You know, not being a fan of professional wrestling (my last experience with it was as a child, when my father took us to the IMA Auditorium in Flint, Michigan, to see "The Sheik"), I had never heard of Chris Benoit until he murdered his family and himself. But, given that he killed not only his wife, but her issue (presumably) with him, does she deserve a Darwin Award?

Discuss.

No way - to win a darwin award is to perform a service - what he did was simply horrible and indefensible.

Being from Calgary (which is a hotbed of professional wrestling, with quite a lot of current pros having been trained there in Stu Hart's "dungeon") and having watched wrestling ince I was a kid - not so much nowadays - I have to say that the one thing that tends to accompany all such entertainers is tragedy. Much of that is due to steroid use (Benoit, Davey Boy Smith), other drug abuse (Jake "the Snake" Roberts), some of it is due to the crazy stunts (Owen Hart), and some of it is simply due to carrying too much weight on one's frame (Yokozuna). And yet, the fame and all that goes with that are enough to keep people clamoring to get into the business.

Give me UFC any day.

"...the one thing that tends to accompany all such entertainers is tragedy."

Such earnest fraud as "professional wrestling" cannot but have dire consequences upon the soul.

UFC: +1

If there was anything I learned from 10 seasons in the "Octagon" is that Steroids don't pay - without proper aromatase inhibition. Remember kids, stick to your cycle and don't forget to takes lots of milk thistle.

why would she deserve a Darwin Award? Darwin's are awarded for doing something that results in the removal of onesself and/or offspring from the gene pool.

The only (apparent) qualifying action on her part was marrying Benoit. That's a stretch. She's not (apparently) culpable for his actions, so she's not eligible.

The only (apparent) qualifying action on her part was marrying Benoit.

That seems to have been sufficient.

She's not (apparently) culpable for his actions, so she's not eligible.

No, but she's culpable for her own action in marrying him.

I think the other thing that removes her from contention is that she was in the process of divorcing this jerk. It was that "loss" that supposedly pushed him over the edge.

Marrying a wrestling entertainer is not so inherently doomful as to set one up for a Darwin award. By all accounts, Mick Foley ("Mankind" etc.) is a caring husband and father. Others most likely form a spectrum between him and Benoit. Besides, a violent jerk with an income would look like an intelligent choice to a person whose expectations consist of violent jerks.

does she deserve a Darwin Award?

Literally, perhaps, since it's said the child was retarded from a birth defect ("Fragile X syndrome"), and that possibly the terminal argument(s) were driven by the stress of having and raising a child with a serious birth defect.

Bit of a tasteless post, I'd say. Lacking in Christian charity.

Bit of a tasteless post, I'd say. Lacking in Christian charity.

Well, Carl, if I were a Christian, I might be more concerned about that.

If there weren't steroids involved, I'd be more sympathetic to the point about the child's problems. But a lot of parents have gone through similar things, and worse, without one of them murdering the rest of the family.

Well, Rand, firstly "Christian" charity has no more necessary relationship to Christianity than "stoically bearing pain" has to do with the ancient religion of Stoicism, so I don't quite see the relevance of your first point. "Christian" in this context is just an adjective describing a particular kind of charity: that derived from realizing that, but for some accidents and luck, we could easily find ourselves in some unfortunate other fellow's shoes. The best expression is There but for the grace of God go I but I don't want to provoke a red herring about how you don't believe in God...

Secondly, so far as I've noticed in news reports, there is no evidence that steroids -- i.e. "roid rage" -- were involved. This seems to be a conclusion at which folks have leaped from the fact that the fool was a WWF dude. The little evidence I've read suggests the problem was marital woes compounded by the difficulty of the retarded child.

I find the contemptuous immediate stereotyping (WWF = steroids == dumfuk hopped on juice) which seems to have filled the media a bit off-putting. It's not especially different from, say, Charlie Rangel and Chuck Schumer stereotyping soldiers in Iraq as luckless bewildered ghetto "children." Both have some modest grounding in reality, past or present, but both exhibit a preference for quick 'n' easy reflex nonthought over observation of the actual folks concerned. I'm not saying you personally are guilty of this, but many in the media have been, vis-a-vis this case. So I was a little sorry to see you pile on.

Finally, yes, having a bad marriage and a retarded kid are no justification for murder -- but they sure are a good reason for despair and rage, and plenty of people make unforgiveably bad decisions in that mood. Many of us -- perhaps most -- are capable of it.

I don't suggest not judging Benoit. What he did is evil, and, had he survived, I'd have no problem seeing him executed (with dignity) for his crime. I do suggest not making fun of him, however, if for no other reason than that with a few tweaks this way and that in each of our life's history, it might have been many (if not most) of us. I do not believe we are all born with such iron wills and clear sight that only the most defective and contemptible of us can possibly end up in such places, doing such ugly things.

My take on the Darwin Awards are that they make fun of people who are the victims of bizarre accidents or willful goofball decisions characterized by megalomania and greed. Making fun of people who are just life's ordinary sad losers -- carjackers who get AIDS in prison, or 12-year-old gang lookouts who get snuffed in the crossfire -- seems a smidge crueler than the original intent.

I find the contemptuous immediate stereotyping (WWF = steroids == dumfuk hopped on juice) which seems to have filled the media a bit off-putting.

The autopsy found steroids in his system. Oh, and its now WWE dumfuk hopped on juice.

My take on the Darwin Awards are that they make fun of people who are the victims of bizarre accidents or willful goofball decisions characterized by megalomania and greed.

There is no megalomania or greed in using compressed air in your rump to get high, as a previous winner did, rupturing your rump and bleeding to death. The Awards make fun of stupid situations people put themselves in that unfortunately (for them) causes their death.

"there is no evidence that steroids -- i.e. "roid rage" -- were involved"

As I've said, I watched Benoit since I was a kid, since the time he was about 18 or so. No amount of working out would have led to the incredible gain in muscle mass he exhibited in his adulth00d (geez, your filter is way too broad Rand) - and in particular in the last 15 years - without steroid use.

That's true, but in this case I think the point is that even though steroids were present, perhaps "roid rage" may not have been a factor. If his wife was processing a divorce and his child had autism...maybe he just couldn't handle all the stress, plus that of a grueling tour format with the WWE. Not that what he did was forgivable by any means, but perhaps "roid rage" should not be hung up as the cause.