WWE News: John Cena Expected to Be out Longer Than Originally Expected
As you probably heard by now, John Cena underwent surgery on Tuesday.
After the procedure, it appeared that the WWE had some wishful thinking when they reported that Cena would be back in 4-6 weeks, then reduced his return date to 2-3 weeks.
Now WWE.com is reporting:
The information published about John Cena's recovery was given to WWE.com prior to surgery. In speaking to Dr. Andrews after the procedure, in light of the amount of work that needed to be done and the number of bone chips removed, the prognosis for recovery is closer to six to eight weeks. Knowing John Cena, the former WWE Champion will do everything he needs to get back in the ring as soon as possible.
John Cena later took to Twitter confirming this prognosis:
I am supposed to lay low for SIX WEEKS. I will send surgery photos and video to @wwe so they can see how bad it really was..— John Cena (@JohnCena) September 19, 2012
Ultimately, I get why the WWE would want Cena back sooner rather than later, as their next pay-per-view is just weeks away and they now have to scramble for a main event.
Not to mention, the CM Punk-Cena feud is finally picking up some steam and is now forced to come to a screeching halt due to Cena's injuries.
Keep in mind, not only does this affect the Hell in a Cell pay-per-view, it also affects merchandise sales. Earlier this week, the WWE just announced a partnership with the Susan G. Komen Foundation and produced a "Rise Above Cancer" pink t-shirt for Cena to wear for the entire month of October, with 100% of the proceeds going directly to the charity.
Yes, they can still promote the sale of the shirt via promo's and on WWE.com, but it's doesn't have the same pop without seeing the featured star wearing the shirt week in and out.
In the end, the WWE has their work cut out for them as they need to first figure out who CM Punk will face at Hell in a Cell. Then work on how to continue to promote the Cena gear to remind fans that they can help this cause.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?