BoxRec

kamicazze wrote:This is intriguing. What titles can a fighter box for if he is licensed via the mbc?

Interesting question.

I am guessing (at the moment at least) that they could not box for Area, English or British titles ? - as these are controlled by the BBBofC

What about Masters titles ? (if they are still going).

Also, the Commonwealth title ? not to mention the various EU belts etc.

It sounds as though the Board could be on a sticky wicket - I guess that they have got away with it for so long because it needs a boxer/organisation to actually challenge them in the Courts - which could cost a lot of money that a novice boxer or small promoter could not risk. However, if they all got together and pooled resources then this could happen.

As long as a minimum medical criteria is met, I do not see what the problem is.

In America there are loads of different Boxing Commissions and that works ok, so why not over here ?

bripez wrote:

kamicazze wrote:This is intriguing. What titles can a fighter box for if he is licensed via the mbc?

Interesting question.

I am guessing (at the moment at least) that they could not box for Area, English or British titles ? - as these are controlled by the BBBofC

What about Masters titles ? (if they are still going).

Also, the Commonwealth title ? not to mention the various EU belts etc.

It sounds as though the Board could be on a sticky wicket - I guess that they have got away with it for so long because it needs a boxer/organisation to actually challenge them in the Courts - which could cost a lot of money that a novice boxer or small promoter could not risk. However, if they all got together and pooled resources then this could happen.

As long as a minimum medical criteria is met, I do not see what the problem is.

In America there are loads of different Boxing Commissions and that works ok, so why not over here ?

Probably just the Masters titles, British, Commonwealth and European would all be out, WBC probably would be too and the other world titles would be difficult, especially in this country.

Every state has it's own commission in America, none of them overlap with each other. It's still a mess though, some states will sanction fighters when others won't, fighters using different names in different states and some of the fights that get sanctioned are similar to what you'd see outside your local.

LucaDiCaro wrote: I can confidently say that in the coming week or so we will be providing verifiable proof that the BBBofC are legally unable to carry out the 'threats of repercussion' they have been making to the boxers that make an application to box on MBC Sanctioned events in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

What happened to this proof? Did I miss something?

Yeah it's been a while. Be good to see something

The Insider wrote:

LucaDiCaro wrote: I can confidently say that in the coming week or so we will be providing verifiable proof that the BBBofC are legally unable to carry out the 'threats of repercussion' they have been making to the boxers that make an application to box on MBC Sanctioned events in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.

What happened to this proof? Did I miss something?

They don't have any.

spudder56 wrote:

billy nelson wrote:On par with BBBofC shows

If thats the case why do boxers still want to be licensed by the Board ?

Does the BBBoC pay the boxers? No. So what's the point?

Pay comes down to the promoter, not the licensing body.

Once again Di Caro has come on here, stirred a hornets nest up then disappears to leave us arguing the toss.

You can never convince me that anyone that licences Robin Deacon & had Delroy Spencer due to box has boxings best interests at heart.

pyenest77 wrote:Once again Di Caro has come on here, stirred a hornets nest up then disappears to leave us arguing the toss.

You can never convince me that anyone that licences Robin Deacon & had Delroy Spencer due to box has boxings best interests at heart.

Have to say I agree with you on on this

Seems he uses the board for a bit of free publicity then does one when genuine questions are asked.

I haven't been to a MBC show because the line ups always appear to be wholly unattractive. I can't see why a BBBOFC licensed boxer would want to fight on one of the shows.
I'm not saying every BBBOFC is attractive or competitive, but at least the boxers are usually in their prime. There are reasons why the BBBOFC have refused licenses to boxers....ie losing too many bouts consecutively and taking a hiding or being out early on license.
With regard to the former, health comes first. Its not that the guys are seriously damaged right now today, but more of a long term plan.
How would it look for the MBC if God forbid a Rob Deakin or Delroy got harmed on one of their shows, having been declined a BBBOFC license on those grounds.

CharlesListon wrote:I haven't been to a MBC show because the line ups always appear to be wholly unattractive. I can't see why a BBBOFC licensed boxer would want to fight on one of the shows.
I'm not saying every BBBOFC is attractive or competitive, but at least the boxers are usually in their prime. There are reasons why the BBBOFC have refused licenses to boxers....ie losing too many bouts consecutively and taking a hiding or being out early on license.
With regard to the former, health comes first. Its not that the guys are seriously damaged right now today, but more of a long term plan.
How would it look for the MBC if God forbid a Rob Deakin or Delroy got harmed on one of their shows, having been declined a BBBOFC license on those grounds.

Being out of prison or convictions is one they need to review.

What drug testing do MBC undertake please ?

kamicazze wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I haven't been to a MBC show because the line ups always appear to be wholly unattractive. I can't see why a BBBOFC licensed boxer would want to fight on one of the shows.
I'm not saying every BBBOFC is attractive or competitive, but at least the boxers are usually in their prime. There are reasons why the BBBOFC have refused licenses to boxers....ie losing too many bouts consecutively and taking a hiding or being out early on license.
With regard to the former, health comes first. Its not that the guys are seriously damaged right now today, but more of a long term plan.
How would it look for the MBC if God forbid a Rob Deakin or Delroy got harmed on one of their shows, having been declined a BBBOFC license on those grounds.

Being out of prison or convictions is one they need to review.

Yep....fully agree.

kamicazze wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I haven't been to a MBC show because the line ups always appear to be wholly unattractive. I can't see why a BBBOFC licensed boxer would want to fight on one of the shows.
I'm not saying every BBBOFC is attractive or competitive, but at least the boxers are usually in their prime. There are reasons why the BBBOFC have refused licenses to boxers....ie losing too many bouts consecutively and taking a hiding or being out early on license.
With regard to the former, health comes first. Its not that the guys are seriously damaged right now today, but more of a long term plan.
How would it look for the MBC if God forbid a Rob Deakin or Delroy got harmed on one of their shows, having been declined a BBBOFC license on those grounds.

Being out of prison or convictions is one they need to review.

Why?

just been thinking when a boxer boxes on a bbbc show he cannot box for 7 days?
so could a boxer say fight on a Friday on a bbbc show then on a mbc show on a sunday? what or who could really stop it happening?

Darcy Delaney wrote:just been thinking when a boxer boxes on a bbbc show he cannot box for 7 days?
so could a boxer say fight on a Friday on a bbbc show then on a mbc show on a sunday? what or who could really stop it happening?

I wouldn't imagine that the MBC would have any issue with that but it's all hypothetical at the moment coz as far as I am aware there is no agreement between the board and the MBC allowing boxers to fight for both organisations in the case of the board they won't allow boxers to fight outside their jurisdiction in the UK as far as the MBC are concerned the board won't accept MBC boxers to fight on board shows seeing that most MBC boxers have either had their board licences withdrawn or they haven't been granted one either because of abilility or medical issues or being on licence from court etc perhaps Luca can enlighten us as to what agreement if any is in place between the 2 organisations so that clears everything up once and for all

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:What drug testing do MBC undertake please ?

To be honest I don't know, however I also don't know what drug testing the BBBofC do - do you know / also want to know ?

Darcy Delaney wrote:just been thinking when a boxer boxes on a bbbc show he cannot box for 7 days?

A boxer can box more than once on the same night on a BBBofC show.

spudder56 wrote:

Darcy Delaney wrote:just been thinking when a boxer boxes on a bbbc show he cannot box for 7 days?
so could a boxer say fight on a Friday on a bbbc show then on a mbc show on a sunday? what or who could really stop it happening?

I wouldn't imagine that the MBC would have any issue with that but it's all hypothetical at the moment coz as far as I am aware there is no agreement between the board and the MBC allowing boxers to fight for both organisations in the case of the board they won't allow boxers to fight outside their jurisdiction in the UK as far as the MBC are concerned the board won't accept MBC boxers to fight on board shows seeing that most MBC boxers have either had their board licences withdrawn or they haven't been granted one either because of abilility or medical issues or being on licence from court etc perhaps Luca can enlighten us as to what agreement if any is in place between the 2 organisations so that clears everything up once and for all

As far as I am aware there is no "agreement" in place - indeed, this is the crux of the problem as the MBC believe that an agreement is not required and that boxers should be able to box on both MBC and BBBofC shows, and it is the BBBofC who have told their members that they are not allowed to box on MBC shows and will be banned from boxing on their shows if they do so.

bripez wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:What drug testing do MBC undertake please ?

To be honest I don't know, however I also don't know what drug testing the BBBofC do - do you know / also want to know ?

BBBOFC don't drug test, its not their place to but they allow and fully support any testing by UKADA and WADA...post fight or random
Same as any other pro sport in the UK. I was on a show in Portsmouth in December and UKAD turned up to do random testing.

CharlesListon wrote:

bripez wrote:

Black Sam Bellamy wrote:What drug testing do MBC undertake please ?

To be honest I don't know, however I also don't know what drug testing the BBBofC do - do you know / also want to know ?

BBBOFC don't drug test, its not their place to but they allow and fully support any testing by UKADA and WADA...post fight or random
Same as any other pro sport in the UK. I was on a show in Portsmouth in December and UKAD turned up to do random testing.

Thanks for that - I wonder how many tests were carried out on boxers last year? (This info must be available somewhere).

I'm not sure, its probably available somewhere on the UKAD website. I've used the site to check on banned substances but it wasn't the easiest site to use.

I think the volume of testing is on a par with other sports. There's about 970 bbbofc licensed pros and I'm aware of 3 tests last year at least one was random. That's just what I was aware of. There were a couple of high profile cases of people getting caught over the past couple of years so I'm sure that UKADA are out there doing the tests.

When I played rugby we got random tested a couple of times, once on a training session. The union (WRU) has no involvement with the testing they just got told of the results and its the same with the bbbofc, the officials like the inspectors assist the testers but thats about as far as it goes, although i think the board had to register with the agency at some point.

It will be interesting to see what the MBC do with it, maybe they'll do the same.

The point about the rugby was that in 10 yrs I saw two tests, thats with 1000's of players, so 3 in 2014 that is know of is probably on a par for boxing.

if you look at every british,world europeon,wbc etc,commonwealth title fight that is two tests each time. Then you see the random ones of which i dont think anyone except ukad have any idea how many. So probably a couple of hundred a year depending on title fights.

jonp wrote:if you look at every british,world europeon,wbc etc,commonwealth title fight that is two tests each time. Then you see the random ones of which i dont think anyone except ukad have any idea how many. So probably a couple of hundred a year depending on title fights.

Also I know for sure that ukad have turned up at several boxers houses and gyms and tested lots of boxers so it doesn't only happen at title fights refusal to take a test automatically means you are guilty of drug taking

spudder56 wrote:

jonp wrote:if you look at every british,world europeon,wbc etc,commonwealth title fight that is two tests each time. Then you see the random ones of which i dont think anyone except ukad have any idea how many. So probably a couple of hundred a year depending on title fights.

Also I know for sure that ukad have turned up at several boxers houses and gyms and tested lots of boxers so it doesn't only happen at title fights refusal to take a test automatically means you are guilty of drug taking

Unless you don't hear the doorbell ringing !! ......