BoxRec

The 7/9/2011 Chris Arreola - Friday Ahunanya 10 round unanimous decision win for Arreola (100-90, 99-91, 99-91) was at some point changed to a no contest. The notes say "Bout declared a no decision according to Fightfax."

Does anyone know why this happened? I heard nothing about it and can't find any information about it.

Weird. Tried to look into this & couldn't find anything either. Don't recall anything odd about the fight. Why would fightfax be the one declaring it a No Decision anyway? Isn't it usually the state commission making those judgements? The fact its FF declaring it a ND might be some clue on why it was declared that.

If its PEDs that's one thing but if it's pot what is that going to do but just make Arreola eat even more. A banned sub is usually why these are changed to a NC.

That was drug related as far as I remember. It was a fair time ago now that it got changed to a ND.

www.independentworldboxingrankings.com

Lennox wrote:That was drug related as far as I remember. It was a fair time ago now that it got changed to a ND.

http://www.independentworldboxingrankings.com

If this was a failed drug test.In the state of New Jersey it would cause a 1 year mandatory suspension.
That according to the Ali Act would be instituted in all 50 states.
So how could Arreola have fought 4 months later?????

.. Could it... Simply be an error by fight fax? They, like boxrec, aren't correct 100%...

The Fightfax ND non commission stuff has been around since 1994 but its rare today to get USA stuff that does not count so I don't think it was that.

I don't speak to Anibal (FF) much and he certainly has not told me this fight got changed so I don't know why I have it as a NC. Vaguely I remember/think it might have related to medication drugs but maybe I have it confused with another. There are quite a few that get changed every year.

Fightfax just record fights they don't decide validity. NCs and NDs are very much regional calls, either on the night or following tests.

All this research into something so irrelevant and useless. Who cares.

diddy wrote:All this research into something so irrelevant and useless. Who cares.

I feel exactly the opposite (of course, I started the thread, so.. )

I expected to look back here and see no replies, a lonely thread floating among all the other discussion. But instead there are a multitude of relevant and insightful comments. It's great to have a site where boxing issues, even irrelevant and useless ones, can be knowledgeably discussed.

Like Lennox, I make boxing ratings, and this result affects them (although very slightly). It affects Arreola's official record, and if something like this can happen to a fairly high-profile boxer, it might happen to someone even more high-profile. Remember that there was controversy a while ago about one of David Haye's fights (Chisora?) not being properly sanctioned, and for a while the result wasn't even listed. Will one of Klitschko's defenses be retroactively ruled a NC, shorting his run of defenses by 1? Probably not, but if we knew exactly what happened here, we would know under what circumstances an apparently legitimate bout is essentially determined to never have happened.

It's relevant to Boxrec's heavyweight ratings, too. When they recorded the NC here, it reduced Arreola's points slightly, and the points of anyone who has defeated him since, and anyone who has defeated them since (diminishing in importance each time, of course).

So Deontay Wilder's rating is affected by whether this bout is a NC or a UD. Some would call that irrelevant and useless, but some people consider all of boxing irrelevant and useless, and yet we still have this forum and this site, thank goodness.

Best to email Anibal at fightfax and asked why it was changed. Arreola did not move up in the IWBR from July to August though a win against Friday Anuhanya may not have yielded enough points to go up anyway so it is hard for me to tell if I treated this as a NC in November or later.

Lennox wrote:Best to email Anibal at fightfax and asked why it was changed.

Yes. We need to solve this mystery.

fergusg wrote:I don’t really know the real reason why the Chris Arreola’s victory over Friday Ahunanya was subsequently declared a “no decision” by Fightfax, but there can be several causes for results being overturned like this, which doesn’t necessarily relate to one of the pugilists being caught using PED’s.

Anyway, I performed a little bit of research and could find no controversial reason driving this change of outcome, so I actually read the “about us” page on the Fightfax website itself, since it was them who declared the bout as a “no decision” in the first place… and here’s the very first sentence written on that page:

“The Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) ruled that, effective May 1, 1994, any bouts held without the supervision of a state commission would be declared exhibition only and would not be counted on the official records of participants.”

http://www.fightfax.com/Aboutus.htm

The entire page seems to be about the results of fights not being included in the official records of fighters if their contests weren’t supervised by an official state commission.

Therefore, my guess for the reason why the Chris Arreola’s victory over Friday Ahunanya was subsequently declared a “no decision” by Fightfax, was because it wasn’t supervised by the New Jersey Athletic Control Board.

Perhaps Goossen Tutor Promotions possibly made an admin error somehow, because all the results of the other bouts on the very same card have not been subsequently changed?

I have to concur with this.

It has to be some kind of sanctioned related technicality.

The rest of the card is sanctioned, so that seems to rule that out. Definite mystery! lol

Lennox wrote:The rest of the card is sanctioned, so that seems to rule that out. Definite mystery! lol

Not necessarily.

Isn't it part of the fight announcer's spiel as each fight is introduced to tell the crowd who it is sanctioned by?

If the whole card is sanctioned, why is it repeated each fight?

I don't remember a part sanctioned card unless it had kick boxing or amateur bouts, even then some states list them on the cards. Unsanctioned US cards are/were the Indian reservations but ???all??? have been sanctioned in the last decade I think.

Mid -West stuff used to have a lot of fights where the two fighters agreed before that the fight would a ND, this was the Buck Smith, Marty Jakubowski era, not seen these for a long time. I have not known this in New Jersey.

I have never been sent NJ commission sheets even going back 20 years so don't have the relevant card.

Anyone email the fightfax guy?

Failed drug test...no specifics given but considering that Arreola was initially declared the winner it seems like he tested positive for something.

It's odd that this wasn't publicized, although the bout not being sanctioned while all others on the card were would have been even more odd in my view.

crusader wrote:Failed drug test...no specifics given but considering that Arreola was initially declared the winner it seems like he tested positive for something.

I got an email back from FightFax today & they said this was a NJ Commission decision & to contact them. Is that who you talked to?

I am noticing now that while Chris fought 4 months later it was in Mexico (his first & only fight out of the US) & he didn't fight in the US again til 7 months later so there coulda been a 6 month suspension in there that Mexico was lax about (as they often are iirc).

Dan Rafael stated 'failed drug test' in response to a Twitter question about the fight. I didn't notice your question above my first post and I didn't intend to suggest that someone from Fight Fax stated that. It does seem probably to me though given that Rafael is usually reliable for that type of information and Arreola had his next fight outside the US, which he doesn't typically do.

ReggieDiggs wrote:Anyone email the fightfax guy?

LOL

Yes, like you and apparently a few others I emailed FightFax and they said

"The New Jersey commission changed the decision. I believe that one of the fighters didn’t pass the post fight medical. You need to check with them"

So I guess the next step is contacting the New Jersey commission. I filled out their wonky web form, let's see if I get anything back.

Might be worth asking Arreola on Twitter or FB. He's usually so bluntly honest you'd think he'd been injected with truth serum.

THE ANSWER!

From the New Jersey Athletic Commission:

Sir: In response to your inquiry received by this agency in reference to boxer Chris Arreola. Mr. Arreola competed in a ten round boxing match against boxer Friday Ahunanya at the Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, N.J. on July 9, 2011. Arreola was declared the winner by unanimous decision. Our records indicate that Mr. Arreola was in violation(s) of New Jersey rules as they relate to competing in this state and as a result of the violation (s), Arreola’s victory was changed to a No Decision. On July 21, 2011 a detailed notice was forwarded to Mr. Arreola via certified mail. I suggest that you contact Mr. Arreola for further details related to this situation. Thank you for your interest.


So apparently it just boils down to Arreola not being properly licensed to fight in New Jersey. Maybe he had some overdue parking tickets.

SportsRatings wrote:THE ANSWER!

From the New Jersey Athletic Commission:

Sir: In response to your inquiry received by this agency in reference to boxer Chris Arreola. Mr. Arreola competed in a ten round boxing match against boxer Friday Ahunanya at the Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, N.J. on July 9, 2011. Arreola was declared the winner by unanimous decision. Our records indicate that Mr. Arreola was in violation(s) of New Jersey rules as they relate to competing in this state and as a result of the violation (s), Arreola’s victory was changed to a No Decision. On July 21, 2011 a detailed notice was forwarded to Mr. Arreola via certified mail. I suggest that you contact Mr. Arreola for further details related to this situation. Thank you for your interest.


So apparently it just boils down to Arreola not being properly licensed to fight in New Jersey. Maybe he had some overdue parking tickets.

lol. Thats a very diplomatic way of saying he failed a drug test. And this is why government groups kinda suck. Always gotta give you a verbal masturabating type of answer vs giving you a precise, simple & to the point answer.

ReggieDiggs wrote:

SportsRatings wrote:THE ANSWER!

From the New Jersey Athletic Commission:

Sir: In response to your inquiry received by this agency in reference to boxer Chris Arreola. Mr. Arreola competed in a ten round boxing match against boxer Friday Ahunanya at the Boardwalk Hall in Atlantic City, N.J. on July 9, 2011. Arreola was declared the winner by unanimous decision. Our records indicate that Mr. Arreola was in violation(s) of New Jersey rules as they relate to competing in this state and as a result of the violation (s), Arreola’s victory was changed to a No Decision. On July 21, 2011 a detailed notice was forwarded to Mr. Arreola via certified mail. I suggest that you contact Mr. Arreola for further details related to this situation. Thank you for your interest.


So apparently it just boils down to Arreola not being properly licensed to fight in New Jersey. Maybe he had some overdue parking tickets.

lol. Thats a very diplomatic way of saying he failed a drug test. And this is why government groups kinda suck. Always gotta give you a verbal masturabating type of answer vs giving you a precise, simple & to the point answer.

I'm afraid indirect verbosity abounds in the private sector as well.

fergusg wrote: There was no failed drug test. Nothing was reported by the media and Chris Arreola competed twice more within a seven month period after the Friday Ahunanya bout.

I have no idea what rules Arreola has violated, but his misdemeanour couldn’t have been severe enough for the media to have cared or for Chris to have bothered to attempt an appeal, as nothing was reported by any online sources whatsoever.

The media isn't always up on these things. Dennis (Jordan Shimmell's dad) said that not long ago & he's in the business.

And I know what rule usually is getting broken that led to these types of decisions reversals 99.9% of the time & I trust Fat Dan already saying it was a failed test issue more than w/e the f#ck that NJ commission guy said or what anyone else has brought forth. I know Chris didn't fight in the US for 7 months after that fight which leads me to believe he got a 6mo suspension for a failed drug test, as is often the penalty, & kept busy with a fight in Mexico, who often don't abide by US suspensions. I know its extremely unlikely this is some random paperwork issue as some are trying to suggest as I've never heard of anything like that changing a decision. I think reading between the lines of what that NJ guy said & Fat Dan flat out saying whats what has ended the debate.