Batistagate

wooly

I am the woolrus
#1
I smell a scandal! :p

This past weekend, some people within World Wrestling Entertainment leaked a story to PWInsider.com saying Batista had suffered a biceps tear. Their story was later changed to a torn tendon in his left biceps and that it was not a full fledged muscle tear. The webmaster of his official website, www.Demon-Wrestling.com, soon acknowledged his injury, confirming it as a torn tendon.
The webmaster wrote: "We originally thought Dave had a torn muscle (he's been hurt for around 2-3 weeks), but this has now been confirmed as a torn tendon."
However, the official WWE website would say differently.
According to their report concerning Batista's injury, he suffered a completely torn left biceps requiring surgery that will keep him out of action for at least four months — not a torn tendon.
A full fledged muscle tear is much more serious than a tendon tear, so something's clearly not adding up. If he did indeed suffer a torn tendon like his official website is saying, the amount of ring time he would miss would be considerably less.
Among some of the wrestlers, there has been plenty of skepticism over the true severity of his injury. The injury supposedly occurred over three weeks ago, but he had been working television, pay-per-views, and live events without any sort of tape on his arm whatsoever, let alone showing any signs of an injury. If the biceps tear was serious, and people within WWE are claiming it was serious enough for him to get surgery two days after his championship victory, it would certainly have been taped up. If the injury was not serious enough to require tape, one would think there would be no need for surgery.
Even partially torn biceps injuries are taped up, but considering WWE is saying he suffered a full fledged muscle tear, it makes the severity of his injury all the more suspicious.
At Monday's Raw in Lafayette‎, the wrestlers were told his injury was legitimate and he was having surgery the next day. However, the talk among wrestlers in the locker room is that his injury angle on Raw was a cover-up to have him avoid being suspended due to a violation of the company's drug testing policy.
For what it's worth, Monday's show was re-written several times during the day and the creative team was given a list of wrestlers not to use for the foreseeable future prior to show time as a result of drug testing held earlier in the day and at shows over the weekend.
WWE covering up a drug test failure with an injury would certainly be a major change of philosophy on how they handle their drug testing policy, and while things appear fishy, right now there is no concrete evidence indicating that has happened.
This'd be quite the embarrassing if it was found out to be a fabricated injury just to cover up a wellness policy violation. Only thing is, would they go through this trouble to protect the name of someone who plans to retire soon anyways? I guess McMahon does love his Boretista...
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
#2
It's funny that you post this, because I told me friend yesterday that I bet the injury of Batista isn't even real, it's just to cover a fail drug test. This doesn't surprise me one bit. There's no way he could look that big naturally in my opinion.
 

Millz

LGB
Staff member
V.I.P.
#3
WWE needs to just tell the truth if Batista failed a test or not...their policy stats that they will.

Honesty is the best policy
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
#4
I totally agree with you Millz, but it would be a major blow if one of their top dogs like Batista would fail a drug test. A lot of kids would be disapointed, and the sales of merchandise would probably go down. That is why they want to cover it up with an injury.
 

HappyFace

Registered Member
#5
I reckon he could probably get a body like that naturally, but he died shortly after reaching it.

This whole thing is so depressing when the WWE wont even be honest with us, we're all mature enough to understand that steroids = bad.
 
#6
That's why I think there is a double-standard between Batista and Triple H. They both look unnaturally strong due to Triple H being super skinny when he first started, and yet Triple H gets NO punishment at all? People always throw around the "using backstage powers" attack, and this time I believe they are right.

What good for Batista is good for Triple H.
 

Marvelous1

Registered Member
#7
Triple H was very smart in marrying the bosses daughter! Do you think he would have spent almost his entire career with gold around his waist if he hadn't?
 

HappyFace

Registered Member
#8
Automatic Fail right there.

You're honestly saying that Triple H isn't talented?

He's more then talented, he's fucking excellent at what he does. Guys like you just need a reason to doubt on him because he is actually good, he's one of the only guys in wrestler today who actually knows how to be a champion. Nobody's got that champion swagger like he's got.
 

WesJones87

RayzorBlade87
#9
I agree with Maverlous1, actually. Triple H has only got his backstage political power and has spent a lot of time with the gold because he married Vinces daughter. He's talented enough to be one of the top men in the business, but if he weren't Vinces son-in-law then he wouldn't have held as many championships as he has now.
 

HappyFace

Registered Member
#10
And why not?

What exactly has made Cena and Batsita five time champions?

They're marketability, charisma or talent?

Triple H has a million times more of that then both of them combined.