Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

download Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

of 162

Transcript of Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    1/162

    . . ..RPTS DEAN

    DCMN ROSEN

    COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT ANDGOVERNMENT REFORM,U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,WASHINGTON, D.C.

    INTERVIEW OF: LINDA McMAHON

    Thursday, December 13, 2007

    Washington, D.C.

    The in terview in the above mat ter was held a t Room2247, Rayburn House Office Build ing , commencing a t 9:25 a.m.

    1

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    2/162

    Appearances:

    For COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM:DAVID LEVISS, MAJORITY SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE COUNSELBRIAN COHEN, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR AND POLICY ADVISORSAM BUFFONE, STAFF ASSISTANTJENNIFER SAFAVIAN, MINORITY COUNSELSARAH DESPRES, SENIOR HEALTH COUNSELBENJAMIN CHANCE, MINORITY CLERK

    For WITNESS:

    JERRY McDEVITT, COUNSELGEORGE W. KOCH, COUNSELMICHAEL J . O'NEIL, COUNSELK&L GATESHENRY W. OLIVER BUILDING535 Smi th f ie ld S t r ee tPi t t sburgh , PA 15222-2312

    2

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    3/162

    Mr. Leviss . We're on the record . This i s at r anscr ibed interview of Ms. Linda McMahon by the Committeeon Overs igh t and Government Reform. The chairman of thecommittee has sought th i s interview as pa r t of thecommit tee ' s inves t iga t ion in to a l lega t ions regarding the useor abuse of s t e ro ids and othe r i l l e ga l drugs in p ro fes s iona lwres t l i ng .

    Would the witness please s t a t e her name fo r the record?Ms. McMahon. Linda McMahon.Mr. Leviss . On beha l f o f the Committee on Overs ight

    and Governmen t Reform, I thank you fo r jo in ing us today. Myname i s David Leviss , I am counsel with the major i ty s t a f f ,I am joined here - - why doesn ' t everyone in t roducethemselves fo r the record.

    Mr. Cohen. My name i s Brian Cohen, I 'm the sen io ri nves t iga to r with the committee.

    Mr. Buffone. Sam Buffone, I 'm with the major i ty s t a f f .Ms. Despres. Sarah Despres, in -ho use c ounsel w ith the

    major i ty s t a f f .Mr. Chance. Benjamin Chance, Republican s t a f f .Ms. Safavian . Jennifer Safavian, Republican s t a f f .Mr. Koch. George Koch, K&L Gates .Mr. O'Nei l . Mike O'Nei l , K&L Gates .Mr. McDevitt ..... Je r ry M c D e v ~ t t ( K&L Gates.

    3

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    4/162

    4

    Mr. Leviss . And f o r purposes o f c l a r i t y i n t h e record,do each of you o u t s i d e counsel r e p r e s e n t t h e same c l i e n t orc l i e n t s here today or i s t h e r e any s e p a ra te r e p r es e nt a t io n ?

    Mr. McDevitt . No, I 'm t h e i r p r i n c i p a l o u t s i d e counseland George and Mike a r e a s s i s t i n g me, they a r e my p a r t n e r s .

    Mr. Leviss . But you a r e here today r e p r e s e n t i n g Ms.McMahon?

    Mr. McDevitt. And WWE.M r Leviss . We w i l l g e n e r a l l y be asking ques t ions i n

    t o p i c a r e a s and we i n t h e m a j o r i t y w i l l begin . Mycol l eagues may chime i n p e r i o d i c a l l y . The m i n o r i t y w i l lhave t h e o p p o r tu n i t y t o ask you q u e s t i o n s as w e l l . Andw e ' l l t r y t o move i n some o rg an iz ed f as hio n from t o p i c t ot o p i c . T y p i c a l l y , we t r y t o t a k e a s h o r t break every houror so, if you need t o take a break e a r l i e r , j u s t l e t usknow, we can do t h a t , we w i l l t r y t o accommodate you.

    As you can see t h e r e i s an o f f i c i a l House r e p o r t e rt a k i n g down everything we say, and t h a t ' s because we a r emaking a w r i t t e n record of t h i s i n t e r v i e w . As a r e s u l t , iti s important f o r you t o give v e r b a l a u d ib le answers t o a l lt h e q u e st i o n s ; do you unders tand?

    Ms. McMahon. Yes.Q I ' v e asked t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r s t o i n t e r r u p t us if we

    a r e t a l k i n g over one another , o r if they need a q u e s t i o n oran answ er t o be r e p e a t e d , so if we g e t i n t e r r u p t e d , t h a t ' s

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    5/162

    why.Ms. McMahon. So body slams d o n ' t t r a n s l a t e well?Mr. Chuang. We may have t o d e s cr ib e t h o s e.Mr. McDevitt . That may be more of an i s s u e tomorrow?Mr. Leviss . I n order t o have a c l e a r record, it i s

    important t h a t we f i n i s h our que st io ns b efo re you begin ananswer, and we, i n t u r n , w i l l t r y t o wai t u n t i l you f i n i s han answer b e f o r e s t a r t i n g the next q u e s t i o n , i s t h a t c l e a r ?

    Ms. McMahon. Yes.Mr. Leviss . You a r e r e qu ir ed by law t o answer

    ques t ions from Congress t r u t h f u l l y . I f you f a i l t o t e s t i f yt r u t h f u l l y , you could be s u b j e c t t o cr imina l p r o s e c u t i o n .I s t h e r e anything t h a t would prevent you from t e s t i f y i n gt r u t h f u l l y today?

    Ms. McMahon. No.Mr. Leviss . Do you unders tand a l l the r u l e s I ' v e

    covered?Ms. McMahon. I t h i n k so?Mr. L e v i s s . Great . Do you have any que sti on s b ef or e

    we begin?Ms. McMahon. No.

    EXAMINATIONBY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Okay, l e t ' s s t a r t with j u s t some background o f yourr o l e a t WWE. F i r s t o f a l l , what does WWE s t a n d for?

    5

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    6/162

    6

    A World Wrest l ing Ente r t a inment .Q And what i s your cu r ren t pos i t i on with WWE?A I 'm th e ch i e f execu t ive o f f i c e r .Q Do you have any o the r p os i t io n in th e company?A I 'm on th e board .Q Okay. How long have you he ld your pos i t ion as ch i e f

    execu t ive o f f i c e r ?A Since - - I ' v e had va r i ous titles. I 'm j u s t t ry ing

    to t h ink o f when CEO came i n to e f f e c t . I 'v e been Pres iden t ,I ' v e been th e COO. I t h ink th e CEO ro l e was approximate ly2000, 2001 somewhere around t h e r e .

    Q That was COO?A CEO.Q CEO. Le t ' s run through a l l th e pos i t i on s t h a t

    you 've he ld , p res iden t , COO and CEO?A I ' v e been vice p res iden t - - l e t me d i g r e s s .Q Sure .A Not o f World Wres tl ing En t er ta inmen t , I have been

    CEO fo r World Wrest l ing Ente r t a inment s ince World Wrest l ingEnte r ta inment changed its name from World Wres t l ingFedera t ion to World Wrest l ing Ente r t a inment and we went onth e New York Stock Exchange in 2000. I 'm r ea l l y - - when Iwas t e l l i ng you t h ese d i f f e r en t pos i t i on s , it was in th eh i s t o r i c a l pe r spec t i ve back to th e beginn ing days o f ourcompany. I s t h a t what you would l i ke?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    7/162

    Q Sure. How long have you been with WWE or i t spredecessor company?

    A Since 1980.Q AndA The predecessor company was T i t a n s p o r t s , T-I-T-A-N

    Spor t s .Q Did t h a t proceed WWF?A Yes.Q And When did T itan Sports become WWF?A In 1999. WWFE? World Wres tl ing Fede ra ti on

    Enter ta inment .Q Okay. S t a r t i n g with your f i r s t p o s i t i o n with t h e

    company or i t s predecessor companies, what was t h a t ?A Vice p r e s i d e n t .Q And how long were you vice p r e s i d e n t ?A A few y e a r s .Q And then- was your next p o s i t i o n p r e s i d e n t ?A I t h i n k p r e s i d e n t , then p r e s i d e n t and COO.Q Can you give me a - -A This was a b u i l d i n g , small company, it as p r i m a r i l y

    my husband and I who were b u i l d i n g t h i s company. He wasp r e s i d e n t , I was v i c e p r e s i d e n t , h e ' s chairman, I 'm CEO. Soit has j u s t been t h e e v ol u ti o n of t h e company as it i s beingb u i l t from a two-person t o almost a 600-person company now.

    Q T h a t ' s q u i t e a p r o g r e s s i o n .

    7

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    8/162

    8

    A So I d o n ' t mean t o be vague about t h e y e a r s , it hasj u s t been t h e r e were t r a n s i t i o n t i m e s , and I c a n ' t rememberthem e x a c t l y .

    Q I u n d e r s t a n d . It sounds l i k e t h e r e w e r e n ' tn e c e s s a r i l y t h e same f o r m a l i t i e s when it was a two-personcompany as a 600-person

    A I t was n o t .Q What a r e your p r e s e n t r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n

    t h e company?A My r o l e as t h e CEO t y p i c a l l y today i s s t r a t e g i c

    o v e r s i g h t , b u s i n e s s - t o - b u s i n e s s b u i l d i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,manag in g and working c l o s e l y with our c h i e f o p e r a t i n go f f i c e r , and our c h i e f f i n a n c i a l o f f i c e r , and a l s o workingd a y - t o - d a y with Vince McMahon, who i s t h e chairman andp r e t t y much t h e d r i v in g f o r c e behind WWE.

    Q Do you have any r o l e i n market ing?A No, e x c e p t t h a t we a r e a market ing company, so

    r e a l l y t h a t e v e r y t h i n g you a r e doing i n t h e marketplace i sma rk etin g, d ev elo pin g b u s i n e s s - t o - b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,t a l k i n g t o Wall S t r e e t , a l l o f t h o s e i s s u e s , I t h i n k , a r emarket ing.

    Q And how long have you had your c u r r e n t a r r a y o fr e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , how long has t h a t been

    A P r e t t y much s i n c e I became CEO. I d i d a t f i r s t , ast h e CEO, have more o p e r a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I was v e r y .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    9/162

    9

    pleased . About a year ago, we did name a fel low name MikeSi leck , who was our CFO, we have made him now th e coo. Soth e day-to-day r e spons ib i l i t i e s of opera t ion f a l l to Mike.

    Q So a t what po in t d id you give up thoseope ra t i ona l r e spons ib i l i t i e s ?

    A Within th e l a s t year .Q And fo r how long, going back, had you had those

    ope ra t i ona l r e spons ib i l i t i e s ?A Probably a l l th e way back, when we f i r s t

    incorpora ted , so I would say, l i ke , 1980, ' 82 . Thatwas rea l ly - - you know, my s t rength was opera t ions ,a dm i ni st ra ti on , o r gan iz a ti on , e t ce te ra . Vince i s r e a l l yth e d r iv in g en tr ep r en eur , th e c rea t ive genius behind whathappens with WWE and a very smar t b us in es sman.

    Q What i s Mr. McMahon's ul t imate r e spons ib i l i t y in thecompany?

    A I bel ieve th e chairman o f th e company, and as such ,I th ink he has th e ove ra l l r e spons ib i l i t y o f the company.He i s a l so c l ea r l y th e c hie f c re at iv e head o f the companyand he i s a l so recognized around th e world as one o f ourpremiere performers .

    Q I s th e re any aspec t o f the company's a f f a i r s t h a tMr. McMahon does not in vo lv e h im se lf in?

    A What do you mean by " in v ol ve h im s elf "?Q Have r e spons ib i l i t y fo r .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    10/162

    A Well, he has the overa l l respons ib i l i ty . Does he

    10

    s i t on every budge t meet in g? No. Does he s i t on thef a c i l i t i e s management of the company? No. But the overa l lmarket ing themes, th e d riv in g or development of our paperview and s to ry l ines , he i s very much involved in tha t .

    Q Does he have f i na l decis ion making au thor i ty inevery area or are there areas where - -

    A I th ink u l t imate ly , the cha irman doe s have f i n a ldec is ion making work, of course , w ith the board.

    Q And who i s on the board?A The in-house board members are Vince, myself , our

    COO, Mike Si leck , our outs ide independent Board of Direc to rs. are Governor Lowell We icke r, Dave Kennon, Joseph Perkins ,Michael Solomon and Bob Bowman.

    Mr. Cohen. One more ques t ion . As Mr. McMahon'sr e spons ib i l i t i e s , you descr ibed him as the c hie f c re at iv ehead in the organiza t ion I assume. In t ha t ro le does hehave a respons ib i l i ty fo r re l a t ions with t a l en t , dec i s ionst ha t are made about t a l en t?

    Ms. McMahon. Yes.BY MR. LEVISS:

    Mr . Leviss . I have some quest ions fo r you about - -Actual ly , before I switch top ics , i s the re anything

    t ha t you wanted to cover in genera l background?Ms. Safav ian . No,. I th ink we're good.

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    11/162

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q I have some quest ions about WWE's or ig ina l drug

    t e s t i ng pro gram, which I und er st an d r an from 1991 through1996. I unders tand t ha t the company wasn ' t ca l led WWEatt ha t t ime, but if I r e f e r to i t ' a s WWE - -

    A T hat 's f ine , we do the same th ing .Q Great . We have a copy of the drug t e s t ing program

    da ted February 27th, 1996, you dQ have t ha t r igh t?A 1996?Q '95 or '96?Mr. Cohen. I t says a t the top Titan Sports pol icy as

    of May 15, 1995?Mr. McDevitt . I th ink you r e fe r red to it as the

    or ig ina l , d idn ' t you, in your quest ion?Mr. Cohen. Well, I should say th i s was the - - our

    understanding i s t ha t you crea ted your pol icy and youo r i g i na l l y had a drug pol icy t h a t began in 1991 - -

    Mr. McDevitt . No.Mr. Cohen. A drug t e s t i ng pol icy?Ms. McMahon. No, our or ig ina l pol icy was 1986, t h a t ' s

    why I thought you had j u s t misspoke.Mr. Cohen. You created a random t e s t ing - - maybe y6u

    should run through?Ms. Safavian. Yeah.Mr. Cohen. The po l i c i es as they began in 1986?

    11

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    12/162

    12

    Ms. McMahon. In 1986, it was r e a l l y p r i m a r i l y f o rdrugs o f abuse, more s t r e e t drugs and p r i m a r i l y c o c a i n e .And we e s t a b l i s h e d a random t e s t i n g p o l i c y a t t h a t t ime f o rdrugs o f abuse.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q And what was t h a t p o l i c y ?A What was i t ?Q The random p o l i c y , I mean, how d i d it work?A We drug t e s t e d , and if you were p o s i t i v e f o r drugs

    o f abuse, then t h e r e was a p e n a l t y . You were n o t al lowedr e a l l y t o come back i n t o t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n u n t i l you werec l e a n o f any o f t h o s e drugs .

    Q And what p e r c e n t a g e o f t a l e n t were randomly t e s t e da t any t ime?

    A I d o n ' t remember. I t h i n k a f a i r number o f them,j u s t because we wanted t o be s u r e .

    Q And t h a t p o l i c y was i n e f f e c t u n t i l when?A Well , I b e l i e v e up u n t i l we e s t a b l i s h e d t h e new

    p o l i c y , which was l i k e ' 9 1 , '92 when we i n c o r p o r a t e d our newp o l i c y t h a t has been expanded t o i n c l u d e s t e r o i d t e s t i n g ,more comprehensive.

    Q And what made you e s t a b l i s h a new p o l i c y i n 1991?A The t imes had changed, we wanted t o have a more

    comprehens ive d rug p o l i c y . We always have been concernedabout t h e h e a l t h and w e l f a r e o f our p e r f o r m e r s . I t h i n k you

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    13/162

    13

    need to unders tand t ha t you know when wres t l e r s ge t in to th er ing , male or female , and they are in an i n t e r ac t i v eente rta inment p la y , if you wi l l , however, it i s veryphys ica l . And if you have one man picking up ano ther manover h is shou lder and body s lamming him in mat, you wantt h a t person to be absolute ly t o t a l l y on poin t , n ot im pairedin any way, because you can be i n ju red or you can be hu r t ifyou miss your queues o r the t iming i s not r i gh t .

    So it has always been from our perspec t ive we wanted tomake sure a l l o f our men and women are of the b es t h ea l th ,th e bes t mental focris when they get in to the r ing . We wantto make sure t ha t out of the r ing , t h a t they are comportingthemselves in a good manner. We are very concerned aboutt h e i r hea l th and wel fare , so we expanded our drug pol i cyj u s t as we con t inue to do today. As new in fo rmat ion comesour way, as new methods of t e s t ing come our way, as we areadvised by our ou ts id e a dm in is tr at o rs , t h a t t h i s i ssomething we should do, we grow it, change it and moveforward.

    Q Now, were t he re any new methods or even ts t h a t came

    to your a t t en t ion in 1991 t h a t brought about t h i s pol icy?A No, we j u s t expanded it to include s te ro ids and

    expanded it fo r more drugs , t e s t i ng fo r more drugs to makeit more comprehensive. We hi red a t h i rd -pa r t y admin i s t ra to ra t t h a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime, and it happened to be David Black ,

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    14/162

    14

    who i s also handling our wellness po licy fo r us now. Andrea l ly David went through th e p ro to co l of what he thoughtwas appropr ia te j u s t as he ' s done today and we took h isadvice and counsel .

    BY MR. COHEN:Q The po+icy t h a t you have, pu l l o u t Exhibi t 1. This

    i s - - our understanding i s t h i s was the pol icy t ha t was ine f f ec t through 1996, it i s da ted a t the top . I t ind ica tesit i s the Titan 'Sports drug t e s t ing pol icy as of May 15th,1995. At the bottom t he re ' s a note ind ica t ing it wasrevised July 25th , 1996.

    A Okay.[Linda McMahon Exhib i t No. 1was marked fo r i den t i f i c a t i on . ]

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q What was your involvement in the development of t h i s

    pol icy?A Pret ty much c oo rd in at in g t he group - - th i s one?Q Exhib i t 1.A Yes. Pre t ty much coordina t ing th e group, f inding

    out who would be a t h i rd par ty a dm i nis tr ato r fo r us, doingresearch in to the f ie ld , re la tiv e to Dr. Black. His namesur faced rea l ly because of our a f f i l i a t i on and associa t ionwith NFL, people within our organiza t ion were very f ami l ia rwith the NFL and t h e i r p o l ~ c i e s . And so we asked who was

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    15/162

    15

    designing and admin i s te r ing t h e i r drug pol i cy fo r them a tth e t ime, and it was Dr. Black in h is la bo ra to ry . So wef e l t th a t th a t had r e a l l y good background fo r us, and webrought him in , we ta lk ed to him, we were impressed by h isc r eden t i a l s and we moved forward with him to manage ourpol i cy fo r us.

    Q Have t he re been any i nc iden t s o f s t e ro id use amongt a l e n t p r i o r to 1991 t h a t had come to your a t ten t ion?

    A Yes.Q Any spec i f i c i nc iden t s o r - -A No. We were involved in a trial in th e ear ly ' 90s ,

    and so pa r t o f t h a t trial was s t e ro id use . At th epa r t i cu l a r t ime t h a t t he re was more s t e ro id use among ourt a l e n t , s te ro ids were not the con t ro l l ed substance t h a t theya re today.

    Q So t h a t was in th e ear ly ' 90s , I'm so r t o f t ry ing toget to th e even ts t h a t led to your p u tt in g to ge th er t h i spol icy?

    A This pol i cy o r th e one we have in place today?Q The '91 pol i cy , which I unders t and i s dated ' 95?

    EXAMINATIONBY MR. COHEN:

    Q Our - -A Tha t ' s where I ge t confused.Q Correc t me if I'm wrong here . The s t e ro id program

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    16/162

    16

    put in place in 1986 was a p ~ o g r a m pr imar i ly fo r drugs andabuse . The program put in place in 1991 t h a t was t h a t wasyour f i r s t program t h a t included random t e s t i ng fo rs te ro ids

    I bel ieve t h a t ' s cor rec t , yes.

    I bel ieve t h a t ' s cor rec t .- - and othe r performance e nh an cin g d rugs ?Uh-huh.That pol icy cont inued with some changes through

    AQAQ

    1996?AQ So when we r e f e r to I apologize fo r the

    confusion. Our re fe rence i s to the pol icy t h a t was in placefrom '91 through '96 - -

    A Okay.Q The exh ib i t you 've been given, our understanding i s

    t h a t was the po l icy t h a t was in place in 1996.A I bel ieve t h a t to be cor rec t . I have no reason to

    th ink it otherwise .EXAMINATION

    BY MS. SAFAVIAN:Q I 'm a little confused.A Talk to him.Q Exhib i t 1 t h a t ' s in f ron t of you, can you t e l l us do

    you r e ca l l the di f fe rences with th e exh ib i t in f ron t o f yout h a t i s rev i sed in 1996, it says , to what you i n i t i a t ed in

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    17/162

    17

    '91 or '92?A I don ' t remember. I don ' t remember what the change

    i s between '91 and '92 would be.Q Do you r e ca l l were the re they s i gn i f i c an t changes or

    were they more minor changes?A I j u s t don ' t r e ca l l . I thought we t r i ed to be

    pre t ty comprehensive in '91 and ' 92 , so I rea l ly don ' tr eca l l . You'd have to give me the two of them to put s ideby s ide .

    Mr. Cohen. Sure, okay.BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Going back to the creat ion of the f i r s t pol icy t ha tincluded random t e s t i ng fo r s te ro ids and t ha t process Iunders tand began in ' 91. Had it come to your a t t en t ion t ha tany t a l e n t were using s t e ro ids p r i o r to c re atin g t ha tpol icy?

    A I th ink there i s j u s t the genera l t iming of thed is cu ss io n o f s t e ro ids in the marketplace. I don ' t rememberhow it had come to our a t t en t ion , but I 'm sure t he re was alo t of media focus on s t e ro ids a t th at p a rt ic ula r t ime aswel l . And we r e a l l y wanted to f ind out which of our t a l e n tmight be using s t e ro ids or other drugs of abuse, as I sa idbefore . Keep in mind, we are not a compet i t ive spor t , t h i si s an en ter t a inment company and en ter t a inment product . Ourgoal with a l l of the drug t e s t ing and measures and prac t i ces

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    18/162

    18

    i s to p ro tec t the hea l th and well-b ein g o f our supe rs t a r swho perform fo r us around th e world.

    Mr. McDevitt . Would you mind if I spoke to her fo r asecond? I want to give you a c omp le te a nswer .

    [Witness confers with counsel . ]Ms. McMahon. I 'm g lad t h a t J er ry re fr es he d my memory.

    The Safor ian t r i a l t ha t was t ak ing p lace in th e ear ly ' 90s ,I t h ink l i ke 1990 r e a l l y was kind of a poin t in t ime fo r ourre fe rence . At t h a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime th e - - I bel ieve it wasa t th a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime as Je r ry was re f re sh ing my memoryt ha t s t e ro id s did change and become a con t ro l led subs tance .

    So t he re was ce r t a i n l y more focus on t h a t during th eSafor ian t r i a l , . the re was re fe rence o f the f ac t t h a t he hadd i s t r i bu t ed s te ro id s to pa r t i cu l a r wres t le r s , so we r e a l l ywanted to inves t iga te t ha t . We adopted our pol icy p r i o r toh is t r i a l , I do be l i eve .

    By Mr. Leviss .Q Who i s Mr. Safor ian?A Dr. Safor ian was a doctor who had been l i censed by

    th e Pennsylvania Sta te a th l e t i c Commission. At t h a t t imeth e commissioners requ i red t h a t a doctor t ha t they appointeda t tend a l l of our even t s . And Dr. Safor ian was a t a lo t o four even ts and had, in f ac t, d is tr ib u te d s te ro idsunbeknownst to us a t arenas where we were playing to some ofour t a l en t .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    19/162

    19

    Q Did you o r t h e company have any r o l e i n t h a t t r i a l ?A In Dr. S a f o r i a n ' s t r i a l ?Q Uh-huh.A Our company d i d n ' t . I 'm t r y i n g t o t h i n k if t h e r e

    were witnesses - - do you r e c a l l if t h e r e were any witnesses?Mr. McDevitt. Yes.

    answer?Do you want me t o give you t h e

    I t h i n k Hulk Hogan was a witness i n t h a the Witness.t r i a l .

    Mr. McDevit t . No, he was supposed t o be a witness i nt h a t t r i a l .

    Do you want t h e answer?Mr. Leviss . Sure .Mr. McDevitt. I t was a IS-count indictment a g a i n s t

    George S a f o r i a n under t h e p r i o r laws governing s t e r o i d swhich were not c o n t r o l l e d subs tances . He was charged withp r e s c r i b i n g f o r o t h e r than medical p ur po se s, I S-c ou ntindic tment , can involve a form of body b u i l d i n g and s t r e n g t hcoach, U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a . Five counts involvedw r e s t l e r s , Roddy P i p e r , Rick Martel , Dan Spivey, I f o r g e tt h e 1 4th c ou nt. And one count was supposed t o involve HulkHogan, who I obta ined an o r d e r from t h e ju dg e e xc us in g himfrom t h e t r i a l before t h e t r i a l began.

    Mr. Leviss . Hulk Hogan was an em ployee o r an - Ms. McMahon. A c o n t r a c t o r .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    20/162

    20

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    21/162

    21

    e i the r h i r ing someone or someone in h is group who went ons i t e , co l lec ted them, had con t ro l , the custody, chain ofcustody and a l l t h a t , j u s t as he does today. We don ' t touchor have any involvement in any of t ha t .

    Q Who determined which of the t a l en t to t e s t?A Today?Q No. Right now we're t a lk ing about the 1991 program.A Okay.Q As it was amended through 1996?A To my r eco l lec t ion , it was always Dr. Black, it

    always done on a random bas i s . We might have provided - I'm t ry ing to r e ca l l . I th ink t h a t we provided a randomlist of t a le n t ju st by code, no one had the names of who wasnext to th e code. And it was j u s t put through a computerprogram and th e comput er p rogr am s p i t out X number of randomnumbers on a ro ta t ing bas i s of t ime. Dr. Black got thosenumbers. He had th e code, we d idn ' t have th e code in ourcompany and we j u s t did the computer program t h a t s p i t outth e numbers. And then he would h i re th e co l lec t ion companywho would co l l e c t the samples, observed a ur ine t e s t andthey would come back to h is lab .

    Q So Dr. Black based on t ha t list would i n s t ruc t theother company which t a l e n t to co l l e c t samples from?

    A Correct .Q And again , j u s t so the record i s c lea r , when we' re

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    22/162

    22

    t a l k i n g o f t a l e n t , t h a t ' s t h e w r e s t l e r s ?A W r e s t l e rs o r r e f e r e e s might have been i n c l u d e d , it

    was t h o s e - - t h a t community o f performers who were p a r t o fwhat we were doing a t t h e t ime .

    Q They a r e a l l r e f e r r e d t o as t a l e n t ?A T a l e n t p r i m a r i l y means w r e s t l e r s .Q Was t h e 1991 program w e ' r e d is cu ss in g , d id you

    c o n s i d e r it t o be s u c c e s s f u l ?A Yes.

    BY MR. COHEN:Q Dr. B l a c k ' s a d m i n is t r a t i v e r o le i n t h i s p o l i c y from

    1991 t o 1996, d i d h i s a d m i n is tr a t iv e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s extendbeyond c o l l e c t i n g samples, conduct ing t e s t s and r e p o r t i n gr e s u l t s t o WWE? Did he have any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o rdetermining s a n c t i o n s o r p e n a l t i e s f o r a t h l e t e s ?

    A As they were w r i t t e n i n t h e p o l i c y t h e s a n c t i o n swere a l r e a d y determined. I b e l i e v e t h e feedback was givent o us a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t ime and we a d m i n i s t e r e d t h es a n c t i o n s under t h e p o l i c y which i s d i f f e r e n t t h a n today.

    Mr. McDevit t . Can I c o n s u l t with h e r a g a i n t o makes u r e ?

    [Witness c o n f e r s with c o u n s e l . ]Ms. McMahon. T h a t ' s r i g h t . And we d i d have a

    d i f f e r e n t drug program a d v i s o r , Mario DePasquale, a t t h a tp a r t i c u l a r t ime, who worked with Dr. Black and t a l k e d with

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    23/162

    23

    the t a l e n t .BY MR. COHEN:

    Q Can you e l a b o r a t e on t h a t on Dr. DePasquale 's r o l e ?A Well, you c o u l d n ' t c a l l him t h e medical review

    o f f i c e r l i k e we have today, but he was r e a l l y t h e e x p e r tt h a t we u t i l i z e d a t t h a t p a r ti c u l a r t ime i f t h e r e weref i n d i n g s o f s t e r o i d s , e t c e t e r a , how "long t h e m e ta bo li t e swould s t a y i n your system, e t c e t e r a , e t c e t e r a . I d i d n ' tr e a l l y have a l o t of c o n v e r s a t i o n with him.

    Mr. Cohen. Okay.EXAMINATION

    BY MS. DESPRES:Q Could you t e l l us what h i s background was?A F i r s t o f a l l , he was a p h y s i c i a n i n Canada, I

    b e l i e v e he l i v e d ~ I t h i n k he l i v e d i n Canada, he hadw r i t t e n s e v e r a l books on s t r e n g t h e n i n g , he had a l s o w r i t t e nbooks on s t e r o i d s .

    Q Thank you.A We considered him t o be an e x p e r t on s t e r o i d s and we

    wanted t o g e t h i s fundamental knowledge.BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Had he p r e v i o u s l y been a f f i l i a t e d with t h e company?A Not t h a t I r e c a l l .Q So he was brought i n i n t h i s r o l e as drug program

    a d v i s o r ; i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    24/162

    24

    A Yes.Q And i s he still with the company?A No.Q How long did he serve?A A few years , I don ' t remember.Q Were any t a l en t suspended or otherwise sanct ioned as

    a r e su l t of t e s t ing pos i t i ve under the 1991 program?A Were there any?Q Uh-huh.A I 'm sure there were. I don ' t remember.Q Do you have any sense of the numbers?A No, I don ' t th ink it was an inord ina te amount of

    t a l en t t ha t were suspended dur ing th at p a rt ic u la r t ime. I fthey were found pos i t i ve and under the guidel ines of ourpol icy it was adminis tered and they would have beensuspended.

    Q Were many people found pos i t ive? I f you canquant i fy it a t a l l .

    A I j u s t don ' t remember over t ha t 5-year per iod from'91 to '95. What was happening a t t ha t pa r t i cu la r t ime waswe were f ind decreasing numbers of our t a le nt te st in gpos i t i ve fo r anyth ing because our pol icy had been verye f f ec t i ve . We put it in p lace in '91 , everybody knew theru les had chan ged , they knew the re were pena l t i e s for usings t e ro ids or o the r drugs , it was very ef fec t ive . And the

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    25/162

    25

    number o f pos i t i v e s kept dec l i n i ng , dec l in ing un t i l t he rewere almost none, which i s one o f th e r easons t h a t wedec ided not to con t inue in ' 96 .

    Q How d id you ge t th e word out to th e t a l e n t t h a t t h i spol i cy would have t he se r ep er cu ss io n s?

    A They were given a copy o f th e pol icy and t hey had tos ign a re l ea se t h i s t hey would be drug t e s t ed and it wasexp la ined to them th e r ami f i ca t i ons o f the t e s t .

    BY MR. COHEN:Q Do you have any spec i f i c memories, I know you sa id

    you don ' t remember a l o t o f de t a i l s about who t e s t edpos i t i v e . Were any o f your champions a t th e t ime, d id t heyever t e s t pos i t i v e , any o f your top t a l en t o r your tops t a r s , d id th ey ever t e s t pos i t i v e ?

    A I don ' t remember.BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Did th e company keep any kind o f records o fsuspensions?

    A No, no t now, we don ' t have any o f t hose r eco rd s .There was a sho r t per iod o f t ime t h a t we had th e records o fthose suspens ions , bu t they were pr imar i l y , aga in , they wereencoded. At t h a t pa r t i c u l a r t ime , I be l i eve t h a t th epr imary i n fo rmat ion and th e decoded i n fo rmat ion r e a l l y cameto Vince .

    Q And how d id t h a t work?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    26/162

    26

    A How d id - - what do you mean how did it work?Q How d id the informat ion come to Vince?A I t h ink from Dr. Black.QA

    What was the process?I don ' t know if it was via fax or phone. I don ' t

    know exac t ly how he obtained it.Q And then did Vince have ul t imate a uth or i ty to decide

    what to do with pos i t ive t e s t resu l t s?A Yes, he was th e end dec is ion maker on t ha t .Q Was anybody e l se involved in t h a t discuss ion on a

    ro utin e b as is ?A I 'm not sure . That ' s not something t ha t I dea l t

    with a t th a t p a rt ic u la r t ime. There has always been someonein t a l e n t adminis t ra t ions or t a l en t re l a t ion t ha t he wouldhave confer red with and worked with .

    BY MR. COHEN:Q Are suspensions made publ ic?A No.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Did WWE's t e l ev i s ion r a t ings decl ine between 1991

    and 1996?A Yes.Q Can you quant i fy it a t a l l ?A From where to where?Q Was it a s i gn i f i c an t decl ine?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    27/162

    27

    A Yes, the re was a dec l ine because we were faced w ithvery hard compet i t ion a t t h a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime by TedTurner ' s group a t th a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime ca l led WCW inGeorgia, and Ted poured a grea t dea l o f money in to h iscompany. He was th e f i r s t one to pay guaranteed s a l a r i e s tothe independent con t rac to r s , paid them pre t ty exorb i tan t ly .

    Subsequent ly , he went ou t o f business by th e way. Buta t t h a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime he went head to head with us onMonday nigh t fo r a program t ha t we had on th e a i r fo r a longt ime. He had s to len a lo t of our t a l en t , or persuaded them,persuaded them to come over to h is s ide of the fence - - thei n t e l l e c t ua l proper ty of those t a l en t s t h a t he s to l e , and sohe was able to cap i t a l i z e on th e f ac t t h a t we were goingthrough a Federa l t r i a l , we had put in to place a pre t tys i gn i f i c an t drug pol icy which he re fused to put in to placeso he had a lo t of oppor tun i ty with some o f our top s t a r s ,Hulk Hogan being one o f them who went with him a t tha t t ime.So he had he taken th e t a l e n t t h a t we had bu i l t up, thosei n t e l l e c t ua l proper t i es , those cha rac te r s t h a t we developed,cap i t a l i zed on the e f f o r t t ha t we pu t in to developing them.

    And we were kind of l e f t , it's l i ke the championshipteam. graduates now you have to bu ild t h a t next group. Sobecause we know how to do t ha t , we spen t then the n ~ x t fewyears bui ld ing t h a t next group o f t a l e n t l i ke th e HeartbreakKid, Stonecold Steve Aust in , The Rock. I t t akes awhile to

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    28/162

    28

    do t ha t and then our r a t ings then climbed aga in .Q What per iod o f t ime are you t a lk ing about where you

    a re rebui ld ing - -A Pr imar i ly '95 , '96 thro ug h '99 .Q So what was th e d ec l in e in WWE's t e l ev i s ion

    audience?A I don ' t remember th e exac t r a t i ng s , we cou ld go

    back. I would be happy to prov ide it fo r you, I don ' tremember. But we would go from - - I r e a l l y don ' t remember.I would have to take a t o t a l guess .

    BY MR. COHEN:Q You had mentioned t ha t you l o s t a lo t of t a l en t to

    WCW, and you ment ioned t ha t WCW d id not have a drug po l i cyin p lace . Do you t h ink th at th at was a f ac to r in lo ss o ft a l en t , it was t a l en t t ha t was i nc l ined to use s t e ro i ds ,were they f l ee ing to WCW because t he re was not a drug po l i cyin place a t t h a t organiza t ion?

    A Well , " f l ee ing" I t h ink may be your desc r ip t ivete rm, no t mine.

    Q Fai r enough.A I th in k p rim a ri ly it was th e money, more than

    any th ing e l se it was the money. They were of fe r ing huge,b ig g ua ra nte es , which c lea r ly were no t co s t e f f e c t i ve fo rus .

    Q Do you t h ink t h e i r lack o f drug pol icy had anything

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    29/162

    29

    to do with t a l en t moving to WCW?A I th ink it could have, yes.

    BY MR. BUFFONE:Q Were you ever informed by any ta le n t th at they were

    moving because of lack of drug pol icy?A Because of what?Q Lack of drug pol i cy . Did anyone ever inform you or

    d id you ever hear of anyone being informed t ha t a t a l e n t wasmoving because you had drug t e s t ing and they did not?

    A I don ' t r e ca l l .Mr. Leviss . I 'm going to switch to a d i f f e r en t topic ,

    if there i s anything - -Ms. Safav ian . I have a few ques t ions on the i n i t i a l

    drug pol i cy .BY MS. SAFAVIAN:

    Q Exhibi t 1 t h a t you have, I have some ques t ions aboutnumber 4, the types of t e s t i ng , which i s on page 3, you havein here precon t rac t t e s t i ng , when you say t a l en t may bet e s ted before con t rac t s a re en tered i n to . Did you do t ha tof ten or what was the c r i t e r i a as to when you would t e s tsomeone before plac ing them under cont rac t?

    A You know, I j u s t did not , t h a t ' s not pa r t of thefunc t ion t ha t I performed and so I 'm fuzzy about thosede t a i l s because I rea l ly wasn ' t involved in it. But to theex ten t - - because it does mention in here t ha t the DPA wil l

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    30/162

    30

    speak to new t a l en t to expla in the drug t e s t ing pol icy andto emphasize the immediate cessat ion of compounds banned byth i s pol i cy . I don ' t know if it was across every new t a l en tcoming in , I 'm not c l ea r on t ha t .

    Q Who would have handled t ha t a t th i s t ime?A I t would have come th ro ug h our t a l en t re l a t ions

    depar tment , who would have been in con tac t with DPA andVince was always - - he was pre t ty much involved in t ha t aswell .

    Q Who would have made the dec i s ion as to whether ornot a pre t a l en t would have been tes ted?

    A I 'm not sure .Q Okay. And I also wanted to ask about on page 6

    where we' re t a lk ing about offenses , and you say here fo r thef i r s t offense the t a l e n t wi l l be suspended without pay fo r6 weeks?

    Mr. McDevit t . Page 6 of the document?Ms. McMahon. Oh, I thought it was number 6?Mr. McDevit t . Would you repea t the quest ion?

    BY MS. SAFAVIAN:Q Sure, su re , su re . On page 6, on the f i r s t offense ,

    you mention here it s t a t e s the t a l en t wil l be suspendedwithout pay for 6 weeks?

    A Yes.Q Does t ha t - - when you say "suspended," they were not

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    31/162

    31

    performing a t a l l fo r those 6 weeks?A As fa r as I r e ca l l , t ha t was the case .Q And under second offense , th i s mentions t ha t t he re ' s

    drug r ehab i l i t a t i on programs, are there s uch p rogr ams? I st h a t something t ha t the organiza t ion would encourage t h e i rt a l en t to undergo by he lp ing to pay fo r the cos t of tha t?

    A Absolu te ly . We would f ron t the cos t fo r new t a l en tgoing in to rehab. I th ink we've sent about 25 t a l en t overthe course of t ime in to rehab. We'd f ron t the cos t and thenrecoup ha l f upon successful completion of the rehab.

    Q Must they success fu l ly complete it in order tore turn?

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q I 'm going to show you another document t h a t we ' l l

    mark as Exhib i t 2. Take a look a t it and t e l l me whenyou 've had a chance to review it.

    A Okay.Q Exhib i t 2 i s a memorandum from Vince McMahon to a l l

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    32/162

    32

    t a l e n t a g e n t s , r e f e r e e s and r i n g crew, d a t e d October 25th ,1996. I t announces, o r it s t a t e s i n t h e memo t h a t e f f e c t i v eimmedi at el y s us pend ing drug t e s t i n g and c o l l e c t i o n on a - WWE i s suspending drug t e s t i n g and c o l l e c t i o n on a groupb a s i s . The memo appears t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e random drugt e s t i n g program t h a t had been i n p l a c e from '91 through 1996i s being e l i m i n a t e d ; i s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o r r e c t ?

    A Yes.Q Why d i d WWE o r WWF a t t h a t t ime s t o p t h e program?A I t h i n k Vince had p r e t t y much s t a t e d it i n h i s f i r s t

    paragraph o f t h i s . I t s a y s , low i n c i d e n t s o f p o s i t i v er e s u l t s a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t ime and it was j u s t - - t h eprogram was very e f f e c t i v e . We were p l e a s e d with t h er e s u l t s . I t was j u s t no l o n g e r c o s t e f f e c t i v e t o randomt e s t a c r o s s t h e l a r g e pool o f t a l e n t t h a t we had.

    Q So not c o s t e f f e c t i v e , any o t h e r reasons?A I t was not c o s t e f f e c t i v e , and a g a i n , t h e r e was a

    c o m p e t i t o r not doing it, it was j u s t not a l e v e l p l a y i n gf i e l d as we were very c o m p e t i t i v e i n t h e marketplace , itj u s t w a s n ' t c o st e f f e c t i v e f o r us t o c o n t i n u e t o do it.

    Q And t h a t o t h e r c o m p e t i t o r was WCW?A Right .Q Were you i n v o l v e d i n t h e d is c u ss i o n s l e a d in g up t o

    t h e d e c i s i o n t o e li m i n a t e t h e random drug t e s t i n g p o l i c y ?A Yes, from an economic s t a n d p o i n t I do r e c a l l t h a t .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    33/162

    33

    Q Was the re anybody e l se involved in the discuss ions?A I don ' t remember today.

    BY MR. COHEN:Q Was Mr. McMahon involved?A Oh, he would have. been, very de f in i t e ly .

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Did you work a t a l l , meaning you personal ly or the

    . company, did you work with any outs ide exper t s indetermining whether to s top the pol icy?

    A I don ' t r eca l l .Q. Was Dr. Black consul ted?A I j u s t don ' t r e ca l l , I rea l ly don ' t r eca l l .Q Do you r e ca l l whether the re was any disagreement

    within the company about whether to s top the random drugt e s t ing pol icy?

    A I don ' t r e ca l l any disagreement .BY MR. COHEN:

    Q How much was the t e s t i ng program cost ing?A At t ha t t ime?Q Uh-huh.

    A Probably - - I - -Mr. McDevitt . Don' t guess .Ms. McMahon. I don ' t - - I don ' t know.Mr. Cohen. Perhaps you can ge t back to us on t ha t .Ms. McMahon. O k ~ y ~

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    34/162

    34

    BY MR. COHEN:Q You had d i s c u s s e d , a n d t h e memo d i s c u s s e s a smal l

    i n c i d e n c e o f p o s i t i v e s , can you g i v e us a b a l l p a ~ k i n t h eyear p r e c e d i n g t h e end o f t h e program, approximate ly howmany w r e s t l e r s t e s t e d p o s it i v e o r were suspended?

    A I d o n ' t know if t h e r e were any, I d o n ' t r e c a l l a ta l l .

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Can you e x p la i n t o me what you mean when you say

    t h a t WWE c o u l d n ' t be c o m p e t i t i v e with WCW if t h e y w e r e n ' tt e s t i n g ?

    Mr. McDevit t . She d i d n ' t say t h a t .Mr. Cohen. You d e s c r i b e d it as not a l e v e l p l a y i n g

    f i e l d , can you d e s c r i b e what you mean by t h a t ?Mr. McDevit t . His p h r a s e o l o g y was a missta tement o f

    what she s a i d .BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q I b e l i e v e you used t h e word " c o m p e t i t i v e " ?A I t was not a l e v e l p l a y i n g f i e l d a t a t ime when, if

    you u n d e r s t a n d t h e t iming o f a l l t h i s , we were very h e a v i l y

    involved i n t h e Federa l t r i a l , o f which we were a c q u i t t e d o fa l l c h a r g e s , b u t t h a t was i n J u l y o f 1994. We t h e n s p e n tt h e next 2 t o 3 y e a r s t r y i n g t o r e b u i l d and coming o u t o fl o s t o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s when y o u ' r e r e a l l y devot ing a g r e a td e a l o f ~ i m e t o t h i s t r i a l which i s r e a l l y going t o e f f e c t

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    35/162

    35

    th e fu ture o f you and your bus iness , so t he re was a g re a tdea l o f compet i t ion going on a t th a t p a rt i cu la r t ime when agrea t dea l o f our funds, resources , manpower.

    At t ha t t ime I would be t 80 to 85 percen t o f my dayleading up to th e t r i a l was in t r i a l prepara t ion so it was alo t of l o s t o pp or tu nity f or business bui ld ing . At t h a tpa r t i cu l a r t ime, WCW and Ted Turner, w ith whom a t one t imeby th e way, we were in bus iness and then we were no longerin bus iness with him when our con t rac t expired .

    Ted was bui ld ing and bui ld ing and becom ing very muchs t ronge r on Monday nigh t . He had a lo t more resourcesbehind him, a lo t more money than we did , because we were apr iva te company and we were s t rugg l ing very hard to rebu i ldour t a l e n t and to rea l ly rebu i ld our bus iness coming out oft h a t . So as we were looking a t a l l aspec ts o f our companynot ing t ha t our pol icy had been very e f f ec t i v e . Our t a l e n tunders tanding th e t r i a l and t r i bu l a t i on t h a t we had gonethrough r e l a t i ve to t h i s t r i a l and d idn ' t have any des i re tobe back in th a t kind of a s i t ua t ion .

    The f ac t t h a t t he re was an organ iza t ion competing. aga ins t us who could pay a lo t more money and was re fus ingto drug t e s t , t h a t was one component of it. The othe rcomponent o f it, it j u s t wasn ' t cos t e f f ec t i v e . As welooked a t , we' re con t inu ing to t e s t , but we don ' t have manypos i t i v e s , it's e f f ec t i v e . We're going to main ta in random

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    36/162

    36

    t e s t i ng if we have cause to look a t any pa r t i cu l a r t a l e n tand want to make sure t h a t they a re okay, we wi l l t e s t fo rcause, but othe r than t h a t we a re going to e lim in ate t h i sove ra l l program.

    Q Did it take a lo t o f t ime out o f your day toadmin i s te r , to work with t h i s drug t e s t i ng program when itwas in place?

    A Not out o f my day, no.Q I guess I 'm miss ing th e component bes ides it not

    being cos t e f f ec t i v e , what i s it ab out ha vin g a random drugt e s t ing program in place t h a t was any hindrance , and"hindrance" i s my word, to WWE, in rebu i ld ing i t s bus inesso r i t s t a l e n t base?

    A I t h ink the cos t e f f ec t i ve aspec t i s what i s there tu rn? I f we had r e a l l y go tten the pos i t ives down toneg l ig ib l e and yet you ' re spending across because you wouldrandom t e s t a whole group, you have to pay fo r the t e s t e r sto go on s i t e , you have to pay fo r the samples , th e qua l i tycon t ro l o f a l l these samples, th e drug program adv i sor whoi s ca l l i ng and t a lk ing , the l abora to ry who i s conduct ing a l lo f these t e s t s .So a t th e end o f the day, you are doing t h i s and

    expending t h e se resources and you a re coming back almost a l lth e t ime to negat ives . I t r e a l l y b ~ c a m e a t t h a t t ime, okay,let's u t i l i z e these do l l a r s more in o ur m a rk etin g e f f o r t ,

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    37/162

    37

    let's bui ld our Pay-Per-View business , let's r ed i r ec t thesedo l l a r s so t ha t th e cos t ef fec t ive aspec t o f it ju st d id n 'tseem to be t h e r e .

    Mr. McDevit t . Can I , j u s t fo r a minute?[Witness confers with counsel . ]Ms. McMahon. I wasn ' t very a r t i c u l a t e with t h a t . When

    I was t a l k ing about rebu i ld ing a f t e r the t r i a l , fo r thef i r s t t ime in the h is to ry of our p r iva t e company, wesus ta ined l o s se s and t he re were only 1 or 2 years t ha t we'dever sus ta ined a l o s s in the company. So we were opera t ingfrom negat ive perspec t ive t ry ing to rebu i ld . So how do wespend our do l l a rs as j ud ic ious ly and as cos t e f f ec t i v e ly aswe could to rebu i ld our bus iness?

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Apar t from th e cos t bene f i t ana lys i s of saying we

    could make be t t e r use of these funds or we could make othe ruse of these funds, did you view the random drug t e s t i ngprogram as a l im i t on your ab i l i t y to rebu i ld your bus iness?

    A I t j u s t w asn 't co s t ef fec t ive to do it.Q So it 's pure ly f inanc ia l ?A I t was f inanc ia l , pr imar i ly f inanc ia l and it had

    been success fu l , so we were pleased with th e e f f e c t t h a t ithad had over th e years , and it ju s t d id n 't seem to besomething we needed to cont inue on the regu la r bas i s t h a t wewere doing it. By re se rv in g th e r i gh t to random t e s t , we

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    38/162

    38

    f e l t t h a t we were doing what we needed to do.Q Was it your view in 1996 t h a t WCW had a bus iness

    advantage in not having a drug t e s t i ng po l i cy in place?A Yes.Q That was your view?A Yes, t h a t would be pa r t o f why t hey had a bus iness

    advantage .Q And what i s t h a t advantage?A What i s th e advantage o f no t having a po l i cy in

    place?Q Sure .A Well , if - - it's no t j u s t one aspec t . They a l so had

    much more money to a t t r a c t our t a l e n t , bu t if our t a l e n tknew t h a t they were with us and t hey were t e s t ed and t heywere going to be pos i t i v e , and t hey could go someplace e l seand no t be t e s t ed , t h a t was a t t r a c t i v e on one measure fo rthem.

    Q Okay. Anything e l se?A I don ' t th ink so .

    BY MS. SAFAVIAN:Q On t h i s Exhib i t 2, th e ab i l i t y to re se rve th e r i g h t

    to do random t e s t i n g , d id you still use Dr. Black?A Yes, I be l i eve so , a t th e co l l e c t i on agency, we

    would have a t t r a c t ed and sen t th e t e s t to Dr. Black, t h a t ' smy r e co l l e c t i on .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    39/162

    39

    Q He was still on r e t a i n e r c o n t r a c t ?A I d o n ' t know if he was on a r e t a i n e r a t t h a t p o i n t ,

    o r if it would have been on an a s - u s e b a s i s .Q Case by case?A I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h e f requency o f t h a t a t a l l .Ms. S a f a v i a n . Thank you.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q There i s c u r r e n t l y a drug t e s t i n g p o l i c y i n p l a c e ;

    i s t h a t c o r r e c t ?A Yes.Q When d i d t h a t go i n to e f f e c t ?A The c u r re n t p o l i c y went i n t o e f f e c t i n February ' 0 6 .Q Was t h e r e any o t h e r drug p o l i c y i n p l a c e between

    1996 and t h e c u r r e n t one t h a t went i n t o e f f e c t i n Februaryo f '06?

    A J u s t from t h i s memo t h a t we always had t h e r i g h t t ogo i n and random t e s t any o f our t a l e n t .

    Q Were any drug t e s t s conducted on WWE t a l e n t between1996 and t h e implementat ion of t h e c u r r e n t p o l i c y ?

    A Yes.Q How many?A I d o n ' t know.Q Can you e s t i m a t e ?A No.Q Were t h e y every year?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    40/162

    40

    A I rea l ly have no idea , because I rea l ly wasn ' tinvolved with the drug t e s t ing fo r cause. I would sometimesknow a f t e r the fac t t ha t we had t e s t ed someone. I don ' tknow how of ten any of t h a t was put in to place .

    Q But you know with cer t a in ty t ha t there were drugt e s t s conducted during t h a t t ime?

    A Yes, because we a lso had sen t some people to rehabduring t h a t t ime so - -

    BY MR. COHEN:Q Who was responsib le fo r the t e s t i ng , was t h a t Mr.

    McMahon who was respons ib le a t t ha t poin t?A I t would have been him and who he delegated . We

    have good t ale n t r ela tio n . At t ha t t ime, I th ink it was th et a l en t adminis t ra t ion depar tment .

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Were any t a l en t suspended as a r e su l t of pos i t ive

    drug t e s t s during t ha t in te r im per iod between 1996 and thenew pol icy in February of '06?

    A I don ' t r eca l l .Q You don ' t r e ca l l whether anyone was suspended?A Right .Q In the t ime per iod between 1996 when the f i r s t

    pol icy ended and th e beginning of 2006 when th e cur ren tpol icy went in to e f f ec t , did you ever rece ive any f i r s thandinformat ion t ha t any i nd iv idua l s associa ted with WWE were

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    41/162

    41

    using s t e ro ids?Mr. McDevit t . What d id you say , f i r s thand in fo rmat ion ;

    meaning what? What does f i r s thand in fo rmat ion mean?BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Do you unders tand what f i r s thand informat ion means?A What a re you asking me?Q I'm asking whether you l ea rned f i r s thand t h a t

    anybody assoc ia ted with WWE was using s t e ro ids?A I don ' t r e ca l l rece iv ing any e -m ails o r telephone

    ca l l s o r memos o r anything to th at e ff e ct o r c on ve rs ati on st h a t X, Y, Z person was using s t e ro id s .

    Q What about any o the r i l l ega l drugs?A No.Q And t h a t ' s from, again , from th e end of the o ld

    pol icy in 1996 un t i l th e commencement o f the new pol icy in2006?

    A But you ' re asking me today. I mean, we d id have onet a l en t , Eddie Guerrero t h a t I be l i eve we sen t to rehab andEddie came back from rehab and subsequent ly we f i red Eddie ,because he j u s t cou ldn ' t s tay where he was. Andsubsequent ly he came back and he was born again , he hadreuni ted with h is wife and he was on a whole d i f f e ren t p l an .So I'm aware t h a t Eddie had a drug i s sue . I'm not sure t h a ton the second t ime around t h a t we t e s t ed him o r j u s t fromobserva t ion and we t a lked to him and asked him to go to

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    42/162

    42

    rehab. When he was eva lua ted a t th e rehab f a c i l i t y , theysa id , yes, he de f in i t e ly had i s sues .

    Q Do you know what drug i s sues Mr. Guerrero was inrehab for?

    A IMr. McDevit t . Up un t i l now we haven ' t been l i nk ing

    peop le ' s names to drugs in t h i s inves t iga t ion . And I 'm alittle l ee ry about th e scope of t h i s , because I th ink it i san in va sio n o f p eo p le 's p olic y and poss ib l e HIPAA v io la t ion .

    Mr. Leviss . I t i s not a HIPAA v io l a t i on .Mr. McDevitt. Well, t h a t i s your conclus ion , you are

    not the one who gets sued fo r i t . I don ' t have anyl i ab i l i t y waivers o r anything l ik e th a t th a t would p roh ib i tthem from doing t ha t . But are you t e l l i ng me you in tend todo t h a t here , t h a t has not been th e ru le of t h i sinves t iga t ion so fa r of l inking names to drug t e s t i ng .

    Now, with Eddie which she ' s t o ld you about i s a mat te ro f publ ic knowledge, so I have al lowed it to proceed it tot h i s poin t , but a re you going in to t ha t d i r ec t i on here?

    Mr. Leviss . Tha t ' s not our i n t en t .BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Without using spec i f i c names, a re th ere in div id ua lsa s soc ia t ed with WWE or who were assoc ia t ed a t th e t imewho - - l e t me t ry t h a t again .

    For the t ime per iod we' re discuss ing , which i s 1996

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    43/162

    43

    through 2006 when the cu rren t po l icy began, did you l ea rn a tany poin t t h a t any indiv iduals assoc ia ted with WWE wereusing e i the r s t e ro ids or i l l e ga l drugs?

    A I don ' t r eca l l t h a t I did .Q Okay.Mr. McDevitt . Again, I want to be c lea r , we have

    produced records to you of people who have been sent torehab during t h i s t ime frame, so you know the answer to somedegree the company l ea rned about t ha t so th is i s a memoryt e s t , it i s and somewhat an unfa i r one.

    Mr. Leviss . I t i s not a memory t e s t .Mr. McDevitt . Yeah, it i s . You are not ask ing

    anything about cur ren t , you are asking about s t u f f t h a thappened 11 years ago or whatever, bu t we have given you thedocumentat ion to show you the people sen t to rehab in t ha tt ime per iod . So obvious ly , some s t u f f came to the company'sa t t en t ion and they acted upon it.

    Mr. Leviss . We are t ry ing to unders tand - -Mr. McDevitt . I f you want to ask her , pu t the

    documents in fron t of her and ask her what she knows, if youwant to do it f a i r .

    Mr. Leviss . Are you done?Mr. McDevitt . Yes, I am.Mr. Leviss . Because you sa id you wanted to be done in

    an e f f i c i en t manner - -

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    44/162

    44

    Mr. McDevitt. I want t o be f a i r , t o o .Mr. Leviss . Of course . This i s not a memory - Mr. McDevitt . You have t h e documents, you know t h e

    answer. I f you want t o ask her a q u e s t i o n f a i r l y , put it i nf r o n t of her and ask her what she knows about it f a i r l y .

    Mr. Leviss . Are you done?Mr. McDevitt. I might be. And if I 'm n o t , then I'll

    keep t a l k i n g .Mr. Leviss . I would l i k e t o proceed with t h e

    q u e s t i o n s .Mr. McDevit t . Well, proceed f a i r l y , p l e a s e . 'Mr. Leviss . Okay.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q Did you ever express c on ce rn s a bout s p e c i f i c

    w r e s t l e r s , without i d e n t i f y i n g t h e w r e s t l e r s , who you hadl e a r n e d or had reason t o b e l i e v e were using s t e r o i d s ori l l e g a l drugs?

    A Let me e x p l a i n a little b i t . I j u s t want you t ohave an unders tanding of t h e r o l e . I am not on t h e road,I 'm not a t t h e e v e n t s . I 'm very r a r e l y i n t e r a c ti n g with t h et a l e n t . So any informat ion , you know, t h a t I would haver e l e v an t t o a t a l e n t would r e a l l y be coming a f t e r t h e f a c t .There would be a suspension. I t w a s n ' t n e c e s s a r i l ysomething t h a t I was involved with on a d a i l y b a s i s , so Id o n ' t have a p a r t i c u l a r r e c o l l e c t i o n o f t h i s a t t h i s

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    45/162

    45

    pa r t i cu l a r t ime. What I do remember, I 'm happy to t e l l you,but t h a t was j u s t not my r o l e . I d idn ' t observe t a l en t , Iwasn ' t t he re very of t en , sometimes I was a t th e events butno t very of t en . My job r e a l l y was more a t corpora teheadquar te rs .

    Q And pa r t o f t h i s process i s unders tanding your ro leand o th er p eo p le 's ro les w ith in the company.

    A Okay.Q Who was involved in the d i scuss ions about poss ib l e

    suspens ions? You've a l ready mentioned Mr. McMahon?A He would be and whoever he reached out to in terms

    o f h is fea r of adv i so rs . Again, we had a t a l e n tadminis t ra t ion depar tment and th ose fe llows were the oneswho worked with him c lose ly in eva lua t ing t a l en t , bringingt a l e n t on, watching t h e i r sk i l l s in the r ing , were they goodperformers , were they not so the t a l e n t adminis t ra t ion andr e l a t i ons depar tment i s r e al ly th at group o f people as itex i s t s today who eva lua te t a l en t coming in , are they goodperformers or not , do they have th e sk i l l s to be in ther ing , go to our development camp, t ake a look a t them, so Iwould assume t h a t he would have t a lked with thosei nd iv idua l s .

    Q Looking spec i f i c a l l y a t th e q ue stio n of whether orno t to suspend t a l e n t fo r drug abuse o r s t e ro id use , wast a l e n t adminis t ra t ion involved in t h a t discuss ion as well ,

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    46/162

    in those discuss ions?A You'd have to ask Vince.Q Were you involved in any discuss ions between 1996

    and 2006 a bo ut w heth er to implement a new drug t e s t i ngpol i cy , e i t he r to reimplement the o ld pol icy o r to bring ina new pol icy?

    A Between '96 and 2006?Q Uh-huh.A Yes, but more towards th e end o f t h a t t ime frame,

    more c lo s e r to 2006. So r e a l l y probably in - - wel l , c lose rto the t ime we ac tua l l y implemented it.

    Q You were involved in those d is cu ss io ns y o u'r esaying?

    A Yes.Q Do you know whether th e company en t e r t a in s

    discuss ions ea r l i e r in th e t ime period t h a t you weren ' tin volve d in ? Your d i scusses ab ou t w heth er to b r ing back adrug t e s t i ng pol icy o r to implement a new one?

    A I don ' t r e c a l l .Q I was going to move onto the cur ren t wel lness

    pol i cy .EXAMINATION

    BY MR. CHANCE:Q Back when t h i s was sen t ou t, E xh ib i t 2, were t he re

    any othe r measures in place as well , o r were t he re o the r

    46

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    47/162

    47

    t h i n g s e li m i n a te d t o t r y t o h e l p c u t c o s t s ?[Witness c o n f e r s with c o u n s e l . ]Ms. McMahon. The c o s t c u t t i n g a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r t ime

    it involved not being a b l e t o match o f f e r s t h a t some o f ourt o p t a l e n t were having from t h e Turner o r g a n i z a t i o n . Therecame a t ime when one o f our t o p s t a r s was o f f e r e d a hugeg u a r a n t e e and we had t o l e t him go because we could notmatch t h a t p a r t i c u l a r kind o f o f f e r i n g .

    BY MR. CHANCE:Q In o p e r a t i n g c o s t s as wel l ; t h i s w a s n ' t t h e only

    t h i n g t h a t - -A No, I b e l i e v e t h a t during t h a t p o i n t , we had l a y o f f s

    o f employees. We d i d t a k e economic measures t o b r i n g ourbottom l i n e b e t t e r , prudent b u s i n e s s d i s c u s s i o n s .

    [Linda McMahon E x h i b i t No. 3was marked f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ]

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    48/162

    48

    RPTS MERCHANTDCMN MAYER

    Mr. Leviss . Tel l me when you have had a chance to looka t it.

    Ms. McMahon. Get t ing the re .Mr. Leviss . Fine. Take your t ime.Ms. McMahon. Okay.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q I s Exhibi t 3 the drug t e s t ing pol i cy as it was when

    it went in to e f fec t in February of 2006?A I bel ieve so .Q I s th i s re fe rre d to as the WWE Wellness Policy?A Yes.Q What was your ro le in the development of the WWE

    Wellness Policy?A The genera l discuss ion in te rna l ly of the scope t h a t

    we would l ike to have in terms of the Wellness Policy ; thediscuss ions again about reaching out to a th i rd-pa r tyexper t , which we then decided again on David Black fromAegis Labo ra to ri es ; d is cu s si on s i nt er na ll y r el at iv e tocos t s , e t ce te ra of the program, who would be developing it.

    So I was respons ib le fo r looking over I wouldn ' t say"respons ib le" ; I was involved in reviewing the dra f t s ,he lp ing to make sure t ha t the dra f t s of the po l i cy - he lp ing to make sure t ha t it was i nd eed a ccomp li sh ing what

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    49/162

    49

    we wanted to accomplish as be s t I knew from my exper ience .Q Who e l se was involved in developing th e Wellness

    Pol icy?A Counsel , our t a l e n t admin i s t ra t ion depar tment ,

    t a l en t re l a t ions depar tment . Vince wasn ' t involved so muchon th e day- to -day development. But it was p re t t y muchhandled i n t e rna l l y by ope ra t ions , m yself , our i n t e rna l l ega lgroup; ex te rna l , our counsel outs ide .

    Q I f you could, provide the names of the people whowere involved in it.

    A Ed Kaufman i s our General Counsel; Mr. McDevi t t ' sf i rm, Kirkpat r i ck & Lockhar t .

    Opera t ions would have been - - gosh, a t th a t t ime, I amt ry ing to th ink who Ta le n t Adm in is tr at io n a t th a t p a rt ic u la rpoin t was. I am not sure if John Laur ina i t a s , who i s thecur ren t head, was t he re a t th a t p a rt ic u la r t ime; or if itwas - - I th ink it was Jim Ross. Yes, it was. I t was JimRoss who a t t h a t pa r t i cu l a r t ime was the head o f our - - Ith ink he was Senior Vice P re side nt o f Ta le nt Adm ini st ra ti on ,Jim Ross.

    Q Is t he re a d i f fe rence between Operat ions and Talen tAdmin is t ra t ion?

    A Yes. Opera t ions , I r e a l l y was t a lk ing about thero l e t h a t our CO performs now.

    Q So who from Opera t ions was involved in th e

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    50/162

    50

    d i s c u s s i o n s about developing t h e new p o l i c y ?A I am not s u r e . We d i d n ' t have a CO a t t h e t ime, so

    I t h i n k p r i m a r il y t h a t was me.Q And what, if any, was Mr. McMahon's r o l e ?A Genera l o ve rv iew .P r e t t y much a f t e r we had c o n s t r u c t e d t h e p o l i c y , we

    reviewed it, gone over t h e nuts and b o l t s , e t c e t e r a ;g e n e r a l review with him as t o how it would want t o o p e r a t eyou know with t h e t a l e n t .

    He a b s o l u t e l y wanted it t o be handled thLrd p a r t y . Id i d n ' t want t o be involved i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f any oft h e p e n a l t i e s under t h e p o l i c y . I f e l t t h a t it should bet o t a l l y arm' s l e n g t h .

    Q What b ro ug ht ab out t h e d e c i s i o n t o develop a newWellness Policy? What l e d t o i t ?

    A A p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t was the s i n c e we have a l r e a d yd i s c u s s e d Eddie Guerrero, it was t h e death o f EddieGuerrero, which was i n ' 0 5 . And Eddie had d i e d . We knew ofh i s p a s t a lcohol and drug abuse j u s t by t h e f a c t t h a t we hadhim i n rehab, what h i s h i s t o r y was. And we f e l t t h a t wewanted t o make sure t h a t we were helping t h e men and womenwho were p a r t of WWE, a l o t o f them young men and women, t os t a y as h e a l t h y as th ey could . I f they were - - you know ifthey had any a d d i c t i o n s t o p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs , any o f thosekinds o f t h i n g s , we wanted t o make sure t h a t they were as

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    51/162

    51

    hea l thy as they could be.Par t of it also was looking a t the f ac t t ha t we had had

    two or three of our performers, Ed being one of them, whodied from a hea r t a t t ack . On Eddie ' s autopsy he had two ofthe qr t e r i e s , one was about 90 percen t c losed , the o ther onewas 65 p er ce nt c lo se d. So we wanted to make sure t h a tcardio logy was a pa r t of t h i s wel lness program.

    So as we ta lked about a l l the aspec ts and elements ofth ings t h a t we l ea rned over the years , what could we putin to place t h a t would be very e f f ec t i v e , it was drugt e s t ing , it was cardio t e s t i ng . And as we have l ea rned morewe cont inue to evolve t h i s pol icy . We wanted to help thembe hea l thy .

    Q As pa r t of th i s process of developing a new t e s t ingpol icy , did you consider the o ld the 1996 pol icy or thepol icy t ha t was in place in 1996?

    A I th ink we used it as a r ef er en ce p o in t of a lo t ofthe th ings t h a t we t e s t ed fo r then , a lo t of th e drugs t h a twere t e s t ed fo r . I can ' t even t e l l you what ha l f of thedrugs t ha t are l i s t ed on here are , but Dr. Black cer t a in lycan.

    Q Were there any medical consul tants t ha t you workedwith in developing the po l i cy , the cur ren t pol icy?

    A P rima ri ly th e c ar di olo g is t th a t we used. And I metwith them myself in New York. I t i s Dr. Feurbach and h is

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    52/162

    52

    prac t i ce ; met with them, t a lked with them, explained to themwhat we were t ry ing to do, and l e t him adv ise us o f the bes tway, which i s to es tab l i sh base l ine t e s t ing with h ise choca rd iog ram drug t e s t s , th e blood t e s t s t ha t he would doand th e repor t s t h a t he would give back t h a t would be veryhe lp fu l in giving base l ine determina t ions . And we wouldr epea t those t e s t s on an annual bas is to see if t he re wereany changes .

    As a m atte r o f fac t , one of our t a l en t s - - 10 . . . . . . .4IIIIIIIIIIIt I can ' t fo r the l i f e of me th ink o f h is r ea lname, bu t we ac tua l l y discovered a congen i ta l hea r t de fec tt h a t he had which he d id not know about , which could havebeen f a t a l a t some poin t had it not been addressed .

    We discovered it j u s t through our random t e s t i ng - - notour random t e s t i ng , through our card io logy program. He thenwent to h is own ca rd io log i s t fo r ve r i f i c a t i on and then cameback to ou r New York group and had the procedure done, whichwe paid fo r .

    And so we a re very happy to have t h a t pol icy in place ,because I t h ink it i s proving a l ready to be bene f i c i a l .

    Q What did you expressA And t ha t was d i f f e ren t than th e '96 pol i cy . That

    was in ad di t io n to what we were doing.Q The card io component?A Right .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    53/162

    53

    Q What were th e goals o r what d id you express were th egoals o f t h i s new program?

    A To maintain the hea l th and we ll- be in g o f our t a l en t ,to help them.

    Q And how would t h a t be done?A Are you t a lk ing about to whom d id I express it, th e

    card io log i s t when I was meeting with them, or j u s t ingenera l?

    Q I am asking ,in genera l when you are h a v i ~ , ; , , , . ~~ ~ S ' .. . w ith p eo ple , e i the r th e ca rd io log i s t o r anybodye l se involved in developing th e new t e s t i ng pol icy , whatwere your goals? What were you t ry ing to a cc omplis h w it hi t ?

    A The goals were, A, to l e t them know if they had anyproblems t h a t they were not aware o f , fo r in s tance , anyhea r t problems. We d id pu t in a drug t e s t ing pol icy to seeif they were abusing p re s c r ip t i on drugs , to see if they haddrugs of abuse, to see if s t e ro id s o r o the r drugs t h a t a rei l l ega l are pa r t o f anything t h a t they a re us ing .

    You know, you have a group o f - - and we found t h i s . Wefound we had a group o f men and women who a re on the roadand they would get a pain k i l l e r . Well , they would t akemore than th e recommended dose; o r they would get a paink i l l e r from a doctor in one town, and then they would go toanother town and go to ano ther docto r and ge t more, and they

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    54/162

    54

    wo u ld se l f -p re sc r i be wh a t they t h o u g h t wo u ld b e th e r i gh tn u mb e r.

    An d we d id f ind t h a t t he re wa s a c r e e p i n g number o fmore o f t h a t a b u s e of presc r ip t ion d r u g s t h a n t he re wasa n y t h i n g e l s e .

    So rea l ly - - t h a t was r e a l l y o u r p r i m ar y c o n c e r n whenwe s t a r t ed t e s t i ng was j u s t l o o k i n g a t the a b u s e o fpresc r ip t ion d r u g s . So pa r t o f wh a t we discussed w i t h D r.B l a c k was t h a t a s we l o o k e d a t l eve l s , n o t o n l y w o u l d h ede tec t a p re s c r ip t i on d r u g , b u t h e w ou ld l o o k a t . t he l eve l sin the b l o o d s t r e a m a n d t h e n t a lk to the t rea t ing physic ianfo r t h a t pa r t i cu l a r ind iv idua l to s a y , t h i s i s w h a t wef o u n d , d o e s t h i s c o m p o r t w i t h w h a t you are d o i n g or wh y didyou g i v e t h i s pa r t i cu l a r d r u g , to make sure t h a t they w e r en o t . a b u s i n g d r u g s a n d put t ing t h e m s e l v e s in h a r m ' s way.

    Q D r. B l a c k wo u ld h a v e t h a t conversat ion?A A t f i r s t he did , a n d t h e n we r ea l i zed t h a t we rea l ly

    n e e d e d a m e d i c a l docto r . Dr. B l a c k i s o n e o f th e m o s tr e c o g n i z e d fo rens i c tox ico log is t s in the c o u n t r y . We h a v eh is curr iculum v i t ae fo r you if you don ' t a l ready h a v e t ha t .

    B u t we r e a l l y f e l t t h a t in ta lk in g to a m e d i c a l doctorit wo u ld b e pruden t fo r u s to h a v e more o f a m e d ic al r e v ie wo f f i c e r t h a t w o u l d s p e a k to the t r e a t i ng physician o f thesepa r t i cu l a r i nd iv idua l s fo r u s , make h is r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n dt h e n b a c k to D r. B l a c k . So a s o u r pol icy h a s e v o l v e d , we

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    55/162

    55

    added Dr. Ray, Tracy Ray.Q And what i s Dr. Ray's spec ia l ty?A I t i s spor ts medicine . I th ink we have h is CV, too ,

    if you don ' t have t ha t .Q I th ink we do.A Very we ll r ec ogni ze d. A recommendation came fo r him

    from Dr. James Andrews , who i s one of the most recognizedorthopedic surgeons I th ink in th e world. Sports f igure s goto him, h is prac t i ce in Alabama, l i t e r a l l y from a l l o v e r theworld fo r t rea tment . And Dr. Andrews has operated onseve ra l of our t a l en t s , inc luding Vince when Vince had theunl ike ly and unfor tuna te exper ience of t ea r ing both of h isquads o ff the bone a t the same t ime and was in a wheelchairfo r 6 weeks without any we igh t -bear ing func ti on a t a l l .

    At any ra te , Dr. Andrews - - he was very pleasant duringt ha t t ime. Dr. Andrews performed t h a t surgery. So it wasthrough h is recommendation. I ta lk ed to him and sa id , werea l ly need someone in th e spor ts medicine f ie ld f ami l ia rwith a th le t es of what they do, and performers anden t e r t a i ne r s ; and he recommended Dr. Ray out of h is c l i n i cthe re . And Dr. Ray, I th ink , has been a very good addi t ionto our program.

    Q And approximately when was Dr. Ray brought in to theprogram or involved?

    A I am sure we have got a con t rac t with him t ha t would

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    56/162

    56

    say t h a t w ith in the l a s t couple of years .Q Was it around the t ime t ha t Mr. McMahon in ju red

    himself?A No. Subsequent to t ha t .Q And was th a t a t the sugges t ion of Dr. Black?A Not t ha t I r e ca l l . I t h ink t h a t t ha t was our

    sugges t ion . We rea l ly f e l t t h a t we needed an expansion ofyou know, when our t a l en t would get a ca l l from Dr. Black

    or Dr. Black would t a lk to t he i r docto r , they sa id , wel l , i she rea l ly a medical doctor , because we rea l ly want a medicaldoc tor t a lk ing to a medical docto r . So t h a t made sense tous.

    And also the r e spons ib i l i t i e s , I th ink , fo r Dr. Blackwere cont inuing to inc rease . And I th ink th i s was the r i gh ts tep fo r us to t ake , to have a medical review of f i c e r whowould make h is recommendations back to Dr. Black.

    Q A moment ago you mentioned t ha t the card io log ica lexam was something new fo r th i s po l icy . Are there othe rmajor d i f fe rences t ha t you can r e ca l l between the pol icyt ha t was in e f f ec t in '96 and the cur ren t Wellness Policy?

    A That i s th e b igges t p iece , the b ig ge st p ie ce t ha twas di f fe ren t , t h a t we did - - you know, put in to place . Ith ink we have r ees tab l i shed precon t rac t t e s t i ng . That i snot neces sa r i ly pa r t of th i s pol i cy , but t ha t i s somethingwe have been doing over th e l a s t 6 months, which does

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    57/162

    57

    i nvo lve th e d r u g t e s t , th e c ar dio lo gy t e s t , a physica l , youknow, a l l o f those th ings p r i o r to br ing ing a ne w t a l e n t o nb o a r d .

    r th ink the - - but th e c ard iac fea tu re was a b igadd i t ion .

    And now we a l so - - D r. Ra y wi l l reach o u t toendocr ino log i s t s if h e fee l s t h a t h e n e e d s more expe r t i se ond i f f e r en t i s sues t h a t h e m i g h t b e looking a t . We h a v eu t i l i z ed - - a r o u n d th e death o f Chris B en oit, we b r o u g h t ina spo r t s psycho log i s t a n d g r i e f counse l ing ; t h a t was o n ther o a d w i t h o u r g r o u p fo r , I th ink , 2 o r 3 w e e k s .

    So there h a v e b e e n l o t s of aspec t s to th e W e l l n e s sPol icy t h a t we h a v e u t i l i z ed . An d we wi l l cont inue toc h a n g e a s we l e a rn m o r e .

    Q When d id D r. Ra y begin reach ing o u t to , i s it o n epa r t i cu l a r endocr ino log i s t or seve ra l ?

    A I don ' t know. I th ink we h a v e u t i l i z ed th e se rv i cesa t t h i s po in t o f o n e endoc r ino log i s t . I c an ' t th ink o f h isn a m e . I w o u l d h a v e to get t h a t to y o u .

    Q B ut t h a t i s u n d e r th e W e l l n e s s Pol icy?A Yes.Q An d w h a t i s th e p u r p o s e o f th ose c on su lts ?A T h o s e consu l t s w e r e - - if we h a d a n y i s sues r e l a t i v e

    to h o r m o n e s , we w o u l d h a v e a n endocr ino log i s t l o o k a t thoset e s t s to d e t e r m i n e th e va l i d i t y o f a n y m e d i c a l u s e fo r

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    58/162

    58

    hormone replacement .BY MR. BUFFONE:

    Q I want to back up fo r 1 second. Who i s StephanieLevesque?

    A Stephanie McMahon Levesque. She i s my daughter ,V i nc e's d au gh te r. And Stephanie i s th e Execut ive VicePres iden t o f th e Creat ive Wri t ing Team. And repor t ing toher a re a l l th e c rea t ive wri te r s as wel l as Ta le nt R e la ti on snow and a lso Live Events , so her ro l e has expanded qui t e ab i t over the pa s t year .

    Q So now she i s head o f Tale nt R e la tio ns ?A Yes. That has only been in the l a s t 6 months, I

    th ink .Q And then a t the t ime o f the c rea t ion , you mentioned

    a t th e t ime o f c rea t ion it was Jim Ross, I bel ieve?A Jim Ross.Q Was head o f T alen t R ela tions?A Yes.Q And in 2006 what was her pos i t i on , was she still in

    t h i s crea t ive wri t ing pos i t ion?A 2006, l e t me see . Stephanie i s 31 years old . 2006,

    she might have j u s t been ge t t i ng out o f co l l ege .Mr. Leviss . We won ' t tell her you gave up her age.Mr. McDevit t . 2006, j u s t ge t t ing out o f col lege , t h a t

    i s l a s t yea r .

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    59/162

    Ms. McMahon. Oh, I am so r ry . I am th inking 1996 ~ a

    59

    blond moment; we can ca l l it a senior moment.No, I am so r ry - - 2006, t ha t was j u s t l a s t year . She

    was th e Vice Pres iden t of Crea t ive Writ ing, bu t she did nothave Talent Relat ions or L ive Events repor t ing to her .

    BY MR. BUFFONE:Q So what was her re la t ion to Jim Ross a t tha t t ime

    then?A Jim Ross i s now s t r i c t l y an on-a i r announcer fo r us.

    He i s no longer th e head of Talent Rela t ions . We hadbrought in a gentleman named John Laur inai tas , who came inand rep laced Jim Ross as the head of Talent Rela t ions . AndJohn Laur inai tas now repo rts to Stephanie .

    Q But in 2006 she had no re la t ion to , no d i r ec tcorpora te re la t ion to

    A No repor t ing s t ruc tu re , to whom?Q Jim Ross.A No. Except t h a t Jim Ross i s an on-a i r announcer , so

    as he i s involved. I th ink t ha t Jim Ross in h is ro le ason -a i r announcer reports to our execut ive producer .

    Mr. Cohen. Was Ms: Levesque involved in the crea t ionof the cur ren t policy , the cur ren t Wellness Policy?

    Ms. McMahon. I don ' t remember her d i r ec t involvementin those discuss ions . She was aware of it a l l along theway. But rea l ly her focus a t th a t t ime was on the Creat ive

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    60/162

    60

    Writ ing Team, which she was bu i l d ing .Mr. Leviss . I am j u s t going to take a break here . I f

    you have any - - t h i s i s probab ly a good t ime to take a shor tbreak .

    [Recess . ]BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Before th e break we were t a lk ing about th e cur ren tWellness Pol icy t h a t went in to e f f e c t in February o f 20D6and comparing it to t h i s pol i cy t h a t was in e f f e c t in 1996.

    I unders tand t h a t t he re have been some amendments o rchanges to th e Wellness Pol icy s ince February o f 2006, andwe wi l l go through those in a little b i t , but I want to askyou some ques t ions about Exh ib i t 3, which i s th e po l i cy , theWellness Pol icy , as it was i n s t i t u t e d in February o f 2006 incomparison to Exhib i t 2, which i s drug t e s t i ng pol i cy t h a twas in e f f ec t , it looks l i k e , as o f July 26, 1996, from th erev i s ion on th e bottom o f the f i r s t page.

    Do you have those two exh ib i t s?A Yes.Mr. McDevit t . Not 2; 1 and 3.Mr. Leviss . I am so r ry , 1 and 3.

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q All r i gh t . On Exhib i t 1, on page 2, th e pol icy

    s t a t e s , number 8, presc r ip t ion drugs taken without a properp re s c r ip t i on given fo r a l eg i t ima te medi ca l p urp os e by th e

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    61/162

    61

    persona l phys i c i an o f the person t e s t e d . And under t h a t itsays , For purposes o f Ti t an ' s drug t e s t i ng po l i cyt e s t o s t e rone , dihydro tes tos te rone - - and I apolog ize to th er epo r t e r - - anabol ic s t e ro id s , HCG, GH and amphetamines a res t r i c t l y proh ib i t ed with o r wi thout a p re s c r ip t i on , and nopresc r ip t ion fo r such drugs wi l l be reg ard ed as having al eg i t ima te medi ca l p ur po se .

    Do you see what I have j u s t read?A Yes.Q Okay. Then in Exh ib i t 3, t he re i s no page number,

    bu t th e Bates number t h a t you a l l produced it with i s Bates63, which I guess i s th e t h i rd page . Number 6 has th eheading fo r presc r ip t ion drugs . Are you with me there?

    A Yes.Q I don ' t see anywhere in th e c ur re nt Wellness Pol icy

    sec t io n fo r presc r ip t ion drugs any list o f pa r t i cu l a r drugst h a t a re s t r i c t l y p roh ib i t ed with o r wi thout a p r e s c r i p t i o n ~Am I co rre c t in read ing t h a t t he re i s no such l i s t i nganymore in th e c ur re nt Wellness Pol icy?

    Mr. McDevit t . Do you mean with r e spec t to presc r ip t iondrugs as opposed to drugs fo r which you cannot get ap re s c r ip t i on , l i ke crack , hero in?

    BY MR. LEVISS:Q With re sp ec t to t e s t o s t e rone , dihydro tes tos te rone ,

    anabol ic s t e ro id s , HCG, GH and amphetamines?

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    62/162

    62

    A No, it i s not th e same language.Q Why th e change? Why doe sn ' t t h a t language appear in

    th e cur ren t Wellness Pol icy?A Because it was Dr. Black ' s recommendation t h a t th e

    new drug pol icy be dra f t ed th e way it i s . So we r e l i ed onh is medical advice and h is expe r t i se to guide us as to th eappropr ia te language and appropr ia te t e s t ing measures .

    Q Did he explain to you any o f th e di f fe rences betweenth e drug t e s t i ng pol icy as it app l ied to presc r ip t ion drugsin th e Wellness Po licy versus the way it had been under th eo ld p olic y?

    A Not t h a t I r e ca l l .Q Did you unders t and th e di f fe rences before th e

    Wellness Pol icy went i n to e f f ec t ?A I wasn ' t necessa r i ly comparing, myself , th e f i r s t

    pol icy to th e po l icy t h a t we were implementing a t th a tpa r t i cu l a r t ime, because we were re ly ing on Dr. Black whowas c l ea r l y up to speed in th e world of fo rens ic tox ico logyto advise us as to the be s t way to approach t h i s incomportment with th e law.

    Q Were the re any discuss ions about how to t r e a tpresc r ip t ion drugs under th e cur ren t pol icy?

    Mr. McDevit t . Are you t a lk ing , t h a t she pa r t i c ipa t edin with Dr. Black?

    Mr. Leviss . Are you aware o f any discuss ions about how

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    63/162

    I f I could then , I j u s t want to be

    to t r e a t presGrip t ion dru gs under the cur ren t WellnessPolicy?

    Mr. McDevitt .

    63

    c lea r .There are pr iv i l eged communications t ha t are responsive

    to your ques t ion ; she i s not going to disc lose those , and Iwant to t r y to get you the information t ha t you are lookingfo r .

    But it would be he lp fu l if you had a c l ea r ques t ion , ifyou are asking her if she par t i c ipa ted in any suchconversat ions with Black, or if she par t i c ipa ted in any withcounsel , so you would know the answer and a p ro pe r r ec ordcan be made here .

    Mr. Leviss . What i s th e pr iv i l ege t ha t you areasse r t ing here , j u s t so I am c lear?

    Mr. McDevitt . I am an a t t o r n e y ~Mr. Leviss . I unders tand.Mr. McDevitt . That i s my c l i en t , and any

    communications I have with my c l i en t are subjec t to thea t to r n ey - cl ie n t p r iv i le g e .

    Mr. Leviss . I unders tand t ha t .Mr. McDevitt. Any communications I had with Black may

    not be, but you might want to e s t ab l i sh if she was on such aca l l .

    Mr. Leviss . Congress and the committee are not

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    64/162

    64

    r e q u i r e d t o recognize n o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e s . Thea t to r n e y - c li e n t p r i v i le g e i s one such p r i v i l e g e .

    Mr. McDevitt. Well, you can g e t a c o u r t o r d e r .Mr. L e v i s s . We d o n ' t need a c o u r t o rd e r . We can

    d i s c u s s whether we can g e t . the i n f o r m a t i o n we a r e lookingf o r without going i n t o t ho s e c o n v e rs a ti o n s .

    An a l t e r n a t i v e i s f o r your c l i e n t t o answer ourq u e s t i o n s , and we can then ask t h e chairman f o r a r u l i n g ;and if t h e c ha irman honor s t h e a t to r n e y - c l ie n t p r iv i le g e ,then t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e answer w i l l be r e d a c t e d from t h er e c o r d .

    Mr. McDevit t . You a r e u n n e c e s s a r i l y missing my p o i n t .You have spoken t o Dr. Black . Dr. Black has t o l d you,

    I assume, whatever he has t o l d you about who he d r a f t e d t h ep o l i c y i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h . Linda may not have beeninvolved i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f yourq u e s t i o n . That may i n v o l v e c o n v e r s a t i o n s between Black andI , f o r example.

    You a r e f r e e t o ask Black whatever you want t o ask him.You m ight even be a b l e t o be f r e e t o ask me t h a t .

    I f she was p r i v y t o such c o n v e r s a t i o n s , we would notclaim a p r i v i l e g e o f them. But I d o n ' t want t h e r e t o be amisleading r e c o r d here about t h e c or p or a te knowledge aboutt h e reasons f o r t h e s e changes.

    I f you want t o ask h e r if she was involved i n any

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    65/162

    65

    nonpr iv i leged communications, we wouldn ' t have an is sue tobegin w ith and you would have a c l e a r record: Was sheinvolved in any such conversa t ions with David Black on th esub j ec t m atte r o f your quest ion?

    A ll I am ask ing you to do i s make a c l ea r r eco rd .BY MR. LEVISS:

    Q Maybe you a re not hear ing my ques t ion . I asked youif you are aware o f d is cu ss io ns about th e tre atm en t o fpresc r ip t ion drugs under th e w elln ess program?

    A I f I am aware t h a t t he re were discuss ions?Q Yes.A Yes.Q And who took pa r t in those discuss ions?A I don ' t remember a l l of them. I don ' t r e c a l l mysel f

    being involved in th e discuss ion with those pa r t i cu l a raspec t s .

    Q And who do you r e c a l l hear ing took pa r t in thoseconversa t ions , to th e ex ten t you have knowledge o f thesed i scuss ions?

    A To th e ex ten t t h a t I remember, it was p re t t y much EdKaufman, who i s our General Counse l . We had a group. As It h ink r ment ioned before , t he re i s Ed Kaufman; Je r ry wasincluded in those ; Dr. Black was on some o f the c a l l s . Ic an ' t remember th e spec i f i c s of what ca l l , what day.

    Let me j u s t reemphasize t h a t r e l a t i v e to p re s c r ip t i on

  • 8/9/2019 Linda McMahon Testimony-Waxman

    66/162