discriminating against or otherwise hassling some group? I mean, I assume all folks here are in agreement that segregation was a bad thing and I suspect that whatever your views on homosexuality, consenting adults shouldn't really considered to be 'committing a crime' by engaging in sodomy.

I was thinking maybe 2nd amendment issues -- but while I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the case law -- I think that's a mixed bag.

Are there any 'states rights' issues that I'm just not aware of because they didn't make the partisan news?

Nieporent and other "libertarians" on the board take the side of the federal government over the states with respect to the confederate flag and memorials.

I'm opposed to federal (or state) law banning the display of the confederate flag by private citizens. I think it is in exceedingly poor taste, but individuals are entitled to have exceedingly poor taste.

I do think the flag of a defeated resistance movement (I'll avoid using the loaded word "traitorous" as Americans technically were British traitors) has no place on a governmental building as it sends a strange message, but I still wouldn't support federal laws to ban state governments from flying the flag.

I still wouldn't support federal laws to ban state governments from flying the flag

Why not?

I'm surprised not to find an NBA draft thread here, but I'll find as many basketball fans here as any.

Kevin, Ready to burn Danny Ainge at the stake or is there a silver lining to the trade? Giving up #5 pick plus another player seems a horrible price to pay for a 32 year old, injured Ray Allen, even if it gets you rid of Wally.

32 year old shooting guards is not a good market to buy into, I'm reminded of Washington's disastrous trade for Mitch Richmond a decade ago, and look on Basketball ref who's been Allen's #1 comp pretty much his whole career. Even if Allen is healthy and productive, he and Pierce don't seem like a very good match - kind of like having Francis and Marbury in NY.

Are the Celtics just going to aim for the lottery until they get the #1 pick?

I wouldn't support federal laws banning state governments (not federal buildings, mind you) from flying the confederate flag because I think the federal government should only intervene in very limited cases in state affairs. While distasteful, the flying of a confederate flag, especially 140-something years after the war, does not rise to the sort of crisis that should permit federal intervention.

Kevin, Ready to burn Danny Ainge at the stake or is there a silver lining to the trade? Giving up #5 pick plus another player seems a horrible price to pay for a 32 year old, injured Ray Allen, even if it gets you rid of Wally.

32 year old shooting guards is not a good market to buy into, I'm reminded of Washington's disastrous trade for Mitch Richmond a decade ago, and look on Basketball ref who's been Allen's #1 comp pretty much his whole career. Even if Allen is healthy and productive, he and Pierce don't seem like a very good match - kind of like having Francis and Marbury in NY.

Are the Celtics just going to aim for the lottery until they get the #1 pick?

did anyone see the Doc Rivers interview on ESPN? They've got to fire the guy. He couldn't articulate a defense of the trade. (Well, maybe that's the fault of the trade, but they must have given him some talking points.) They lose West, they lose Jeff Green (or anyone else they could've snagged at #5), and they get Ray Allen (Ray Allen and Allen Ray on the same team is cool, though!). I love Ray Allen, but my thoughts exactly, AROM.

Are the Celtics just going to aim for the lottery until they get the #1 pick?

With Pierce, Allen, and Al Jefferson, the Celtics are pretty much guaranteed in to the playoffs next year. And they're pretty much guaranteed to exit by the conference finals. Aiming for the lottery would at least be a coherent strategy with upside, this is just buying mediocrity.

What about the trade the Knicks made? I have to like any trade where my team gets the more talented player.

What about the trade the Knicks made? I have to like any trade where my team gets the more talented player.

The Knicks trade can be evaluated in much the same way Matt just evaluated the Celtics move. It's a step deeper into inflexible mediocrity. Good riddance to Francis, and Frye had a low ceiling, and Randolph is certainly the best player, but (1) he's a nut, (2) Randolph and Curry don't mesh, (3) he doesn't fit a need, (4) what do you do with Lee?

Having Pierce and Jefferson only got them 24 wins last year. Even if Pierce is healthy, a .500 season is far from a guarantee. They might be setting themselves up for the worst NBA option, a 37-45 team that misses the playoffs by a game and picks at #13.

Of course, what does it matter what pick you get if you're just going to trade it away?

OMG TEH PANTS CHASER!!!

By any chance, are you chasing said pants because you hate them?

My heart likes the Allen deal, but my head isn't so sure. It's nice to see a UConn guy there, but he's 10 years out of school. Plus, doesn't he share a postion with Pierce?

He's the SG and Pierce is SF, but it remains to be seen if they can share the ball.

I do think the flag of a defeated resistance movement (I'll avoid using the loaded word "traitorous" as Americans technically were British traitors) has no place on a governmental building as it sends a strange message, but I still wouldn't support federal laws to ban state governments from flying the flag.

Neither would I, although if I lived in one of those states I'd try my damndest to change the flag to something a bit more honorable.

But to me the problem with a federal ban is less "principled" than tactical. I have no qualms about imposing federal power over "states' rights" when it involves matters of substance, such as was the case in the 50's and 60's. But a f*ck*ng Confederate flag? That's one of those purely symbolic issues that in the long run will likely be decided by shifting demographics and corporate embarrassment, and in the short run simply isn't worth "solving" with a federal solution, when the result will be only to give the rednecks another phony crusade to mount.

Besides, with the face of the federal government these days being the likes of George Bush, Alberto Gonzales and Anton Scalia, at this point I'm not sure how thrilled I am with the idea of issuing blank checks to people like that to impose their will on state and local governments.

Having Pierce and Jefferson only got them 24 wins last year.

Yeah, but they were actively trying to lose down the stretch. The team wasn't nearly that bad.

And you're right, I'm assuming reasonable health from all three guys. One of them gets hurt, and hte team could easily be out of the playoffs. So the "guarantee" line was off - my point is just that this isn't a championship team, or close to it, and they leveraged their future to get maybe two years of short runs in the playoffs. I think there's value - Pierce will be a lot better if teams can't concentrate all their perimeter D on him - but I don't see them making any real runs.

JC - I'm more bullish on the Randolph trade, he is only 26 years old, and he didn't cost any meaningful amount of the future like Allen did. Curry, Randolph and Lee and all under 27, with real upside. Whether they can learn to play together is a big question, but that's some legitimate young talent.

JC - I'm more bullish on the Randolph trade, he is only 26 years old, and he didn't cost any meaningful amount of the future like Allen did. Curry, Randolph and Lee and all under 27, with real upside. Whether they can learn to play together is a big question, but that's some legitimate young talent.

It is good talent, and you can add Balkman to the mix, too. That said, there's not a lot of "rhyme" to it, you know? No interior defensive presence from the lot of them, two low post guys, no shooters. Isiah's got a great eye for talent, but very little sense of how to construct a team.

(1) he's a nut, (2) Randolph and Curry don't mesh, (3) he doesn't fit a need, (4) what do you do with Lee?

I suppose that #1 might matter to me if the team was championship caliber or on its way, where a malcontent could disrupt the chemistry. That isn't where the Knicks are.

This is a team is simply out-talented on the court game after game. David Lee is a nice player but he's not ever going to be a star.

I don't think you can win in the NBA (although you might come out on top of a weak East) without significant superstar talent. You need players that will get the good calls from the referees, players that can take the entire team on their shoulders and carry them on a given night.

The Knicks are not in a position to turn down better talent right now. They also aren't in a position where they can dump salary and blow everything up because they are in cap hell.

As far as I'm concerned, this team will never win under Isiah, so they might as well just sign players that score points so the games aren't as boring until his ultimate firing.

I thought you liked Frye, JC?

I did, and do. He got us Randolph.

David Lee is a nice player but he's not ever going to be a star.

He's a double - double guy every night in limited time. He's young, cheap, and athletic. He's a great role guy. Don't get me wrong, I like Randolph, and I'm really not that worried about his past (in a way, I think NY's craziness diminishes the likelihood guys get in trouble). They need a guard who can hit shots and a defensive interior player. I hate their guard play.

Am I the only person who thinks that this tragic Benoit incident might just be the event that brings down McMahon and his empire?

This thing seems to keep getting stranger and stranger, what with the mysterious Wikipedia entry that appears to have been made from Stamford and all. There's definitely going to be an investigation into this, and it wouldn't even surprise me to see the Feds get involved.

Man, I agree. I wish someone would tell Mike Ditka to shut the #### up! Who cares if these guys dent their heads, I mean, "tools?" Doesn't he, don't they, know it really doesn't matter, doesn't he know his "concern" is really just self-righteousness and jealous busybodying?

I also treat firemen the same way. Their bodies are just tools of the trade. And coal miners too. It's their choice to go down into the shaft, not mine, so their working conditions are not my business. The same goes for any other poor suckers who make a living through manual labor. As Aristotle said, some are born to be slaves and some are not. Lucky for us writers/lawyers/professors that's not us.

High five over here, Salfino!!!

You seem awfully proud of this rhetoric. If there was proof that testosterone was comparibly dangerous to those things you cite, you'd have a point. You'd also have a point if taking steroids was a condition of employment in any sport (and I don't include wrestling as a sport).

The Knicks trade can be evaluated in much the same way Matt just evaluated the Celtics move. It's a step deeper into inflexible mediocrity. Good riddance to Francis, and Frye had a low ceiling, and Randolph is certainly the best player, but (1) he's a nut, (2) Randolph and Curry don't mesh, (3) he doesn't fit a need, (4) what do you do with Lee?

Everything Curry's purportedly good at Randolph's better at, so you've basically just upgraded Curry there, not added a piece. No question Curry's minutes will get cut when the dust settles. Randolph and Lee can play together; Randolph, Curry, and Lee can't.

Are there any 'states rights' issues that I'm just not aware of because they didn't make the partisan news?

Medical Marijuana.


"States' rights" is generally invoked by the ideologues who are out of favor/power in Washington-
Pre Civil War Southerners had no interest in State's rights until they lost control of congress - prior to that the phrase was employed by Northern Abolitionists who did not want Northern Sates enforcing laws like the fugitive slave act.

Traditionally most (not all) supporters' of "states' rights" change their minds if/when their party comes to power in Washington- some immediatley, some take time.

By any chance, are you chasing said pants because you hate them?

lol. Unfortunately not. I like the change the later part of my handle to something that's been humourlessly compared to hitler (so no OMG TEH BENOIT or anything like that).

In the $54 million dry cleaning lawsuit, one of the plaintiff's witness compared the defendant, and the losing of pants, to Hitler.

They need a guard who can hit shots and a defensive interior player. I hate their guard play.

How is that fixable?

I'm amazed they were able to get rid of Francis, but they're still stuck with Marbury/Crawford in the frontcourt. No team is trading a better player for either of those guys and they make too much to be benched.

I thought it was incredibly weird when Armen Keteyian got the notebook slapped out of his hand by McMahon during a "Real Sports" interview in which Keteyian cited the horrible demographic stats for retired wrestlers.

Never heard of that incident. Roid rage. In baseball we've got a lot of "what did the owners know and did they turn a blind eye to this" going on, but in wrestling the owner is an active participant.

I don't think even Bonds is as obvious a juicer as Vince McMahon. Close, but if someone told me one of them was clean and could I guess, I'd be confused at first but eventually pick Bonds.

Man, I agree. I wish someone would tell Mike Ditka to shut the #### up! Who cares if these guys dent their heads, I mean, "tools?" Doesn't he, don't they, know it really doesn't matter, doesn't he know his "concern" is really just self-righteousness and jealous busybodying?

JC, didn't we have a concussion argument in the Lounge where you said something similar to this wrt football players? Or am I misrepresenting what you said there.

I don't think even Bonds is as obvious a juicer as Vince McMahon. Close, but if someone told me one of them was clean and could I guess, I'd be confused at first but eventually pick Bonds.

I agree, because he looks 10-to-20 years younger than his 62 years. Maybe the government can step in and save him from himself.

JC, didn't we have a concussion argument in the Lounge where you said something similar to this wrt football players? Or am I misrepresenting what you said there.

I thought you left to take a shower?

By the way, I've written about concussions in football and the medical malpractice of sending out players like Roethlisberger within a week of his second knock-out blow in months. He threw five picks that next week, IIRC. But performance isn't even the point. Unlike steroids, there is a mountain of peer-reviewed, scientific data about the effects of concussions and what should be done to minimize their long-term effects. So, I'm all for that. Of course, that's but another red herring in this steroid debate.

By the way, I've written about concussions in football and the medical malpractice of sending out players like Roethlisberger within a week of his second knock-out blow in months. He threw five picks that next week, IIRC. But performance isn't even the point. Unlike steroids, there is a mountain of peer-reviewed, scientific data about the effects of concussions and what should be done to minimize their long-term effects. So, I'm all for that. Of course, that's but another red herring in this steroid debate.

How does this jibe with your "athlete's body is his tool, let him do what he wants" stuff? Nobody's forcing Big Ben out there.

As for the Benoit thing, The Harts seem to be as bad off as the Von Erichs in terms of cursed wrestling families. Owen died very needlessly; Bret had a stroke; IIRC another Hart brother died fairly young. Those closely associated with the Harts have had it bad, too- Davey Boy Smith died before the age of 40; Dynamite Kid is close to being paralyzed; Brian Pillman died at 35 of a heart problem; and Benoit killed himself and his family.

His old partner in Japan died last month too.

Dying by vascular disease is fundamentally different than dying by neurological disease, JC. Vascular disease is a choice, a lark.

Familial Hypercholesteremia? Type I Diabetes?

Please

OK, I found the exchange:

Me: I’m already boycotting football in general. Any sport whose particiapants wind up wearing diapers in their 60s isn’t worth it. I’ve felt this way for a while, but decided to be a hypocrite about it. This year, I decided to change my mind. I was disappointed that Football Outsiders didn’t make that Schwarz piece from the NY Times an Extra Point. I could use the extra time in the fall to do something creative.

(I've backed off from this position)

chris p i feel the same way as you, but as long as the patriots continue to kick ass, it’s going to be tough for me to not be a hypocrite.

rLr: I agree on the NFL and my brain agrees with regard to college ball, but it’s hard for me to make a break with college ball. I’m working my way to it, though.



JC: Really? You guys feel this way? I mean, I was moved by that NYT piece and some other recent stories, but I’m certain the long-term effects and risks to health of football playing aren’t much different from the long-term effects of lots of other occupations I benefit from (coal-mining comes to mind, but there are more, I assume [policing, firefighting, long-distance truck driving]). And guys who play football professionally tend to make a lot of money and enjoy the hell out of what they’re doing.

I’d love to see efforts made to reduce injury (like LESS rather than more equipment and banning of PEDs), but I don’t think being a football fan is cooperating with evil. Yet.

salfino is the "live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse" type apparently.

And you guys say you have no Faustian predilections. I will stipulate that McMahon will eventually die. Then, steroids can be blamed.

GGC: What does that add? I'm not boycotting football. Super. Does it say I don't care about the health of football players? No, in fact it says the opposite.

I'm with Kevin - I'm tired of all these people choosing to have vascular dementia and living the ends of their lives forgetting their families and pooping in their pants. IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU SELFISH INVALIDS!

I'm with Kevin - I'm tired of all these people choosing to have vascular dementia and living the ends of their lives forgetting their families and pooping in their pants. IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU SELFISH INVALIDS!

This made me chortle.

Oh, I was just recapping that because it seems that I remembered it incorrectly. It was a mea culpa of sorts.

How does this jibe with your "athlete's body is his tool, let him do what he wants" stuff? Nobody's forcing Big Ben out there.

Because there's no proof that steroids are in anyway remotely as dangerous as sustaining repeated concussions in rapid succession (medically speaking). I'm not going to take an extreme position because you want me to. There's a balance involved. If there was a large, reliable study that came out that said that steroid use was comparably dangerous, I'd change my mind about them in a second.

But until then, I think that people have a right to take risks with their body for pleasure or profit that you and I might not unless there's a very compelling reason for third parties to get involved.

A mea semi-culpa.

What about the trade the Knicks made? I have to like any trade where my team gets the more talented player.

Its a typical Isiah trade. Get the more talented player, regardless of how he fits in with the team. Now, I can't complain too much because they didnt give up much (how quickly did Fryes stock plummet after his good rookie season?) but Randolph is pretty much a duplicate of Curry. They are both outstanding low post scorers, I doubt there is any team in the league that has 2 post scorers as good as those two. However, neither of them are very good at defense (Randolph had like .2 blocks per 40 last year, Curry .5). Randolph at least can rebound, but how are they each going to get enough touches? They're both going to want the ball in the low block and that won't work. Also, the biggest problems surrounding the Knicks have been defense and turnovers. Randolph doesn't help them with either. I'm not sure how well the two can co-exist considering they are pretty much the same player. Gee, where have I heard that before? Anyway, as JC I believe mentions, it also leaves open the question of what you're going to do with Lee, who may have been their best player last year, and was certainly their best rebounder. They still have no good post defender. Lee has many strengths but post D isnt one of them. They also had the shrewed signing of Randolph Morris, but he's not going to get a ton of minutes, at least until the injuries come.

We really need to bring some outside shooters into the fold. Between Randolph and Curry, you will pretty much always have a post player on the court who will command a double team, so you really need some shooters on the perimeter to take full advantage of that. Thats assuming Curry improves his passing out of the double teams, which isn't very good. I dont know how strong Randolph is at that part of the game.

The body is a piece of equipment to the athlete, a tool of the trade. What people want to do to their bodies is their business. We all know that, deep down. So we fabricate self-righteous reasons to make it all seem noble, heck, downright humanitarian. Just so we don't come off like a bunch of nosey and/or jealous busybodies.

So, that's an overstatement then, right? You really meant something like you state in 321? So the last few lines are just crap based on a difference in judgment calls between you and me: I see enough evidence to be concerned about the health effects of PEDs and you do not. On that basis, I argue for their limitation, and you do not? Am I mis-stating something?

So, that's an overstatement then, right?

The key word was fabricate. And medical evidence in this regard is not something open to interpretation. It either exists or it doesn't. So what you or I think doesn't matter. When steroid studies are done, peer reviewed and supported by the AMA like the concussion guidelines that the NFL ignores, then, we'll agree. Then, there will be a compelling public interest in stepping in. Of course, thousands of doctors prescribe testosterone to millions of people without concern, though the media hysteria increases the risk of being sued for malpractice; so that will surely change, unfortunately, for lots of sick people who really would greatly benefit from steroid therapy.

Conor:

I agree. The guy Nichols they traded for is supposedly a good shooter. I'd love to see him replace Q. And, what do you do with Balkman and Chandler? High energy, no shot guys. They now have like 7 interchangeable PFs, Cs, SFs who can't shoot from the outside. And the team is still run by Starbury. They need Mark Price.

The key word was fabricate. And medical evidence in this regard is not something open to interpretation. It either exists or it doesn't.

So what you or I think doesn't matter. When steroid studies are done, peer reviewed and supported by the AMA like the concussion guidelines that the NFL ignores, then, we'll agree. Then, there will be a compelling public interest in stepping in. Of course, thousands of doctors prescribe testosterone millions of people without concern, though the media hysteria increases the risk of being sued for malpractice; so that will surely change, unfortunately, for lots of sick people who really would greatly benefit from steroid therapy.

Never mind. I tried to reply and recast the conversation, but you don't know what you're talking about or being disingenuous.

(1) There are LOTS of studies that show the deleterious effects of high doses of PEDs on the brain, on the liver, on the heart, etc. These are long-term animal models, particularly in mice, and also studies of humans (though as you said not long-term);
(2) The key word was fabricate - no one's fabricating anything, but you're interested in assigning motive and impugning character;
(3) And medical evidence in this regard is not something open to interpretation - as false as can be. Medical "evidence" is always open to interpretation, that's the nature of science;
(4) Of course, thousands of doctors prescribe testosterone millions of people without concern - irrelevant and misleading. We're not talking about prescribed doses, we're talking about unprescribed uses, typically if not always exceeding prescribed doses. You never addressed my earlier reply that your post seemed to waffle on this question: do you or don't you want this stuff regulated? If you do, that's what I'm arguing for. If you don't, then don't bring up the REGULATED use of the drugs as though that's germane to its unregulated use. Finally, even in the prescribed cases it's not "without concern." Have you ever been prescribed steroids? I have, more than a few times, and doctors make me wait between prescriptions b/c of fears of the damage to my liver and heart (among other things). IOW, the deleterious effects of these things are known, even at prescribed levels;
(5) People often rail about "media hysteria" but often the media is "hysterical" is b/c of the concerns of real people.

"

I agree. The guy Nichols they traded for is supposedly a good shooter. "

Demetris Nichols? I must have missed us getting him. What did we give Portland? He's a fellow SU alumn; so I've seen him play a ton over the last 4 years. He's a pretty good shooter; he hit something like 40% on 3s last year. He's a big SF, like 6-8. Not a great athlete, but he can shoot over people. Solid player, 7th man or so.

THey traded next year's 2nd round for him. It's a good add. The question is: whom do they drop?

More importantly, it's one more guy to pay attention to in the summer league games on MSG.

Yeah, Nichols is a solid player. I dont think he has the athleticism to make it as a star at the next level, but he should be a good enough shooter to contribute. The one problem is he played the 3 at SU (we had a big front line) and he is used to being guarded by guys a lot smaller than him, so he can get away with just shooting over them, either on the perimeter or on the block (which he did a little more of as the season went along). That wont work at the NBA level.

(1) There are LOTS of studies that show the deleterious effects of high doses of PEDs on the brain, on the liver, on the heart, etc. These are long-term animal models, particularly in mice, and also studies of humans (though as you said not long-term)

But people who do this for a living know that side-effects of testosterone decrease greatly as you move up the mammalian ladder. You'll have to look that up yourself. Bottom line, those studies aren't very relevant in this instance.

This is total BS, salfino. If the doctors had no concern, it would be over-the-counter.

I can't get my kids vitamins over the counter. I doubt that's over medical concerns. More like corporate profit.

(3) And medical evidence in this regard is not something open to interpretation - as false as can be. Medical "evidence" is always open to interpretation, that's the nature of science

I clumsily phrased that. My apologies. I meant evidence that's scientifically valid in a medical sense. In other words, that there's unquestionably a very high probability that testosterone is to blame for health problems in a significant percentage of users. We have nothing like that now.

And of course, it's going to cause bad side effects in some people, no doubt. Everything does. If that was the standard for banning substances, we wouldn't be able to use toothpaste to brush our teeth or eat peanut butter.

I can't get my kids vitamins over the counter.

What are you feeding your kids? My kids' chewable vitamins are on an open shelf where anybody can pick them up.

The concept of the "mammalian ladder" is one rung below that of the "humans and the dumb beasts" and merely a half rung above creationism.

Oh, I was just recapping that because it seems that I remembered it incorrectly. It was a mea culpa of sorts.


Daly,

Don't feel dirty. If I jumped down your throat too much, then I apologize. On advice of primates, I'm just rolling past stuff that is not going to lead to anything but base bickering. But if how I feel about Pro Wrestlers that roid is of interest and not understood, I'll explicate.

First, I don't feel any different about 'roiders qua 'roiders in any employment environment. My main concern is when 'roiding becomes a de facto condition of employment. I want that removed from the environment, whether its being imposed by management or a peer group of laborers. A person should have an opportunity to pursue a career without having to resort to non-therapeutic drugs or medical procedures that have deleterious effects. If the choice is between roid up or choose another career, that is a choice that should not have to be made. Moreover, if a person cannot secure employment without resorting to non-therapeutic uses of deleterious drugs, they should be seeking another career. That is not a fair choice because of its impact on others.

If any person wants to use a drug recreationally, if they want to use a drug cosmetically (provided the cosmetic change does not create a significantly advantage or mass perceived advantage in an employment area), or even to improve quality of life (same caveats apply), then I quite often may question the prudence of that choice, but I don't seek to regulate that choice. I do seek to regulate drugs in general because of the problems of informed consent and the problems of denaturing. I don't want to wait for a remedy after people die (and then have the libs argue about tort reform when the denaturers get hit with huge liability awards).

Second, as for 'roiders qua cheaters, I think a roider that a person that obtains an unfair advantage that is either against the rules or nature of the sport is cheating. There comes a point when its no longer cheating and probably just a part of the general environment of the sport. This is discussed ad nauseum as to when and how this occurs, but as for cheating: In MLB for steroids, this is true. In Professional Wrestling, 'roiding would not be cheating. I agree with the people that refer to 'roiders "cheating people out of a job", I don't think that is an unfair use of the word; and I offer no objections. But I am clarifying that usually our discussion of "cheating" has evolved about cheating within the sport. When you have a scripted outcome, the performance enhancement from the 'roids will not impact that outcome nor is it contrary to the purpose of the exercise. In fact, cheating is scripted into the exhibition to create drama and tension. If it were an amateur wrestling competition where there is a sporting and undecided outcome, then the performance enhancement would provide a non-neglible effect on the outcome.

For Benoit or Eddie Guerrero or Davey Boy Smith or myriads of others, I think they did contribute to the undesirable work environment. If everyone would refuse to take drugs as a condition of employment, then there would be no drug users to choose as your labor force. As these acts are most likely illegal and most likely against the rules of employment, each of them have to take individual responsibility should they get caught with a needle in their ass.

However, I do blame Vince McMahon and "the industry" more for the Pro Wrestling workplace environment than I do Bud Selig or "the industry" for the MLB workplace environment. Selig may have been negligent about the problem; Selig could have been willfully blind about the problem; or Selig may have been reckless in not instituting safeguards earlier. McMahon participated in the wrong doing; McMahon had actual knowledge of the wrongdoings; McMahon certainly appears to intentionally select persons that 'roid over persons that non-roid to put on his show; McMahon has absolute control over his workplace environment; and McMahon may have even encouraged the use of the illict drugs.

I don't want to hang Bonds, Selig, McMahon, or Triple H though. I just want the environment to change. If the Pro Wrestling HoF wants to refuse to honor persons based on some character component they are free to do so; and if somebody wants to ignore that requirement and open up the Hall of Suplexs, more power to them.

The idea of wrestling records is a little different than baseball b/c of the scripted nature of the exhibitions. You do see some people try to tabulate title lineages and won loss records from time to time. If they want to use asterisks to let me know something (e.g. won by DQ; won as a heel; won based on inteference from valet), I'd honestly welcome the information. If they wanted to tell me that the person was on steroids, I'm not sure that the information adds much, but its not going to bother me.

As for the boycotts, I have often found such a thing to be nonproductive and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. First, its pretty rare that a boycott has any real economic effect, particularly with inelastic or monopoly industries. If you manage to have a large enough boycott that is carried out, then you end up punishing the innocent just as much as the guilty. At the end of the day, most economic boycotts end up just being another form of speech. The NFL would not really notice on their bottom line whether you decided to stop watching. They might notice if you declare, "I'm boycotting you" through some speech outlet. They are either going to be responsive to your concern or they are not going to be responsive to your concern. If they are responsive, it may be because:

(a) They agree with you that it would improve their product and they are interested in quality or their legacy;
(b) You raise a moral or ethical concern and they are moral or ethical answers; or
(c) if they are libs, they worry that a failure to address the concern will lead to an economic harm at some point in the future.

But I can get the same range of reaction through speech without instituting a boycott. I can care without having to harm innocents. I can care and institute change without having to implement some god-awful system where I have to check My Boycott and Non-Boycott list before I even take a piss.

I think the NFL has workplace problems that can be fixed without removing the value to the product. I think the same is true for MLB and Professional Wrestling. In the grand scheme of things and to use Werrian symbology:

Wrestling >>>>> Pro Football >>> MLB.

As bad as football may be on not properly monitoring health or coercing people into bad health decisions, A PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER IS 20 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE THAN AN NFL PLAYER BEFORE THEIR 45th BIRTHDAY. (talking point courtesy of USA Today).

At no point am I lauding Chris Benoit's conduct. Murder is a much more grievous problem than being a generalized ass. Prior to last weekend, and still consistent with everything I've read, there was plenty of reasons to admire virtues of Benoit and have caution based on the behaviors of Bonds. Based on his conduct this past weekend, I have no problem with his being refused admittance to future honoraries or for the WWE to instituate a policy whereby they do not attempt to even create a perception whereby his murderous conduct is glorified. As I did not see this coming, I have no real regret that I use to admire Benoit's virtues, just like I have no regrets on any fandom I have had for Barry Bonds.

I would likely be surprised at pretty much anyone I know that commits a family murder-suicide. I've wondered if there would ever be a case where I was not surprised. I'm not sure there is, unless Charles Manson escapes from prison. If someone like New Jack was found to be involved in an assault, I guess it wouldn't surprise me. If someone like Stephen Jackson or PacMan Jones or former Auburn QB Jeff Burger was involved in a firearms incident, and perhaps even if someone negligently died during the incident, it wouldn't surprise me. But pre-meditated murder or murder suicide, that will always surprise me.

Don't feel dirty.

I actually needed a shower. I check BTF and other sites before getting ready for work. It's my version of the morning paper.

Good post, BL.


I would likely be surprised at pretty much anyone I know that commits a family murder-suicide. I've wondered if there would ever be a case where I was not surprised.

There was an Onion article a few years ago that had a headline that was something to the effect "Family Totally Saw Suicide Coming."

What are you feeding your kids? My kids' chewable vitamins are on an open shelf where anybody can pick them up.

Tri-vi-flo? Something with floride, which is why you can't get it, I think. I say Flinstones chewable should be good enough. Heck, I'd still take those just for the candy taste.

Psst. JC! salfino has a wild-goose chase for you here!

salfino, just curious. Where are you picking up all this ######## anyway? You've made one ridiculous claim after another while alluding to peer-reviewed documentation.

side-effects of testosterone decrease as you move up the mammalian ladder?

Which ladder are you referring to? The one Noah used to load them all onto his ark?

The concept of the "mammalian ladder" is one rung below that of the "humans and the dumb beasts" and merely a half rung above creationism.

That creationist crack hurts. Mammalian ladder is a research term. It's not mine. And it has nothing to do with creationism, obviously, as creationists don't believe mammals are linked in any evolutionary sense.

I believe I read that stuff on the relevance of mice studies recently on the Reason website. It was a large article on baseball's unscientific obsession with steroids. It was quite good and I've borrowed from it here.

But the idea that what happens to mice is not necessarily what happens to mammals up the chain to us (from our perspective) is well-established science. That's why they have to ultimately do human tests. Unfortunately, there's been no steroid tests on humans that are valid in terms of size, duration or even in terms of control groups.

But we're well played out here, content wise. So, there's really no need to keep going on. I'll agree to disagree.

I believe I read that stuff on the relevance of mice studies recently on the Reason website.

The Reason website.

Now it all makes sense.

The Reason website.

Now it all makes sense.


That wasn't the Dayn Rand piece was it. Even Dayn has backed off those items.