|
|
Post by Jason Ozuma on Dec 17, 2009 17:55:11 GMT -5
If you read the article the ABC say that they will drop the suspension on Melissa and thats all that i care about right know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Dec 17, 2009 22:14:01 GMT -5
This makes far more sense to me, because, as I said before, the Isleta Commission was not a member of the ABC. No, it would have to be by the pueblo commission, and as they aren't a member of ABC it wouldn't mean diddly, except that she couldn't get another fight at the pueblo. I think that's a red herring, as even if the pueblo commission did suspend her it wouldn't have consequences anywhere else. The ABC is in fact questioning the mandate and procedures of the Isleta Commission, as well as their sloppy handling of approving Cisneros to fight. Here is the full text from www.fightnews.com/?p=32971December 16, 2009
Governor Robert Benavides
Pueblo of Isleta
Isleta, New Mexico, 87022
Re: Approval of Victoria Cisneros, Boxing Contestant, December 4, 2009
Dear Governor Benavides:
Members of the Association of Boxing Commissions Compliance Committee have received complaints and internet reports surrounding the Holly Holm vs. Victoria Cisneros boxing match held on December 4, 2009 at the Isleta Casino.
Members of the Committee have attempted to make contact with the Isleta Boxing Commission, however attempts have been unsuccessful. Each time a call has been made to the Isleta Tribe by a committee member they have been directed to the Promoter Lenny Fresquez or John Montano, the supervisor of the event. The Committee needs to speak with the person who is in charge of the Boxing Commission at Isleta to clear up some inconsistent reports regarding the event.
It appears as though the Isleta Boxing Commission is working outside the federal law (Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996) governing the formation of tribal athletic commission.
§ 6312 Professional boxing matches conducted on Indian reservations
(2) Standards and licensing
If a tribal organization regulates professional boxing matches pursuant to paragraph (1), the tribal organization shall, by tribal ordinance or resolution, establish and provide for the implementation of health and safety standards, licensing requirements, and other requirements relating to the conduct of professional boxing matches that are as restrictive as –
1. the otherwise applicable standards and requirements of a State in which the reservation is located; or
2. the most recently published version of the recommended regulatory guidelines certified and published by the Association of Boxing Commissions.
The ABC Compliance Committee would like a copy of the Tribal Resolution passed by the tribe’s council creating the Isleta Boxing Commission, as well as a copy of the rules adopted by the Commission.
Reports indicate that Victoria Cisneros was approved to participate in a title fight on the same evening of the bouts shortly after Melissa Hernandez refused to fight. There are reports that Ms. Cisneros did not provide any medicals proving her ability to participate as a boxing contestant, there was no weigh-in, bout agreement, pre or post-fight medical exams or that proper medical insurance was provided to the boxers. Please provide a detailed report about the circumstances surrounding the approval of Ms. Cisneros to participate as a boxing contestant.
The Committee is satisfied that the NABF withdrew their sanction of the title fight, however, it is very disappointed that the WIBA and its on-site representative Ryan Wissow, continued to sanction the fight as a championship bout in order to collect a sanction fee.
The official results of bouts were turned in by John Montano, who is no longer affiliated with a state athletic commission. Mr. Montano’s affiliation with the Isleta Boxing Commission is undefined at this point. Please provide a detailed statement regarding the official capacity of Mr. Montano with the Isleta Boxing Commission. The Isleta has reported an indefinite suspension of Ms. Hernandez’s boxing license to Fight Fax, the Official Certified Boxing Registry of the ABC. If the Isleta Boxing Commission failed to be formed pursuant to the federal law, if would appear this suspension has no merit.
Until the Isleta Boxing Commission provides the documentation requested herein, the ABC will direct Fight Fax to list the result of each bout as a non-supervised fight and the participants will not receive credit for a win or a loss on their official boxing record.
This shall also hold true for any future professional boxing events held on your reservation and/or supervised by the Isleta Boxing Commission until your Commission can prove that you are in full compliance with the Federal Law.
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Lueckenhoff
President
Association of Boxing Commissions
CC:
Jim Erickson, 1st Vice President
Greg Sirb, 2nd Vice President
Michael Mazzulli, Compliance Committee Member
David Anzara, Isleta Boxing Commission
Charles Jojola, Isleta Boxing Commission
Kenneth Jojola, Isleta Boxing Commission
Anibal Miramontes, President, Fight Fax, Inc. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Dec 18, 2009 2:00:43 GMT -5
What "cowboy" posted the supposed "fact" that ABC had agreed to follow Isleta's suspension of Melissa Hernandez?  ?? Curiously, the idea that Hernandez's suspension was affecting her ability to fight elsewhere than Isleta was attributed to Brian Cohen (Hernandez's manager) by Chris Cozzone in newmexicoboxing.com/?p=2610but as ABC had not ruled on that, any honoring of that suspension by other commissions (as stated by Cozzone) could only have been voluntary on their part. The card that Cozzone (but not Cohen) had been talking about is at Sky Ute, another native American-run casino, in Colorado. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Dec 18, 2009 14:18:53 GMT -5
Dee- Not exactly. When ISLETA sent Fight Fax its results and suspension of Hernandez it appeared to many that ABC was making a de facto suspension in line with their member/affiliates. I think Cohen just assumed that Melissa was suspended by the ABC in line with Isleta's suspension when it posted up on Fight Fax. And he might have been right, for a while.
What the ABC is saying to Isleta are two things;
- answer your phone by the person in charge of your boxing program.
- prove Isleta is following federal law for conducting boxing matchs,which is a requirement for them to conduct a public boxing match.
In my mind, Isleta should be banned from any sanctioned event until they clearly can explain that they followed the laws via the exact/provable events that happened on this card.
Extrapolating even further---the supervising authorities in boxing are weak and vague at best. This is an opening for devious actions.
Dam, is it too much to ask for a fair fight, on even terms for both fighters?
Melissa has made a point that fairness was in fact being circumvented, therefore she was within her right to WALK. Now, until I hear different, that is what I will assume is 100% of the truth.
All the BS flying around is noise designed to make Melissa's action look suspect. She never walked away from a fight, she hates losing a payday, she built the gate for this fight. She pumped up expectations...so for her to walk away, it had to be over a major point.
I hope the ABC bans shoddy promoters from conducting fights. And fines real shoddy supervising authorities for conducting shoddy fight cards. Until they start doing that, the rules will be broken, "homer" fighters will win more and in some fights there will be unfair advantages given to one of the fighters.
You look at the boxing model for major championships and it reveals what these low level scumbag promoters do. In the BIGS, the two opposing fighters can have two opposing promoters and or representatives who argue/negotiate every detail and facet of the fight and the promotion leading up to the fight. Everything within the law is spec-able, meaning it can be contracted. IE, my name above yours, I get 12% of the PPV gross, you get 8%, I will wear red, you are the blue corner wearing whatever, just not red. I want Addidas gloves, you want Reyes, I want judge BCD, you want judge XYZ. and on and on.
Most of that argue/negotiation does NOT take place on the low level fights, the scum-bag promoter is free to work his/her devious dark magic.
The current and very huge case in point is Antonio Margarito, who I think should be banned for life. Worse, we will never know how many other fights he had had juiced hand wraps. Not plaster of paris wraps, but stiffening agents or substances that cause the tape to contract which makes it stiffer. WORSE, he was wrapped in front of a boxing commission SUPERVISOR who took out his marker and signed off on the wrap. Does anybody NOT get the importance/implication of that?
The sport owes Sugar Shane Mosely and his camp a debt of gratitude for catching Margarito and then whipping his butt all over the ring in a fair fight.
I don't know a fighter alive who isn't paying attention to hand wrap issue. Apparently more than a few promoters don't think it's an issue. Go figure. That's boxing. Its also bullshit.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Dec 18, 2009 15:28:43 GMT -5
Dee- Not exactly. When ISLETA sent Fight Fax its results and suspension of Hernandez it appeared to many that ABC was making a de facto suspension in line with their member/affiliates. I think Cohen just assumed that Melissa was suspended by the ABC in line with Isleta's suspension when it posted up on Fight Fax. And he might have been right, for a while. Could be - I was assuming the exact opposite. because Isleta was not a member of ABC that their "suspension" would only be effective at Isleta. Seems to me somebody at Isleta might have forgotten they did not have jurisdiction off the pueblo. It will be interesting to see what ABC decides about whether the Isleta commission was properly set up in the first place. It's certainly odd if they don't answer the phone, but maybe they are too busy trying to find the rulebook they threw out on Dec.4 when they speed-qualified Cisneros. Right now it sounds like the ABC is mainly concerned about the lack of proper vetting for Cisneros before she fought, but if the commission is non-responsive I can easily see how it would escalate from there. Will be interesting to see what unfolds in the next few days ... |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Dec 18, 2009 17:43:18 GMT -5
ABC has a raft of decisions to consider, maybe they are NOT aware of all of them at this point.
My understanding, ABC wants to know if Isleta is following/ conforming to US Federal Regs regarding the supervison of public boxing. These regs. bind Indian reservations supervision of boxing to conform with other ABC members who were formed under those Fed. regs.
One real positive thing was when a boxer like Margarito gets suspended in Nevada, he is suspended everywhere else those ABC/Fed. regs are in effect. No fighting a barge on the mississippi so to speak.
What would be super sleazy would be ISLETA saying, YES ABC, WE ARE FORMED CORRECTLY. AND IN MELISSA'S CASE SHE HAD NO RIGHT TO WALK AWAY FROM HER FIGHT. AND IN THE HOLM FIGHT CASE WE MADE AN ERROR. SORRY.
Fight Fax is the official record keeping/posting arm of ABC. So when a "member" orgainization, ISLETA COMM., turned in a suspension, it went out to the public. The same folks who turned it in were likely to be the same who were then reporting it as an "outcome".
READ THE STUPID SLUGLINE WBAN PUT ON COZZONE'S STORY; HERNANDEZ FACES SUSPENSION...THEN IN FIRST PARAGRAPH ITS "HERNANDEZ FACES A LIKELY SUSPENSION" I'm guessing Isleta was in process at that point suspending Hernandez and telling that to Fight Fax. Shortly thereafter, everyone then said, SEE, SHE IS SUSPENDED, ITS ON FIGHT FAX.
Thank God ABC reads this board and was referred here and to other boards where there was a REAL discussion of what went on.
Thus Melissa thinks she was/is suspended. And she might/ might not be. But hey, if you can't answer your phone, or tell ABC who is in charge or you refer ABC to the promoter, YOU GOT PROBLEMS. Big Ones!
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Dec 22, 2009 7:34:22 GMT -5
A commission such as Isleta's that is not a member of the ABC is not bound to conform to the regulations of the ABC. Several pueblo boxing commissions in NM (Santa Ana, San Juan) are members of the ABC, but Isleta is not. The current lack of a mechanism for enforcing the US federal regs was discussed in some detail in the article by David Berlin at www.boxingauthority.com/article.php?article_id=3Here are some key sections of the article: The problem with the Professional Boxing Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act is that they attempt to tinker with a system that needs an overhaul. These laws are half-measures at best, defined by their inherent contradictions. Even while raising questions about the ethical shortcomings of the sanctioning organizations, the Ali Act implicitly recognizes these same organizations’ legitimacy; it says, for example, that a promoter cannot require future options from a boxer who is fighting in “a mandatory bout under the rules of a sanctioning organization.” And while recognizing that professional boxing, alone among the major sports, “operates without any private sector association, league, or centralized industry organization,” and that weak state commissions are exploited by less-than-honest promoters, it nevertheless posits that state commissions are “the proper regulators of professional boxing events.”
Proposed legislation in the form of the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2004 and then the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005 sought to rectify this latter problem by creating the United States Boxing Commission, a federal commission under the auspices of the Department of Commerce. But for two years running the legislation did not receive the necessary votes in Congress to become law, in part because a number of congressmen who received monies from promoters like King and Arum voted against the bills.
The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would have created the United States Boxing Commission, a national commission responsible for protecting “the health, safety, and general interests of boxers” and for ensuring “uniformity, fairness, and integrity in professional boxing.” Specifically, it would have been the job of the USBC to “promulgate uniform standards for professional boxing,” “oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States,” and “establish and maintain uniform minimum health and safety standards for professional boxing.” This would include the establishment of a medical registry which would maintain “comprehensive medical records and medical denials or suspensions for every professional boxer.” The creation of a central commission and of uniform standards would have been a positive step forward for boxing. If implemented successfully, it would have meant that boxing in the United States would have been run in large part by a single set of rules, it would have ended the practice of shopping for weak state commissions to hold certain fights, and it would have prevented a boxer denied a license in one state because he was not medically fit to compete from securing a license in a different state. In bringing some uniformity and consistency to the sport, the law would have brought a legitimacy to the business of boxing which is presently missing.
But the proposed law did not go far enough, and for that reason it may be a good thing that the bill did not garner the necessary votes. Even while it sought to create a new governing body for boxing, the United States Boxing Commission, it would have left in place existing organizations which we already know do not work.
...
The proposed law also fails because it leaves in place state and tribal boxing commissions. While the Professional Boxing Amendments Act would set minimum standards for local commissions to follow and in that way would bring a measure of uniformity to the sport, it would allow different state and tribal commissions to operate under different rules and would leave day-to-day operations, including the enforcement of these rules, to the presently existing local commissions. This too goes against the goal of uniformity in the way that boxing is run.
...
Perhaps what is needed are local branches of the United States Boxing Commission, branches which are overseen by the national commission. (Directors of state commissions who have demonstrated their competence could be placed at the head of these branches.) These local branches could employ a single set of rules throughout the country. And an enforcement division of the USBC could be responsible for making certain that local branches followed these rules. What is key is that a structure be established to bring real uniformity to boxing. Uniformity in the rules, uniformity in the rankings, uniformity in safety standards, uniformity in medical tests required for a boxer to be licensed, uniformity in standards for judges and referees, uniformity in the way fights are scored. And what is equally key is that competent, principled people be employed to create and to enforce these rules and standards, people who know boxing, who care about boxing and who care about the boxers who participate in the hardest game.
The government may not be well suited to the role of knight in shining armor, but the job of taking on the greed of the most powerful promoters, the corruption of sanctioning bodies and the incompetence of state commissions has not attracted any other candidates. Congress, having failed to pass the Professional Boxing Amendments Act, has another chance to get it right – to create the United States Boxing Commission, as already proposed, and to go further than the proposals of the last two years. It must establish uniform standards in boxing throughout the country and rid the sport of the sanctioning bodies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Dec 22, 2009 7:42:19 GMT -5
The current version of the Professional Boxing Amendents Act 2009 can be tracked at www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-38Here is its summary as written by the Congressional Research Service 1/6/2009--Introduced.
Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009 - Amends the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to: (1) authorize a tribal organization to establish a boxing commission; (2) prohibit arranging, promoting, or fighting in a match unless the match is approved by the United States Boxing Commission (USBC) and held in a state or on tribal land that regulates matches in accordance with USBC standards; (3) require specified pre-fight boxer physical examinations and to require the continuous presence during any match of an ambulance and emergency medical personnel; (4) provide for boxing registration with the appropriate boxing commission of an Indian tribe; (5) require a health and safety disclosure to a boxer when issuing an identification card and to establish procedures for review of a summary suspension; (6) require the USBC to develop guidelines for boxing contracting requirements and for rating professional boxers; (7) require the sanctioning organization for a match and its promoter to provide specified disclosures; (8) prohibit a promoter from arranging a championship match or a match scheduled unless all participating judges and referees are by the USBC; (9) require the USBC to establish and maintain a registry of comprehensive medical records and medical denials or suspensions for every licensed boxer; and (10) apply conflict-of-interest provisions to USBC officers and employees. Establishes the USBC within the Department of Commerce to: (1) protect the health, safety, and general interests of boxers and to ensure integrity in professional boxing; (2) establish standards for, and issue, suspend, and revoke, boxing licenses; and (3) establish a national computerized registry of boxing personnel.This act has not yet been voted on by the House or the Senate. So although there is federal law now saying that tribal commissions are expected to meet standards equivalent to those of the ABC, there may be no actual mechanism in place for enforcing it for the commissions that are not members of the ABC. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 9, 2010 23:24:38 GMT -5
Look, if the ABC questions The Isleta Pueblo's Boxing Commission's legality and formulation regarding the Holm - Hernandez Fiasco, they should reverse and remove EVERY FIGHT that has occured there. Here's a copy of ABC'S letter to Isleta, who can find the stones to even answer: January 5, 2010 Governor Robert Benavides Pueblo of Isleta P.O. Box 1270 Isleta, New Mexico, 87022 Re: Association of Boxing Commissions Compliance Committee Request Dear Governor Benavides: The Association of Boxing Commissions, (ABC) Compliance Committee sent a letter to your attention dated December 16, 2009 in reference to several concerns regarding the Holly Holm vs. Victoria Cisneros boxing match held on December 4, 2009 at the Isleta Casino. The ABC continues to receive comments and concerns about this situation from commissioners, managers and reporters regarding the legality of the suspension placed upon Melissa Hernandez by the Isleta Athletic Commission. [Hernandez was the original opponent for Ms. Holm however, Hernandez refused to fight just minutes before the scheduled start of the bout.] The ABC in its original letter has asked that the Isleta Athletic Commission provide a copy of the tribal resolution creating the Isleta Athletic Commission and a copy of the rules and regulations governing boxing events held on your reservation. The ABC still awaits this documentation. The ABC Compliance Committee has agreed that the comments listed with Fight Fax, Inc regarding the indefinite suspension for Ms. Hernandez’s boxing license be amended, therefore, the ABC Compliance Committee will ask Fight Fax, Inc, the official boxing registry of the ABC to amend the comments regarding Ms. Hernandez to state, “Red Flag, contact the Isleta Athletic Commission, failure to honor contract.” The ABC Compliance Committee will also direct, Fight Fax, Inc to list all future boxing results which occur on the Isleta reservation to be listed as non-supervised fights. If the Isleta Athletic Commission provides proof of their legal existence, all comments regarding Ms. Hernandez will be changed back to the original comments as submitted by the Isleta Athletic Commission and the results of future fights will be counted. The ABC Compliance Committee is distraught that it has to take such drastic actions, but the lack of response by the Isleta Athletic Commission has left the committee with no other alternatives. Sincerely, Timothy J. Lueckenhoff President C: Jim Erickson, 1st Vice President Greg Sirb, 2nd Vice President Michael Mazzulli, Member Anibal Miramontes, Fight Fax, Inc. THIS IS TURNING INTO A MOCKERY OF ANY TYPE OF REAL REGULATED FAIR BOXING. HOW CAN ANY FIGHTER GO THERE AND EXPECT IT TO BE A FAIR FIGHT? THEY CAN'T. TD That would be unfair to everyone who fought there on the road and won already. You need to announce a non-recognition policy before applying it, IMO. What the outcome of this showed clearly is that (a) Isleta's sanctions don't apply outside Isleta so those sanctions have no standing with ABC and (b) ABC has no jurisdiction over Isleta either. It's perfectly symmetric. because a pueblo commission can CHOOSE not to be a member of ABC or be supervised by their state. There's no actual mechanism in place for making such a commission follow the federal rules, because there is no federal commission. ABC is the closest we have but if a commission won't join it, or even talk to it, there's nobody else around who can make them. Managers taking fighters going to Isleta in FUTURE should be aware of that, and many may be because of the discussion that's played out in this thread. It may get a lot harder to make fights at Isleta in the future, and I would suggest that anyone willing to go to Albuquerque to fight Holm should try to get the match made at Tingley Coliseum or another venue in Albuquerque where the NM commission would be in charge. The title sanctioning bodies could ask for that too, and if they do then Hernandez's walkout may have some upside. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 10, 2010 0:11:58 GMT -5
I think what ABC is asking Isleta is, under what rules did you "form" to conduct legal fights.
It should be a question not just for the Holm-Hernandez Fiasco, but all Isleta fights. Period.
What has to happen before somebody takes real action? And they can't even respond to an inquiry from ABC? What does that tell YOU?
But don't pretend something is legit when they can't answer their "phone", dam, that's beyond lame.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 0:44:10 GMT -5
It seems to me they could be making the point that, because they are not in fact a member of ABC, they don't need to talk to the ABC, which has no jurisdiction over them. I am not saying that this is the way it should be, nor am I defending their lack of response, but it's not illegal for them not to talk to an organization they don't belong to.
It was, in my view, silly of them to try to list their suspension with FightFax in the hope that it would be enforced elsewhere, for the same reason.
They aren't a member of the ABC, and that cuts both ways. ABC members don't need to care about Isleta's suspensions, but nor is Isleta OBLIGED to talk to the ABC.
Should they? Yes. But MUST they? Clearly, no, and that might be the point they are making by not responding. (I do not know this BTW, I have nothing to do with ANY of these people, but sometimes people don't respond to requests for information that they don't HAVE to respond to legally).
What's needed is an actual federal commission to oversee the formation and operation of all these regional commissions, not a mere "association" of members like ABC that can be opted out of. There's language that could be used to set up a real federal commission in McCain's draft bill, but that's not been voted on (and probably has zero chance of ever being voted on while the politicos in DC are dealing with health care, banking regulations, carbon cap-and-trade etc. etc.)
But until the USA has an actual federal boxing commission with enforcement powers, circuses like this involving the tribal commissions that CHOOSE to be independent of ABC are not ILLEGAL. Unseemly? Outrageous? Yes. But not illegal.
I am not "pretending" anything, I am just pointing out the huge loophole in the actual regulation enforcement for the tribal commissions that opt out of ABC and their state commissions.
We can all hope for much better, and people should draw their own conclusions if there continues to be no statement from Isleta, but they never were a member of ABC and never had to be in order to stage bouts at the casino. It should be that much harder for Isleta to operate like this in future if everyone's aware of the issues we've been discussing here but retroactive sanctions would not be fair to any of the out-of-towners who went to Isleta in the past and legitimately won.
Looking forward, Isleta are now under notice that FightFax won't recognize their results, and so are all the boxers who might fight there in future.
Looking backward, you can't warn the boxers who already fought there about that without possessing a time machine.
You ask "what has to happen before somebody takes real action". The same as has to happen with any law that has no enforcement mechanism. If you can't enforce, it's pointless to have the law on the books, it's like posting a speed limit without setting up a highway patrol. If you want to enforce a speed limit, you gotta set up a cop shop and give them the tools. Otherwise your speed limit is a just a suggestion of how to behave.
|
|
|
|
Post by computerrank on Jan 10, 2010 7:15:26 GMT -5
SINE IRA ET STUDIO ... I enjoy to read your comments, Dee ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 8:45:43 GMT -5
SINE IRA ET STUDIO ... I enjoy to read your comments, Dee ... Thank you! And for the benefit of others without computerrank's classical background, here's an explanation of what he said en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio;D |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 10, 2010 14:29:18 GMT -5
Dee,
My point, if Isleta is NOT formed under a set of laws that binds ABC member/recognized boxing commissions, then Isleta "results" should NOT be ABC recognized. Sounds simple enough.
So you can fight for the Isleta Championship Belt and be Queen of The World INSIDE the Casino. Just don't step off the Casino's land.
To me, ABC's letter about Holm-Hernandez Fiasco is ABC's first step in trying to impose a FAIR SET OF RULES in exchange for ABC RECOGNITION of RESULTS.
Key question, IF you were playing by a set of rules, wouldn't you quickly state such?
And if you weren't, then you cannot try to get ABC to suspend someone who you disagree with outside of your little world.
Its a can of worms and all fighters should be aware of that. Too often a fighter is desperate for "work" so they step into a smelly situation and that allows them to be taken advantage of.
ABC should also step up and proivde a UNIVERSAL CONTRACT and require that contract to be used by all member commissions.
As it is now, most fighters at the lower level can't even make sense of most contracts that bind them. Case in point, Mel was stating she had verbal agreements with the promoter. Verbal agreements with a promoter? Good luck with that. You have a better chance of applying styling mouse to a wild stallion at a full gallop.
This is NOT a trivial discussion. The jobbing of fighters must cease for fighters to believe they will get into a fair fight.
Except for the top level of the boxing pyramid, most fighters will tell they lost interest after they were ripped off the third or fourth time.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 14:58:05 GMT -5
Key question, IF you were playing by a set of rules, wouldn't you quickly state such? Yes it would take me less than a short afternoon's work to post a copy of NMAC's rules on a new web site, if I wanted to. Somebody doesn't want to. Why not is open for speculation, and that's something this Forum can provide at great length.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 15:00:07 GMT -5
This is NOT a trivial discussion. The jobbing of fighters must cease for fighters to believe they will get into a fair fight. I agree, and that's why I've colledted this topic back into the discussion thread that everyone's been reading, to keep it all together. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 10, 2010 17:03:22 GMT -5
This is NOT a trivial discussion. The jobbing of fighters must cease for fighters to believe they will get into a fair fight. I agree, and that's why I've colledted this topic back into the discussion thread that everyone's been reading, to keep it all together. Dee...here is something you can take the proverbial "bank"...if you post NO rules, you can't be accused of violating them. AS in, "what rules!" Well until RULES RULE and are fairly applied by unbiased/neutral promoters, this sport will out and out suk! So, why should ANY fight that has happened at Isleta be recognized by ABC thru a fight fax official results posting? PLAIN AND SIMPLE, IT SHOULD NOT. AND ABC HAD BETTER ADHERE TO THAT. TD |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 18:26:42 GMT -5
So, why should ANY fight that has happened at Isleta be recognized by ABC thru a fight fax official results posting? I already answered this twice before so I'll just repost what I said those times.
That would be unfair to everyone who fought there on the road and won already. You need to announce a non-recognition policy before applying it, IMO.
It should be that much harder for Isleta to operate like this in future if everyone's aware of the issues we've been discussing here but retroactive sanctions would not be fair to any of the out-of-towners who went to Isleta in the past and legitimately won.
Looking forward, Isleta are now under notice that FightFax won't recognize their results, and so are all the boxers who might fight there in future.
Looking backward, you can't warn the boxers who already fought there about that without possessing a time machine. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 10, 2010 20:23:33 GMT -5
Rules need to be fair and reasonable so you don't make them retroactive, and you don't go out of your way to punish innocent participants in past Isleta fights all the way back to 2002 with a rule that was not stated until 2010. .
Just think how happy you would be if the IRS retroactively taxed your income all the way back to 2002 starting with a rule they passed in 2010. There's be hell to pay, you'd say no fair.
Equally, fairness to all of the boxers who've fought at Isleta before this new ruling by ABC says that ABC has done the right thing by saying it will apply looking forward, now it's been announced. Everyone who might consider fighting at Isleta in future has been fairly warned that their results won't be now listed as sanctioned.
That is responsible rule-making IMO. To work a rule that didn't exist (for a non-member commission) until 2010 all the way back to 2002 and so impact the Fightfax records of boxers who've won at Isleta all those years would be poor targeting (affects the boxers more than the commission or the promoter, who's already filled those cards) and vindictive. Kudos to ABC for being reasonable while trying to put some pressure on the Isleta commission. They are also putting some pressure on Fresquez, whose ability to put shows together and generate revenues at Isleta won't be helped by Fightfax not listing their results, and that's where the pressure belongs, not on the innocent boxers like Suszannah Warner who fought and won there.
|
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 11, 2010 1:27:54 GMT -5
Rules need to be fair and reasonable so you don't make them retroactive, and you don't go out of your way to punish innocent participants in past Isleta fights all the way back to 2002 with a rule that was not stated until 2010. . Dee...YOU are missing the point...WHAT RULES WERE ALL OF THOSE FIGHTS, SINCE 2002, FOUGHT UNDER? For instance, you catch a theif today who has just stolen a car, you arrest him for that. And of course you find out he's been stealing cars for 6 years. You don't turn your back on that do you? No, of course not. That would be the application here, you ask them, what rules have you been formed under for holding public boxing? No answer. But then you ask, what rules were you fighting under for the last XX years? Don't all of those fighters deserve to know that BEFORE they fought there? Yeah, it's harsh, but the sport needs somebody to stop the BS and make an example of "fights without a known set of rules"...but IF they had been following NM state rules, just report that to ABC. Easy enough, isn't it? YES, its dam easy to do. So the question posed to any fighter who has fought at Isleta, what set of rules were you told you were fighting under? The Casino's? The State of NM? The ABC rules? The I MAKE THE RULES AFTER THE FIGHT RULES? The don't ask me rules? The I can't answer my phone rules? HUH? Surely you have to agree that a clear rule set has to be declared BEFORE a fight can happen, in public... TD |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 9:14:42 GMT -5
Rules need to be fair and reasonable so you don't make them retroactive, and you don't go out of your way to punish innocent participants in past Isleta fights all the way back to 2002 with a rule that was not stated until 2010. Dee...YOU are missing the point...WHAT RULES WERE ALL OF THOSE FIGHTS, SINCE 2002, FOUGHT UNDER? You are confusing two sets of rules. Your post (and mine) were about rules about whether or how ABC will list fight results on FightFax. ABC has changed those in 2010, for fights at Isleta, and you were saying they should do that retroactively. I am saying that doing that would hurt the records of innocent fighters, particularly those who have past wins at Isleta, without affecting either the promoters or the commission. So applying those rules retroactively is the wrong thing to do because it hurts the wrong people, who did nothing wrong. And that's probably why the ABC hasn't tried to do that, they're making it the listing rule apply from NOW on, so everyone, boxers, managers, promoter, commission, is aware of it. And it's then a rule that does impact the promotor and the commission looking forward, not just the boxers/ Because the boxers and managers will now be aware of it and it will give them an extra reason for NOT fighting at Isleta (as opposed to say, at an NMAC-regulated venue in Albuquerque.) Don't confuse that with the rules that apply to the fights. Those rules would be explained to the fighters equally at the time of the fight and should also have been made clear BEFORE a contract is signed. But on tribal land in NM they don't HAVE to be the exact NMAC rules, nor the exact ABC rules, because Isleta had not asked NMAC to supervise its fights for it, nor was it ever a member of ABC. Anyone agreeing to fight at Isleta needs to have asked and been told what Isleta's fight and supervision rules are, so yes it would obviously be desirable for Isleta to have published them. But ABC never had, and still does not have, the right to require Isleta to use THEIR rules as Isleta was not a member of ABC. But equally Isleta never had the right to ask ABC to enforce its suspensions, and they goofed up by asking, especially right after the Cisneros circus with no weigh-in etc. IMO ABC is NOW asking Isleta the kind of questions it would have asked IF had Isleta applied to ABC for membership. But there was nothing illegal about Isleta working independently and having its own set of fight supervision rules. ABC can however now try to embarrass Isleta into answering to it --- and we can agree it might be better for boxing if they did. It would also be better for boxing if the exact same supervision rules were used by all commissions. But in practice they aren't that way in detail from state to state even among ABC member commissions. Commissions differ in whether or not they will approve 3-minute rounds for female fighters, for example, over what medicals and tests are required when, etc, etc. ABC has no actual jurisdiction to ask Isleta to use its rules, but in return for Isleta not answering to it now it CAN use its own sanction which is to not list Isleta's results as "sanctioned" on FightFax. They have the listing leverage to try coax Isleta into behaving more like an ABC member commission even though it is NOT an ABC member commission (and evidently did not want to be, for whatever reason, I won't speculate about that). Isleta is in effect being sanctioned for the offense of not volunteering to answer ABC's questions about their procedures. That "offense" has only just occurred. It also was not committed by the boxers who fought there in the past, it was committed by the commission iin 2010. So a sanction which punishes the boxers records retroactively as YOU (and so far only YOU) have suggested, would be inappropriate IMO, and paradoxically it would be unfair to the boxers --- whose welfare you say you are concerned about --- more than the commission (or Fresquez). I'm glad ABC is being more reasonable than that. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 9:45:05 GMT -5
For instance, you catch a theif today who has just stolen a car, you arrest him for that. And of course you find out he's been stealing cars for 6 years. You don't turn your back on that do you? No, of course not. This analogy is wrong. ABC knew all along that Isleta was not a member commission of ABC but it listed their results there anyway for seven years, Isleta was entitled to use its own rules for supervising fights during those seven years, and it still is. But they screwed up in waiving some procedures to get Cisneros in the ring at short notice in December 2009, in trying to get ABC to back their "suspension" of Hernandez, and in having their hired event supervisor John Montano, who was an Arizona commissioner, report the information to ABC instead of doing it themselves. Isleta cut too many corners in December 2009 and now does not want to talk to ABC about it, it seems, but ABC knew all along that they were not an ABC member. ABC is now asking Isleta to behave like an ABC member if it wants to continue having its results recognized, and that's fair and proper. To use your car analogy properly, by listing results from a commission that they knew was was not an ABC member on FightFax, ABC was in effect knowingly loaning their car to Isleta until 2010. Boxers who fought there, and their managers, rightfully believed that to be so when they agreed to fight at Isleta. So there's no "offense" until 2010, and the boxers who fought at Isleta before 2010 didn't steal the car either so there is no good reason to punish them for it. I think my original analogy about (not) making taxes retroactive for all those years is more appropriate, if we need analogies at all to make this point. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 11, 2010 12:31:32 GMT -5
Dee,
I disagree, when ABC asks;
"...ABC in its original letter has asked that the Isleta Athletic Commission provide a copy of the tribal resolution creating the Isleta Athletic Commission and a copy of the rules and regulations governing boxing events held on your reservation. The ABC still awaits this documentation."
The implication is, by what FORMING authority do you exist ( tribal law) and by what set of rules do you conduct your fights?
If ABC is going to allow Isleta to post results to their offical record keeping database, ABC is required to check their credentials or YOU and I can conduct fights under my dad's rules and by my Mom's authority.
Is Isleta Authorized and by what Tribal law? The question then goes to, is the Tribe following it's compacts with the Federal Gov. This is NOT a trivial question.
Going further, IF they are NOT formed and NOT conducting fights according to any set of known/allowed/recognized rules, then they are in violation of Federal Law. So what the hell have they been telling fighters who fought there about the rule-set they were applying to insure fair fights. You get this don't you?
If they were wrong in Dec.09 they were wrong in'08,07,06,05 etc. And all of those fights were suspect. As many here have pointed out regarding results, they may score fights completely differently by their own criteria. Normally, I would be amazed if that were true. However, not answer your phone when ABC calls, requiring ABC to rescind some results, requiring ABC to send you repeated letters all smell bad. Real bad.
To your tax analogy, if the IRS finds you didn't follow the rules in 2009 in law XYX, they will ask you about OTHER laws dating back 7 years. Their implication, if you cheated on '09, it's likely you may have been cheating all along but were just going to do a little checking.
Now ABC maybe 2 years old, but Federal Compacts with Tribes regarding the regulation of sporting events on Tribal land is much older. I am sure you get that.
But boil it all down to this; WHAT THE HELL RULES WERE YOU FIGHTING UNDER AND WHAT THE HELL RULES ARE WE GOING TO FIGHT UNDER?
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 12:52:55 GMT -5
The implication is, by what FORMING authority do you exist ( tribal law) That's not ABC's to ask, and I suspect that's one reason (among several) why they got no answer. Yes there are federal laws out there that apply to this but they have no enforcement mechanism. ABC is not a federal agency, it's like attempting a "citizen's arrest". A tribal commission would only have to answer to it if the tribal commission was trying to become a member of ABC, which Islets wasn't. Isleta's mistake (one of several made in short order IMO) was in trying to act like they were an ABC member by asking to have their suspension of Hernandez recognized. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 12:55:40 GMT -5
To your tax analogy, if the IRS finds you didn't follow the rules in 2009 in law XYX, they will ask you about OTHER laws dating back 7 years. Their implication, if you cheated on '09, it's likely you may have been cheating all along but were just going to do a little checking. That wasn't my analogy, was it? My analogy was that if the IRS changes its rules in 2010 they don't get to make the changes retroactive to 2002. Please stop trying to draw red herrings across the trail, which is slippery enough without them |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 13:29:39 GMT -5
WHAT THE HELL RULES WERE YOU FIGHTING UNDER AND WHAT THE HELL RULES ARE WE GOING TO FIGHT UNDER? If that's the key question, why do you want a sanction that punishes the boxers in the past by erasing their Fightfax records? ABC is being much more reasonable by using a sanction that applies in the future, after everyone has been properly warned about it. That sanction can affect the Isleta commission (and the promoter's ability to make matches there in the future) without punishing the boxers in the past. It's wierd that you want them to start addressing a perceived problem with a commission by doing something that (a) harms the records of the innocent boxers who fought under its rules in the past but (b) can't have any impact on the commission's past behavior or on the promoter's past revenues. You'd have the boxers lose past fights on their record while the people who might have actually been playing fast and loose pay no penalty. ABC is targeting its sanction where it's reasonable, responsible and effective to do so, without harming the Fightfax records for the boxers who fought at Isleta in good faith in the past. ABC are also staying within their jurisdiction, which is, for non-member commissions, how to handle recording those non-member commissions' result and sanctions submissions on Fightfax. ABC is targeting the right people in the right way to have some future effect without doing collateral damage, IMO. I applaud their approach, which is more reasonable and fair to the boxers than TD's retroactive rule would be. |
|
|
|
Post by TD on Jan 11, 2010 13:46:34 GMT -5
Dee,
ABC's Fight Fax database is already listing results that happened prior to ABC being formed.
The point is this, what rules did they conduct fights under? How are they legally enabled to do that?
I would guess that some fighters have already complained about results there, don't you? What were the rules those fighters fought under?
IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT, YOU ARE NOT LEGAL OR VIABLE.
Its not penalizing anybody who participating in an illegal fight set up, if it was one. Big IF, but not responding makes the IF much bigger.
Your tax analogy does NOT hunt in this situation. Sure you can pull a fast one and say ABC is only 2 years old so their laws apply for only 2 years. Go ahead, pull that one. It helps no one and hurts all the fighters that may have been jobbed by any violation of laws insuring fair fights. Some how, you don't get that?
But lets say, Isleta is in violation of Federal Compacts for the Regulation of public sporting events PRIOR to ABC. Is ABC being true/fair/correct in reporting those fights in its DATABASE? NO.
So it gets a star and is NOT recognized as a legal fight. BFD. Fighters will still list it in their records. No biggie.
But the BIGGIE is, what rules did they fight under? Don't you get that? How basic that is to respecting fighters? And the public watching those fights? And who might have been jobbed under those rules? Particularly if the rules state that the NM COMM had to approve fight judges/refs./unifyied scoring system/ pre-fight protocol.
So don't give me your " ABC is the IRS crap", and it is a crap analogy. You don't excuse a violation of fighters rights but list those fights and still maintain YOUR credibility. Sorry if that upsets your computer scoring scheme.
TD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 13:56:44 GMT -5
Your tax analogy does NOT hunt in this situation. Sure you can pull a fast one and say ABC is only 2 years old so their laws apply for only 2 years. Go ahead, pull that one. It helps no one and hurts all the fighters that may have been jobbed by any violation of laws insuring fair fights. Some how, you don't get that? You are now flat out mis-stating what I said and then attacking your own mis-statement, a tactic you've often tried to use here. YOU are the one who just brought up the 2-year lifetime of ABC, I have said that an ABC rule change in 2010 should not apply back to Isleta results dating back to 2002. the rest is your imagination, or your distortion, depending on how charitable anyone wants to be about things you mis-state like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 14:03:27 GMT -5
Its not penalizing anybody who participating in an illegal fight set up, if it was one. Big IF, but not responding makes the IF much bigger. There's nothing illegal about a NM tribal commission functioning as an independent. Not responding to ABC is bad PR on their part, but it's not illegal either, because they are not a member of ABC and weren't trying to become one. Bad form and likely self-defeating in the long run, yes, but not illegal. The IF is pure speculation, and that's all. What we know Isleta did wrong was all about waiving rules to let Cisneros fight at short notice, followed by acting like they expected ABC to support their suspension of Hernandez. They have atrocious PR for sure, but talk about illegal fights is over the top IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Williams on Jan 11, 2010 14:05:52 GMT -5
Particularly if the rules state that the NM COMM had to approve fight judges/refs./unifyied scoring system/ pre-fight protocol. NMAC has made it very clear that it is not responsible for supervision at Isleta. That's been covered in this thread repeatedly and it's why I suggested that managers who want NMAC supervision of their boxers fights in Albuquerque should be looking for fight cards in the city, not at Isleta. |
|
??