Randy Orton: Does the Returning Superstar Deserve to Be Put in the Doghouse?
Randy Orton is back and despite being gone from television for over two months, it looks as if everything is back in order for the man whom many consider one of the WWE's top stars. But should this be the case?
Unlike many returning WWE superstars in the recent past, Orton's absence was not caused by an injury, but rather the result of his second violation in the WWE's Talent Wellness Program.
The substances found in Orton's sample were not made public by the WWE, although the Mexican pro-wrestling website SuperLuchas asserts that Randy Orton tested positive for consumption of marijuana and dianabol.
Regardless of what the substances were, the fact remains that as one of the veterans on the WWE's roster Randy Orton should not only be more responsible for his actions, but be held more accountable for them.
Even after his suspension, the WWE remains adamant about placing Orton in the main-event scene; and by the looks of it we might see him involved in a SummerSlam match for the World Heavyweight Title. Is this really the best way to treat someone who has just violated a policy which the WWE claims to hold to high importance?
The line of up-and-coming new superstars on the WWE's roster is long, shouldn't they be given the opportunity that Orton so foolishly gave up?
The smart move on the WWE's behalf would be to punish Orton for his actions by making him do what he's never fully been willing to do in the past—put over a young talent.
Enter Cody Rhodes.
After losing the Intercontinental Title to Christian, Cody Rhodes' momentum seems to have halted, what better way to book the young star than to have him enter a feud with Randy Orton and win his matches against the "Viper."
The feud could ultimately make for interesting television, with at the same time reminding Orton that while he may be one of the company's top stars, there are plenty of people who could fill his shoes.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?