BBBofC

[cockneygymrat]

Some might interested in listening to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=784RX1Kl ... tube_gdata

[leforge]

Who's the guy conducting the interview?

Robert Smith always comes over like a decent bloke to me.

Is Waterman interviewing. I think he came across ok then,

[cockneygymrat]

Yes its Robert Waterman.

[cockneygymrat]

It seems the BBBofC are not being consistent again, listen to this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNp8mofV ... ature=plcp

[FIGHTFANs]

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/secondsout

[cockneygymrat]

Part 2 is very interesting as there is a sort of answer for the inconsistencies.

I am not a legal man, but for me the answer is completely unsatisfactory and from a legal perspective it seems the BBBofC do not have a leg to stand on.

[smoggy7188]

An interesting watch, the Charlie Giles stuff was very illuminating.

[cockneygymrat]

An interesting watch, the Charlie Giles stuff was very illuminating.

It weakens the BBBofC case, the board in that second interview seem to be saying what the German Board do is up to them, but yet they are calling on the relevant European bodies and World Governing bodies to support them in a case which seems to isolate them in their approach.

If there was a consistent approach throughout Europe then the board would have a case, it doesnt happen, Germany supporting the board is laughable and a legal man would rip them apart as they have a number of differing governing bodies allowed to sanction shows in that country, in addition cases like Danny Williams and his licensing further weakens their case.

[smoggy7188]

If it does go to court I might go down to watch it cos it will be a very interesting and fascinating listen on how they both structure their arguments.

[The Insider]

It seems the BBBofC are not being consistent again, listen to this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNp8mofV ... ature=plcp

Good interview Bruce gave there. Still not sure how this is going to pan out.

[gobbles]

An interesting watch, the Charlie Giles stuff was very illuminating.

Why? It was a Sauerland show. They have been regulated by the Austrian authority for years. Just because it has happened there, doesn't mean it should happen here. Baker and Warren are throwing Charlie Giles's name in there all the time trying to make out this is some sort of dictatorship to justify their actions. It's all smoke and mirrors.
The only answer they have to anything is "we can do it because they can't stop us".
Why doesn't someone ask Baker and Warren the names of the doctors on duty at Upton Park on July 14 and ask what experience those doctors have in boxing?

[Adamj1987]

If it does go to court I might go down to watch it cos it will be a very interesting and fascinating listen on how they both structure their arguments.

I dont think it will get to that, i think the board will make lots of noise but ultimatly they cant do anything

[The Insider]

An interesting watch, the Charlie Giles stuff was very illuminating.

Why? It was a Sauerland show. They have been regulated by the Austrian authority for years. Just because it has happened there, doesn't mean it should happen here. Baker and Warren are throwing Charlie Giles's name in there all the time trying to make out this is some sort of dictatorship to justify their actions. It's all smoke and mirrors.
The only answer they have to anything is "we can do it because they can't stop us".
Why doesn't someone ask Baker and Warren the names of the doctors on duty at Upton Park on July 14 and ask what experience those doctors have in boxing?

By having Charlie supervise a show in Germany but it being regulated by the Austrian board it does set a president though and seems to show inconsistency and double standards.

The Doctors at the show having experience in boxing is irrelevant. If they are to mirror BBBOC standards all they need is one "regular" doctor and one who is practised in the management of conscious or partially conscious patients who must remain at ringside when boxing is taking place.

[gasman]

I have my reservations about the Board, they need a good kick up the ass to hopefully shake things up a bit and be forced to be more transparent with some of the crappy things that have happened consistently over the years like bad decisions, judging, stoppages etc and almost always it seems to be to the benefit of the home fighter - it is the biggest stain on the game. Also the lack of support to small hall promoters etc - who are losing a lot of money to run shows - the Board needs to recognise this and try and incentize things. There is a lot about the Board that really makes me think, I couldnt give a shit about them here, they deserve it.

But on the other hand I cant warm to this guy Bruce Baker and the emergence of a Luxembourg commission in Britain, they are only interested in money and on that basis they will be ten times worse that the Board. Although, I was initially outraged by Chisora's actions, as Lillis said in BM, he has been stung 100k already and that is a lot of money. So it is not like he has got off scot free. An indefinite ban was the wrong call in the end and the appeal process was far too dragged out - but that is a symptom of how the Board works.

Ideal scenario is that the fight goes ahead as planned, Chisora and the Board come to an agreement and the Luxembourg folks take a hike. Most importantly the Board recognised that they could lose everything if they dont do more to help and listen to their members, especially those that are without TV contracts.

[cockneygymrat]

The only answer they have to anything is "we can do it because they can't stop us".
Why doesn't someone ask Baker and Warren the names of the doctors on duty at Upton Park on July 14 and ask what experience those doctors have in boxing?

gobbles, to your first point I have highlighted although you directed it at Warren and Baker is exactly what the BBBofC attitude is. You simply cannot start crying warren and baker and the whole of this promotion is wrong and get favour from other boards in europe if you not only send your members to supervise or officiate on shows for doing exactly the same thing but knowing many countries throughout europe have been doing exactly what warren and baker are doing on this show for years and years.

Its massive hypocrisy and double standards to slag off warren and baker and even worse to try to restrict them for wanting some form of equality for what certain prominent other boxing organisations have got up to for years. Before anyone says 2 wrongs dont make a right. its not that at all, these countries have done what they have because its within the guidlines of european law.

Another glaring mistake on the boards part is not to allow any licence holder representation on the board, instead certain area councils are run by people as old as 70-80 years old who are stuck in the past. I have respect for my elders and always will have but institutions like the BBBofC must have the capability of moving with the times not to be stuck in a rut and to justify their existence by stating we have always done it like this.

[The Insider]

There is a lot wrong with the board but there are some good people there with the genuine intent to look after the sport too.

I agree that area councils should be non financial to avoid a closed shop or "mafia" style administration but each area should definitely have a license holder representative sit on the council that is voted in by the areas licence holders. They should also have representation at higher levels of stewards meetings too, again voted in by that areas licence holders. As it stands if your pally with the current area council members you could get voted in yourself no matter of what boxing knowledge/experience you have which is wrong. Why should a regular Joe/bricklayer/traffic warden have a huge say in Descions in your area that may directly effect you?

Small hall promoters are really suffering atm. How can the board help though? The revenue the small promotions create doesn't cover the bare expenses for the inspectors used.

[cockneygymrat]

There is a lot wrong with the board but there are some good people there with the genuine intent to look after the sport too.

I agree that area councils should be non financial to avoid a closed shop or "mafia" style administration but each area should definitely have a license holder representative sit on the council that is voted in by the areas licence holders. They should also have representation at higher levels of stewards meetings too, again voted in by that areas licence holders. As it stands if your pally with the current area council members you could get voted in yourself no matter of what boxing knowledge/experience you have which is wrong. Why should a regular Joe/bricklayer/traffic warden have a huge say in Descions in your area that may directly effect you?

Small hall promoters are really suffering atm. How can the board help though? The revenue the small promotions create doesn't cover the bare expenses for the inspectors used.

The amount of doctors or other staff they stipulate have to be on a show. no confirmed set prices for staff on a show. a constant changing of the goalposts.

[gobbles]

The only answer they have to anything is "we can do it because they can't stop us".
Why doesn't someone ask Baker and Warren the names of the doctors on duty at Upton Park on July 14 and ask what experience those doctors have in boxing?

gobbles, to your first point I have highlighted although you directed it at Warren and Baker is exactly what the BBBofC attitude is. You simply cannot start crying warren and baker and the whole of this promotion is wrong and get favour from other boards in europe if you not only send your members to supervise or officiate on shows for doing exactly the same thing but knowing many countries throughout europe have been doing exactly what warren and baker are doing on this show for years and years.

Its massive hypocrisy and double standards to slag off warren and baker and even worse to try to restrict them for wanting some form of equality for what certain prominent other boxing organisations have got up to for years. Before anyone says 2 wrongs dont make a right. its not that at all, these countries have done what they have because its within the guidlines of european law.

Another glaring mistake on the boards part is not to allow any licence holder representation on the board, instead certain area councils are run by people as old as 70-80 years old who are stuck in the past. I have respect for my elders and always will have but institutions like the BBBofC must have the capability of moving with the times not to be stuck in a rut and to justify their existence by stating we have always done it like this.

I agree to a large extent about transparency with the Board, maybe if they opened the books, the licence holders would see a lot of reasons behind their decisions. There seems to be this opinion around that the Board is getting rich, while promoters lose money. But because the Board don't get TV money, the Board has no money.
But how can Baker talk about democracy one minute and then sign up with Luxembourg? Who are they answerable to?

[danfoster]

For once i'm in full agreement with Gobbles.

The Board are clearly not obliged to license this fight - or any fight they don't want to. They are not saying that the fight will be prevented from happening or injuncted - they are simply say that they don't wish to license it. It's therefore an unlicensed fight and the board are entitled to warn license holders that if they participate in unlicensed fights then it may affect their status with the board in future.

This 'restraint of trade' nonsense that is being bandied about by the apologists for this outrageous cobbles punch up is a complete red-herring. The Board aren't restraining anyone from trading, they are simply being clear that this fight will take place outside of their own jurisdiction.

It seems Gobbles also has a friend who works as a ring-side doctor! This is a very serious problem for the promotor. I know that the health of the participants will be the most important issue in Frank's heart so i know he'll have given this a lot of thought.

[cockneygymrat]

For once i'm in full agreement with Gobbles.

The Board are clearly not obliged to license this fight - or any fight they don't want to. They are not saying that the fight will be prevented from happening or injuncted - they are simply say that they don't wish to license it. It's therefore an unlicensed fight and the board are entitled to warn license holders that if they participate in unlicensed fights then it may affect their status with the board in future.

This 'restraint of trade' nonsense that is being bandied about by the apologists for this outrageous cobbles punch up is a complete red-herring. The Board aren't restraining anyone from trading, they are simply being clear that this fight will take place outside of their own jurisdiction.

It seems Gobbles also has a friend who works as a ring-side doctor! This is a very serious problem for the promotor. I know that the health of the participants will be the most important issue in Frank's heart so i know he'll have given this a lot of thought.

Dan Foster I completely disagree with a lot of your post. You make things sound so simple when in reality you could not be further from the truth. With regards to restraint of trade and your thoughts on that, yet again you make a flippant comment which shows you really do not have a clue what you are on about.

[kells]

the boxing board are not the be all and end all in boxing and because they wnt sanction it does not make it illigal.its just not reconised by the bbbofc. and if your a qualified doctor ur a qualified doctor end off nothing to do if your experienced in the boxing world. people need to get over it,if u dont agree with it dont watch it,simple

[big lennox]

There is a lot of speculation and muddying of waters, but the nub of the issue is that this fight is a complete slap in the face to the BBBofC.

The principle of the BBCofC is a good thing.It doesn't matter which personalities are running it now, it will be there when the current lot have gone. So, I view this fight as going against the principle of the BBBofC. Everyone involved knows it themselves.

It is an exciting fight and this controversy has helped hype it up to such an extent that everyone involved in it will be quids in, and that is why it has proved too much to resist. However, the fight will come and pass and then people will be left to reflect on what it all means (once the hype and excitement has gone). I think that for a lot of people, they will reflect that:

1) The end of Haye's career has been a bit of a farce.He shouted from the roof tops and then got soundly beaten by Klitschko, and then concluded his career by taking part in a freak show.It's a shame as its been a stella career in many other respects and I do think he is the rare type of guy to go in with anyone.

2) Allegedly is not someone that is trustworthy. He was incredibly defensive when questioned by the bbc and a lot of non boxing fans will have listened to that and will have their own thoughts on his role in this.

3) Chisora is not fit for licence.I wouldn't bet against him doing something really silly between now and the end of the contest

It's a good fight. I just wish it wasn't happening this way.

[cockneygymrat]

I think what some people in boxing throughout this fine country are more angry about is, Frank W arren and others have found a perfectly legal/legitmate way of getting round a problem.

Its as if they are saying "F**k, they found a perfectly honest way of doing things, we are going to have to punish him and others who join in the promotion. Whats also needed is we will enlist the help of other organisations who have allowed exactly the same thing but when people find out we will say thats different. Whatever happens they must not find out any show we have supervised in or allowed our officials to take part in because if they do find out we will have to say thats different too.

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted over the national fences and keeled over and died springs to mind.

[big lennox]

I think what some people in boxing throughout this fine country are more angry about is, Frank W arren and others have found a perfectly legal/legitmate way of getting round a problem.

Its as if they are saying "F**k, they found a perfectly honest way of doing things, we are going to have to punish him and others who join in the promotion. Whats also needed is we will enlist the help of other organisations who have allowed exactly the same thing but when people find out we will say thats different. Whatever happens they must not find out any show we have supervised in or allowed our officials to take part in because if they do find out we will have to say thats different too.

Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted over the national fences and keeled over and died springs to mind.

I don't think it is that.I suppose some people think it is a shame that they have chosen to bend the rules to the up most and (potentially) bring down the BBBofC. It's technically legal, but that does not make it right. I also wonder what sort of repercussions this will have on his sons who are following him into promoting. If the BBBofC revoke the licences of everyone involved they may have difficulty in signing new fighters over the longer period. I could be well off the mark here, as I don't doubt that allegedly is unbelievably bright and is good at spotting things on the horizon, so it may well work out well, and I hope it does as the game is better for having characters and talented people in it, certainly people that can put on huge events, I just think that it is a pity that this fight has happened this way.

[cockneygymrat]

Ahhhh, Big Lennox you are now bringing in the moral issues and trying to state the case for the BBBofC. You may have a point using that angle although going down that route is always a tentative way, weak and I have to say because of the legal ramifications always flawed.

Boxing is a cut throat business as is much of the world with all the cut backs. The moral argument especially in todays modern world is I am afraid always going to lose, as sometimes survival in these harsh times doesnt do nice. Using another catchphrase: survival of the fittest and lets face it boxing has always been like that, Frank W arren has always come out on top on that score.

When you strip out all of the propaganda then strip out all the emotional clap trap it comes down to the BBBofC screwing up and not having the balls to ban Dereck Chisora with a definitive time. As already stated before if that had happened Frank W arren would not have gone down the route of making Chisora v Haye. But the BBBofC called his bluff by stating Chisora was free to apply for a licence elsewhere thinking he would not go down that route. Haye was already free to explore this route as he voluntarily handed back his licence last year due to his retirement. That is why other governing body options has come into Frank W arrens reckoning and you have to say legitimately so. Lets not forget here there was more than one european body which was willing to licence this fight which would have caused an even bigger stir as they had to be bigger than Luxembourg.

If you disagree with Haye/Chisora, fine.

Now to the solution. There is only one escape route option in my view and its going to take balls. The BBBofC are going to have to hold their hands up and say they got it wrong and they will with a great amount of reluctance sanction the fight but have an agreement with Frank W arren this sort of thing will not happen again in this country. If you are about to say I am naive if I think this is going to happen, I will come back to you by saying if it doesn't boxing will be split for good and from the specualtion going around there will be an avalanche of people wanting to join a new governing body in Britain.