I started thinking about this on Monday night when Jeff Hardy showed up on Impact despite facing numerous indictments on drug-related charges.
This is a guy who would have been facing a minimum one-year suspension if he was still employed by WWE, but he gets off the hook with a new employer that doesn't have a drug policy.
The WWE was forced to have a drug policy in 1993. They were criticized by politicians when they laxed that drug policy later in the decade. And they were pressured to increase the effectiveness of their policy in the middle of this past decade.
Meanwhile, an upstart company like TNA is free to truck along without a policy. Does that give them an unfair advantage in a competition with WWE?
This is a guy who would have been facing a minimum one-year suspension if he was still employed by WWE, but he gets off the hook with a new employer that doesn't have a drug policy.
The WWE was forced to have a drug policy in 1993. They were criticized by politicians when they laxed that drug policy later in the decade. And they were pressured to increase the effectiveness of their policy in the middle of this past decade.
Meanwhile, an upstart company like TNA is free to truck along without a policy. Does that give them an unfair advantage in a competition with WWE?