BoxRec

slapbangwhallop wrote:

expe wrote: If the board are going to ignore their own neurosurgeon, what's the point in having one, they have to trust their own man's decisions, otherwise there could be other issues that would stem from that. There wasn't anything ridiculous about their decision, it's just that Weaver cried like a little girl and kicked up a fuss about it.

Agh so stand by your man and don't worry about these boxers careers!

No one said ignore his opinion but a High Court judges opinion trumps that of a County Court judge. That doesn't mean you sack the County Court judge!!

To be honest I find you comments crass.

Not really the same thing is it, if you're a qualified neurosurgeon you're a qualified neurosurgeon, unless you work in the same hospital, one neurosurgeon has no authority over the other and I would suggest they are worrying about the boxer's health, rather than the career, since it's far more important.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:[That's a load of absolute bollocks you are spouting, probably hiding some other agenda. Why don't you provide an example instead of making a sweeping statement.

Give a Harley Street brain surgeon a consultation fee, he'll say any effing thing you want him to.

Yes, they have built their career up over decades, become the most credible practitioners in their field but would risk their careers and the health of their clients for a £100 backhanded! Wise up.

I have NO agenda. You asked for an example so I will give it. Iain Weaver.

Wise up? F**k off. You know f**k all about what specialists, Harley Street, Queer Street, Sesame Street or otherwise will or won't do for a few quid, a favour, or maybe even because they've been presented with certain information before a consultation, and a desired result before the end of it. They are human and fallible regardless of how many f**king letters they have after their name, or how much they charge.

If a specialist says "In my opinion, there is no increased risk" and then another specialist says: "In my opinion, there is a slightly increased risk", that means there's a slightly increased risk. Isn't it the case that the Board cannot insure him?

Do you know who the Board's specialists are? Do you know Weaver's? Have you actually measured their professional dicks? or does yer ak-chew-all knowledge stop at the badly written, irresponsible press release/open letter that plenty of sites published without even reading properly, let alone see if it checked out factually.

You're either agenda driven (ie know/work for the promoter, or one of the mickey mouse commissions) or are gullible. It is a great shame for Iain Weaver that he cannot box with a Board licence. He's a talented fighter, and it's a highly emotive issue, but it's seems as if his case is being used to grind other axes, and it's all a bit sick really.

Dan Dares wrote:Wise up? F**k off. You know f**k all about what specialists, Harley Street, Queer Street, Sesame Street or otherwise will or won't do for a few quid, a favour, or maybe even because they've been presented with certain information before a consultation, and a desired result before the end of it. They are human and fallible regardless of how many f**king letters they have after their name, or how much they charge.

If a specialist says "In my opinion, there is no increased risk" and then another specialist says: "In my opinion, there is a slightly increased risk", that means there's a slightly increased risk. Isn't it the case that the Board cannot insure him?

Do you know who the Board's specialists are? Do you know Weaver's? Have you actually measured their professional dicks? or does yer ak-chew-all knowledge stop at the badly written, irresponsible press release/open letter that plenty of sites published without even reading properly, let alone see if it checked out factually.

You're either agenda driven (ie know/work for the promoter, or one of the mickey mouse commissions) or are gullible. It is a great shame for Iain Weaver that he cannot box with a Board licence. He's a talented fighter, and it's a highly emotive issue, but it's seems as if his case is being used to grind other axes, and it's all a bit sick really.

I know that a neurosurgeon won’t lie about the risk to one of their patients for a small bung that based on the amounts of money floating about in money would probably be less than their daily rate.

Why do you feel the need to quiz me on affiliations with these commissions? What is your connection to the Board? I work for none of the commissions, I don’t work for his manager or promoter, I have met Weaver very briefly on two occasions both times were AFTER he was turned down for his BBBoC licence. I have no axe to grind with the board but if something is wrong then it should be highlighted, challenged and changed. I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater either.

So basically you can saying there is no appeals process to a BBBoC decision than, no matter what the evidence is that’s put in front of them. That’s wrong. If you can’t see that then you are suffering from a case of misplaced loyalty. If it was a case that the BBBoC were not able to insure him under their policy then why hound him out of getting his Spanish licence when they were prepared to licence Weaver based the medical reports provided to them? Basically barring him from fighting in the majority of Europe or for the EBU title as well. We all know why the BBBoC are spooked – the Watson case. They were right to tighten the ship up but in my opinion they’ve left room for appeal or common sense let alone medical judgement.

As regards your questions in paragraph three – Yes, Yes, No and No.

You do clearly have both an axe to grind with them and an agenda. Nearly all your threads end up criticising them.

The last multi page thread ended with you mithering Danny Flexen for pages about BBBoC minutia.

orbtastic wrote:You do clearly have both an axe to grind with them and an agenda. Nearly all your threads end up criticising them.

The last multi page thread ended with you mithering Danny Flexen for pages about BBBoC minutia.

I don’t actually, in fact I think that the BBBoC should be the only authority allowed to sanction professional boxing in Britain.

I only mither people who trot out the tired cliché that the Board are not to be questioned and to query their practices in any way is tantamount to treason. Overall there are largely a great bunch of people that runs the Board from roots to the executive. But there needs to be some changes, that’s all.

The only things I really criticise the Board on are their appeals process on medical issues and their lack of accountability to Licence holders.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

orbtastic wrote:You do clearly have both an axe to grind with them and an agenda. Nearly all your threads end up criticising them.

The last multi page thread ended with you mithering Danny Flexen for pages about BBBoC minutia.

I don’t actually, in fact I think that the BBBoC should be the only authority allowed to sanction professional boxing in Britain.

I only mither people who trot out the tired cliché that the Board are not to be questioned and to query their practices in any way is tantamount to treason. Overall there are largely a great bunch of people that runs the Board from roots to the executive. But there needs to be some changes, that’s all.

The only things I really criticise the Board on are their appeals process on medical issues and their lack of accountability to Licence holders.

Of course they are accountable to licence holders coz after all the licence holder can always hand his licence in if he's not happy with the way the board do things and the aggrieved licence holder has the option of gba,Malta Luxembourg ebf white collar etc as they are all active in the uk

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:Wise up? F**k off. You know f**k all about what specialists, Harley Street, Queer Street, Sesame Street or otherwise will or won't do for a few quid, a favour, or maybe even because they've been presented with certain information before a consultation, and a desired result before the end of it. They are human and fallible regardless of how many f**king letters they have after their name, or how much they charge.

If a specialist says "In my opinion, there is no increased risk" and then another specialist says: "In my opinion, there is a slightly increased risk", that means there's a slightly increased risk. Isn't it the case that the Board cannot insure him?

Do you know who the Board's specialists are? Do you know Weaver's? Have you actually measured their professional dicks? or does yer ak-chew-all knowledge stop at the badly written, irresponsible press release/open letter that plenty of sites published without even reading properly, let alone see if it checked out factually.

You're either agenda driven (ie know/work for the promoter, or one of the mickey mouse commissions) or are gullible. It is a great shame for Iain Weaver that he cannot box with a Board licence. He's a talented fighter, and it's a highly emotive issue, but it's seems as if his case is being used to grind other axes, and it's all a bit sick really.

I know that a neurosurgeon won’t lie about the risk to one of their patients for a small bung that based on the amounts of money floating about in money would probably be less than their daily rate.

Why do you feel the need to quiz me on affiliations with these commissions? What is your connection to the Board? I work for none of the commissions, I don’t work for his manager or promoter, I have met Weaver very briefly on two occasions both times were AFTER he was turned down for his BBBoC licence. I have no axe to grind with the board but if something is wrong then it should be highlighted, challenged and changed. I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater either.

So basically you can saying there is no appeals process to a BBBoC decision than, no matter what the evidence is that’s put in front of them. That’s wrong. If you can’t see that then you are suffering from a case of misplaced loyalty. If it was a case that the BBBoC were not able to insure him under their policy then why hound him out of getting his Spanish licence when they were prepared to licence Weaver based the medical reports provided to them? Basically barring him from fighting in the majority of Europe or for the EBU title as well. We all know why the BBBoC are spooked – the Watson case. They were right to tighten the ship up but in my opinion they’ve left room for appeal or common sense let alone medical judgement.

As regards your questions in paragraph three – Yes, Yes, No and No.

More neurosurgeons is not new evidence to the board, new evidence would be fighting with the cyst and coming back with new brain scans showing no change, at that point the board will reconsider the original decision. The Spanish license would have allowed him to fight on BBBofC shows, so the same issue with the insurance would arise.

expe wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

Dan Dares wrote:Wise up? F**k off. You know f**k all about what specialists, Harley Street, Queer Street, Sesame Street or otherwise will or won't do for a few quid, a favour, or maybe even because they've been presented with certain information before a consultation, and a desired result before the end of it. They are human and fallible regardless of how many f**king letters they have after their name, or how much they charge.

If a specialist says "In my opinion, there is no increased risk" and then another specialist says: "In my opinion, there is a slightly increased risk", that means there's a slightly increased risk. Isn't it the case that the Board cannot insure him?

Do you know who the Board's specialists are? Do you know Weaver's? Have you actually measured their professional dicks? or does yer ak-chew-all knowledge stop at the badly written, irresponsible press release/open letter that plenty of sites published without even reading properly, let alone see if it checked out factually.

You're either agenda driven (ie know/work for the promoter, or one of the mickey mouse commissions) or are gullible. It is a great shame for Iain Weaver that he cannot box with a Board licence. He's a talented fighter, and it's a highly emotive issue, but it's seems as if his case is being used to grind other axes, and it's all a bit sick really.

I know that a neurosurgeon won’t lie about the risk to one of their patients for a small bung that based on the amounts of money floating about in money would probably be less than their daily rate.

Why do you feel the need to quiz me on affiliations with these commissions? What is your connection to the Board? I work for none of the commissions, I don’t work for his manager or promoter, I have met Weaver very briefly on two occasions both times were AFTER he was turned down for his BBBoC licence. I have no axe to grind with the board but if something is wrong then it should be highlighted, challenged and changed. I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater either.

So basically you can saying there is no appeals process to a BBBoC decision than, no matter what the evidence is that’s put in front of them. That’s wrong. If you can’t see that then you are suffering from a case of misplaced loyalty. If it was a case that the BBBoC were not able to insure him under their policy then why hound him out of getting his Spanish licence when they were prepared to licence Weaver based the medical reports provided to them? Basically barring him from fighting in the majority of Europe or for the EBU title as well. We all know why the BBBoC are spooked – the Watson case. They were right to tighten the ship up but in my opinion they’ve left room for appeal or common sense let alone medical judgement.

As regards your questions in paragraph three – Yes, Yes, No and No.

More neurosurgeons is not new evidence to the board, new evidence would be fighting with the cyst and coming back with new brain scans showing no change, at that point the board will reconsider the original decision. The Spanish license would have allowed him to fight on BBBofC shows, so the same issue with the insurance would arise.

It wouldnt have because the board have to ok all foriegn boxers and can knock them back if not happy with them.

I'm not a neurosurgeon but anything added onto the brain, for example a cist would surely increase the likelihood to having an injury. It may not be a significant increase and some DR's may think that it's safe. But surely any abnormality to the brain would increase the chance of injury again no abnormality. Boxing is a very dangerous sport and for these kind of things they need to be stringent rules.

If the BBofBC policy then fighters need to get on with it. If they are willing to take the risk then fight elsewhere. Too many Mickey Mouse titles floating about. In uk should be Area title then British Title simple.

jonp wrote:

expe wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:
I know that a neurosurgeon won’t lie about the risk to one of their patients for a small bung that based on the amounts of money floating about in money would probably be less than their daily rate.

Why do you feel the need to quiz me on affiliations with these commissions? What is your connection to the Board? I work for none of the commissions, I don’t work for his manager or promoter, I have met Weaver very briefly on two occasions both times were AFTER he was turned down for his BBBoC licence. I have no axe to grind with the board but if something is wrong then it should be highlighted, challenged and changed. I’m not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater either.

So basically you can saying there is no appeals process to a BBBoC decision than, no matter what the evidence is that’s put in front of them. That’s wrong. If you can’t see that then you are suffering from a case of misplaced loyalty. If it was a case that the BBBoC were not able to insure him under their policy then why hound him out of getting his Spanish licence when they were prepared to licence Weaver based the medical reports provided to them? Basically barring him from fighting in the majority of Europe or for the EBU title as well. We all know why the BBBoC are spooked – the Watson case. They were right to tighten the ship up but in my opinion they’ve left room for appeal or common sense let alone medical judgement.

As regards your questions in paragraph three – Yes, Yes, No and No.

More neurosurgeons is not new evidence to the board, new evidence would be fighting with the cyst and coming back with new brain scans showing no change, at that point the board will reconsider the original decision. The Spanish license would have allowed him to fight on BBBofC shows, so the same issue with the insurance would arise.

It wouldnt have because the board have to ok all foriegn boxers and can knock them back if not happy with them.

It would expect it to be a lot more difficult to knock him back on medical grounds if they allow other Spanish licensed fighters that have passed the same tests to fight in this country.

I don't know if it was the result of an appeal process as such, but hasn't Robbie Turley been told he can have a licence again? The Board are clearly capable of changing their mind...

As for the influx of foreign board sanctioning shows, who doesn't want to see Jamie Speight fight for a "world title" against a guy who has never beaten a fighter with a winning record, nor beaten any fighter who has more than a single win on his record?

magnus wrote:I don't know if it was the result of an appeal process as such, but hasn't Robbie Turley been told he can have a licence again? The Board are clearly capable of changing their mind...

As for the influx of foreign board sanctioning shows, who doesn't want to see Jamie Speight fight for a "world title" against a guy who has never beaten a fighter with a winning record, nor beaten any fighter who has more than a single win on his record?

You can appeal against withdrawal of a licence to the independent stewards of appeal who have in the past overturned board decisions on many occasions but in the case of Iain weaver I believe he has never been a board licence holder so basically there is nobody to appeal to the probable reason he never got a licence in the first place is because he didn't meet the boards medical criteria which is probably the strictest in the world and rightly so IMO

slapbangwhallop wrote:As regards your questions in paragraph three – No, No, No and Yes.

I've fixed it for you, as you clearly don't know your arse from a hole in the ground.

Dan Dares wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:As regards your questions in paragraph three – No, No, No and Yes.

I've fixed it for you, as you clearly don't know your arse from a hole in the ground.

Sure sure. I'll tell you this then, even though your ears are closed to logic and reason, four consultants passed Weaver as fit to box, one consultant said he could not pass him (that was the Boards consultant).

I'll leave it at that, too many of the Boards fanboys on here.

All this Ferrari technician v backstreet mechanic stuff is very strange. Did the Harley Street specialist some are so keen of have any experience of working with boxers? In medicine people have different specialities, most neurosurgeons would have no experience of working with people in combat sports. I would assume that the Board's neurosurgeon has had lots of experience with boxers, so before when poo-pooing his opinion, he is probably quite well placed to give one.
I know it's obviously devastating for Weaver, but who are the Board executive to refuse the evidence of their doctor?

gobbles wrote:All this Ferrari technician v backstreet mechanic stuff is very strange. Did the Harley Street specialist some are so keen of have any experience of working with boxers? In medicine people have different specialities, most neurosurgeons would have no experience of working with people in combat sports. I would assume that the Board's neurosurgeon has had lots of experience with boxers, so before when poo-pooing his opinion, he is probably quite well placed to give one.
I know it's obviously devastating for Weaver, but who are the Board executive to refuse the evidence of their doctor?

Four said he was safe to fight. Only one (the BBBoC's) wouldn't pass him. I believe one of the neurosurgeons that passed him was Professor Phillips who advises the BUI.

slapbangwhallop wrote: Yes Weaver had/still has a cyst and there were multiple reports provided (from more senior consultants than the BBBoC) to state that the cyst caused no greater risk to a boxer than not having it. The BBBoC refused to take that into consideration or at the least ignored it. Like I said, the word of a back street mechanic over a Ferrari technician. Both the Irish and Spanish boards indicated that they would allow Weaver a licence based on the information provided to them. When the BBBoC got wind of the Spanish board granting Weaver a licence they put immense pressure on the Spanish board and the EBU to stop it. They succeeded. It was a disgraceful episode. Weaver has been granted a licence in the States and also be one of the GBA/Malta crew as well. It’s the BBBoC that is out of step here, not Weaver. The BBBoC didn’t refuse him a licence because they have any higher standards than California, Spain, Ireland, GBA, Malta, LuxBox, its because of their inability to make a decision based of evidence provided to them.

Just because you disagree with the BBBoC on an issue doesn’t mean you have an “agenda” against them. That’s a pathetic argument to stifle debate and criticism. I am largely supportive of the Board but my main issues with them are based on the above issue and that the licence holders don’t vote on who members of the Board executive are.

As a backstreet mechanic myself(albeit motorcycles not cars) I can say a Ferrari technician only knows how to fix a Ferrari, a backstreet mechanic can fix anything

Kearsley Maghull wrote:

banjo wrote:As a backstreet mechanic myself(albeit motorcycles not cars) I can say a Ferrari technician only knows how to fix a Ferrari, a backstreet mechanic can fix anything

Can you give Ian Weaver a price for sorting his 'cyst' ?

Ooooh *takes a deep breath* can't fit him in til tuesday.

slapbangwhallop wrote:

gobbles wrote:All this Ferrari technician v backstreet mechanic stuff is very strange. Did the Harley Street specialist some are so keen of have any experience of working with boxers? In medicine people have different specialities, most neurosurgeons would have no experience of working with people in combat sports. I would assume that the Board's neurosurgeon has had lots of experience with boxers, so before when poo-pooing his opinion, he is probably quite well placed to give one.
I know it's obviously devastating for Weaver, but who are the Board executive to refuse the evidence of their doctor?

Four said he was safe to fight. Only one (the BBBoC's) wouldn't pass him. I believe one of the neurosurgeons that passed him was Professor Phillips who advises the BUI.

The boards doctor is going to have far more experience working with boxers than the BUI's doctor because of the difference in the number of fighters licensed with them. They will and have to trust their own neurosurgeon's judgement on whether a fighter is fit to box.

expe wrote:

slapbangwhallop wrote:

gobbles wrote:All this Ferrari technician v backstreet mechanic stuff is very strange. Did the Harley Street specialist some are so keen of have any experience of working with boxers? In medicine people have different specialities, most neurosurgeons would have no experience of working with people in combat sports. I would assume that the Board's neurosurgeon has had lots of experience with boxers, so before when poo-pooing his opinion, he is probably quite well placed to give one.
I know it's obviously devastating for Weaver, but who are the Board executive to refuse the evidence of their doctor?

Four said he was safe to fight. Only one (the BBBoC's) wouldn't pass him. I believe one of the neurosurgeons that passed him was Professor Phillips who advises the BUI.

The boards doctor is going to have far more experience working with boxers than the BUI's doctor because of the difference in the number of fighters licensed with them. They will and have to trust their own neurosurgeon's judgement on whether a fighter is fit to box.

I am sure that you are right.

However, in the interest of balance in medial opinion there is no right or wrong answer.

If you think that 5+5=7 then you are wrong. However, when it comes to matter of interpretation an opinion etc. then it gets more difficult.

For every medical neurosurgeon (or whatever) expert that agrees with you, I bet you could also find one somewhere that does not.