THE ABC SENDS A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE WBC

September 10, 2008 (sent Via Email)


Mr. Jose Sulaiman
World Boxing Council
Mexico City, Mexico

Dear Mr. Sulaiman:

Reference is made to your September 9, 2008 “open” letter, published on the website of the World Boxing Council (“WBC”) as “World Boxing Council News,” regarding the appointment of officials for the boxing matches scheduled to be held this Saturday, September 13, 2008 in Biloxi, Mississippi. In the letter, you take exception to the Mississippi Athletic Commission’s selection and appointment of the three judges for: (1) the WBC super lightweight world title fight between Timothy Bradley, Jr. (the current WBC champion) and Edner Cherry, and (2) the WBC “elimination” fight between Elio Rojas and Hector Velazquez in the featherweight division; and you insist that two of the judges in each of these boxing matches be “WBC judges.” In protest, you, as the President of the WBC, proclaim that the WBC will purchase three “ringside” seats for three WBC judges (“registered in the WBC”); and that the awarding of the WBC super lightweight championship belt, as well as the winner of the WBC “elimination” bout in the featherweight division, will be determined by the scoring of the three “WBC judges” regardless of the scoring by the judges licensed, appointed and selected by the Mississippi Athletic Commission.

The United States Congress, in enacting what is now codified in the United States Code as 15 USC §6307h. (Judges and referees), expressly provided that:

“No person may arrange, promote, organize, produce, or fight in a professional boxing match unless all referees and judges participating in the match have been certified and approved by the boxing commission responsible for regulating the match in the State where the match is held” (emphasis added).

Contrary to your characterization, the Mississippi Athletic Commission is not merely “hosting” the WBC title fight and elimination fight; instead, the Mississippi Athletic Commission is the governmental regulatory body that is sanctioning, regulating and otherwise overseeing these bouts. As such, the selection of officials is within that governmental body’s sole and exclusive prerogative which is not to be influenced by “reciprocity” with a proprietary, unregulated sanctioning body.

The Association of Boxing Commissions (“ABC”) acknowledges, and continues to endorse, the practice which has evolved whereby a sanctioning body submits to the boxing commission responsible for regulating a championship (or eliminator) fight a list of officials the sanctioning organization is desirous of “working” the fight, and that boxing commission, in its discretion, selecting one or more of the four officials (referee and three judges) from the sanctioning body’s list. I have been in contact with Jon Lewis, Chairman of the Mississippi Athletic Commission to consider this request, but at this time, the commission plans to stand firm on the appointment of officials. The ABC also acknowledges, however, the efforts of the WBC, on more than one occasion, to substitute a “WBC judge” for a judge selected by a boxing commission, only minutes before the national broadcast of a WBC title fight, with the threat of withdrawing the WBC sanction of the bout as a “title fight” if its demands were not met. In short, the practice which has evolved is no more than that – a practice – and is not a mandate or requirement under the law. If a state or tribal boxing commission member of the ABC chooses not to apply this practice, it is within that commission’s prerogative.

Your declaration that the WBC will buy three ringside tickets for three judges “registered in the WBC,” and that these three judges will provide “the final and official result for the world of boxing for the WBC world championship fight and elimination fight,” is untenable. It not only potentially lends confusion as to the legitimate winner of the bout, but demeans and diminishes the validity and credibility of WBC title holders (arguably, making the validity of the WBC belt, at best, questionable and, at worst, non-existent); and brings into question the propriety of the WBC ratings. Further, it is important to note that Fight Fax, the only boxing registry certified by the ABC [15 USC §6301(3)], obtains bout results exclusively from authorized governmental boxing commissions. If another boxing registry records, and reports, the result of a bout as submitted by a sanctioning organization (or promoter or manager or others) based upon the scores of “ringside-ticket-holding-WBC-registered judges,” the consequences would be severely detrimental to the sport of professional boxing. I encourage you as the President of the WBC to withdraw your mandate to place three WBC selected officials ringside to score the bout.

Contrary to your assertion, the appointment of the judges by the Mississippi Athletic Commission, some of whom are “registered” with the WBC, for the Bradley-Cherry bout and the Rojas-Velazquez bout does not constitute “an infringement or violation of the law by using the WBC championship accolade …” Instead, a violation of the law may be found in three “ringside-ticket-holding-WBC-registered judges,” unlicensed by the Mississippi Athletic Commission, judging a fight and determining its outcome.

Finally, the ABC notes that the fighters involved in these bouts should be notified that the results, according to the scorecards of the judges appointed by the Mississippi Athletic Commission, may not be recognized by the WBC; so that the fighters can determine the propriety of paying, respectively, a sanctioning fee to the WBC for a title they may have earned, but may be denied.

On behalf of the ABC, its Officers, and its Directors, for all of the above reasons, I strongly encourage you again, not to effectuate the actions you propose on behalf of the WBC.


Sincerely,

Tim Lueckenhoff

President