I realized this morning that I omitted some very interesting stuff in the steroid part of last night's post about WWE's "Setting The Record Straight" campaign. Specifically, I'm referring to Dr. David Black's (the drug testing program administrator) Congressional interview (PDF) and the parts of Vince McMahon's interview (PDF) that relate to it.
Of note:
Q In November and December of 2005, when Linda McMahon contacted you, did she give you any reason as to why they wanted you to initiate this testing again?
A The death of Eddie Guerrero.
Q That is what caused it? She told you that was the reason behind it?
A I know that is what caused it all of this to occur, was the death of Eddie Guerrero, whether it was part of that conversation or subsequent conversation, I can't tell you.
Which contradicts Vince McMahon's answer:
Q Did developing a wellness policy have anything to do with the death of Eddie Guerrero?
A No. Quite frankly, we had begun developing the policy prior to Eddie's untimely demise.
Q By "developing the policy," what do you mean?
A Formulating strategy. I believe ‐‐ I think Dr. Black actually was engaged in this prior to Eddie's death.
Q So it is your recollection that you contacted Dr. Black prior to Eddie Guerrero's death?
A I believe it would have been a part of it. I know that it was discussed in terms of building in a wellness policy prior to Eddie Guerrero's death, correct.
However, Linda McMahon agreed with Dr. Black:
Q What brought about the decision to develop a new Wellness Policy? What led to it?
A A particular point was the since we have already discussed Eddie Guerrero, it was the death of Eddie Guerrero, which was in '05. And Eddie had died. We knew of his past alcohol and drug abuse just by the fact that we had him in rehab, what his history was. And we felt that we wanted to make sure that we were helping the men and women who were part of WWE, a lot of them young men and women, to stay as healthy as they could. If they were -- you know if they had any addictions to prescription drugs, any of those kinds of things, we wanted to make sure that they were as healthy as they could be.
Part of it also was looking at the fact that we had had two or three of our performers, Ed being one of them, who died from a heart attack. On Eddie's autopsy he had two of the arteries, one was about 90 percent closed, the other one was 65 percent closed. So we wanted to make sure that cardiology was a part of this wellness program. So as we talked about all the aspects and elements of things that we learned over the years, what could we put into place that would be very effective, it was drug testing, it was cardio testing. And as we have learned more we continue to evolve this policy. We wanted to help them be healthy.
This statement from Black probably explains the Signature Pharmacy scandal vis a vis WWE a little bit better:
I'll tell you the other thing that -- after many years of being involved in competitive sport testing and workplace drug testing, I was caught by surprise in this program early on with infinity longevity, the rejuvenation centers, the wellness programs. I had absolutely no knowledge that these places were out there that are just drug mills, and they're handing out anabolic steroids and human growth hormones like candy and you could have gone online and done it. Within 10 days, you have could have in your hand as much human growth hormone and testosterone as you wish to have. For $1,800, you can get a little box, and you can get all you need. I had no knowledge that these 28 centers were operating as they are.
...
But I ran into Infinity Longevity, gosh, almost right away with the talent. And Dr. Brandywine and the folks down there and it smelled bad from the very beginning, although we had licensed doctors that were prescribing medication, and that's where the policy was problematic in the beginning. We said in the policy just like all workplace programs, if you've got a doctor and you've got a prescription, we'll probably accept your positive test result. We didn't anticipate. I've never been in an environment before where steroids were being prescribed for medicine. There are very little medical applications of anabolic steroids.
Much, much more after the jump.
Gee, why would Vince do that? (Also why therapeutic use exemptions for steroids that aren't testosterone are generally BS):
A I think there is going to be a limited amount of information. There is supposed to be a fire wall to some extent between the WWE and this program. But obviously, you know, it is working with the WWE but the intention was to limit Vince's influence on the program. So.
Q And you were what lead you to that conclusion? Is that what you were told by Linda McMahon?
A That's what Vince said in front of the talent when we first introduced the program. Dr. Black is the administrator, that's why I am known as evil Dr. Black. That's why I got my tag right up front, and I'm really the point of concern for them. And that Vince, for the most part, would not be directly involved in who is tested, when they're tested, how often they are tested. There would be this separation of power so to speak.
Q And has that firewall worked to the extent you know. Has there been any involvement from Vince McMahon that --
A It -- Vince is a pretty persuasive gentleman and we've had a couple of pointed conversations.
Q Can you describe those conversations?
A To a large extent, I'd like to keep it private, only to say that he listened, and he did not try to interfere with anybody -- he tried to -- the only discussion that I would say of any great substance that occurred was on the issue of the doctors and the prescriptions for the individuals, and whether or not talent would be initially suspended or whether we would find some middle ground where they'd get a warning letter, and that was the middle ground we found, is that they were given a warning letter before they were suspended, if they had a doctor and a prescription, but it was bogus medical reason.
Q And was it his view that they should not have been suspended in those cases?
A In those cases, he argued that they had a doctor, they had a prescription, they didn't know any better, they had a doc, they had a prescription. So why are you, Dr. Black, going to suspend them? And hence, the reason they have the doctor and the prescription is because it is bogus. But the middle ground we found was I would send them a letter, I would tell them that the medical explanation was unacceptable and that if they continued to use the drug, they'd be suspended.
Q Now, that has changed.
A And then we eventually removed even that. Now we go direct to suspension.
Q Was he arguing they shouldn't be suspended that time or was he arguing that whenever they have a doctor and prescription, it should be accepted?
A When you read the policy it says -- what we did not anticipate was almost from the very first suspension, finding doctors who are prescribing anabolic steroids. I've been in this business for over 20 years, I have never found a doctor prescribing anabolic steroids. When I talk about anabolic steroids, I do not include testosterone, which is an androgen. There is a distinction to be made. So it was a point of conflict early on in the program as to, you know, if they've got a doc, they've got a prescription, how can you suspend them? Vince, the reason they've got the prescription is not valid. The medical diagnosis is bogus. You don't inject people in the knee for joint pain. Rheumatologists don't use anabolic steroids for joint pain. You don't find rheumatologists doing that. But the middle ground we found for a period of time, for about 4 or 5 months, maybe less, maybe about 3 months until Dr. Ray came on board, is that I would send them a letter saying your medical justification for this use is unacceptable. If you continue to use, you will be suspended. So we had an interesting conversation to get to that point. But we got to that point and it seemed to be a fair point after all, although we did remove it. We issued a certain number of warnings and then we went directly to suspensions after Dr. Ray joined, and there was an issue that I was a Ph.D. and not an M.D. So they wanted an M.D. talking to an M.D., and disagreeing with an M.D., even though I think I can smell a problem when there is a problem. So that is how we resolved that issue as well.
Q Have you ever had conversations with Mr. McMahon regarding test results for an individual
A No.
Q -- wrestler?
A No, only in the context of that initial discussion on two suspensions where it was a policy issue and not the individuals, but beyond that, no.
...
Q Going back to that conversation with Mr. McMahon, you said that he wanted to accept the prescriptions and you convinced him not to. And you convinced him to get to the point where you issued warnings and said you need to get off these medications?
A Yeah, that was the middle ground we achieved, is that they'd receive a letter saying that yes, you have a
doctor; yes, you do have a prescription, but you disagree with the diagnosis and the use of the medication. So
discontinue use.Q And what was it that convinced him?
A In the conversation?
Q Yeah.
A Oh, gosh. Well, let's see I was on vacation with my family and spent 2 days on the phone and what did we say? We had a lot of conversation. And basically it boiled down to the fact that I think I convinced him that I appreciated him defending the talent and putting on his talent's hat to defend them, but at the same time, the reason for the prescription was clearly nonmedical, and the policy states that nonmedical use of drugs is prohibited, and I went into great length to explain to him that sports medicine physicians do not use anabolic steroids for treatment of pain and injury. Rheumatologists don't use these drugs for treatment of joint pain or injury or any form of rheumatology that -- treatment that I'm aware of.
So I think he was finally convinced and understood that the talent had used the doctor to get to the drug. But he believed in fairness to the talent, the policy said what it said and they abided by the policy.
Then why is Vince's talent contract included with WWE's financial filings (you can see a subsequent amendment here)?
Q But all the officials are tested?
A Anybody on contract is tested, anybody that comes under contract. Officials that are in the ring, they come under contract.
Q That would be referees?
A Yeah, the referees.
Q Vince McMahon tested?
A He is not a contract employee. He is not a contract employee. This is only for the talent that are under contract.
Q So Mr. McMahon is not tested?
A Correct, correct.
Q And you would, I assume, know if he was?
A I think I would. I think I would know about that. I would probably just hear it through the grapevine as to who had that collection event.
When Vince McMahon was asked about this subject, it was quite the event:
Q Mr. McMahon, we're almost finished today. I have a final set of questions to ask that we've given careful consideration to. We've given careful consideration to all of these questions.
A I hope you have.
Q But that in particular, because while it's a short set of questions they're more personal than some of the other questions we've been asking today. And we recognize that you may not want to answer these questions. But we feel, we believe that they're important and relevant to this investigation, and that's why I'm going to ask them. We understand that you've chosen to come to this interview voluntarily, that you're not here under compulsion. No one can require you to stay or answer any particular question.
WWE outside counsel Jerry McDevitt. What's the question?
A Let's get to the question, guys.
Q But I hope you do understand that we do consider these to be important questions and I hope you'll answer them.
Q It's my understanding that you play a dual role in WWE as both an executive and separately as WWE talent?
A Yes.
Q Is that correct?
What kind of roles does your character Mr. McMahon play?
A Basically he's a heel, a bad guy.
Q Does he ever wrestle?
A On occasion.
Q How often?
Mr. McDevitt. Why don't you ask him the question?
Mr. McMahon. Twice a year.
Mr. McDevitt. Why don't you ask him the question you want to ask him?
Q We're getting to that.
Mr. McDevitt. No, you're not, you're playing. We all know the question you want to ask him. Ask him the question.
Q In your role as WWE talent are you subject to the provisions of the Wellness Policy?
A Let me answer where I think you're going. I do not test. I'm 62 years old. The Wellness Policy is a policy designed for talent that's regularly scheduled to compete, which I may wrestle a couple times a year. And not only not regularly scheduled, at 62 I'm not exactly a 24‐year‐old guy of which we're concerned for his wellness. So I don't fall in the category.
Q So you're not subject to the terms of the Wellness Policy?
A No.
Q And are you subject to testing?
A If I'm not in the Wellness Policy, then I'm not subject to testing, as I said before. I'm not a regularly scheduled performer. In addition to that I'm 62 years old, not 26. And the Wellness Policy is designed for those young competitors who compete on a regular basis.
Q Is the Wellness Policy ‐‐
A I'm in good health at 62.
Q It appears that you are. Is the Wellness Policy age limited by its own terms?
A I don't believe so, no.
Q Have you ever been tested under the Wellness Policy?
A No.
Q Have you ever been tested for steroids by any other authorities?
A No.
Q In your trial, in the trial of Dr. George Zahorian, you admitted to having used steroids on at least one occasion.
Mr. McDevitt. That's false.
Q You didn't admit to using steroids?
Mr. McDevitt. He didn't even testify in his trial. He didn't have to testify in his trial. We whipped the government's ass in 19 days without putting a witness on. Get your facts right. He didn't testify in the trial.
Q Is it true that your lawyer in that trial, Ms. Laura Brevetti, submitted that you had received steroids from Dr. Zahorian for personal use?
A I believe so.
Mr. McDevitt. A different question. By the way, do you mean to tell me, Brian, this was your list of questions and this was so important that he had to preface all his comments about this with how important this was for the committee to ask these questions, yet it's not on that list? And I'm supposed to believe this is all in good faith, huh? You didn't think those questions that he now has prefaced was so important he was going to ask is not so important to put on there?
Q You did admit to having ‐‐
Mr. McDevitt. Wait a minute. Has this just come up after this, Brian?
Q It did.
Mr. McDevitt. You lost every bit of credibility you ever had with me with that answer, because I know better.
Q. I told you that over a week ago, one week before the interview. And I indicated at the time that there may be other issues.
Mr. McDevitt. Do you have any other questions?
Q I do.
And then this happened:
Q Several witnesses that have contacted the committee as part of the investigation have shared their perception that you may be using steroids or other performance enhancing drugs.
Mr. McDevitt. Fine. Do you have another question? We're not commenting on that.
Q Several witnesses have shared their perception of that and they have told us that in their view this perception weakens the Wellness Policy because it creates a sense that steroid use in the WWE is tolerated. Mr. McMahon, have you used steroids since 1996?
Mr. McDevitt. Stop. Do you have any other questions? Do you have any other questions?
Q So you're instructing him not to answer.
Mr. McDevitt. Do you have any other questions?
Q I do.
Mr. McDevitt. I don't have to instruct him. These are voluntarily.
Q Sure.
Mr. McDevitt. Do you have any other questions?
Q I do.
Mr. McDevitt. What are they?
Q Is he not going to answer that question?
Mr. McDevitt. I'm not going to allow you to harass this man. How is that pertinent to anything about whether this wellness program works? And you came in here today professing you have an open mind and you're telling me that you didn't have this in mind when you wrote this list? Bullshit.
Q I just finished telling you that there are witnesses who have expressed to the committee their perception ‐‐
Mr. McDevitt. I don't care about what your unnamed witnesses have said about your perception. You can take them and do with them what you want.
Q Mr. McMahon, have you used human growth hormone since 1996?
Mr. McDevitt. Do you choose to answer those questions to these people, Vince?
Mr. McMahon. No.
Mr. McDevitt. You now have your answer.
Q You're choosing not to answer the question or are you saying, no, you have not used it?
A I'm choosing not to answer the question.
Q Have you used any other performance enhancing drugs since 1996?
A I'm refusing to answer the question.
Q It wasn't clear to me on the steroid question whether ‐‐
Mr. McDevitt. Well, too bad if it wasn't clear. Do you have any other questions?
Jennifer Safavian, minority professional staff. We have not asked for names of any individuals in this investigation.
Mr. McDevitt. No, not one person.
Ms. Safavian. And what you're doing is I guess trying to get a name. I actually do think this is perhaps an inappropriate line of questioning.
Q I appreciate your view on it, but we vetted this line of questions ‐‐
Ms. Safavian. With who?
Q ‐‐ and we believe that this is.
Mr. McDevitt. You vetted this line of questioning but it didn't make it on the list?
Ms. Safavian. I wasn't aware of it.
Q I understand that you object to it but this question, this line of questions is a line of questions that's important to us.
Mr. McDevitt. Who vetted this line of questioning? When?
Q. It was vetted in the committee.
Mr. McDevitt. Was it prior to sending this list, Brian?
Q No, it was not vetted prior to sending that list.
Mr. McDevitt. Anything else?
Q I would like it to be clear. I asked whether you've used steroids since 1996, and I'm not clear whether you're choosing not to answer that question or not?
A I'm not answering your question.
Q Okay. Thank you. Anything else? Do you have anything else?
Ms. Safavian. No, we do not.
Q Okay. Thank you for your time. Do you have anything else?
A Whoa, whoa, whoa. You haven't asked me okay. Again, what I would like to state here is that this company puts smiles on people's faces all over the world. We do it in a responsible manner. We're a public company on the New York Stock Exchange. We have lots of fun, by the way, doing what we do. It's a wonderful company. It entertains millions of people. I'm very proud of our company. I'm very proud of the wellness policies through the years that we put into place, very proud of everything that we've done to make this a safer environment and to enhance the performance of all around performers and to create a better product, which we do every conceivable day, try to create a better product. I feel as though that this has been a complete witchhunt, and I feel as though despite what you said earlier, I think there is no question in my mind. Hopefully when the public reads this report they will keep in mind, and as best as possible I will remind them as well, not that it will matter, and as the media goes they're only going to want to print what they want to print. But I will state once again that when the chairman of this whole thing, Waxman, determines without any testimony here today that this wellness program is full of crap, my words not his, that's what he means, then we can only expect you guys, the minions who work for him, may only expect then that you write some sort of report that substantiates his point of view. And again I find it irresponsible for a Congressman to state something like that prior to all of this testimony, totally irresponsible.
So for the record, I am certain that whatever it is, despite all the wonderful things that we've done, that no one else in the history of this business has ever done, despite all of that, you're here to in some way attack us, when in fact the Wellness Policy is a very good policy, it's one that has evolved and will continue to evolve regardless of what you guys have to say. It didn't take an act of Congress, didn't take Waxman, didn't take the media, didn't take anybody along those lines to tell us what we should do from a responsible standpoint. We've had three of these programs that we put into place voluntarily. We're concerned where our performers are concerned and good business people, by the way, and want to do good business. It didn't take any of that crap like baseball or anything else. No one had to tell us what to do. We did what we did because it was the right thing to do for our business.
So there are so many other really good things which we'll try to give you in terms of information you don't have that are positives. All of this has been an attack on the company, all of this has been extraordinarily negative today. Almost every bit of it has been let's try and getcha and it's been negative, negative, negative.
So again I'm not expecting anything, nor should the public expect anything other than some sort of scathing report from your committee chaired by the guy who already prejudged us, Waxman. We can't expect anything, nor can the public expect anything other than something that's rotten coming out of this committee.
And I want to say that for the record. And that's all I've got to say. Have a nice day.
Q I thank you for coming in and I thank you for your time.
Meanwhile, Dr. Black was asked about Vince's contractual status:
Q We took a look at the SEC files and McMahon wears two hats. He is, of course, the president and owns the
company~ He also has a separate contract as talent, which we can put that in the record. This would be Exhibit 10.[Black Exhibit No. 10 Was marked for identification.]
Q Given the existence of the event contract, should he be included among the talent that is tested by the -- by your program?
Black's lawyer Kevin McGuiness. This is a good question for Jerry to answer. This is a contractual question.
Dr. Black. Yeah, I don't know if this mirrors or mimics all the other contracts by all the other talent. I'm uncomfortable I would say in trying to answer that question.
Mr. McGuiness. This is out of your --
Q Uncomfortable with the arrangement or uncomfortable with the --
A I don't know that I know enough to answer that question. I don't know if this contract is as the other contracts are and is defined under the program
Mr. McGuiness. This is something for a lawyer to explain.
Q Okay. And your understanding -- the provisions of the agreement itself of the wellness policy itself, that calls for all talent to be tested? What is the exact language with regard to the --
A I'd have to go back.
...
Q If we could go back to the Vince McMahon contract. I know you haven't seen it before.
A No, I have not.
Q I just want to know if this language is familiar to you. On Page 11, Section 10.2: Talent represents, warrants and agrees that talent is in sound mental and physical condition. Do you see that section?
A Yeah, 10.2.
Q And that talent is free from the influence of illegal drugs or controlled substances which can threaten talent's well-being and pose a risk of injury to talent or others. To ensure compliance with this warranty, talent shall abide by company's drug policy for talent, as well as any and all amendments, additions or modifications to the company's drug policy implemented during the term of this agreement and consents to the sampling and testing of his urine in accordance with such policy. In addition, talent agrees to submit annually to a complete physical examination by a physician either selected or approved by company. Company's current drug policy which talent acknowledges here with receiving is annexed hereto and incorporated by reference and made a part hereof. Is that language familiar to you as the language that other talent -- WWE talent contracts?
A I haven't seen their contracts. I don't know the language in their contracts.
Q Okay.
A I've never been to that side of the business.
Q Okay.
Q Does it surprise you given what we've just read? I'll ask you again. You can choose not to answer if you don't want to. Does it surprise you at all that Mr. McMahon has not been included in the drug policy?
A Well, I --
Mr. McGuiness. There is --
Mr. Black. I may have to take -- and say that it may be totally my mistake in not viewing him -- I didn't know he was under contract.
Mr. McGuiness. You weren't aware of the contract. You hadn't read the entire contract. If there are other contracts, if there is any other stipulation or agreement, we just don't know.
Q You're provided the list of talent by WWE?
A Yes, we are.
Q Can you get back to us and let us know if Mr. McMahon was on that list of talent or not?
A I can, I guess. Sure. I think -- it is
Q It is a straight-up factual question.
Mr. McGuiness. No, no. I just want to be very careful about not exchanging names. I know there has been a big
effort to avoid doing that. And I just -- but I think there is a way to word that question to get your answer.Q Well, could you provide us with a list of talent that you're provided -- that -- WWE provides you with a list
of talent. Could you provide that list to us?A That I think I would have a problem with. In terms of -- well, we're not associating test results with
Q We don't need any results.
Mr. McGuiness. But is the purpose here to determine whether or not Vince McMahon is on the list, or is the purpose here to identify all of the independent contractors?
Q The purpose is to identify all of the independent contractors on the list to be tested.
Q I think the purpose is different than that. I think the purpose is to identify the scope of the policy in a general sense without regard to --
Mr. McGuiness. Can I ask a favor?
Q Yes.
Mr. McGuiness. Would you, as you did before, send us a question?
Q Do you mean a letter?
Mr. McGuiness. Brian has sent a question or two. I just think that this is obviously one where it is going to theoretically impinge -- other lawyers will want to be involved in how to answer this, and it would be easier if we
were working off a written answer.Q Sure. Okay.
Mr. McGuiness. I don't want to be --
Q That's fine. We'll get you a written question.
Any questions?