I hope we're all mature enough to deal with the subject matter at this point. I was on the boards when it happened and remember some of what went down then. I don't know how this is going to go, but please keep it respectful. Thanks.

Ooh, good one.

I picked 2-4.

Benoit is the one who took all of the substances he did that eventually led to him murdering his family. And he did murder an innocent child. That's a horrible, horrible thing. But today, when I watch a Benoit match, I cringe at first, but then I enjoy the match - Benoit was a great wrestler, and just like with any other wrestler you have to separate the wrestler from the person. Yes, he murdered his family, and that's unforgivable. But he also put on some great matches during his life, and I can still enjoy them.

I chose 4 and 6. I would have also chosen 1 & 2, but the added, "Blaming the business is unfair" I couldn't. Benoit did conscientiously make the decisions that led to his repeated injuries as well as drug use. The business also dictated that he make those decisions in order to be at the top.

I think the case could still be made that Benoit wasn't in his right mind due to the repeated brain injuries he suffered through his career (the NFL is now starting to pay attention to similar actions by former players- http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-thegameface091809&prov=yhoo&type=lgns Steve Young was also interviewed by ESPN earlier today about the same thing). I know that isn't a popular thing to say, because everyone just wants it cut and dry that he killed his kid. Things aren't always black and white, people. No matter how badly we wish they were.

I'd say that the deaths would hopefully not become meaningless, but in WWE's sick way of sweeping any and every problem under the rug, they already have become meaningless.

I was THIS close to not choosing 2 for the same reason, but ultimately I decided that Benoit made the choice. However, you won't find any argument from me that it isn't dictated by the nature of the business.

Kurtis mostly nailed it for me. Had he not had those brain injuries I am not so certain it would have happened. They were his actions, but what led to them?

How many stories of him were there of him being a good friend before this? We heard that stuff a lot, then this happens, and retroactively he was always a monster to many people.

Another part, the investigation, always felt incomplete and hinky to me. The police said they had conclusive evidence, but I never saw it, I did see probable, but nothing 100% concrete.

I went 2 & 4... However I almost went for 6 as well because whike the business itself cannot be to blame - as we all have the power to make our own decisions - some of the pressures forced upon him by certain aspects of the business may have been to blame.

I watched the Hard Knocks DVD a week after it all went down to see if I could and I found it easy to separate the man from the deeds. I laughed recently when I saw the first Naked Gun film and saw OJ Simpson in it. To separate the person as a performer from the deed I think is part of the "getting over it" for us as fans. While he did kill an innocent child and his wife and that is a terrible, horrific act, for us to pass complete 100% judgement without being in full knowledge of all the facts is a little unfair. As AFN already mentioned, the police evidence has not been completely released, and where is the final study on the impact of serious prolonged brain injury on impulsive behaviours?

So I'll stick with 2 & 4.

I don't seperate the 'man' from the 'persona' for Charles manson, Roman Polanski, or John Wayne gacey, and I won't do it for Chris benoit. And yes, I was a big fan.


As a fan,I personally don't need "100% facts" to explain the whys of a double murder,suicide. I'm not owed 'whys' and explanations. His family perhaps, but not me. I watched him on TV for at least 9 years, but I cant pretend to 'know him' after a 2 hour press kit fans took as a documentary and assorted vignettes. I don't need or want any rationalization as I don't feel that 'fans' should be even close to a priority for closure. I have no offense held towards people who can still ooh and aah at his work, but I cannot.
Last I heard, Chris N's concussion study was 'coming along', but I heard it wasn't one of those things were you can conclusively say "with enough X trauma, Y can occur every time". Compound that with stress. Compound that with life on the road. Compound all that chemicals. Factor in what 'hard knocks' told you from everybody who 'truly knew chris' and what the revealed circumstances of his death brought up. That's a hard dichotomy to even attempt to figure out for his loved ones, and I'd just assume leave it to them. Nobody ever thinks the quiet friendly guy is capable of snapping, and then if they do so down the road, everybody already has an opinion formed based on their own fears or perceptions. The guy clearly had problems and damage beyond his in-ring persona, and nothing disgusted me more then how quickly fans began harranging his grieving family, or mocking them with tasteless jokes. For that reason alone, I find the erasure and 'barring from the hall of fame" to be a positve that outweighs any previous enjoyment of his matches for me personally.
I wouldn't watch Raw, TNA, ROH, or NEO if the spectacle came with some family's price tag, or if they cashed in on the misery of something senseless and tragic for the sake of quick spectacle or flash ratings. Again, I don't judge others for what they like or prefer in their entertainment, but I myself cannot think "my entertainment demands a joke be made of this bad thing so it's more palatable and comfortable". I was a fan of a total stranger who did a bad thing for some reason, and now I am not.
The memorial foundation set up in Daniel and nancy's name against domestic violence got a lot of "guilt tax" contributions the first year or so after the incident, and it was the first non profit I've donated to in 10 years or so, so I don't think they are forgotten or meaningless as much as some entertaining matches were compared to someone's life.
It's easier for me to canonize somebody like Eddie,Owen or Pillman then Benoit. I'd have just assumed seen them all eventually die of old age after a long career and induction into a Hall of fame.
I don't like his erasure from the history of the business, but I personally think it was the appropriate action considering the circumstances. The references are slowly sneaking back in, with Trips whipping out a crossface, and wweclassics bleeping out every "F" from "WWF" out of jim ross's mouth, but the occasional word "benoit" slips through. The "gag order" is one of the few times Vince has ever shown a modicum of taste considering it was wwe fans threatening benoits family after the event occured. I'm most comfortable with being on the same wavelength as paul heyman when it comes to "why" - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article829505.ece

As deplorable as I find the business practices and ethics of the wrestling industry, I don't blame them for the benoit murders/suicide anymore. Contributing negligence? maybe.

It's the business's fault and it's his own fault. That said if he knew the consequences,I'd bet he wouldn't have taken those risks. No onew knew concussions (said to be the cause of the Alzheimer's like brain) could lead to this level of dementia... or rather those that did never applied it to wrestling. There's still some personal responsibility for not being careful, but this was pretty cearly caused by severe mental illness.

As for watching his matches? I can from Japan and early WCW, but have trouble later. It's funky and I'm not sure why.

I've tried, but its hard for me to watch anything with Benoit in it.

This is exactly what I wrote about several weeks ago.

Link to my recent Benoit column...