Skip to comments.Umaga dead at 36
Posted on 12/05/2009 9:23:08 AM PST by pakmahfil
Umaga dead at 36 updates :- Former WWE star Umaga 36, was found near death in his Texas home early Friday.
His wife found him responsive with blood coming out of his nose. The ex-wrestling star was then rushed to a hospital, where he is reportedly being kept alive via life support.
(Excerpt) Read more at pakmahfil.com ...
steroid related? others?
First, what is an umaga?
Second, how can he be dead if he is on life support at the hospital?
Guess they failed to correct the copy under the headline
>>Wrestler Edward Fatu, better known as the hulking, tattooed WWE superstar “Umaga,” died Friday of a heart attack in a Houston, Texas, hospital, a family friend said.
Born in American Samoa, Fatu, 36, was a member of the famous Anoa’i wrestling family, which includes cousin Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
Umaga was a wrestler who wrestled for WWE .
He was in the storyline with Donald Trump & Vince and the shaving of the head bet . Vince McMahon Lost and Donald Trump shaved Vince’s head bald.
There was a very recent article, but I don't remember where, listing deaths of wrestlers - Google 'recent wwe deaths' - lot's of young ones!
these guys goose up way too much
If there’s any argument against legalization of drugs, pro wrestling is a microcosm of what can happen when behavior is completely unregulated.
I’m a free-market anti-union guy just like everyone else on this forum, but see that there must be some form of regulation in certain areas in life and business.
Compare wrestling with the NFL, where you have a similar amount of violence and a virtual monopoly, just like the WWE has with wrestlers.
In both markets, there’s a demand to be bigger, stronger, faster, either to break record books or to get that look that will get you that all-important “push” in the storylines. Athletes in both markets often live a rock-star life burning candles at both ends.
The difference is that there are strict regulations in the NFL, and there are virtually none in the pro-wrestling. There’s also a player’s union in the NFL, whereas there in none in wrestling. There is also a different culture where NFL players are often penalized and fined for outrageous behavior that’s encourged in wrestling. The result is that there are far fewer deaths of athletes in football whereas there are many in pro wrestling.
Exploitation is a common cry from the left when arguing against free-market principles, and for the most part their criticisms are overblown. However, in wrestling, I think they have a valid point.
If the NFL were to be as unregulated as wrestling, we would see 40 week seasons, hundreds of debilitating injuries and deaths, and far less of an emphasis on protection and safety.
I applaud how the NFL is finally taking concussions seriously, and I doubt if pro wrestling can be trusted to regulate itself, WWE’s recent attempts at self-regulation notwithstanding.
I’m not sure what it will take.
I don’t believe it. I think that he’s doing it for ratings.
“If theres any argument against legalization of drugs, pro wrestling is a microcosm of what can happen when behavior is completely unregulated.”
You (and me) choose not to take such substances, but if a grown man wants to ingest them in his quest to get bigger muscles, what business is it of yours? Sure, it’s dangerous, and he no doubt knew that, along with his family members and associates but he made the choice on his own. We must offer them counsel and encourage them not to make these type decisions but restricting their freedom goes too far.
Freedom means allowing others to make their own decisions and, possibly, fail. As long as they are only hurting themselves then it’s not up to anyone else. That’s the hard part about freedom that our society can’t accept. The Founding Fathers knew it and accepted it but our modern socialistic society can’t handle it. The idea that no one should be allowed to fail is what brought about the welfare state, the Goldman Sachs bailout, the gov’t healthcare debacle, and many, many other negative things in our society.
Freedom is a messy and difficult concept. Most people can’t handle it, because they feel that they must be compassionate, even to the point of controlling others. I’ve had family members with addiction problems and it is heart-wrenching to see them go through terrible things, but they have to be involved in saving themselves from themselves; we can’t do it for them. When they are finally ready for help then we can be there for them.
In my opinion, an individual’s freedom is a higher moral value than your and my compassion for them . Apparently you disagree with that. In the future we will decide anew how ‘compassionate’ our society will choose to be, as we experience a serious economic decline brought on by two generations of liberals trying to make sure no one is allowed to fail.
A face not even a mother could love!
I think it's a matter of degrees here. I no more want oppressive govt rule than I want anarchy. My argument is that if the NFL didn't have the regulations that it does now, then it would be like pro wrestling.
In this alternate universe, you could argue that it's choice that athletes would enter football even with the dangers involved. Moreover, it's the fans choice to watch it even though everyone knows that human achievement is being eclipsed by pharmaceutical science. Furthermore, it would be a choice for parents to allow their chlidren to go into football when they all know that success would necessarily involve eventual drug abuse. Even so, we, the fans, driven by our baser instincts, will cheer them on, throw money at them, buy their merchandise, demanding harder and more dangerous hits, as the NFL feeds their players to the lions.
The differences I have with libertarian thought is that I do believe that govt has a role promoting virtue. What role that is, and how it's promoted is nebulous and is subject to debate. My view has nothing to do with "compassion," though it's more to do with a more utilitarian ethic of right and wrong. In this case, I think a nation that believes that recreational drug use is wrong and legally questionable will be healthier than one that condones it. Furthermore, a nation that recognizes and frowns upon exploitation of its employees is healthier than one that condones it.
In pro wrestling, it is largely unregulated, and as such, I see it in a far less healthy than the NFL. I am actually big fans of both "sports" and follow them closely. I see that, though imperfect, the NFL is in a pretty healthy state. The games are mostly competitive, and stadiums sold out. In wrestling, more and more is demanded by the wrestlers and they are turning to drugs and are burning out at a remarkable rate.
The big unanswered questions is what to do about it. Libertarians, and probably most conservatives would argue that nothing needs to be done, as the markets will correct themselves. The problem with that is that in a marketplace where there's a virtual monopoly, free market corrections do not happen like they would in a marketplace of competition. We also know that even free markets are often irrational forming large bubbles that may not correct until the bubbles are catastrophically large (re: current economic meltdown).
I do not have a good solution for pro-wrestling. I'm probably inclined to agree with you that it needs to correct itself even though I don't believe that it will. I do not believe in govt intervention, especially with something like pro wrestling, and I don't believe that the athletes will unionize as the WWE will not allow it.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that the world unfettered of govt regulation may not be as desirable as some people may think. Certainly we know what happens when govt assumes too much power. In fact, we hardly see an example of a market unfettered of regulations, until we take a hard look at the world of professional wrestling.
“In this alternate universe, you could argue that it’s choice that athletes would enter football even with the dangers involved. “
Yes, that’s true. It’s their choice.
“Furthermore, it would be a choice for parents to allow their chlidren to go into football when they all know that success would necessarily involve eventual drug abuse.”
You mean success requires drug abuse? That’s not true. Again, there is choice involved here.
“The differences I have with libertarian thought is that I do believe that govt has a role promoting virtue.”
Whose virtue? The obvious greater good? It’s not so obvious anymore in Europe or the UK, where Sharia law is being pushed.
“In this case, I think a nation that believes that recreational drug use is wrong and legally questionable will be healthier than one that condones it.”
The nation still mostly believes that recreational drug use is wrong, thankfully, and I hope it will continue to do so. In the history of this great nation (until the modern age) morality was primarily contained by the people and the culture, not laws. Sure, laws were necessary for extreme cases like violence and such, but by and large society put expectations on people. Now people expect laws to take the place of our own personal responsibility.
“I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that the world unfettered of govt regulation may not be as desirable as some people may think.”
Did I say “unfettered of gov’t regulation”? No, I don’t want anarchy. But gov’t regulation is so overbearing now that I’m ready to try a serious reduction in it. As I said, freedom is a difficult, messy business, and few people are really in favor of it. But many people in this country have given their lives for because they thought it was worth it anyway.