Thread: Wellness programme - Should there be a review?
View Single Post
Old 12-22-2008, 01:33 PM   #16
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 61,634
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote