By Wade Keller, PWTorch editor

This jumped out at me when posting the PWTorch Newsletter back issue from March 19, 2005. It's from an interview I conducted with Terry Runnels (the ex-wife of current WWE wrestler Goldust). We talked about drug deaths in pro wrestling and how to try to address it. In the discussion, she brought up Jeff Hardy. She said she thought he was basically begging for time off. Here's the quote, then my comments follow...

I think you have to think of this, too. Three or four weeks a year is not going to fix all problems. I remember Jeff Hardy was begging for time off. Begging for it. Finally he just started acting up and not showing up when they wouldn’t give him time off, but he was hot and so they were thinking they knew better than he in trying to think of him as not having huge career goals, so we’re going to have them for him and now’s the time for him and now’s the time for us through him and so no he can’t take time off right now. But in all reality, a smart thing to do—because he was basically imploding—was to say, go, take six weeks and clear your brain, clear your plate, chill out, do whatever you want to do, and we’ll see you in a while. Yeah, that was one of those situations where you saw it coming with giant neon signs.

What if Matt Hardy has been begging for time off? What if the WWE culture is such that few people feel they can outright ask for time off? Sure, Shawn Michaels and Undertaker have the tenure and clout and drawing power to demand and get almost any schedule they've wanted in recent years. But in general, WWE wrestlers have told me over the years that if they asked for time off, they fear they'd be seen as weak by both their colleagues and management. In a business where a fine line separates someone who gets a huge push and earns seven figures from someone who loses out on that chance to prove themselves at the top, asking for time off can send a message to management that you just can't handle the schedule and you might "flake out" like Brock Lesnar did and abandon WWE because the schedule overwhelms you.

So what if Hardy - even if it's practically involuntary and he's in denial about it - is acting up, hoping WWE orders him off the road and gives him the time and the tools to fix his body and mind? What if it took almost a year - or perhaps longer - before WWE management noticed his cries for help? What if it had turned out (or still turns out) their realization came too late?

Doesn't this add to the mounting evidence that pro wrestlers in WWE should be given via mandate six weeks off, twice per year, to just give their bodies and minds a break, a chance to relax and recharge, a chance to connect with a world outside of WWE?

What's the worst that could happen to WWE? One PPV a year wouldn't feature John Cena. Another wouldn't feature Randy Orton. WWE gets by without them when they're injured. This policy could reduce injuries and actually lead to more appearances per year by top stars over the course of five years than without. And shaking up the PPV main events and cutting back on how often top stars are on PPV isn't an entirely bad idea anyway.

For the reasons Terri Runnels observed first-hand five years ago with Jeff Hardy to what we're seeing with Matt Hardy this year, WWE is mistaken if they think they can rely on pro wrestlers to stand up and ask for a break. Some don't know they need a break. Others don't want to interrupt a hot run. Others fear "their spot would be taken." There's one quite easy solution. Mandate everyone, on a rotation throughout the year (or all at once with an off-season), take six weeks off twice a year. Forty weeks on the road is plenty for any human being.

So a wrestler earns $450K instead of $600 next year? In exchange, the roster would have more wrestlers on it and so more wrestlers would have good paying full time jobs. The pay cut would be made up for largely due to extending the length of careers, not to mention fewer hiatuses for injuries or drug rehab or breakdowns.

It seems so common sense. So easy. So worth trying. Is it guaranteed to work and save lives? No, but then there's a reason we wear a seat belt and look at the crash ratings on new cars when we decide which to buy. It's all about doing concrete, palatable steps to reduce risk. This simple, achievable action by Vince McMahon would reduce risk and take out of the hands those who are sometimes least able to instigate the time off and help they need.

Final words from Terri Runnels (this full Torch Talk, all nine installments, are available to VIP members):

Now, if you were to say, okay, then he should give them more time off, well, there again, not many people want a lot of time off, because when you take time off, the fans forget about you. When the fans forget about you, the money dries up. So you have to understand the whole dynamic from the wrestlers’ standpoint and from Vince’s standpoint. Yeah, everyone bitches and complains about needing time off, but when you take it, you have nerves playing a part in it. You kind of almost have this anxiety that goes on when you’re off.

We suggest these recent related articles...

KELLER: Austin says no to Lesnar match, and he's right; Sting & Taker are wrong

KELLER: What was the Vince McMahon tweet about “E is for Entertainment” above New Day dancing with The Authority all about?

LATEST WADE KELLER VIDEO BLOG: Three Hot Topics - Hogan, Angle, ROH