|
“...restrictions on freedom to
provide services within the
Community shall be prohibited in
respect of nationals of Member
States who are established in a
State of the Community...”
European Union Treaty, Article
49
“...on the whole, they
(“secondary bodies”) have
been beneficial and have given
our boxers the opportunity to
move forward and to make money.
(...) Generally, we are happy to
allow their fights if on paper
it’s a good
fight.”
Robert Smith, BBBofC General
Secretary (quoted in Boxing
News, March 5, 2010)
“...the BBBofC (...) would not
therefore permit BBBofC licensed
officials or boxers to take part
in WBF contests overseas.”
Robert Smith, BBBofC General
Secretary (Letter to Malta
Boxing Commission, August 5,
2011)
“
The World Boxing Federation
would like to take the
opportunity to reply to remarks
made by BBBofC General Secretary
Robert Smith in an article (“No
Room For WBF”) which appeared in
Boxing News on August 25, 2011.
1 – How is it possible that Mr.
Smith claims “We have not
objected to Tony (Dodson)
boxing abroad in a 12-round
contest. ...we’re just not going
to recognise the (WBF)
championship” when less than
three weeks earlier he informed
Gianluca Di Caro, Vice President
of the Malta Boxing Commission,
that they would NOT permit
BBBofC licenced boxers to take
part in WBF contests overseas
(see above quote)?
Did Mr. Smith suddenly remember
that the BBBofC’s refusal to
allow their licenceholders to
earn a living – which he
admitted last year (see above) –
is a clear violation of European
Union laws (see above), given
that the WBF is based in
Luxembourg, a member of the EU
just like Great Britain?
Torben Seemann Hansen of
Denmark, the Chairman of the WBF
Executive Committee and a senior
boxing administrator, said: “It
is tragicomical and sad to read
the BBBofC’s argumentation for
not recognizing Tony Dodson if
he should win the WBF title.
When all formalities are
fulfilled according to law and
regulations, it is totally out
of line that a national
Federation, which is supposed to
support their licensees and give
them all possible opportunities
to earn money and not least a
championship belt, can act like
this. In any other business this
behavior would never be accepted
and have serious consequences.”
2 – How is it possible that Mr.
Smith says in regard to the WBF
requesting to be able to
sanction bouts in the UK
“...eventually you have to say
enough is enough and we’ve said
it.”?
This is the same Mr. Smith who
has been happy to approve
countless “Interim”
championships of various
organizations, a few “WBA Super”
championships as well as “Youth”
titles to take place in Great
Britian, and likely continues to
do so. If “enough is enough”
why not stop this madness of
creating ever new titles –
especially since Mr. Smith
claims in a letter to WBF
President Howard Goldberg from
Apr. 1, 2011 “...the
proliferation of championships
is not in the interest of
professional boxing nor the
public interest.”
Mr. Hansen comments: “The
BBBofC’s restrictive and illegal
policy will lead to a
non-competitive market place,
which I cannot see is in anyones
interest. The BBBofC-recognized
organizations will thus have a
monopoly and no other
organization will ever get an
opportunity to prove that they
are as professional as the
chosen ones. What kind of
argument is this? It is so
obvious that any organization
fulfilling the requirements
should have the right to stage
championship fights.”
3 – How can Mr. Smith claim
“...we deal with the IBO because
a lot of our officials deal with
the IBO” when he confirms in
above quoted letter to the Malta
Boxing Commission that the
BBBofC do not permit officials
to take part in WBF contests
overseas?
It is obvious that this piece of
illogic is covering another
truth, that one may or may not
speculate about. In this regard,
independant journalist Terence
Dooley wrote on BoxingScene.com:
“Time, perhaps, for the BBBofC
to reconsider their stance and
judge WBF fights on their own
merit rather than imposing a
blanket ban that is made to look
ridiculous by their sanctioning
of IBO International title
fights. (...) Above all things,
the BBBofC must be seen to make
decisions rationally,
individually and with due care.
A blanket ban on the WBF may
prevent yet another meaningless
title from crossing our paths,
yet it is hard to justify the
move if the BBBofC then allows
other organizations free reign
whilst sanctioning lesser
contests (...) purely on the
basis that established, often
tarnished, titles are on the
line.”
Just for the record, the
following British officials have
worked at WBF fights over the
past two years: Mickey Vann,
John Coyle, Ian John-Lewis and,
of course, Paul Thomas, who is
the UK/Ireland Regional
Representative and a member of
the WBF Executive Committee.
WBF President Howard Goldberg
concludes in a recent interview
with South African journalist
and Boxing News correspondent
Pete Moscardi: “Regardless of
whatever opinion the BBBofC may
hold of the WBF, how does it
assume the legal right to
prevent its licenceholders –
boxers, promoters, officials –
from earning money? This ruling
has given the BBBofC a
sanctimonious and dictatorial
mantle.” |
