|
MINUTES
ABC LEGAL COMMITTEE
CONFERENCE CALL
January 26, 2009
Members participating
Members absent
Tim
Lueckenhoff Elaine
Smith
Greg
Sirb
John Green
Nick
Lembo
Dan
Fitzgerald
George
Cox
Bruce
Spizler
1.
Antonio Margarito
Shortly prior to the
championship fight between Antonio Margarito and Shane
Mosley at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California on
January 24, 2009, representatives of the California State
Athletic Commission (“CSAC”) discovered that the “knuckle
pad”, which had been part of the hand-wrap on Antonio
Margarito’s left hand, had “hardened edges” that “appeared
to have been adulterated with a white substance.” Upon
such a discovery, Margarito became “quite agitated” and
insisted there was no similar pad in his right hand-wrap.
Nevertheless, when a CSAC inspector checked Margarito’s
right hand-wrap (which had been completely wrapped, but not
yet approved), the inspector discovered “a second thin,
hard pad that also appeared to be adulterated with a white
substance.” Microscopic photographs of one of the
“adulterated” pads (taken by the California Department of
Justice Forensic Laboratory, under 6 x magnification) show
“a white flaky substance on the pad and within the
interstices of the gauze itself.” At the time of the
hearing in this matter before the CSAC, members of the CSAC
examined one of the “thin, stiff pads found in Margarito’s
gauze knuckle wrap” and compared it with a sample of
unadulterated gauze. When Margarito did the same, he stated
that he “did not think there was anything wrong with the
pad and that it just looked old.” (The second “adulterated
pad” was undergoing analysis by the same laboratory at the
time of the hearing). In the Matter of Antonio Margarito,
Case No. 2009-0210-1, Findings of Fact, ¶¶ 4-9. A
“Physical Evidence Examination Report”, issued by the
California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic
Services on March 19, 2009 to the CSAC (subsequent to the
CSAC hearing), and later provided to the Los Angeles
Times pursuant to a Public Information Act request,
reveals:
“The submitted gauze pad was
examined using a stereomicroscope. A white solid material
was seen adhering to and between the gauze fibers. Calcium
and sulfur were detected in samples of the white solid
using an X-ray florescence [XRF] spectrometer. The
elements calcium, sulfur and oxygen are found in plaster of
Paris [calcium sulfate – CaSO4]. These three elements are
also found in substances other than plaster. Oxygen is not
detectable by XRF.”
In its
Memorandum Order, dated March 31, 2009, the CSAC concluded
that: (1) the “thin gauze pads,” constituting a portion of
Margarito’s hand wrap, had been adulterated with a “white
plaster-like substance”; (2) the use of a plaster-like
substance in a boxer’s hand wraps “seriously endangers the
boxer’s opponent”; and (3) “such use gives a boxer an
unfair advantage and causes discredit to boxing.”
Accordingly, the CSAC ordered that the boxer license issued
to Antonio Margarito be revoked.
In the Matter of Antonio
Margarito,
Case No. 2009-0210-1.
The
ABC Legal Committee previously determined that the
reciprocal enforcement of the revocation of Margarito’s
license was mandatory; as it was for an offense
constituting “unsportsmanlike conduct or other
inappropriate behavior inconsistent with generally accepted
methods of competition in a professional boxing match.” 15
USC §6306(a)(2)(E). See,
ABC Legal Committee Minutes, April 15, 2009, ¶ 5.
The boxer’s license issued to Margarito by the
CSAC on or about January 24, 2009, which was revoked for
the reasons stated above, expires, by its terms, one year
following its date of issuance. Arguably, reciprocal
enforcement of the revocation (or suspension) of a boxer’s
license is not mandatory beyond the term of the license
itself. Compare,
Mesi v. Nevada State Athletic Commission.
It has come to the attention of the ABC that Antonio
Margarito is attempting, or will attempt, to become
licensed in the state of Texas to participate in a WBC
light middle weight title fight against Carson Jones at the
Cowboy’s Stadium in Arlington, Texas on March 13, 2010
(subject to the approval of the Executive Director of the
Combative Sports Program, Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation). If this is allowed to occur, in effect,
Antonio Margarito will be enabled to resume his
professional boxing career after not having participated in
boxing for approximately one year; notwithstanding his
having been found guilty of committing, or attempting to
commit, one of the most flagrant, egregious, gross and
dangerous acts imaginable in the sport of professional
boxing – an act which goes to the very core of the
integrity of the sport of professional boxing (providing
an unfair advantage) and, more importantly, the health and
safety of a boxer (endangering the opponent).
Compare, New York State
Athletic Commission v. Luis Resto; New York State Athletic
Commission v. Carlos “Panama” Lewis; State of New York v.
Luis Resto; and State of New York v. Carlos “Panama” Lewis.
Accordingly, the ABC Legal Committee recommends to the ABC
Board of Directors that it issue a notification to each ABC
member commission, as well as issue a “press release”,
setting forth: (1) the above description of Antonio
Margarito’s actions; (2) a notation that a means of
perpetuating the reciprocal enforcement of the CSAC’s
revocation of Antonio Margarito’s boxer’s license is the
denial of a boxer’s license to Antonio Margarito by each
boxing commission in the United States (unless the CSAC
Order of revocation is reversed on appeal); (3) a directive
that the revocation of Antonio Margarito’s boxer license
remain on his official boxing record indefinitely; and (4)
an advisement that, if any boxing commission should
consider licensing Antonio Margarito as a boxer, such a
determination be made only after that boxing commission
first conducts a full evidentiary hearing, including a
revelation of the CSAC’s Findings of Fact, Legal
Conclusions and Order of revocation, and not summarily.
2.
What, if any, actions
may be taken by the ABC when a tribal boxing commission
regulates professional boxing matches under laws and
regulations which are less stringent than the laws and
regulations of the state in which the tribal land is
located, or if there is non-adherence to such laws and
regulations? [Issue tabled on December 17, 2009. See, ABC
Legal Committee Minutes, December 17, 2009,
¶3]
An Indian Tribe may regulate professional boxing
on its reservation (“the geographically defined area over
which a tribal organization exercises governmental
jurisdiction”) either by: (1) regulating professional
boxing matches under the jurisdiction of a boxing
commission created by the Tribe, or (2) entering into a
contract with a boxing commission to regulate the
professional boxing matches. 15 USC §6312(b)(1). If the
professional boxing matches are regulated by a tribal
boxing commission, the Tribe, by tribal ordinance or
resolution, is to establish and provide for the
implementation of health and safety standards, licensing
requirements, and other requirements relating to the
conduct of professional boxing that are at least as
restrictive as: (a) the standards and requirements of the
State in which the reservation is located, or (b)
Regulatory Guidelines certified and published by the ABC.
15 USC §6312(b)(2).
On December 4, 2009, a boxing show was held at
the Isleta Casino and Resort, located on the Isleta
reservation in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The boxing matches
were regulated by the Isleta tribal boxing commission (not
a member of the ABC). Due to unforeseen circumstances (the
abrupt departure of boxer Melissa Hernandez from the fight
venue shortly before her scheduled boxing match), a “last
minute” replacement, Victoria Cisneros (then, 3-6-2), who
had been training for an upcoming boxing match, and who was
in attendance at the Isleta Casino and Resort as a
spectator) was selected to participate in the co-main event
against Holly Holm (then, 25-1-3). Victoria Cisneros
participated in the bout against Holly Holm in the absence
of, among other things, being licensed by the Isleta boxing
commission (such licensure allegedly occurring
after
the bout); producing any required medical examinations
(such production allegedly occurring
after
the bout); a weigh-in; or any drug testing.
The ABC Legal Committee has been advised that the
Isleta tribal boxing commission was created in 2004, and by
tribal resolution, adopted, as their own, the health and
safety standards, the licensing requirements, and other
requirements relating to professional boxing matches of the
New Mexico Athletic Commission. Therefore, the
non-adherence to these standards and requirements by the
Isleta tribal boxing commission regarding the participation
of Victoria Cisneros in a boxing match at the Isleta Casino
and Resort on December 4, 2009 constitute violations of the
Federal Law.
Prospectively, the ABC Board of Directors may
consider the propriety of offering an ABC representative to
assist a tribal boxing commission if so requested. It also
is recommended that, prospectively, if a tribal boxing
commission fails to adhere to the Federal Law: (1) the
results of such a bout not count as a win or a loss (as
recorded by FightFax, the only boxing registry certified by
the ABC pursuant to 15 USC §6301(3)); (2) a boxer who is
the subject of the Federal Law violation be denied
licensure (for a prescribed period of time) by other boxing
jurisdictions; and (3) such a boxer be subject to
additional medical requirements.
3.
Steve Fossum –
International Amateur Boxing (IAB)
Steve
Fossum, the “World President” of the International
Kickboxing Federation (“IKF”) and the International Sport
Combat Federation (“ISCF”), each a privately held,
“for-profit” sanctioning organization, has created
International Amateur Boxing (“IAB”) (www.amboxing.com)
toward the end of ranking amateur fighters and awarding
championship belts, with all such amateur boxing matches
being under the supervision of the IBA and regulated
exclusively by that entity. The rankings and championship
belts are to include the following categories: “Junior
Student Level Events”; “College Student Level Events”;
“Military/Armed Forces Events”; Police/Firemen Events”;
“Specialized Boxing Events – Fundraisers”; and “Regional,
National and World Tournaments.”
The ABC Legal Committee opines that such activity
is illegal in most, if not all, of the United States as
constituting violations of State statutory and regulatory
provisions; particularly, provisions regarding the entity
authorized to regulate amateur boxing (e.g.,
a state boxing commission; a “nationally recognized amateur
organization”), as well as provisions regarding the
adherence to, and enforcement of, a myriad of health and
safety provisions. [See
also,
36 USC §220501, et
seq. -
the “Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act”.]
Further, if “sanctioning fees” or other costs are
attendant to participation in an IAB event, an inherent
conflict of interest is presented; whereby, the entity
ranking fighters and awarding championship belts also is
the entity serving as the regulator of the very bouts in
which the contestants, vying for a ranking and championship
belt, are participating.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce C. Spizler
Chair
Questions? Comments? Post them in
BRC's new Message Board...
==Become a
BRC
friend in Facebook==
For Fight Recaps between January and May 2009, click here...
Fight Recaps Part I
(January-May 2009)
For Fight Recaps starting June 2009, click here...
Fight Recaps Part
II
(June-December 2009)
1-29-2010
|
