How did Rob Van Dam react to Raja Jackson’s viral attack incident? WWE star clarifies his stance after controversial post

When Rob Van Dam, known widely by fans and media as RVD, made a brief social media statement following the disturbing viral video of Raja Jackson’s seemingly unscripted and violent attack on independent wrestler Syko Stu, it sparked immediate backlash. The post, reading “So far, I got Raja’s back,” struck many in the wrestling world as inexplicable, especially given the severity of the assault and the injuries sustained by Syko Stu.

Yet, as the story rapidly unfolded, RVD opted to expound on his meaning via an episode of 1 Of A Kind With RVD, where he aimed to offer clarity. In his explanation, he neither outright supported the assault nor condoned it; instead sought to convey a nuanced understanding of the circumstances, while still expressing concern for the injured party. At its core, the message RVD delivered wrestles with the tension between acknowledging the path someone took and defending their actions.

Rob Van Dam explains his reaction: seeing the pathway, not picking sides

In an unvarnished moment on his podcast, RVD took pains to describe exactly what he meant by the loaded phrase “I got Raja’s back” after reactions made clear listeners suspected he was siding with the attacker. He began by extending genuine wishes for Syko Stu’s recovery,

 “best wishes to f*ing Syko Stu Smith. Hopefully, he will regain his health and do it quickly.”** 

He then addressed the apparent contradiction head-on, stating, 

“If you thought that me saying … ‘I back Raja’ … then you are one of the basic thinkers that can’t understand how those can both be true in the same universe.”

RVD emphasized he wasn't taking sides but was trying to convey recognition of how Raja Jackson, as an MMA fighter, found himself in that moment: 

“What I’m saying is, I see the pathway that he took that led to what happened.”

He also firmly clarified his belief that Raja, not being a trained pro wrestler, “shouldn’t have been part of this at all.”

Without excusing the assault, RVD offered an interpretation less about condoning the actions and more about acknowledging context which is a subtle differentiation that matters. His comments came as a direct response to commentary demanding clarity and he gave it in measured, if unconventional, form.