Iain Weaver - Open Letter To The British Boxing Board Of Con

[LucaDiCaro]

Iain Weaver - Open Letter To The British Boxing Board Of Control

Specific attention: Mr. Robert Smith and Mr. Charles Giles.


Dear Mr. Smith and Mr. Giles

As you are fully aware my application for a British Boxing Board of Control licenses was refused, due to a small congenital arachnoid cyst, even though you had letters from Mr. Adrian Williams - Professor of Neurology, Mr. David Beale – eminent Neuro-Radiologist, Mr. Jack Phillips – Consultant Neurosurgeon and Mr. Paul L Grundy – Consultant Neurosurgeon stating that this type of cyst is not unusual and that in their opinion I am fit to box.

Besides my own request being refused, I am aware that you have also refused two further boxers, who had applied around the same time as myself for the same, or similar, reasons.

Today I learned that one of those you had refused to license, Robbie Turley, has now been granted a license by yourself, following his team initiating legal proceedings against the BBBofC.

I find this highly hypocritical of the BBBofC, who refused to license myself even though you had received written statements from the Neurology specialists named above, each stating that they see no reason why I should not be licensed to box professionally, especially in light of the amount of international boxing contests for Team GB I undertook as an amateur.

In addition to the above issue I am disgusted that Mr. Smith and the BBBofC deliberately made misleading statements about myself, in a statement with regard to the case between the BBBofC and Mr. Bruce Baker, for a hearing that takes place in Cardiff today – 19th November 2013.

In that statement Mr. Smith states “As far as Iain Weaver is concerned the British Boxing Board of Control refused to grant him a license on medical grounds in that he has a large arachnoid cyst on his brain of a type known to be associated with increased risk of bleeding following trauma.”

This action clearly shows the contrived and highly malicious intentions of Mr. Smith and the BBBofC, as the statements from the Neurology specialists named earlier clearly show:

Mr. Williams stated “Iain has no neurological symptoms whatsoever. In particular, he has no headaches, dizziness or impairment of function of his limbs or vision.

I would not think there is any significant risk here, the cysts always worry people, but are really quite common incidental finding in the general population. If there is an increased risk of haemorrhage after a head injury it is extremely small, and in the vast majority of these cases these incidental findings cause no trouble clinically. I therefore do not think that there is any reason to stop him proceeding with his boxing career.”

Professor Phillips stated, “Having reviewed the scans and the correspondence in the case of Iain Weaver it is my opinion that there is not a neurosurgical impediment to his continuation with his boxing career. The MRI findings demonstrate a small middle fossa arachnoid cyst which has not undergone any adverse events in all his previous boxing events. I do not see a neurosurgical justification for preventing Iain Weaver from returning to his boxing activities.”

Mr. Grundy stated, “I reviewed this 22 year old right handed boxer, who has been boxing seriously since he was a child. He has had one hundred and fifteen bouts and spars regularly. He has never had a problem with headaches, blackouts, seizures, numbness, weakness or any neurological whatsoever at any stage. He is otherwise completely fit and well. An MRI scan of his brain has shown an incidental finding.

I have shown him the MRI scan today, which shows a small anterior middle fossa arachnoid cyst, which is very typical location of this benign, congenital, anomaly. There is no other major abnormality in the brain and there is no significant mass effect from the arachnoid cyst. The arachnoid cyst itself requires no intervention.

Arachnoid cysts are of course relatively common, benign, congenital, anomalies and in the vast majority of patients these never become symptomatic however, there have been a number of reports of haemorrhage into a cyst or sub-dural haematoma resulting from bleeding from cortical draining veins. This has been reported in arachnoid cysts of varying sizes. However, the reported incidence of haemorrhage for arachnoid cysts is exceptionally small, probably a fraction of a percentage of all cysts.

I have explained to Iain that I believe the risk of him developing a haemorrhage relating to this arachnoid cyst if he continues boxing is exceptionally low, but is obviously not as low as it would be in the absence of an arachnoid cyst. He has boxed for a significant amount of time, without any problems. He has a full understanding of the issues involved and is keen to continue boxing and on that basis I would support his application.”

As the above statements clearly show that the cyst is small and is not prone to bleeding I believe this shows the contrived and highly malicious actions by Mr. Smith in making that statement to support the BBBofC case against Mr. Bruce Baker and also to deliberately and maliciously discredit Mr. Gianluca Di Caro, Vice President of the Malta Boxing Commission, who licensed myself after studying the reports etc.

On this matter Mr. Di Caro and the Malta Boxing Commission were not the first to agree to license me, the Spanish federation had agreed to do so but subsequently reneged, following undue pressure from Mr. Smith and Mr. Giles of the BBBofC via the European Boxing Union.

Since receiving a professional license from the Malta Boxing Commission I have also had my applications accepted by Nevada State (USA), California State (USA) and Mexico and have fought professionally four times, twice at York Hall in London on German Boxing Association sanctioned shows, once in California, USA, and once in Spain. In each case I won, twice on points, one KO and one TKO stoppage.

I am not alone in my disgust of the hypocrisy and malicious actions by the British Boxing Board of Control, not just in your dealings with regard to my application and subsequent licensing by the Malta Boxing Commission, but also that by your recent action of licensing Mr. Turley, clearly shows that you had no good reason to refuse his license in the first place, otherwise surely you would have been confident of your position in court.

Whilst I do not expect a response from yourself, with regard to the reviewing of my BBBofC license application, I feel that the BBBofC members, the boxing world and the general public deserve some sort of explanation from yourself, preferably a truthful one and not deliberately misleading like the statement I have highlighted in this letter.

Yours sincerely

Iain Weaver

[Rumpole]

Ian,

In case you did not pick up my reply on Checkhook.

1. Calculate the total amount which you consider you have lost in purse money, sponsorship, advertising etc.

2. Take your calculations together with your expert's reports to any decent sports law solicitor.

3. Ask the solicitor to get Counsel's opinion, if necessary, with a view to issuing proceedings against the Board for damages for the money lost, on a no win no fee basis in an Action for Restraint of Trade.

4. Any problems, p.m. me.

[The Insider]

Rumpoles here...

$hit just got real....

[Parson Cross]

I know the Solicitor who represented Robbie and know the facts regarding his case.
He's also represented Calzaghe and Hatton so it shouldn't be hard to work out who it is.
The Turley case demonstrates very clearly how proper legal advice should always be sought and maybe in hindsight Iain should have instigated those instructions some time ago.

[Gordon KOs]

Iain Weaver is an attempted hype job courtesy of Gary Hyde.

[expe]

The board say he's not safe, end of. Other sanctioning bodies are prepared to sanction him, go and fight there. Had enough of bullshit surrounding the BBBofC, which seems to come from Bruce Baker and Luca Di Caro, they should be told to shove it up their arse, Weaver too.

[Callowland]

The board say he's not safe, end of. Other sanctioning bodies are prepared to sanction him, go and fight there. Had enough of bullshit surrounding the BBBofC, which seems to come from Bruce Baker and Luca Di Caro, they should be told to shove it up their arse, Weaver too.

And the Board is the fairest and most faithful of organisations - absolute bullshit

[JimJim2009]

Playing devil's advocate here. Would he be willing to sign a release (this is a hypothetical argument, I know it wouldn't carry much legal weight) absolving the board of liability should the worst happen ? Or does he want it both ways ?

[dookus]

Playing devil's advocate here. Would he be willing to sign a release (this is a hypothetical argument, I know it wouldn't carry much legal weight) absolving the board of liability should the worst happen ? Or does he want it both ways ?

It would carry precisely zero legal weight in this country

[damianhucker1]

This topic has also got me thinking about a lad i know, who the board wont license due to his previous criminal conviction from nearly 20 years ago. A manager sought him out the ability to be licensed by numerous foreign boards, but obviously the BBBoC would never allow him to be used as a foreign boxer , so still restricting him from boxing in Britain.
Surely if the country licensing him are within the EU they cant refuse him the opportunity to box on a foreign license (the restraint of trade laws etc) based purely on criminal convictions , fair enough if it was a sex offence and he was wanting to be a teacher.
What action can they legitimately carry out against a promoter putting him on their show ? without it also contrevening the restraint of trade rules, or against a Boxer who is matched with him ?
Im sure i saw recently about a bout taking place on a BBBoC sanctioned show which shouldnt have, what was done about that ?
In weavers case they would refuse on medical grounds, but on a criminal conviction i dont see how the board can make a stand.

[The Insider]

This topic has also got me thinking about a lad i know, who the board wont license due to his previous criminal conviction from nearly 20 years ago. A manager sought him out the ability to be licensed by numerous foreign boards, but obviously the BBBoC would never allow him to be used as a foreign boxer , so still restricting him from boxing in Britain.
Surely if the country licensing him are within the EU they cant refuse him the opportunity to box on a foreign license (the restraint of trade laws etc) based purely on criminal convictions , fair enough if it was a sex offence and he was wanting to be a teacher.
What action can they legitimately carry out against a promoter putting him on their show ? without it also contrevening the restraint of trade rules, or against a Boxer who is matched with him ?
Im sure i saw recently about a bout taking place on a BBBoC sanctioned show which shouldnt have, what was done about that ?
In weavers case they would refuse on medical grounds, but on a criminal conviction i dont see how the board can make a stand.

Damien are you 100% sure he got knocked back on the grounds of his previous convictions?

[damianhucker1]

This topic has also got me thinking about a lad i know, who the board wont license due to his previous criminal conviction from nearly 20 years ago. A manager sought him out the ability to be licensed by numerous foreign boards, but obviously the BBBoC would never allow him to be used as a foreign boxer , so still restricting him from boxing in Britain.
Surely if the country licensing him are within the EU they cant refuse him the opportunity to box on a foreign license (the restraint of trade laws etc) based purely on criminal convictions , fair enough if it was a sex offence and he was wanting to be a teacher.
What action can they legitimately carry out against a promoter putting him on their show ? without it also contrevening the restraint of trade rules, or against a Boxer who is matched with him ?
Im sure i saw recently about a bout taking place on a BBBoC sanctioned show which shouldnt have, what was done about that ?
In weavers case they would refuse on medical grounds, but on a criminal conviction i dont see how the board can make a stand.

Damien are you 100% sure he got knocked back on the grounds of his previous convictions?

yes 100% , hes on lifetime license , and they won license anyone whos on license apparantly, despite the fact hes a reformed character and is a youth worker and does work with young offenders in jail, hes one of the nicest guys around who you could never imagine had done his crime , hes already getting on in age now being around 34 ish , so hes at the point where hes given up hope of ever turning pro, which is a shame because hes a definate candidate for a British title at least, even now. was a very good amateur before his conviction. Ive asked him numerous times to box on my unlicensed shows but hes not interested as he believes its not enough of a challenge.

[The Insider]

Well thats changed it a bit. If he is still under any licensing conditions whatsoever the Board won't touch him unfortunately.

[damianhucker1]

Well thats changed it a bit. If he is still under any licensing conditions whatsoever the Board won't touch him unfortunately.

Just a shame, hes done his time, for an offence he committed as an 18 year old, hes allowed to work with vulnerable kids but not to be able to box, doesnt really make sense. His conviction doesnt detract from his ability to box,would be different if for example he was a sex offender applying to be a teacher for obvious reasons.

[spudder56]

Well thats changed it a bit. If he is still under any licensing conditions whatsoever the Board won't touch him unfortunately.

Yes that's 100 percent correct mate

[The Law]

Response from the BBBofC:

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2013/bbboc- ... -their-own

[lefty]

This topic has also got me thinking about a lad i know, who the board wont license due to his previous criminal conviction from nearly 20 years ago. A manager sought him out the ability to be licensed by numerous foreign boards, but obviously the BBBoC would never allow him to be used as a foreign boxer , so still restricting him from boxing in Britain.
Surely if the country licensing him are within the EU they cant refuse him the opportunity to box on a foreign license (the restraint of trade laws etc) based purely on criminal convictions , fair enough if it was a sex offence and he was wanting to be a teacher.
What action can they legitimately carry out against a promoter putting him on their show ? without it also contrevening the restraint of trade rules, or against a Boxer who is matched with him ?
Im sure i saw recently about a bout taking place on a BBBoC sanctioned show which shouldnt have, what was done about that ?
In weavers case they would refuse on medical grounds, but on a criminal conviction i dont see how the board can make a stand.

Damien are you 100% sure he got knocked back on the grounds of his previous convictions?

yes 100% , hes on lifetime license , and they won license anyone whos on license apparantly, despite the fact hes a reformed character and is a youth worker and does work with young offenders in jail, hes one of the nicest guys around who you could never imagine had done his crime , hes already getting on in age now being around 34 ish , so hes at the point where hes given up hope of ever turning pro, which is a shame because hes a definate candidate for a British title at least, even now. was a very good amateur before his conviction. Ive asked him numerous times to box on my unlicensed shows but hes not interested as he believes its not enough of a challenge.

You make it sound like he's about to get his bus pass! lol

[bolluckchops]

I know the Solicitor who represented Robbie and know the facts regarding his case.
He's also represented Calzaghe and Hatton so it shouldn't be hard to work out who it is.
The Turley case demonstrates very clearly how proper legal advice should always be sought and maybe in hindsight Iain should have instigated those instructions some time ago.

The problem we have here is this. Robbie Turley has what is known as a Pineal cyst which had extensive in depth scans for Robbies own peace of mind. The neurosurgeon who dealt with him is the number one Pineal cyst and neuroendochronologist in the U.K. He confirmed that there was "NO" increased risk and that trauma from boxing would not affect him. I have seen the quotes in the open letter from Mr. Weavers experts and they confirmed that there is a very low risk and on those grounds the BBBoC see it as an increased risk no matter how small. On those grounds they are justified as their priority at all times is for the safety of the boxer.

[Anzi]

a low risk for the boxer can be high risk for the BBB of C if the boxer gets brain damaged from a fight, it leave's them open for compensation, would the boxer be excepted for insurance, it is a fine line, I suppose boxing governing bodies in countries where they don't have brain scans for boxers would not even know, so they would not be liable, as such. I do however find it strange for white collar promoters to comment on the subject of safety measures in boxing, the way white collar events are run at times is a disgrace.