On Monday, during Raw, Shane Helms was asked by a Twitter follower, "Do you still think [Randy] Orton is one of the best on the current roster?".
"Yup," Helms responded.
A noticeable percentage of the IWC seems to be using Orton's recent suspension as further ammunition against his main event status. Those same people were already using words like "overrated" and "boring" to describe him, even prior to the 60-day absence.
Let's look at the two main arguments against Orton remaining a top WWE star:
1. Randy Orton now has two strikes against him — one more and he's fired!
This is the weaker of the two arguments. If I'm Vince McMahon, that's an easy decision to make. Even if Orton happens to fail the Wellness Policy again, he only has to sit out a year before he can be re-hired. That's like three months in wrestling years.
It's really not that long.
Should he have known better? Sure, but that's not our call to make. Vince decides whether he wants to punish a talent further than what's stated in the actual policy. The amount of time, energy and money invested in Orton over the past few years probably makes it a no-brainer.
This leads to a follow-up argument I've been reading as well: Should a top star like Orton suffer more than, less than, or the same as a lesser talent (ex: R-Truth) when the same crime is committed? (I'm not claiming to know why exactly Orton was suspended — rather, I'm making a generalization.)
Some feel Orton, as a veteran, should be leading by better example. The other argument is that a beginner has much more to gain in the early stages of his WWE career and simply can't afford to make these types of mistakes.
Wrestling isn't an equal playing field. In this aspect, it's sports AND it's entertainment. Some simply have more talent. Some are bigger draws. They play first, always, if you're the coach and you want to win.
That is, unless that player is more of a headache than they're worth. If Vince felt Orton was to that point though, I don't think we would have seen him return at all.
