BoxRec

Hi
I cannot seem to find email addresses for the 3 judges whom I understand to be
Steve Moore, Adam Height and Alan Moore. however 1 or more posts to this forum so someone may be able to help me reach them . I need them to answer some questions I have as I am taking the NZ TAB to Court for not refunding my bets on Botha.
The TAB has paid out on SBW because they said they paid out because the winner was the person the judges made the winner. I therefore need to ascertain
1.whether or not the judges were properly appointed
2.whether or not they were fully informed
3. whether or not they were properly supervised.

Thanks
Frank

Good luck getting any response from them - they can't discuss the issue. A simple look at their records on Boxrec answers some of your questions, as does a look at the show record.
You must have bet a fair amount to consider it worthwhile going after the TAB in court!

franklawton wrote:Hi
I cannot seem to find email addresses for the 3 judges whom I understand to be
Steve Moore, Adam Height and Alan Moore. however 1 or more posts to this forum so someone may be able to help me reach them . I need them to answer some questions I have as I am taking the NZ TAB to Court for not refunding my bets on Botha.
The TAB has paid out on SBW because they said they paid out because the winner was the person the judges made the winner. I therefore need to ascertain
1.whether or not the judges were properly appointed
2.whether or not they were fully informed
3. whether or not they were properly supervised.

Thanks
Frank

I know Adam posts on here, and he did comment on the issue in this thread.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=162175

Good luck mate, you'll need it!!!

Who's Steven Moore?

The first thing you want to do is get the names correct Frank:

Steve Marshall
Alan Moore
Adam Height

Pretty sure I read Alan Moore claim he wasn't instructed the fight had been changed to 10 rounds prior. But as per the posts above I reckon you've got absolutely Buckley's chance of getting anyone to break the silence.

RedCornerPromotions wrote:Who's Steven Moore?

doesnt he play hooker for the brumbies/wallabies??

Hi
Thanks for the responses.

First apologies for getting the names of the referees wrong. I am a poor cut and paste person.

Second I must also apologise to Frank Hadley. i sent him the questions i want answers to as secretary of the anbf. But I headed it wrong so he thought I meant he was a judge, However what was worrying was that his response was
Why have you sent this to me ? The ANBF and myself personally had
absolutely nothing to do with ths bout. Good luck with your claim.


Now i do not know much of Australian Boxing politics but I note the following
The Australian newspaper reported that Australian National Boxing Federation vice-president Alan Moore, a ringside judge for the bout, had no idea it had been shortened to 10 rounds.

"When the ring announcer said over the loud speaker that it was the last round, that was the first we (judges) knew of any change,'' Moore was quoted as saying.

"Any international title fight is meant to be fought over 12 three-minute rounds. I have no idea what happened."


So it would seem then that the judges were not endorsed/supported by organisations they are associated with. That is not what i understand a judge to be. they seem in reality to be just 3 freelance individuals??????.

other reported comments By the WBA rep for this part of the world says Williams promoter did not go through him but did the deal directly with WBA. So in effect we basically have the agent of one the contestants as having full control in everything including who were the referees etc. I would love to know who actually paid the judges for attending.

Look I am not after the referees themselves as i am not questioning their judging of the fight itself ie round by round.

But it increasingly it looks like
1. they were not appointed in a way that warrants the use of the term judge by the NZTAB
2. they were not properly informed ( 1 or more made statements afterwards they did know it was 10 rounds). while this does not mean their round by round scoring was directly effected it had to be affected it in some way. Also if informed at the outset it was just 10 rounds there would have been the chance for 1 or more judges to excuse themselves from the event
3. they were not properly supervised, Any judge in any field is till subject to some checks and balances. That they were not supervised for this event is self evident. No WBA rep was there!!!! I assume the WBA rep if on site could have done lots including setting aside their scoring etc.

So if the 3 gentlemen are reading this here is what I want you to respond to. it is a simple yes or no. Easy peasy.
In the meantime i am still asking forum members for their emails or at least where i should look to find them


.............................................
Hi

I am taking the NZ TAB to Court to get reimbursed (refunded) for my bets on Botha in the famous Botha/SBW fight.

I consider that even though the TAB did not know the fight was to go just 10 rounds they sold me a bet where they and I expected it to go 12. In fact that is why I backed Botha as I believed SBW could not last 12 and Botha would in the last few rounds either knock him out or win on points as he would get huge points in the last few rounds as SBW would be exhausted..

Anyhow the TAB says that is all irrelevant as the bet is paid out on the “judges decision” and since the judges awarded the fight to SBW I have lost.

So to get a refund of my bets I need to prove your decision has no validity ie carries no weight at all ie cannot be used by the TAB as a judgment by a judge.

It seems I need to prove 1 or more of the following 3 points:

you were not properly appointed
you were not fully informed
you were not properly supervised

1. In terms of point 1 above
A. is there a clear paper trail from the WBA through local boxing association etc down to you that shows your appointment? yes or no
B If yes does it mean that you were appointed to judge a 12 round fight ( WBA fights of this type as as you know 12 rounds according to their own rules? yes or no

2.. In terms of point 2 above
A Considering
the referee did not inform you from the outset it was to be 10 rounds and
a WBA supervisor was not present which is a requirement (so his information/instructions/guidance) was not even given
Do you agree you were not fully informed? Yes or no

3. In terms of point 3 above
A having a WBA supervisor present is a requirement and together with judges you all seem to be called officials in some documents. Do you agree that when the WBA person is not there that the other officials ( here judges) have no standing since in that context the group of officials is not complete as the WBA requires? yes or no

B. presumably when you complete your judging there is an opportunity for the WBA to intervene in some way.. By not being there when you have finished marking your 10 rounds there obviously was no check of anything and no stopping of anything. So the marks were added up and given to the referee to announce. If that check is not done or even the opportunity for it to be done is not there does it not make what you hand in just the sum of your points to round 10?. It surely cannot be considered that as a judge you have given the fight to SBW even if he had the most points at that stage. ie your scores were not yet finished and were incomplete so cannot be used as the final result?. yes or no


The Court case is yet to get a hearing date but I expect one to be set within a week and then I have to present to the Court my full case.
To that end I would really appreciate a reply by 24 May 2013.

Please contact me if you require more information.

Regards


Frank Lawton
[email protected]

14 may 2013

Onya buddy, ya got a definite biff. Hoping yer bank balance meets yer biff

Not nice to encourage the poor bloke when you know he has buckleys chance Voicey!

Frank,
You seem to have little knowledge of the sport you bet on - hopefully the following helps clarify your position to you:

1) Frank Hadley is the secretary of the National Branch of the ANBF. All they do is sanction and control Australian titles and Champions.

2) Alan Moore claims vehemently that he was mis-quoted in that article. Also the WBA International title can be held over 10 or 12 rounds.

3) The WBA or any other sanctioning body has no imput on the selection of referees and judges on regional title fights.They can send a supervisor, that's it.

4) No supervisor can interject or impact on a judges scoring. He tallies the totals he receives in between rounds, nothing else.

5) Anyone with a knowledge of the ten point must system (and no doubt the TAB lawyers will research this). Is going tofind your claim tthat you thought a fighter could make up such a massive deficit in two rounds laughable and throw it out. Quite simply, you don't have a case and don't go throwing good money after bad

Interesting you are having problems with this. I contacted Sportsbet.com.au raising the exact same issues 24 hours after the fight ended. Initially I got the cold shoulder saying the the result was official and that no refunds would be offered. I pushed a little harder, included some quotes, some links to some articles etc etc and not only did my bets get refunded, but twelve ours later, they refunded to everyone who had bet on the fight.

Good luck with your claim, and don't accept their first response as their final response.

Stinger - bookies refunding bets like yours was more of a PR stunt than anything, plus it was easier to refund bets than to defend any possible action as the hold on Botha was not likely to be significant (obviously I don't know that as a fact). Very similar to how recently bookies refunded bets on More Joyous when they were under no obligation to do so.

Frank, I think you need to speak to a lawyer, as your claim seems a little misguided. If you want to get damages (or a refund of your loss) from NZ Tab, you will need to focus on their actions, not so much the judges of sanctioning bodies (as you had no contract with them ie no bet with them) - for them to be liable you would need to basically prove corruption or gross negligence to even get a start, and you would need to join them as a co-defendant so to speak. For example, you will need to try and provide evidence that the bout was advertised on the betting agenices website as a 12 round fight (if so, the TAB have falsly advertised the fight and misled you, its customer, into thinking it was a 12 rouond fight). Things like 'subject to change' are not helpful to your case. Also, when they say it pays on the official decision, that is not helpful toyour case.

Obviously you need to seek independant legal advice and I have provided the comments above simply as one punter to another. Please do not rely on my comments in pursuing any action against TAB.

All the best. Hopefully you can get enough together to force them to offer you something through mediation.

Funny how different places work. The TAB in West Aust refunded me within a few days !!

Hi All

Thanks for the comments.

The reason I think I can win is that
1. if it was not a sanctioned bout then the judges have no standing
2. if it was “sanctioned” by the WBA (and the ANBF has told the NZ TAB it was) then they must follow the WBA rules. They did not. The fact that the referee stopped the fight after 10 rounds meant they could not judge a 12 round contest so their results have no standing

The latest rules were signed off at the meeting in Jakarta on 30 October 2012 so are very current.

The following wording is used
Quote
CONTEST RULES
1. Application. The Contest Rules apply to all bouts sanctioned by the Association.
A boxer may be disqualified for failure to adhere to any Contest Rule. The Rules may be
modified in certain respects for women bouts.
2. Bout Duration. All sanctioned bouts shall be scheduled for twelve (12) rounds.
Each round shall be scheduled for three (3) minutes duration with a one (1) minute rest between
rounds.
Unquote

3. if incredibly somehow the WBA can create any variant it likes ( ie sanction a 10 round match ) my reading of the rules is that they cannot and still call it an International fight etc as the judges still need to be overseen by a supervisor. The powers of a supervisor are huge and his/her presence is to act in just these type of odd situations eg where the judges did not know it was not a 12 round match.
Having no supervisor means that the there was no person to affirm that the judges 10 round scores constituted the entire amount of scoring that was needed. in a sense a supervisor is like a Chief Judge he/she has to agree that any “result’ they create is acceptable. If that acceptability ‘test’ is not applied then the judges decisions have no validity.

regards
Frank

You either lost a whole swag of money on that fight or you are a stickler for the principal involved. Good luck to you mate. But I doubt you'll win without putting up a fight well out of proportion with what you might get in return and that's only if you win.

Hi TrainInsane,

Thanks for the support. i agree it is a hard task. In this case I bet very little on the fight but i am using the equivalent of the small claims court. That keeps my costs down but means if I win I cannot claim costs (not even the claim lodgement fee). So even if I win and they are made to refund the bets I will still come out behind.

The reason I am pushing so hard is back in 2007 I did do a big bet on Rasmussen in the tour de france. I took the NZTAB to court then and they won. Their key points that convinced the Court was the way they decide the winner is valid. In that case it was they paid out "on the podium" and here its "on the judges". Essentailly they argued no matter what happens the winner is the right winner ie they are paying out correctly and they do not need to refund any losing bets as their system is "pure".

I just do not accept they can have it both ways. they sold me a bet where they and I belived Botha would have the chance to beat SBW over 12 rounds. It is the only reason I placed the bet. if it was just 10 rounds I would not have bet as SBW might have lasted ( as he did - just).
They cannot then effectively say that no matter what they sold me since the judges gave it to SBW my bet is a losing bet.
It means anything to taken to absurdity in a sports event and never have to be accountable.

As they have been given monoploy rights to sports betting in this country I think the way they do things should meet the very highest standards. To that end if they are to stick with the "judges decision" system they need to be able to prove it is credible. I just cannot see that being so in this case. So yes I am fighting to get a system that the ordinary punter would view as fair.

(The betting agencies in Australia could probably have run th NZTAB line too but are smart enough that to keep punters happy ie recognise when something is unfair they should refund "losing bets". They refunded on Rasmussen as well as Botha. perhaps the real 'solution' long term is competition in the industry here. It certainly has worked for you in Australia in these wacky outcome situations)

Regards
Frank

Frank,

I am not a lawyer but I follow boxing closely and have been known to have the odd bet on a fight.

I seriously think you are wasting you time with this one, the NZ TAB rules are quite clear in the case of a fight where the number of rounds of the fight are changed after the betting has commenced. They void all "pick the round" bets and all other bets stand.

IMO your line of thinking about the competence of the judges is irrelevant. The fight was originally scheduled for 12 rounds but changed at some stage to 10 rounds. All the debate about the sanctioning body and their rules is a waste of time. The fight will go down in the history books as a 10 round points victory to Sonny Bill Williams.

The fact that this fight took place in Queensland set off alarm bells for me. My understanding is that Queensland does not have its own regulatory body for boxing and thus fights in that state need to be looked on with less confidence from a betting point of view than fights in Victoria or New South Wales that do have their own boxing regulators. I had a strong feeling that something of a controversial nature was going to happen in this fight. I thought it could be a premature stoppage or some other sort of referring controversy.

I have had a number of disagreements with the bookies over the years and I know its easy to take a blinkered approach with these things and not take a step back and consider both arguments. I have generally had very little success with these claims.

Hope this helps.

It is interesting that certain parties are not posting in this thread. I bet they are reading it though.

belta53 wrote:Frank,

I am not a lawyer but I follow boxing closely and have been known to have the odd bet on a fight.

I seriously think you are wasting you time with this one, the NZ TAB rules are quite clear in the case of a fight where the number of rounds of the fight are changed after the betting has commenced. They void all "pick the round" bets and all other bets stand.

IMO your line of thinking about the competence of the judges is irrelevant. The fight was originally scheduled for 12 rounds but changed at some stage to 10 rounds. All the debate about the sanctioning body and their rules is a waste of time. The fight will go down in the history books as a 10 round points victory to Sonny Bill Williams.

The fact that this fight took place in Queensland set off alarm bells for me. My understanding is that Queensland does not have its own regulatory body for boxing and thus fights in that state need to be looked on with less confidence from a betting point of view than fights in Victoria or New South Wales that do have their own boxing regulators. I had a strong feeling that something of a controversial nature was going to happen in this fight. I thought it could be a premature stoppage or some other sort of referring controversy.

I have had a number of disagreements with the bookies over the years and I know its easy to take a blinkered approach with these things and not take a step back and consider both arguments. I have generally had very little success with these claims.

Hope this helps.

You're talking shite sunshine. ANBF Qld Inc is the pro boxing regulating body & has been since you were probably in nappies. I'm aware of numerous & I mean numerous fights in other States where duration was either decreased or increased on the night.
If corners agree, referee & timekeeper are aware is all that's required.

hi all

1. I agree with the forum member that says this may well be too hard/fruitless. I am finding in writing my submission I have lots of pieces of information but it not at all coherent and I am having difficulty finding hooks that I can hang them on. The TAB y may have got over time themselves very bullet proof so they can with stand this fiasco . The TAB is very confident they are ok.

I am now having a go at them in 2 ways - that at a high level they may have not complied with the Fair Trading ACT as that looks like a hook and at a lower level the fact that they have not the 'control' over the controlling body they use as the results producer (here the WBA)

It is turning into an epic but will send a link to a forum posting so you can see it in its entirelty once its finsihed 9 assuming you care) - so long as the I can make it public before the court considers it

2. re the guy who is a big ANBF QLD supporter. You may like to know when asked by the TAB about what the hell happened around the 12 down to 10 round issue they got a reply from them. the TAB showed it to me as proof they could pay out on 10 rounds. here is what my reply to the TAB was ( and by inference ANBF QLD)
Finally I note that just about everything about this fight is based on hearsay information.
The WBA nor the promoter never show any written agreement or at least the parts of it that people want to see. So your letter simply says the Queensland body who appointed the judges has not proof of anything and has had to rely on an after the fact quote from a rep of the WBA as saying it was sanctioned and was sanctioned for 10 rounds. I doubt the rep has ever seen a piece of paper from the WBA and he is just repeating what a person “in the WBA” has told him. From my investigations the WBA is a very funny animal if you are to use this as evidence of anything you will need to ascertain whom in the WBA he talked to ( ie what capacity) and what that person has actually seen to support the statement.
xxxx

3. Everyone is sure trying to ensure any fallout does not effect them. As an example I asked the ANBF parent body if they could get in touch with Alan Moore in light of
The Australian newspaper reported that Australian National Boxing Federation vice-president Alan Moore, a ringside judge for the bout, had no idea it had been shortened to 10 rounds.

here was the reply
Alan Moore is no longer on the National ANBF Executive and has not been
for some time, nor does he hold any office with us. I don't have his
email address and have not had any contact with him for quite some time.
I think you need to correspond with ANBF Queensland as that is where Alan
is a member.


curiouser and curiouser....................

Da Voice wrote:

belta53 wrote:Frank,

I am not a lawyer but I follow boxing closely and have been known to have the odd bet on a fight.

I seriously think you are wasting you time with this one, the NZ TAB rules are quite clear in the case of a fight where the number of rounds of the fight are changed after the betting has commenced. They void all "pick the round" bets and all other bets stand.

IMO your line of thinking about the competence of the judges is irrelevant. The fight was originally scheduled for 12 rounds but changed at some stage to 10 rounds. All the debate about the sanctioning body and their rules is a waste of time. The fight will go down in the history books as a 10 round points victory to Sonny Bill Williams.

The fact that this fight took place in Queensland set off alarm bells for me. My understanding is that Queensland does not have its own regulatory body for boxing and thus fights in that state need to be looked on with less confidence from a betting point of view than fights in Victoria or New South Wales that do have their own boxing regulators. I had a strong feeling that something of a controversial nature was going to happen in this fight. I thought it could be a premature stoppage or some other sort of referring controversy.

I have had a number of disagreements with the bookies over the years and I know its easy to take a blinkered approach with these things and not take a step back and consider both arguments. I have generally had very little success with these claims.

Hope this helps.

You're talking shite sunshine. ANBF Qld Inc is the pro boxing regulating body & has been since you were probably in nappies. I'm aware of numerous & I mean numerous fights in other States where duration was either decreased or increased on the night.
If corners agree, referee & timekeeper are aware is all that's required.

Da Voice,

This is a forum for boxing fans and not everyone has the same level of knowledge of the industry. Thank you for pointing out the error in my post but you didn't need to frame it in such an insulting way.

All I was trying to do in my post was give the original poster another view and maybe save him some time and money. Of course ultimately it is his decision as to how far he goes with this.

I did find some information that may be of use to Frank on the ANBF website (link details office holders and registered persons).

http://www.anbf.org/page.php?pID=109

Does anyone know if ANBF Queensland ever released any statement after their investigations into this bout?

No! There was nothing to investigate

Hi All
I have submitted my submission to the Disputes Tribunal.

The link is below and when you click on it should open. if this site format does not let google docs open let me know and I will post it elsewhere so you can see it.

I may not win - the traditional TAB response to such cases is say our legislation does not allow us to do anything other than what we have done.

My submission is really a plea for help by the legal system that they cannot keep using this argument while they make money.

If anyone has any more info they think I should have/know about before the hearing date ( 10 June) please let me know as I can still present it then.

In summary there does not seem to be any organisation involved in the whole saga that can hang its head high. I hope they are all looking at what they should do better next time.

Thanks Frank

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yTV ... hikG0/edit

Frank,

I am not meaning to be a keyboard warrior here but you have far too much time on your hands.

Whilst I agree with the premise of your claim and understandably see that you have every right to be pi55ed off at the outcome, but the gambling company will have all bases covered. I wish you the best of British but I feel that the outcome will be ultimately fruitless.

But for trying. Please keep us updated.

$15 bet??? come on man !

Hi

Ra 2006 - yes its abit overblown and you are right they will probaly still win but if they do I want to use it as a test case on why do they have a monolopy position for Sports bets? i reckon in 10 years I will get that broken and competition will sort out this rubbush

REB 2004 - yes its just $15 but in 2007 they took me for $700 on the Rasmussen issue. Also I thought the odds where great for Botha and I might well have put a large sum down but I spent all I had to spare on Alonso to win F1. As above I am fighting for the longer term change so this does not keep being repeated ad infinitum

For any reader.
You will if you have read the many pages realised much is made by the TAB that they paid out on 10 rounds and since they found out it after the event it was always 10 rounds they are safe.
That relies on the queensland letter. the letter from the anbf queensland says that a Derek Milham gave an assurance that it was always 10 rounds. I estimate between $10,000 - $50,000 worth of bets in NZ relies on the assurance. ie that is what is at stake here which includes my piddly $15. if you know Derek you might tell him alot is riding on him and it would help the credibility of anbf queensland if he got something in writing from the WBA . being the Australian rep that surely should not be too hard?

regards
Frank