Wellness programme - Should there be a review?

[Dave Youell]

By that I mean, say Jeff Hardy goes 5 years without any drug test problems, and then, for whatever reason, he fails one, should there be some sort of time limit on how long a strike should last against your record?

Like in the UK with driving points for speeding, they are wiped off your record after 3 years, should the wellness policy offer something similar?

I know there's the whole 'They shouldn't be doing shit in the first place' argument, fact is, they are/were everyone knows it, and you could get caught on technicalities with prescriptions and what not.

Anyway, I'm un-decided on the matter, I just thought I'd put it out there for debate

[BigDaddyCool]

By that I mean, say Jeff Hardy goes 5 years without any drug test problems, and then, for whatever reason, he fails one, should there be some sort of time limit on how long a strike should last against your record?

The question is has he been clean for 5 years or has he simply not been caught?

Also it would depend on what the test result came up with. I'm not sure exactly what is on this list, but if a certain substance that is illegal under the wellness policy is found in say cough syrup, then maybe.

[Kane Knight]

WHo would do the review?

[Dave Youell]

WHo would do the review?

Well, I would assume whoever was in charge of the initial policy, as it's not law and more company policy, the final say so goes to Vince I assume

[Kane Knight]

Well, I would assume whoever was in charge of the initial policy, as it's not law and more company policy, the final say so goes to Vince I assume

That would undermine the entire process, and open them up to more investigations from Congress.

[BigDaddyCool]

I believe they have hired an indepenent testing company to do the test. Or at least they should have.

[Dave Youell]

I believe they have hired an indepenent testing company to do the test. Or at least they should have.

Yeah, I would of thought so, what I meant it, it's the WWE who make judgments on the results of the tests.

Hence why guys doing weed are getting $1000 all the time

[BigDaddyCool]

Brian Kindrick is dumb.

[Kane Knight]

Brian Kindrick is dumb.

Brian Kendrick is the man for being a total idiot, not to mention probably spurring a revision of the Marijuana policy, so all those stoners will bitch about it blah blah blah....

[BigDaddyCool]

Pots not a drug and has no long term effects.

[Kane Knight]

Also, nobody ever dies of smoking pot.

[4 knuckles up]

You cant OD on weed. Plus, it isn't addictive! Man, I should go back to Amsterdam.

[BigDaddyCool]

While weed isn't physically addictive, it is mentally. Once a pot head, always a pot head.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Brian Kendrick is the man for being a total idiot, not to mention probably spurring a revision of the Marijuana policy, so all those stoners will bitch about it blah blah blah....

Has anyone actually said anything about Brian Kendrick being the man for being addicted to marijuana for you to put those words into their mouths? Probably not.

Personally, I think there should definitely be a review to the wellness policy. Any policy should be undergo some sort of moderation from time-to-time. Pot smoking should probably be included as something suspension worthy, so that guys like Kendrick get a little more worried about being caught. Also, it seems to be like guys can be caught out on technicalities. Those sort of things could probably be ironed out.

Testing should also be more regular. It seems guys are done randomly, which is great, but some people (like Jeff Hardy and William Regal) should be under a more watchful eye. Wasn't Bruce Pritchard getting tested weekly before he was released?

[BigDaddyCool]

Has anyone actually said anything about Brian Kendrick being the man for being addicted to marijuana for you to put those words into their mouths? Probably not.

Personally, I think there should definitely be a review to the wellness policy. Any policy should be undergo some sort of moderation from time-to-time. Pot smoking should probably be included as something suspension worthy, so that guys like Kendrick get a little more worried about being caught. Also, it seems to be like guys can be caught out on technicalities. Those sort of things could probably be ironed out.

Testing should also be more regular. It seems guys are done randomly, which is great, but some people (like Jeff Hardy and William Regal) should be under a more watchful eye. Wasn't Bruce Pritchard getting tested weekly before he was released?

Three paragraphs that are totally off base. Impressive. The review isn't about how the policy is carried out but the time line. If wrestler x gets caught with drugs twice in one year and then five years later he get caught again, do they fire him, or is there a reset after a handful of years?

But no, you go and answer question no one asked. Also, KK was just making fun of Brian Kindrick, not any particular poster, settle down.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Three paragraphs that are totally off base. Impressive. The review isn't about how the policy is carried out but the time line. If wrestler x gets caught with drugs twice in one year and then five years later he get caught again, do they fire him, or is there a reset after a handful of years?

But no, you go and answer question no one asked. Also, KK was just making fun of Brian Kindrick, not any particular poster, settle down.

Why can't I talk about how it is carried out if you and KK can waste so many posts talking about Brian Kendrick, when no one asked about him either? You know what, I don't want to know the answer.

Yes, there should be a review on the length a wrestler has a strike against his name -- with proper moderation, which feeds into my point about how the wellness policy is being carried out. The length of a strike should depend on how the policy is monitored.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Also, if KK was taking the piss out of Brian Kendrick, allow me to edit the content of his post.

Brian Kendrick is a total idiot

Done.

[BigDaddyCool]

Shut up noid. I was saying Kindrick is dumb because he is a repeat offender on the pot smoking. He should be fired instead of just fined, plus he isn't going to be anything higher than us/ic champion, he just doesn't have it. Which is why we are talking about Kendrick, plus Dave Youell mentioned that pot should be added to the illegal/firerable substances.

[Mr. Nerfect]

We're talking wellness policy, not how high someone can climb up the cards. Also, Brian Kendrick was already an unofficial WWE Champion. Even if he never got to touch the belt, that's arguably higher than ever winning the IC or US Titles.

The weed talk wasn't brought up by Dave until later anyway, so we're discussing a lot of things about the wellness policy, aren't we? Get back on topic and actually add some more thoughts about it.

[Kane Knight]

Actually, quite a bit regarding the Brian Kendrick stuff I said was direct parody of what has been said about Kendrick after the rumours and news.

Happy Dead-Jew-on-a-stick day.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Actually, quite a bit regarding the Brian Kendrick stuff I said was direct parody of what has been said about Kendrick after the rumours and news.

Happy Dead-Jew-on-a-stick day.

By who? And isn't parody best when it is funny?

[BigDaddyCool]

Dude, it is hanukkah. Dead-jew-on-a-stick day is in March or April, which has zombie jew day a week later.

[BigDaddyCool]

By who?

Who gives a fuck?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Who gives a fuck?

I do, because it sounds like KK is making sarcastic comments towards...well, no one at all. Which I would find funnier than him actually aiming that at an actual person.

[BigDaddyCool]

Shut up noid. We were making fun of kendrick, not any poster in patricular. Go fuck yourself.

[Afterlife]

Someone should review how to spell "program". :shifty:

[BigDaddyCool]

That is the non-North American way.

[Lux]

Ahh, this is where I want to be.

[Afterlife]

That is the non-correct way.

[Afterlife]

Also, nobody ever dies of smoking pot.

Nobody ever died from overdosing, anyway. There are those who were unaware of marijuana allergies that have kicked the bucket. I'm being persnickity, because I know what you meant, but I felt the need to add something virtually useless.

You cant OD on weed. Plus, it isn't addictive! Man, I should go back to Amsterdam.

Actually, you can overdose. I've mentioned this before. You just can't die from an overdose. Again, I knew what you meant. I just feel like being anal about random things right now. Apologies if it comes off as irritating.

[Jeritron]

I've wondered this. It does suck. You can conceivably turn yourself around, and then years later piss dirty thanks to some fluke trace of a banned substance in something you took legally.

I don't know what you could really do about it though. Not get two strikes and put yourself in this position? The three strikes system is fairly generous as it is, really.

What's to stop them from firing you to cover themselves, and hiring you back on confidence a couple months later? Doesn't seem so bad if they are aware of the circumstances and realize you're reformed and a mishap happened. They cover their policy, and you take a brief timeout, and then you're taken back in with a clean slate.

[Kane Knight]

Marijuana can actually reduce your respiration to the point of death. With or without allergies. This is the same way they spin it so that pepper spray hasn't killed anyone.

"But your honor, the bullet didn't kill the victim--blood loss did!" Technicalities are fun.

I know people tout the "You can't overdose on Marijuana." It's cute.

Anyway, RVD made the comment about nobody ever dying from marijuana use that I was mocking. He didn't say OD, nor do I have any real indication to believe he meant OD. Especially since the argument was bolstered by claims of conspiracies and coverups. As such, I'm not one to give him credit that the rest of his argument was well-thought out.

For the record, Marijuana is PHYSICALLY addictive to about 20% of the population. A lot of people try and argue back and forth on the issue as to whether or not it's addictive. The answer is, they're both right. one fifth of the world will develop chemical dependency. Most of the world, eighty percent, will not, and can smoke for decades with only issues of habit forming behaviour. That and cancer, the fact that your risk of a heart attack QUADRUPLES after smoking a joint, and a lot of other heavy risks, but those weren't really the point.

Well, except that when you smoke too much pot, you can make your heart explode. But that's got nothing to do with overdosing either, right?

...Right?

[Kane Knight]

I've wondered this. It does suck. You can conceivably turn yourself around, and then years later piss dirty thanks to some fluke trace of a banned substance in something you took legally.

I don't know what you could really do about it though. Not get two strikes and put yourself in this position? The three strikes system is fairly generous as it is, really.

What's to stop them from firing you to cover themselves, and hiring you back on confidence a couple months later? Doesn't seem so bad if they are aware of the circumstances and realize you're reformed and a mishap happened. They cover their policy, and you take a brief timeout, and then you're taken back in with a clean slate.

I believe they spell out a right to appeal right in the wellness policy. Jeff's not gonna strike out because his multivitamin was spiked if there is any reasonable sort of deal. Unfortunately, yhis argument is usually bullshit.

[Jeritron]

Well, then it's in order. If you strike out then you deserve to be released, and if the company has the mercy to take you back at a later time, more power.

[GD]

Brian Kendrick is the dumb.

fixed

[KYR]

Marijuana can actually reduce your respiration to the point of death. With or without allergies. This is the same way they spin it so that pepper spray hasn't killed anyone.

"But your honor, the bullet didn't kill the victim--blood loss did!" Technicalities are fun.

I know people tout the "You can't overdose on Marijuana." It's cute.

Anyway, RVD made the comment about nobody ever dying from marijuana use that I was mocking. He didn't say OD, nor do I have any real indication to believe he meant OD. Especially since the argument was bolstered by claims of conspiracies and coverups. As such, I'm not one to give him credit that the rest of his argument was well-thought out.

For the record, Marijuana is PHYSICALLY addictive to about 20% of the population. A lot of people try and argue back and forth on the issue as to whether or not it's addictive. The answer is, they're both right. one fifth of the world will develop chemical dependency. Most of the world, eighty percent, will not, and can smoke for decades with only issues of habit forming behaviour. That and cancer, the fact that your risk of a heart attack QUADRUPLES after smoking a joint, and a lot of other heavy risks, but those weren't really the point.

Well, except that when you smoke too much pot, you can make your heart explode. But that's got nothing to do with overdosing either, right?

...Right?

KK is correct.

Also my $0.02 worth re Marijuana causing death:

If I can use the analogy of a sober person driving a car and comes across a level railway crossing and all of a sudden a train passes by.

The sober driver will recognise the danger, evaluate, slow down and safely come to a stop.

The drunk driver will recognise the danger, however, his reaction time is so impaired that he doesn't brake in time and hits the train.

The stoned driver will recognise the danger, evaluate, giggle inanely to himself and think "oh well" and hit the train.

[Lux]

Depends on the person and driver, no doubt some people would be dumb enough to giggle and try to beat the train but to say all would do this is stretching it.

[KYR]

Well obviously it depends on the driver.

Not all drunk drivers have accidents and sober drivers have accidents as well.

It is a general analogy to indicate the effects on mental acuity.

[Lux]

Just sayin.

[Afterlife]

Marijuana can actually reduce your respiration to the point of death. With or without allergies. This is the same way they spin it so that pepper spray hasn't killed anyone.

"But your honor, the bullet didn't kill the victim--blood loss did!" Technicalities are fun.

I know people tout the "You can't overdose on Marijuana." It's cute.

Anyway, RVD made the comment about nobody ever dying from marijuana use that I was mocking. He didn't say OD, nor do I have any real indication to believe he meant OD. Especially since the argument was bolstered by claims of conspiracies and coverups. As such, I'm not one to give him credit that the rest of his argument was well-thought out.

For the record, Marijuana is PHYSICALLY addictive to about 20% of the population. A lot of people try and argue back and forth on the issue as to whether or not it's addictive. The answer is, they're both right. one fifth of the world will develop chemical dependency. Most of the world, eighty percent, will not, and can smoke for decades with only issues of habit forming behaviour. That and cancer, the fact that your risk of a heart attack QUADRUPLES after smoking a joint, and a lot of other heavy risks, but those weren't really the point.

Well, except that when you smoke too much pot, you can make your heart explode. But that's got nothing to do with overdosing either, right?

...Right?







Right.









:shifty:

[Kane Knight]

Right.









:shifty:

:D