Scott Steiner began his rants on Twitter about Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff and the new regime last month. From day one, those criticisms have been getting increasingly graphic and personal. Some sounded legitimate, but most of it just sounded angry. Was he released before his contract was up? I couldn't say. Was he upset that he wasn't used from week to week? I couldn't say that either. But whatever the reason, his tweets persisted.
In recent days, he tweeted that he's been silent because he's received a letter from Hogan and Bischoff's attorney. This is where the story picks up, guys......Hogan made a remark that made me sit up and take notice....it wasn't Hogan's lawyer, it was TNA's.
TNA vs. Scott Steiner. I gotta say, I'm a bit shocked by it. I had been just trying to ignore it and not allow TNA and the Hogan/Bischoff regime be dragged through the mud by anything unfounded. TNA, however, believes this to be serious enough to go to war over. When something like this comes to light, it makes me do two things. First.......I consider the worst case scenario. Something like this could really polarize the critics, even the ones who really are pulling for TNA to succeed. In the battle set to begin here, it also becomes a test to see just how much of it is true and how much is fabrication. Second, though.....I have to wonder if this could be a version of the Matt Hardy/Lita/Edge angle played out from WWE a few years back. What if this is a ploy by Eric Bischoff to wrangle in fans and critics alike with a HUGE Twitter backing and social network mastery to match?
IF this is a ploy. It is TNA's "all in" approach to try something that will change the landscape. Guys, this is serious....either way. If it's a ploy, this is high risk with a questionable amount of return, to say the least of it. If it's real, it could mean TNA finally distancing themselves from the regime and trying to pick up the pieces or worse. Do we ignore it or sit up and take notice? I wish I knew the answer to that one, but it seems like when it rains......it pours.