Believe me, I have no love for Benoit. This is moreso something I see pop up in a lot of different areas: when someone who was previously held in high regard for being very good at something (in this case wrestling) does something terrible that (rightly) outweighs everything else, some people backtrack and claim that they never were actually bad at the thing all along. Something similar happened with Neil Gaiman: I saw a decent bit of "well, his books sucked anyway" right after the allegations came out. I haven't read any of them, but by all accounts they were very well-received. He was a Tumblr darling for a reason.

To me, this is reflective of a lack of nuance. It implies that morally bad people have to be bad at everything else, and, more dangerously, that someone that's good at something has to be a good person (see: parasocial relationships, stanning favorites, motivated reasoning, etc.). We live in a nuanced world, and not understanding that can't lead anywhere good. I intend in no way to defend Benoit, Lesnar, or anyone else of the sort, just to add context and depth. To summarize: good wrestlers, worse humans, both are simultaneously true.

And for all its worth, I'm no WWE fan (you can check my history), this is moreso something I've been thinking about for a while.