BoxRec

CharlesListon wrote:I can't post an electronic link because I have the hard copy of the magazine only.

In the MBC Sick Note thread I've asked you what insurance and drug policy you had in place with for the show you promoted. I know that the MBC are not associated with or recognised,registered, monitored or tested by WADA or UKADA because I've already made those enquiries.

Rio has already said he thought it was WADA but if you check on their (WADA) website you'll see that the Malta Boxing Commission are not governed by WADA.I did ask him to expand on this matter but he didn't respond.

This makes it impossible for the UKADA to be responsible for testing because they only deal with WADA registered bodies. I've got an email from UKADA confirming this.

If there isn't a drug policy in place it isn't the end of the world, its a new organisation who only put on about a dozen shows. The chances are UKADA would not have got around to doing random testing on those shows. There are very, very few random tests conducted annually, they are usually the result of intelligence. They do routinely test on eliminators and british title fights and above, but if the MBC havent promoted a contest of that level they wouldn't have been tested. What I'm saying is if it hasn't been done, it needs to be done.

The insurance is more worrying. If its public liability insurance then the chances of a boxer being covered for injury are remote. Most policies are in place for accidents such as stadium collpase, slips, trips and falls, that sort of thing. Most venues will have a PLI policy in place for that kind of thing, but they will not cover a boxer being injured. There are only a few companies that actually provide that cover and it would be the promoter's job to ensure this is in place. Is it the case that the MBC have this specialist insurance in place on behalf of the promoters? If so, who is their policy with and what is the level of cover in terms of £'s for personal injury? Or do they leave insurance down to the promoter?

What did you have in place for the show you recently promoted?

I can partially answer for damian. not fully as i dont know the whole details, but having trained numerous guys to box on his shows over the years, i can tell you he doesnt only have public liability insurance as he puts together a very sophisticated safety plan to present to venues when proposing a show and as part of that plan he includes insurance details for both the spectators and the boxers, i have to provide all details for the boxers i provide as he does each one on a show by show basis rather than over a certain amount of time. The insurance covers for certain amounts for injury and for death (pretty sure theres other catagories too, but i cant elaborate as ive not saved the paperwork after shows as ive had no need to) its the promoter themselves who cover the insurance rather than MBC to save on licensing costs,im 99% sure but dont quote me on that as gospel.

As for the article, its pretty laughable in all honesty... why are they interviewing someone whos not licensed by mbc and isnt listed as having a pro fight, thats no different to intervviewing one of the "semi pro undercard" lads and expecting them to know whats going on. And also they mentioned Tom Murry boxing at only 4 hours notice.. So What !!! dont tell me that doesnt happen all over the world week in week out, and after all, he didnt have to accept it did he ? someone pulled out and he stepped in, i dont get the problem. Nothing more than an attempt to discredit. If they dont wish to report on mbc then why do the article in the first place, i would guess they may have been asked to do so...

taffytoon wrote:

jonp wrote:Another point is that every you every body is invited along to the area AGM to listen to whats gone etc to ask questions and put forward proposals.

Iv been to three and there has never been more than four licence holders from the whole of the midlands going along.This year i wasnt there but i got told one licence holder turned up. If people want to really have a say in whats affecting them surely turning up once a year to the AGM might be a start.On average less than 1 per cent turn up so far.

Hi Jon; I was wondering if you could answer a question please; JamieM has quoted that boxing is corrupt and you pay extra to referees and judges to ensure your fighters win the decision. Can you confirm or deny this please; I have tried telling him he is full of poo but he is adamant (he also likened boxing to WWE in as much as the decision is decided even before the boxers enter the ring!!!!)


Cheers

Every show iv ever put on or been involved with the refs just got appointed by the board.In fact once after getting a couple of very debatable decisions i asked not to have a certain ref again next show he was actualy put on our show i decided not to ask that question again lol.As for asking for refs iv honestly never seen that.Perhaps when the area councils were mixed with licence holders it may have got people sometimes knocked back from shows but its hard to see.

Looking On wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I can't post an electronic link because I have the hard copy of the magazine only.

In the MBC Sick Note thread I've asked you what insurance and drug policy you had in place with for the show you promoted. I know that the MBC are not associated with or recognised,registered, monitored or tested by WADA or UKADA because I've already made those enquiries.

Rio has already said he thought it was WADA but if you check on their (WADA) website you'll see that the Malta Boxing Commission are not governed by WADA.I did ask him to expand on this matter but he didn't respond.

This makes it impossible for the UKADA to be responsible for testing because they only deal with WADA registered bodies. I've got an email from UKADA confirming this.

If there isn't a drug policy in place it isn't the end of the world, its a new organisation who only put on about a dozen shows. The chances are UKADA would not have got around to doing random testing on those shows. There are very, very few random tests conducted annually, they are usually the result of intelligence. They do routinely test on eliminators and british title fights and above, but if the MBC havent promoted a contest of that level they wouldn't have been tested. What I'm saying is if it hasn't been done, it needs to be done.

The insurance is more worrying. If its public liability insurance then the chances of a boxer being covered for injury are remote. Most policies are in place for accidents such as stadium collpase, slips, trips and falls, that sort of thing. Most venues will have a PLI policy in place for that kind of thing, but they will not cover a boxer being injured. There are only a few companies that actually provide that cover and it would be the promoter's job to ensure this is in place. Is it the case that the MBC have this specialist insurance in place on behalf of the promoters? If so, who is their policy with and what is the level of cover in terms of £'s for personal injury? Or do they leave insurance down to the promoter?

What did you have in place for the show you recently promoted?

I can partially answer for damian. not fully as i dont know the whole details, but having trained numerous guys to box on his shows over the years, i can tell you he doesnt only have public liability insurance as he puts together a very sophisticated safety plan to present to venues when proposing a show and as part of that plan he includes insurance details for both the spectators and the boxers, i have to provide all details for the boxers i provide as he does each one on a show by show basis rather than over a certain amount of time. The insurance covers for certain amounts for injury and for death (pretty sure theres other catagories too, but i cant elaborate as ive not saved the paperwork after shows as ive had no need to) its the promoter themselves who cover the insurance rather than MBC to save on licensing costs,im 99% sure but dont quote me on that as gospel.

As for the article, its pretty laughable in all honesty... why are they interviewing someone whos not licensed by mbc and isnt listed as having a pro fight, thats no different to intervviewing one of the "semi pro undercard" lads and expecting them to know whats going on. And also they mentioned Tom Murry boxing at only 4 hours notice.. So What !!! dont tell me that doesnt happen all over the world week in week out, and after all, he didnt have to accept it did he ? someone pulled out and he stepped in, i dont get the problem. Nothing more than an attempt to discredit. If they dont wish to report on mbc then why do the article in the first place, i would guess they may have been asked to do so...

Just a qick one im genuinly intersted about as i know how sneaky insurance companies can be what did the poor lad who died family get paid out under that kind of deal?

Jon seeing as taffytoon wants to rearrange my questions, not about proof etc, in your honest opinion do you believe that there is an element of corruption in boxing, rememever you have oroberly been on the end of it, no names no accusations but in your opinipn

I do think the home guy gets better end of it but i honestly dont think its corruption in the way that sounds i just think the crowd is roaring every shot the home guy makes,everything is pushed towards the home guy publicity etc and refs are human subconsiously its easy to lean towards the home guy when hes on every poster interveiw every body is talking about how good he is.
That being said iv seen some decisions i cant get my head round but iv seen that at the absolute lowest end of the scale plenty of times where the combined purses dont come to more than 2k,why would someone be paying a ref in a fight that means nothing neither lad is ever gonna go on to big money so would anybody even be involved in corruption there but the decisions at that level are sometimes as questionable as the ones at the higher level.

There will always be really bad decisions its the nature of the beast but i honestly think its more down to bad day at the office,outside influences playing a factor(crowd etc) or sometimes the best of refs are not the best of judges than down to any shadowy dealings going on.We are the only country where refs have to look after the safety of the fighter and score a fight at the same to a very high degree iv always thought this is unfair on refs.

Also iv put in a few complaints about decisions (more than a few actualy lol)so im not on refs sides.

There are refs out there I look forward to seeing Bob Williams and John Lathem to name a couple yet other people dread seeing them ,then there are refs i think we havnt a chance of getting a decision yet other people swear they are the best about.Its an odd thing and can be coloured by yr own personal experiances and its also a subject you could debate about endlessly.

One thing i do notice is newer refs seem to be more home refs where as once a guy is more experienced i think he knows he doesnt have to please anybody and gets on with it.

In the midlands theres a new ref Kev parker and hes one of the best new refs iv seen,where a lad has to earn his win wether hes at home or not.If he continues the way hes started he could be our best ref in a few years time.

Taffytoon etc forget to put that I am speaking on a higher spectrum of promotors, where there is money, and also they don't seem to think it goes on here. Where there is money there is corruption in all walks of life, also it is a such open to debate . Regarding referees Kevin Mcintyre up in Scotland is doing a good job also. Doesn't step in every 2 seconds lets them get on with it and everyone respects him. Thank you for your reply, as you said everyone has different expieiriences and as a license holder I didn't even expect you to reply to it.

You didn't say that you said refs were corrupt and actually named Howard foster who is one of the most honest people you can meet. Now sit down and shut up.

I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

jonp wrote:

Looking On wrote:

CharlesListon wrote:I can't post an electronic link because I have the hard copy of the magazine only.

In the MBC Sick Note thread I've asked you what insurance and drug policy you had in place with for the show you promoted. I know that the MBC are not associated with or recognised,registered, monitored or tested by WADA or UKADA because I've already made those enquiries.

Rio has already said he thought it was WADA but if you check on their (WADA) website you'll see that the Malta Boxing Commission are not governed by WADA.I did ask him to expand on this matter but he didn't respond.

This makes it impossible for the UKADA to be responsible for testing because they only deal with WADA registered bodies. I've got an email from UKADA confirming this.

If there isn't a drug policy in place it isn't the end of the world, its a new organisation who only put on about a dozen shows. The chances are UKADA would not have got around to doing random testing on those shows. There are very, very few random tests conducted annually, they are usually the result of intelligence. They do routinely test on eliminators and british title fights and above, but if the MBC havent promoted a contest of that level they wouldn't have been tested. What I'm saying is if it hasn't been done, it needs to be done.

The insurance is more worrying. If its public liability insurance then the chances of a boxer being covered for injury are remote. Most policies are in place for accidents such as stadium collpase, slips, trips and falls, that sort of thing. Most venues will have a PLI policy in place for that kind of thing, but they will not cover a boxer being injured. There are only a few companies that actually provide that cover and it would be the promoter's job to ensure this is in place. Is it the case that the MBC have this specialist insurance in place on behalf of the promoters? If so, who is their policy with and what is the level of cover in terms of £'s for personal injury? Or do they leave insurance down to the promoter?

What did you have in place for the show you recently promoted?

I can partially answer for damian. not fully as i dont know the whole details, but having trained numerous guys to box on his shows over the years, i can tell you he doesnt only have public liability insurance as he puts together a very sophisticated safety plan to present to venues when proposing a show and as part of that plan he includes insurance details for both the spectators and the boxers, i have to provide all details for the boxers i provide as he does each one on a show by show basis rather than over a certain amount of time. The insurance covers for certain amounts for injury and for death (pretty sure theres other catagories too, but i cant elaborate as ive not saved the paperwork after shows as ive had no need to) its the promoter themselves who cover the insurance rather than MBC to save on licensing costs,im 99% sure but dont quote me on that as gospel.

As for the article, its pretty laughable in all honesty... why are they interviewing someone whos not licensed by mbc and isnt listed as having a pro fight, thats no different to intervviewing one of the "semi pro undercard" lads and expecting them to know whats going on. And also they mentioned Tom Murry boxing at only 4 hours notice.. So What !!! dont tell me that doesnt happen all over the world week in week out, and after all, he didnt have to accept it did he ? someone pulled out and he stepped in, i dont get the problem. Nothing more than an attempt to discredit. If they dont wish to report on mbc then why do the article in the first place, i would guess they may have been asked to do so...

Just a qick one im genuinly intersted about as i know how sneaky insurance companies can be what did the poor lad who died family get paid out under that kind of deal?

I couldnt say, I know damian helped his family out with funeral costs by sending all proceeds from that specific show, but as a guess i imagine the insurance wouldnt have paid out, because the verdict was it was drugs related due to a cocktail of fat burners he had been taking, which in turn acidified his blood and caused kidney damage, and therefore not related to boxing or the event itself. Im sure he will comment on here himself when he sees it, i know hes trying to have xmas away from boxing as much as possible to spend with his family.

JamieM wrote:I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

No it isn't. Go and get a dictionary and look up what corruption actually is, not what you've decided it is.

its not nice bit like car insurance only a lot more serious they take the money but will use anything to get out of paying when its needed,I was gonna put on that thread that for the mbc to survive it needs guys like damion and yrself to head it and take it into hand,iv been speaking to guys involved boxers etc and they are losinga lot of faith and it just seems to be stumbling from one pr disaster to another.

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

No it isn't. Go and get a dictionary and look up what corruption actually is, not what you've decided it is.

To be fair what i meant by that is iv been at a fight live where its really intense and scored it one way,got home watched a bit more chilled out sound low on tv and thought how the fornicate did i come up with that.What i will say its an awful lot of pressure on refs to score a bout and get ridiculed for geting it wrong wile also holding the boxers life in his hands basically although iv complained and moaned myself a lot i know which one i want the ref paying more attention to at the end of the day

jonp wrote:I do think the home guy gets better end of it but i honestly dont think its corruption in the way that sounds i just think the crowd is roaring every shot the home guy makes,everything is pushed towards the home guy publicity etc and refs are human subconsiously its easy to lean towards the home guy when hes on every poster interveiw every body is talking about how good he is.
That being said iv seen some decisions i cant get my head round but iv seen that at the absolute lowest end of the scale plenty of times where the combined purses dont come to more than 2k,why would someone be paying a ref in a fight that means nothing neither lad is ever gonna go on to big money so would anybody even be involved in corruption there but the decisions at that level are sometimes as questionable as the ones at the higher level.

There will always be really bad decisions its the nature of the beast but i honestly think its more down to bad day at the office,outside influences playing a factor(crowd etc) or sometimes the best of refs are not the best of judges than down to any shadowy dealings going on.We are the only country where refs have to look after the safety of the fighter and score a fight at the same to a very high degree iv always thought this is unfair on refs.

Also iv put in a few complaints about decisions (more than a few actualy lol)so im not on refs sides.

There are refs out there I look forward to seeing Bob Williams and John Lathem to name a couple yet other people dread seeing them ,then there are refs i think we havnt a chance of getting a decision yet other people swear they are the best about.Its an odd thing and can be coloured by yr own personal experiances and its also a subject you could debate about endlessly.

One thing i do notice is newer refs seem to be more home refs where as once a guy is more experienced i think he knows he doesnt have to please anybody and gets on with it.

In the midlands theres a new ref Kev parker and hes one of the best new refs iv seen,where a lad has to earn his win wether hes at home or not.If he continues the way hes started he could be our best ref in a few years time.

Glad to hear you say that about kev parker mate. I know him a little bit, cracking bloke who loves the sport and is reffing to give something to that sport.

I'll pass on that you said that jon I'm sure he will be chuffed to hear it, thanks for the insights

jonp wrote:

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

No it isn't. Go and get a dictionary and look up what corruption actually is, not what you've decided it is.

To be fair what i meant by that is iv been at a fight live where its really intense and scored it one way,got home watched a bit more chilled out sound low on tv and thought how the eff did i come up with that.What i will say its an awful lot of pressure on refs to score a bout and get ridiculed for geting it wrong wile also holding the boxers life in his hands basically although iv complained and moaned myself a lot i know which one i want the ref paying more attention to at the end of the day

Well said JonP.

expe wrote:

JamieM wrote:I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

No it isn't. Go and get a dictionary and look up what corruption actually is, not what you've decided it is.

Hahaha; he would not know what a dictionary is FFS; he is of the elk of why let the truth get in the way of his theory. He is a first class plank.

JamieM wrote:I believe refs are corrupt, some and I stand by it ha. Even jons way of putting it, swayed by crowds etc is corruption. Not all corruption comes with money also. Promotors intentions can corrupt them. Happens. And I didn't actually name Howard I called him a pish ref. And he said I didn't say it to his face. Special needs case taffytoon?

You go backwards better than an Italian tank in WWII. You did make the allegations hence why your posts had to be edited by the mods on here Oh and I know you're a little slow so I will help you with the definition on corrupt - dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery. What JonP is explaining and describing in nothing like this. Now sit down and shut up theres a good lad

Fraudently giving someone a win because they sold tickets, that's corrupt you absolute
Moron!! Typically involving money which means that it's common. I got comments removed for saying referees are corrupt not Howard foster, I said he was a shit ref which I still think, a referee swaying towards the home fighter is a form of corruption,

Dishonest or illegal behaviour especially by powerful people. (Such as government officials and police officers)

Money is a common focus on corruption but there are also other motives. A bit like the bbc who were corrupted during the Scottish referendum.

I found your t-shirt -


http://image1.spreadshirtmedia.net/imag ... Shirts.png