[Senate Hearing 107-1090]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-1090
A REVIEW OF THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING INDUSTRY--IS FURTHER REFORM NEEDED?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 23, 2001
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-033 WASHINGTON : 2004
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MAX CLELAND, Georgia
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
Mark Buse, Republican Staff Director
Ann Choiniere Republican General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 23, 2001..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Dorgan...................................... 42
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
English, Patrick, Attorney, Dines and English.................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Goossen, Dan, President, America Presents Boxing, LLC............ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hendrick, Kirk, Former Chief Counsel to Nevada Athletic
Commission, Jones Vargas....................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Homansky, Dr. Edwin ``Flip'', Chief of Staff, Valley Hospital
Medical Center................................................. 2
Jones, Jr., Roy, Professional Boxer, c/o the Jones House......... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Sirb, Greg, President, Association of Boxing Commissions......... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
A REVIEW OF THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING INDUSTRY--IS FURTHER REFORM NEEDED?
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. I am pleased to convene this morning's
hearing on the professional boxing industry. As you may know, I
have been an avid fan of boxing for most of my life, but I am
concerned about some of its participants. Boxing is an
immensely difficult activity that tests the physical skills and
mental limits of its competitors.
It is an honorable sport that should be admired by its
fans, but in recent years boxing has been sullied by
misconduct. Professional boxing is the only major sport in the
United States that does not have a strong centralized
association or league to establish and enforce uniform rules
and practices for its participants. There is no widely
established union of boxers, no collective body of promoters or
managers, and no consistent level of state regulation among the
state athletic commissions.
For the past 6 years, this Committee has taken steps to
reform professional boxing by passing two pieces of
legislation, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000, both of which have been
enacted into law.
The 1996 Act established a minimum level of health and
safety requirements to protect the welfare of the athletes who
sustain the sport, while the primary focus of the Muhammad Ali
Act was to protect boxers from sometimes exploitive, oppressive
and unethical business practices of promoters, managers and
sanctioning organizations. The Muhammad Ali Act also provided
assistance to state boxing commissions to provide more
effective public oversight of the sport.
Today's hearing will focus on the effects, if any, these
federal laws have had on the industry, and whether additional
federal, state and private sector reforms are needed to further
improve the sport.
The witnesses before the Committee today represent members
of the boxing industry who care deeply about the current state
and the future of the game and I thank them for being here.
Our first witness will be Dr. Edwin Flip Homansky, Chief of
Staff of the Valley Hospital Medical Center, a face familiar to
most boxing fans at certain points in a boxing match. Mr. Greg
Sirb, President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, Mr.
Dan Goossen, President of America Presents, and Mr. Pat
English, attorney, and Mr. Kirk Hendrick, who is also attorney
and former chief counsel to the Nevada Athletic commission.
Dr. Homansky, we are privileged to have you before the
Committee again. We thank you for being here and we thank you
for the wonderful work you have done for many years on behalf
of the health of these young athletes. Please proceed.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
I am pleased to convene this morning's hearing to review the
professional boxing industry. As you may know, I have been an avid fan
of the sport of boxing for most of my life, but I am very concerned--a
concern shared by many of the sport's leaders--regarding the often
unscrupulous behavior of some of its participants. Boxing is an
immensely difficult activity that tests the physical skill and mental
limits of its competitors. It is an honorable sport that should be
admired by its fans, but in recent years boxing has been sullied by
misconduct.
Professional boxing is the only major sport in the United States
that does not have a strong, centralized association or league to
establish and enforce uniform rules and practices for its participants.
There is no widely-established union of boxers, no collective body of
promoters or managers, and no consistent level of state regulation
among the state athletic commissions.
For the past 6 years, this Committee has taken steps to reform
professional boxing by passing two pieces of legislation, the
Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act of 2000, both of which have been enacted into law. The 1996
Act established a minimum level of health and safety requirements to
protect the welfare of the athletes who sustain the sport, while the
primary focus of the Muhammad Ali Act was to protect boxers from the
sometimes exploitive, oppressive and unethical business practices of
promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. The Muhammad Ali
Act also provided assistance to state boxing commissions to provide
more effective public oversight of the sport.
Today's hearing will focus on the effects, if any, these federal
laws have had on the industry, and whether additional federal, state,
and private sector reforms are needed to further improve the sport.
The witnesses before the Committee today represent members of the
boxing industry who care deeply about the current state and future of
the game, and I thank them for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWIN ``FLIP'' HOMANSKY,
CHIEF OF STAFF, VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER
Dr. Homansky. Thank you, Senator McCain. This is a tough
sport, both for the participants and the regulators. Has the
recent federal legislation helped? Absolutely. Are there still
problems? Almost as many problems as there are current lawsuits
over the heavyweight championship.
The Chairman. Not that many.
Dr. Homansky. The biggest accomplishment that you have
achieved is simply letting the boxing establishment know that
someone is watching them, that they are no longer able to
operate in an ethical vacuum. This is an enormous achievement.
What we are trying to do, Senator McCain, my own two
senators who appreciate the sport very much, Senator Reid and
Senator Ensign, is to provide a level playing field so that the
participants are treated fairly and ethically and to make an
inherently dangerous sport as safe as possible.
Who should be in charge? An entity that doesn't trample on
states' rights, that's only goal is fairness and safety, that
doesn't become another bureaucratic mess, that is responsive to
the changing needs of the participants, that can be funded in a
reasonable matter and that has medical and legal references.
Basically what I am saying is the state commission.
What I would like to address with my time is some issues
that I feel are very important medically. And the first is a
central repository for medical tests and a mechanism to be able
to track a fighter's career longitudinally with exams. A test
is so much more beneficial when you can compare it to the past.
No one in this room is old enough to really have had a number
of EKGs, but your dad has had an EKG, and you know that EKG is
just information set in time, and it is only helpful to compare
it to past EKGs, and future EKGs. We need a database and we
need to be able to follow these fighters medically.
We must begin prospective studies of the boxers. We must
know more about how the rigors of boxing affect these fighters
both acutely and chronically. The medical data bank is a good
start. I propose funding these studies by taking 10 percent of
all sanctioning fees of championship fights in America. I
believe that would amount to about 4 to 5 hundred thousand
dollars.
Another issue. There needs to be more supervision of the
gyms and trainers. The gym is where these kids spend most of
their time. This is where the real injuries occur, not in the
ring, but in the gym. We have to supervise that.
My major concern in boxing right now is the high risk
boxer. We all know that there are boxers who should no longer
be in the ring absorbing punishment. They are either past their
prime or their once wonderful skills have deteriorated to the
point----
The Chairman. Like Julio Cesar Chavez fighting Kostya
Tszyu.
Dr. Homansky. Exactly. And I will talk about that more
later. Why does it happen, Senator McCain? Many promoters see
the fighter as nothing more than a dollar sign. Not Mr.
Goossen. Not Main Events, but it is done. The fighters
themselves forget the pain that they did endure. They look in
the mirror, they say what they once were, not what they are
now. The networks know that a big name brings viewers, even if
the former champion is nothing more than a shell of himself.
The exception to the rule may be able to still compete, but at
what price?
A license to box is a privilege. The state commissions need
to look at it that way. And when a fighter comes he needs to
prove to us that he can fight, not the other way around. That
we need to show that he can't. That we have to go through these
legal battles.
I have given you in your written information a list of my
feelings of the high-risk boxer. These are fighters that need
to be looked at closer, not that they can't fight, but maybe
when need to look very closely at their career. It is my
personal feeling and I voiced this before, that no one over the
age of 42 should be licensed to box in the United States of
America.
The answer to this issue has been tests. Let's get more
tests, any test, the most expensive tests. The problem is tests
don't always give you the answer. Just because someone has a
normal MRI doesn't mean that they have not been hurt in the
ring and may develop problems later. That is too simple. The
MRIs and the CAT scans tell us of injuries that have already
occurred. We must find ways to get these kids out of the ring
before they develop problems. And a normal MRI is not the whole
answer.
Another proposal is an arbitration panel overseen by the
ABC that would have a physician, a regulator, and a state AG
that if there is a question of a Julio Cesar Chavez, that no,
they can't go to another state and just fight, but they go to
this arbitration board and their promoter, who wants to make
money off of these kids, has to pay for that, but then this
arbitration panel can look at how they were in the gym, how
their last fights are, if their skills are deteriorated and
then tell us, can they go back in the ring without more danger.
Again, this is an inherently dangerous sport. We can't take all
the danger out, but we have got to try.
All right. The Boxing Reform Act. I am not sure that boxing
is reformed yet. The ratings boggle my mind. I see championship
fights in which both kids lost their last fight. I see the IBF,
where some of the officials admit to taking bribes to get their
kids ready.
I see situations where I love the sport and I understand
the sport, but I don't understand what's going on, and I'll
give you one example. And I am not picking on anyone, but Mr.
Mike Tyson. He is rated number one by one organization. He is
rated 7th in the WBA. He is rated 8th in the IBF. He is not
rated in the WBO. The only reason I bring this up to you is
that now he is mandatory. The champion has to fight him or lose
his belt.
I am not here to debate if Mr. Tyson is the right person,
but I am here to say that the champions shouldn't be in that
position. And a suggestion that I make is that the mandatory
comes out of the top three challengers, not the number one
challenger.
I believe that the biggest problem legally is disclosure.
The fighter gets a purse. You already know how many pieces of
that purse are taken from him. What we need to look at next is
the money that is involved that he doesn't know about. The
money that was there for that fight that the fighter never even
knows before he has to pay his 30 percent.
The sanctioning bodies do serve a useful role. This is a
world sport and it is very difficult to follow fighters in
other countries. We need some international structure. Some of
the international organizations like the WBC do a good job, but
for the beneficial role to continue, they must play by
reasonable rules.
I am just going to give you a minute of what we have done
in Nevada. AB 446 is new legislation that will allow the Nevada
State Athletic Commission to register or in other words license
all sanctioning bodies and the TV networks. It has never been
done before. We have also significantly broadened our
definition of manager so that we can license so-called
advisors. We are currently publishing a 150-page book, Ringside
and Training Principles that will be given to all of our
licensed fighters and assist them in their career. This will
cover everything from how to pick a mouthpiece to what to do
before signing a contract.
We have contributions from some of the foremost trainers,
nutritionists, match makers, lawyers and former boxers in the
sport. Current and past drug usage will be covered, along with
where to go for help. This will be available June 23rd in
Spanish and English. My last current is----
The Chairman. This right here, right?
Dr. Homansky. Yes, sir. That is not the completed copy, but
that is the beginning. The state commissions are integral to
this sport. They best understand how the sport should function
in their state and how it should be regulated. Their role needs
to be strengthened, not decreased. There is a role for
oversight and I hope that the government helps the ABC in that
oversight rule. But the state commissions are very viable and
are improving under your guidance. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Homansky. I hope that is true.
Mr. Sirb, welcome back. We are always pleased to see you and
thank you for your many contributions and leadership in the
sport of boxing.
STATEMENT OF GREG SIRB, PRESIDENT,
ASSOCIATION OF BOXING COMMISSIONS
Mr. Sirb. I appreciate it, thank you, Senator McCain. My
name is Greg Sirb. For the past 4 years I have been President
of the Association of Boxing Commissions. For the past 11
years, I served as the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania
Athletic commission.
The ABC is a registered nonprofit group comprised of 53
members which are all the state commissions and now many of the
Indian tribal commissions that are formed. Let me give you some
statistics for the year 2000 that we just put together. 822
professional boxing events last year. It was actually a
decrease of 2.5 percent from 1999. California again staged the
most events with 102, followed by Nevada, 64, Texas, 56,
Pennsylvania, 45, and Florida, 40.
Today, with the federal ID card, we now have registered, a
little over 8,400 professional boxers in this country. And it
should be noted that in the year 2000, the United States
continued to be the leader in boxing with 63 of 153 world title
fights, over 41 percent held within our borders.
Let's talk about the current status. In 1996, when we
passed with great enthusiasm the Professional Boxing Safety
Act, two big improvements were made, especially at the
commission level. The first was the federal identification
card. This card, which is partly comprised of a six-digit
number on this card was the first time that state commissions
could accurately track a boxer from state to state on his win-
loss records and his medical problems. This card was
established by the ABC at no cost to state commissions.
The second major part was the national suspension list,
which is now on the Internet at www.sportsnetwork.com. This was
an integral part in ensuring that no boxer could fight while
under medical suspension. The ABC developed this, put it up on
the Internet and it is probably one of the most widely used
sites in professional boxing.
These two steps that were implemented through that act
helped improve the safety and quality in this country
unbelievably from what it was just 2 or 3 years ago.
The Ali Act of 2000 brought what I consider three
significant changes. First, the disclosures which Dr. Homansky
briefly touched upon. It is the first time that the boxers have
a general understanding of what types of revenues and
expenditures he is looking at. As a part of this, the ABC,
together with NAAG, National Association of Attorney Generals,
put together a boxer's bill of rights which I have copies of
that tell the boxer what his rights are under this disclosure
and what questions he can ask about disclosures.
The second provision was about coercive contracts. I think
with the coercive contracts it finally gave the boxers and
their managers a little bit more of an open market on who they
may want to deal with. The third is the ranking of boxers. I
agree with Dr. Homansky, that needs to be improved but at least
by forcing the boxing organizations to disclose who is on the
rankings Committee, what their criteria is and letting the
boxers have a say in that criteria, which the Ali Act lets
them.
Many boxers I know firsthand have written organizations
demanding why their rankings have changed. As further
provisions in this act, the ABC developed general ranking
criteria which, copies are available in my testimony, that we
have asked the sanction bodies to follow.
Trouble spots. Obviously number one is the enforcement of
the acts. We have had some problems. Giving the enforcement
over to the state attorney generals has not worked out as well
as we have thought.
Second, there definitely needs to be a more uniform process
for handling bout agreements, boxer-manager and boxer-promoter
contracts. My feeling and strong feeling is that these
contracts need to be on one universal form. They need to have
binding arbitration attached to them, and they need to be in
one central location.
In the Rahman situation, if we had one central location of
the forms where the contracts were in front of one group, the
situation could have been handled within days just like they do
at major league baseball, just like they do in football. It
does not have to go to court time and time again so that our
sport is stopped until we find out who the real champion is.
The third is sanctioning bodies need to be licensed. They
can no longer control or police their own activities. There
needs to be some agreement among the sanctioning bodies that
are forced upon them of general ranking practices and general
business practices.
Fourth, there needs to be put some sanction on those states
and Indian tribal commissions that have not kept up to speed,
antiquated rules and regulations that are enforced in some
states that put the boxer in financial or worse, health and
safety dangers.
And fifth, there needs to be an agreement on the type of
medicals. We have talked about the medical data bank in the
past. It needs to be done, but there needs to be a system
available to pay for it. If we are to say all boxers need an
eye exam or need an EKG, there needs to be a corresponding
system that says who pays for that.
If you are going to say the boxer pays for that, you are
going to take away over 80 percent of the fighters in this
country. There needs to be a system for funding that.
And last, there needs to be a formation of some type of
pension system for retired boxers. It is something we have
talked about time and time again but in a sport where millions
are made in one night, there must be a share of the wealth from
all the sort of called club fighters that have helped that
million dollar fighter get to that level.
Overall, boxing has improved with the federal laws, no
doubt about it. We need to still have more uniformity and more
professionalism. My feeling is that the ABC can accomplish that
with some further stringent rules and regulations working with
the state commissions. I thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Goossen. Welcome.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sirb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Sirb, President,
Association of Boxing Commissions
Good Morning:
My name is Greg Sirb. For the past 4 years I have been the
President of the Association of Boxing Commissions--the ABC and for the
past 11 years I have been the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania
State Athletic Commission. The ABC is a registered non-profit group
comprised of some (53) members including all state boxing commissions
in the U.S. as well as many of the Indian Tribal Boxing Commissions
that have been formed.
For this past year (2000) there were 822 professional boxing events
held in the U.S., which represents a decrease of (2.5 percent) over the
previous year. The state of California staged the most boxing events
with (102) followed by Nevada (64), Texas (56), Pennsylvania (45) and
Florida with (40). Today there are over 8,400 registered boxers in the
U.S. It should be noted that in the year 2000 the U.S. continued to be
the leader in professional boxing activity with 63 of the 153 world
title bouts (41 percent) held within our borders.
My testimony before you today will focus on two parts: first, the
status of the game today especially as it pertains to the two federal
laws, and second, the changes that still need to be made.
Current Status--with the passage of the Professional Boxer's Safety
Act in 1996 two major regulatory changes were made that most definitely
improved the sport of boxing. First was the introduction of the federal
identification card, which is a 6-digit number that identifies each
individual boxer and is used to accurately track a boxer's win/loss
record. This I.D. Card has helped boxing commissions to essentially
eliminate the practice of boxers trying to use various names or aliases
as well as trying to falsify their boxing records. Because of this,
accurate record keeping has greatly improved. With all boxing records
now being sent to Fight Fax, which is the central registry for all
records in the United States, boxing commissions now have up-to-date
and accurate information on all boxers so as to help the commissions
make a more informed decision on whether to allow a particular match-
up.
The second major part of the Professional Boxer's Safety Act was
the creation of the National Suspension List, (which is at
www.sportsnetwork.com) which ensures that boxers competing are not on
any type of medical suspensions. By putting this information online all
boxing commissions, as well as promoters, managers and the boxers
themselves, can easily determine if a particular boxer is on suspension
and the reason why.
These two steps, which have been implemented through the ABC, have
no doubt improved the safety and quality of professional boxing in this
country.
With the passage of the Muhammad Ali Act in 2000 three more
significant changes were implemented. First the mandatory disclosures
that are now required for promoters and sanctioning organizations.
These disclosures have for the first time given the boxers a general
understanding of what type of revenues are being generated from the
fights and what expenditures are being deducted from their purses.
These disclosures have greatly improved the financial education of
professional boxers and have acted as sort of a ``sunshine law'' on the
sometimes-confusing world of revenues and expenditures surrounding
championship fights.
Second, the provisions concerning coercive contracts. These
provisions have entitled boxers and their managers to have a more open
market when dealing with certain promoters.
Third, are the provisions dealing with the rankings of boxers. By
forcing the boxing organizations to disclose their ranking criteria and
forcing them to respond to boxers who have questions about these
criteria and their own rankings the boxers and the boxing public have
become better informed on how this whole ranking process works. There
have been a number of boxers who have taken advantage of these
provisions so as to get a better understanding of how they are being
ranked and why their respective rankings have changed. As per these
provisions the ABC has developed the objective criteria for how the
rankings should be handled. Copies of these criteria are included in my
testimony.
Improvements/Trouble Spots that need to be addressed--First, the
enforcement of the two federal laws needs to be improved. Without
proper enforcement these laws are useless. The current system of
letting the various State Attorney Generals handle these issues has not
been working. Second, there needs to be a more uniformed process for
the handling of bout agreements, and boxer/manager and boxer/promoter
contracts. These contracts should be on one universally accepted form
that must include the provision for forced arbitration so as to settle
any contractual disputes in a much more timely and cost effective
manner. The contracts must also be on file in one central location so
that all parties can readily attain information on a particular boxer's
contractual situation. The current system of how commissions compile
and enforce these contracts is a mess! Third, sanctioning bodies need
to be licensed through a national group.
It is only through this process that sanctioning bodies would be
forced to agree to some generally accept business and ranking
principles. Fourth, there needs to be sanctions put on those state or
tribal boxing commissions that do not up-hold the federal laws or that
have antiquated rules/regulations that put the boxer in either physical
or financial danger. Such things as requiring that an ambulance along
with paramedics and proper equipment be at ring-side at all times, that
the promoter is bonded in a certain amount to ensure all boxers and
other bills, including insurance coverage, are paid in a timely
fashion, that all boxers agree to and sign a bout contract before each
bout, and that procedures are developed to ensure that these bout
contracts are up-held by both the promoter and the boxer (so that
boxers cannot sign a bout agreement and then not show up) and that all
payments agreed upon on these bout contracts are made.
Fifth, there needs to be some agreement on the type of medicals
that are needed for licensure of professional boxers and a system to
pay for them. The current medical requirements vary greatly from state
to state as does who is responsible for the payment of these exams--
such as (EKGs, EEGs, Eye Exams). And lastly the formation of some type
of pension system for retired boxers. In a sport where millions are
made in one night there needs to be some system set-up so that the
wealth is shared, to some degree, with all boxers and not just the
privileged few.
Overall I feel that boxing in general has improved as a result of
the federal intervention. But there is still no question that
professional boxing, especially at the commission level, is still
lacking in three basic areas, Uniformity, Professionalism and
Consistency.
I would like to thank the Members of this Committee for the
opportunity to testify before you this morning and would be willing to
answer any and all questions that you may have.
Association of Boxing Commissions Criteria for the Ratings of
Professional Boxers
*As mandated by federal law--the Muhammad Ali Act-Section-11, the
ABC has approved the following ratings criteria that all sanctioning
organizations shall follow:
1) Ratings must be solely based on win/loss records, level of
competition and activity. Records of any top (10) rated boxer must be
verified.
2) No boxer can be rated in more than one division.
3) For a Boxer to be rated in the top (10) and to compete for a
world title he/she must have competed in at least (2) 10-round bouts.
To stay in the top (10) he/she:
a) must compete at least once during a 12-month period from
the time the boxer gets rated and also must compete within (6)
pounds of his/her rated weight and;
b) must have competed against another top (15) rated boxer
within a (18)month period from the time the boxer gets rated.
A boxer who does not meet this level of competition shall not
retain his/her rating. Exceptions can only be made for injuries.
4) If a top (10) rated boxer losses to an un-rated boxer then the
rated boxer should be lowered at least one position in the ratings. The
un-rated boxer should be considered for a rating somewhere in the top
(15).
5) If two boxers, are rated in the top (10) and compete against
each other then the following shall apply:
a) If the lower ranked boxer wins then this boxer shall be
elevated in the ratings and;
b) The higher rated boxer shall be lowered in the ratings.
**The above criteria shall take effect immediately**
STATEMENT OF DAN GOOSSEN,
PRESIDENT, AMERICA PRESENTS BOXING, LLC
Mr. Goossen. Senator, thank you again for inviting me. I
was here, I think a little over two years ago, and I know it
was an uphill battle getting that Muhammad Ali Act into law.
And I know the struggles that you endured doing that, but it is
what brings me back here again, two years later, because we
realize that you are our only hope. A little over 20 years ago
and many gray hairs prior, I got into the boxing business and I
made a vow back then. I really didn't have as good an
understanding obviously as I do today, but I made a commitment
to myself that I felt I was an honorable person getting into
this business. And I said I never wanted this business to
change me. And I didn't really give much thought back then to
changing the business.
Through the years, I realize that just not having the
business change me wasn't good enough. I had to make sure that
I could do whatever I could to help change this business, and
promoters alone, state commissions, boxers, it can't be done
individually. It has got to be done with someone that takes the
bull by the horns, someone like yourself, Senator, and I
applaud you for that. And that is why I sit here today. I am
going to probably please some people. Rather than read my
testimony, I would like to make sure this gets into the record.
The Chairman. It will be made part of the record.
Mr. Goossen. Thank you, Senator, and really to go into all
the different details that Greg just went into and Dr.
Homansky, and I am sure Pat English and Kirk Hendrick are going
to have some valuable information for us to improve this
business. I think rather than reading my testimony, what I'd
like to do is support you in making our business one that
people can look at and be proud of, fans, boxers, promoters.
I mean, right now being a promoter, Senator, as you know, I
am glad to see that Dr. Homansky didn't include me on the
negative of the promoters, but it is something that I am
constantly living down. I certainly don't mind having that on
the shoulders, but on the other hand, I'd like to make a
promoter a word that is someone that is an honest businessman,
someone that is out there to escalate the fighter's earnings,
be doing it ethically and doing it honorably and also making a
living myself, because I am in this business to make a living.
And I know it can be done.
The Ali Act is a great second phase of your plan. We need,
as Greg mentioned and Dr. Homansky mentioned, we need an
authority figure that oversees all the boxing, that is able to
dole out penalties for people that violate your law. Without
that in place, as effective as the Ali Act has become for us as
an industry, until we can curb the illegalities that are
constantly in front of us and we point to the recent situation
with Rahman and Lewis, one of the biggest events that could
happen in our industry, and it is being dragged down again. I
am part of the problem, okay, but I have got nowhere else to
go.
The problem I have is I have got an organization, the IBF
organization, that are ignoring their rules and regulations,
and the only vehicle I have got to overcome them ignoring the
rules and regulations is going into a court of law. I don't
want to go in a court of law. I have got attorneys on staff. It
is a very litigious business, and that is one of the downfalls
that we have, Senator. We have got to take it out of the court
system.
How do we overcome it? We overcome it by having a national
commissioner, a commission of unquestionable character,
integrity. A panel of three, four, five men, women, people that
we can rely on in making sure the organizations, the promoters,
the boxers, the managers, whoever they are, live up to the
standards that you have been pushing for all these years.
We need binding arbitration. I heard, I think, both
witnesses right now mention that. We need binding arbitration.
We need the systems in place that we have in the other sports
industries where there is very little civil action and all done
in-house, and I feel that every aspect of what your drive is,
and I know you have got a busy schedule and for you to take the
time to watch over our business, I want to make sure that we
accomplish the goals that you have got out there that are our
goals sitting here.and we need to get this industry where if
someone violates one of--the Ali Act or any other violation
that we have, state level, contract level, that there is a
commissioner that overseas it, keeps it in-house, punishes that
person, because without punishment, Senator, as you know, we
can use the court systems to our advantage for being unethical.
Whatever you need from our end, any type of input, anybody
on my staff is available for, and again, Senator, I applaud you
and it is an honor to be here and I know that with your
insistence, our industry is going to change and it is going to
change for the better. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goossen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Goossen, President,
America Presents Boxing, LLC
Good morning and thank you for inviting me to participate in these
necessary efforts to make changes in the way our industry conducts its
affairs. My name is Dan Goossen and I am President of America Presents.
We promote in excess of 40 events a year Worldwide. I have been
involved in boxing for over 20 years and was the only Promoter serving
on the NAAG Boxing Task Force which formulated recommendations
ultimately incorporated within the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.
I had the honor of speaking before this Committee approximately 2
years ago. Since that time, under the guidance and leadership of
Senator McCain and your Committee, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act
was enacted into law. The principal stated purposes of the Ali Act are:
(a) to protect the rights of professional boxers by preventing
exploitive, oppressive and unethical business practices;
(b) to assist State Boxing Commissions in their efforts to provide
more effective public oversight; and
(c) to promote honorable competition in professional boxing and
enhance the overall integrity of the industry.
I am here today to offer my thoughts on certain aspects of the Act
and, more importantly, recommendations responsive to accomplishing the
overall stated purposes of the Ali Act. We should all understand that
the Act and its implementation is a work in progress, a law which will
evolve over time.
My objective today is not to get very specific in these
discussions. Our company would be pleased to submit supplemental
documentation addressing specific provisions of the Ali Act and
suggestions to best accomplish the stated purposes. What I will do
before this Committee today is to outline examples whereby some form of
intervention appears necessary to ensure that our industry regains the
necessary public confidence, as well as briefly discuss certain gains
that the Ali Act has accomplished since its inception.
The requirement for each professional boxer to have a federal
identification card in all jurisdictions permitting the various Boxing
Commissions to act in a reciprocal manner to cross-reference fight
records, health considerations and other important criteria pertaining
to the boxer has been a tremendous asset to the industry. The awareness
of the requirements to comply with the Act has also enhanced honorable
competition in boxing.
Along with these accomplishments, we strongly support a form of
National Commission that will have at its helm an individual or
individuals of unquestionable integrity, character and knowledge of the
boxing industry. Specifically, as part of this National Commission, we
would support binding arbitration whereby massive paperwork and
clouding of the issues can be minimized permitting a knowledgeable
authoritative body to address specific relevant issues as opposed to
ancillary and sometimes irrelevant factors.
The goal of preventing coercive contracts, conflicts of interests
and other areas outlined in the Ali Act can be enforced with a National
Commission overseeing compliance. In the absence of a national
governing commission, the legislation is adversely affecting promoters
that have acted properly, but seemingly not impacting those promoters
with the substantial financial wherewithal to act first, and deal with
the legal consequences secondarily. The recent activity in the
Heavyweight Division is potentially a circumstance whereby ``deeper
pockets'' and the legal system are being utilized as a sword in lieu of
honorable and ethical business practices.
The Ali Act addresses ``coercive contracts,'' and limits the
timeframe in which the promoter of a boxer can receive so-called
``options'' on an opponent challenging such promoter's boxer. Simply
stated, the Ali Act prohibits the granting of options to the promoter
of an opponent extending beyond one year. This provision is
circumvented by certain promoters simply not offering a deserving
opportunity to a boxer that the promoter does not have under a
promotional agreement. By further example, promoters have attempted to
include in its own agreements language whereby a boxer is, in essence,
waiving any such coercive tactics!! Moreover, there are boxers that are
required to extend the term of their promotional agreement every time
the boxer steps into the ring, despite the existence of a promotional
agreement with a stated expiration date with his promoter. It is a
regular practice among certain promoters with the financial wherewithal
to withstand the scrutiny and potential legal consequences.
Another area specifically addressed in the Ali Act are conflicts of
interest and the need for a firewall between promoters and managers. I
want to be the first to say that a family relationship alone should not
create a conflict of interest, but the manner in which it is
implemented and the existence of separate financial arrangements
between such family members, which are not disclosed to the boxer
certainly may create a conflict of interest and the Act should have a
remedy short of having to proceed through the judicial system in a
costly and time prohibitive manner.
In conjunction with certain of the intentions of the Ali Act, the
promoter also needs his protection/rights upheld by the boxer pursuant
to their Agreement. A boxer may refuse to participate in a bout unless
he receives, what he rightfully considers, to be fair market value. In
certain instances, however, such financial requests are not based upon
the economic reality of the particular event and as a result promoters
are faced with unreasonable financial requests or refusals to accept
bouts by boxers. Such consequences create potentially legal
considerations whereby a boxer may assert that the promoter has failed
to provide agreed upon bout opportunities of which, once again, the
only recourse is the judicial system. An example once again is the
recent activity in the Heavyweight Division whereby a boxer tried to
leave a promoter two years ago at the behest of another promoter,
substantial dollars were expended to prevent such unlawful acts and
that case is still ongoing, and now similar circumstances exist today
with the same parties.
If there is one area that this Committee, in our opinion, should
emphasize as a priority is to ensure the purposes of the Ali Act are
being enforced through the establishment of a National Commission. Our
industry is litigious by nature, and the manner in which litigation is
used to the detriment of ethical business practices must be addressed.
Any legislation proposed or enacted by this Committee without some sort
of dispute resolution system is easily thwarted. While litigation is
present in every industry, it is much less existent in other major
sport industries. Litigation in the boxing industry has become a ``free
for all'' where deep pockets and boxer sympathies seem to prevail, to
the exclusion of valid agreements. This is where federal legislation is
needed to establish a National Commission to foster good and ethical
business practices. Nothing else will work. In one fell swoop, this
Committee would put all licensees, promoters and boxers on equal
footing. No promoter should have a legal disadvantage based on not
having ``deep pockets,'' and no boxer should hold an edge based upon
perceived sympathies irrelevant to the merits of the case at hand.
A National Commission with the proper authority would immediately
take boxing out of the courtroom and all licensees would be required to
abide by the letter of the law and established and enforceable rules
and regulations of such National Commission, or suffer the consequences
for violations.
Furthermore, the leadership values of a Marc Ratner, the current
Executive Director of the Nevada Athletic Commission and uniformly
accepted as a person of unquestionable integrity, knowledge and
character, would be a tremendous choice to head up a National
Commission. This would be the single most significant change this
Committee could do to bring boxing into the 21st century. This would
create an equal playing field and one that would not tolerate
violations inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
We request that your Committee immediately seek implementing
changes necessary to once again reestablish the public trust in our
sport and that the promoters, as well as everyone else associated with
the sport, be responsible and accountable for their actions in a
uniform and consistent manner whereby the deceptive and coercive
practices by some are reprimanded from the violative practices and that
the free market system that applies to other business, not only the
sports industry, can be applied to the boxing industry.
I thank you once again for your time and honor of speaking before
this Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. English,
welcome.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK ENGLISH, ATTORNEY,
DINES AND ENGLISH
Mr. English. Good morning, Senator McCain. In 1998, I
testified before this Committee and my testimony then began as
follows: ``Imagine a major professional sport where the rules
change as the participants cross state lines. Imagine a
professional sport where contracts valid in one state are
invalid in another. Imagine a professional sport where a team
owner can be banned by one state's regulatory agencies and have
multiple allegations of fraud against him, some alleging fraud
against his players and yet still be permitted to do business
without the slightest effort to investigate by the regulatory
bodies of other states where the fraud was alleged to have
occurred.
It is obvious that a professional sport cannot be run that
way. And this is precisely the way boxing is being run.'' That
is what I wrote and said in 1998.
Without the slightest doubt, the Muhammad Ali Act has
improved some of the abuses in boxing. The anti-coercive
provisions of the Act are extremely important. The prohibitions
of conflict of interest between managers and promoters is also
extremely important. The requirement for a published criteria
for ratings and ratings changes is clearly very important.
The Chairman. But it hasn't seemed to have had much effect.
Mr. English. Parenthetically my testimony was going to note
that, unfortunately, the requirement for criteria did not
include a requirement that the criteria be rationale and the
criteria of at least one of the ratings organizations, in my
opinion, is wholly irrational. So there is clearly still a
problem here.
I happened to be present when the ABC discussed the
recommended criteria. There was vigorous debate at the ABC. I
would personally have liked to have seen the ABC adopt a
stronger criteria which was in fact proposed. Obviously there
is a political process there, as well as here, and compromises
were reached.
Clearly the health and safety facets of the act and its
predecessor have enhanced the safety of boxers tremendously.
For actual rules of title bouts, there is now uniformity.
However, certain problems identified in 1998 still remain.
Generally the states do not have either the resources or the
willingness to investigate wrongdoing.
As an example, there was recently testimony in a criminal
trial over bribery for rankings and this was what was referred
to by Dr. Homansky earlier.
Promoters who engaged in wrongdoing but who assisted the
government in the prosecution were punished by very substantial
fines, as they should have been if improper actions were
authorized by their promotion companies.
However, promoters and managers about whom testimony was
given that there were bribes, but who stonewalled, remained
completely unscathed and uninvestigated, at least as far as I
am aware of.
Now, I would be the last to suggest the presumption of
innocence should not apply. However, where there is actual
testimony as to bribes and even tapes, videotapes of money
being distributed, does it make any sense at all to punish
those who cooperated with the United States government and not
even to investigate those against whom there is evidence but
who have stonewalled. I would suspect that there is no logic to
that. I would submit, rather, there is no logic to that.
Despite recommendations for uniformity by the National
Association of Attorneys general Task Force on Boxing upon
which I served as an advisory committee member, along with Flip
Homansky (he was the medical expert), along with Dan Goossen,
Kirk Hendricks served on that Committee as the Deputy Attorney
General, the business regulation of contracts is extremely
inconsistent with contracts remaining valid under law and
regulation in some states, but not others. So a contract that
might be perfectly valid in New Jersey may not be valid under
the laws of Nevada or New York, and vice versa.
Failure to obtain licensure commensurate with what one's
actual functions are is a problem. Persons who are either
promoters or managers do not license themselves as such. They
call themselves bookers. They call themselves match makers.
They don't call themselves by what they are. That was a problem
that was addressed also by the National Association of Attorney
Generals' Task Force, but the recommendations have not been
followed yet. Lawlessness in the contractual aspects of the
sport is as egregious as I have seen in 20 years. Contracts----
The Chairman. Example?
Mr. English. Well, there is an example. I am going to use
two examples. One is not something that is in the press. It is
not something that many people care about.
There is a manager that had a contract with a boxer. That
manager went to a hearing in New Jersey before the Commission,
it happened to be a New Jersey boxer. I was not representing
him in that hearing, so I had no interest.
The hearing was held. The boxer presented his case. The
manager presented his case and a formal ruling was issued
holding the managerial intact. The boxer then went to fight in
another state and while the managerial portion of the purse was
held, it was not turned over to the manager because of a
difference in procedure between in this case New Jersey and
another state. They simply couldn't agree on how to get the
purse to the manager.
Then the boxer went to fight in a third state, New York.
And in that state, the Commission ruled that the ruling of the
New Jersey commission was insufficient. The manager would have
to go to court. Now, this is not one of the more prominent
managers, although he is a regular manager, well-known in the
sport. He simply doesn't have the wherewithal to go to court in
every single state in which a boxer may fight. Clearly, members
of the ABC ought to give full faith and credit to the rulings
in such matters of other members.
To highlight a more public dispute, we have reached the
point where a prominent promoter brings a suitcase or some
allegations say duffle bag of cash to induce a boxer who
appears to be under contract to breach that contract. I have
submitted to you, to the Committee a sworn statement by the
current heavyweight champion about a matter that occurred
before he became a heavyweight champion.
He testified that at various times a promoter gave him
$25,000 in cash and later after he signed certain contracts,
$10,000 in cash to breach the contract. This is a sworn
statement by the current heavyweight champion of the world.
Well, apparently, the cost of that gentleman's soul
increased by 50 fold because rather than $10,000, the cash
recently reported to have been slipped to him by the same
promoter who caused the first breach was $500,000.
I don't know how we solve that. The suggestion has been
made, and I have heard it, that we arbitrate. Well, I have been
involved in arbitrations and frankly, it may be a good thing,
but sometimes these arbitrations are as complex, I must tell
folks, as the court proceedings. Sometimes the court
proceedings are actually quicker than the arbitrations.
I do not have a solution to utter lawlessness. I do not
have a solution to amorality or immorality. The only solution
that I can think of is when there is clear interference with
the contract, commissions take action, which they have been
loathe to do.
There are some very good people involved in the regulation
of this sport. I specifically know Greg Sirb, with whom I have
collaborated for many years in attempting to come forth with
some recommendations to you at various times, to Flip Homansky,
who was the premiere ring physician in the United States who
cares desperately and deeply about the health and safety of
boxers and now has transferred that knowledge to be a member of
the Nevada commission, to Marc Ratner of the Nevada Athletic
Commission, who I know has liaised with you constantly.
We attended, along with Dan Goossen, Kirk Hendrick and
others a seminar in Newark about a year ago, and obviously the
same questions that you are asking came up at that, what do we
need to do, how do we get a strong centralized authority?
At that seminar, the suggestion was made, and I repeat it
today, that the ABC, that an enabling act be passed by Congress
which would enable the ABC, which despite what we would like to
think is really a very weak organization, to have much more
authority than it has now, to effectively become a national
commission.
It is states-based, which may be a problem in terms of the
competing states' interests. But it is an authority with good
leadership and if that leadership continues in the vein that it
has for the last many years between Mr. Ratner, Mr. Sirb and
others, I am sure it can provide leadership without the
necessarily difficulties inherent in a bill that I have just
recently seen,
I know that has been introduced by you and I respect that,
but I really suspect that the executive branch is not
necessarily the best organ of government to oversee boxing.
The Chairman. That was, I believe you are referring to
Senator Harry Reid's legislation.
Mr. English. Yes, I am. I thought that you co-sponsored it,
but perhaps not.
The Chairman. No. I did. Go ahead, please.
Mr. English. Last time I testified, I came forth with a
whole series of solutions. And a lot of them were, various
ones, adopted in the Muhammad Ali Act. This time I am here to
answer your questions. With the exception of what I have just
said, I have no grand solutions at the moment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. English follows.]
Prepared Statement of Patrick English, Attorney, Dines and English
In 1998 I testified before this Committee. My testimony began as
follows:
Imagine a major professional sport where the ruling change as
the participants cross state lines. Imagine a professional
sport where contracts valid in one state are invalid in
another. Imagine a major professional sport where a team owner
can be banned by one state's regulatory authority, can have
multiple allegations of actual fraud against him (some alleging
fraud against his players) and yet still be permitted to do
business without the slightest effort to investigate by
regulations in states where the fraud is alleged to have
occurred.
It is obvious that a professional sport cannot be run that
way--and this is precisely the way boxing is, in fact, run.
Without the slightest doubt, the Muhammad Ali Act has improved some
of the abuses in boxing. The anti-coercive provisions of the Act are
extremely important. The prohibitions of conflict of interest between
managers and promoters is extremely important. The requirement for a
published criteria for ratings and ratings changes is clearly very
important. I note that, unfortunately, the requirement for criteria did
not include a requirement that the criteria be rational, and the
criteria of at least one of the ratings organizations is wholly
irrational). Clearly the health and safety facets of the Act, and its
predecessors, have enhanced the safety of boxers tremendously. For
actual bout rules for title bouts there is uniformity.
Certain problems identified in 1998 still remain, however.
Generally the states do not have either the resources or the
willingness to investigate wrongdoing. As an example, there was
recently testimony in a criminal trial of overt bribery for rankings.
Promoters who engaged in wrongdoing but who assisted the government in
the prosecution were punished by very substantial fine--as they should
have been if improper actions were authorized by the promotion company.
However promoters and managers about whom testimony was given that
there were bribes emerged completely unscathed--and uninvestigated. I
would be the last to suggest that the presumption of innocence should
not apply. However, where there is testimony as to bribes, and even
tapes of money distributed, does it make any sense at all to punish the
cooperative parties and to not even investigate those against whom
there is evidence but who have stonewalled?
Despite recommendation for uniformity by the National Association
of Attorney General Task Force on Boxing (upon which I served as an
advisory committee member) the business regulation of contracts is
extremely inconsistent, with contracts being valid under the law and
regulations of some states but not of others.
Failure to obtain licenses commensurate with what one's actual
functions is a problem. Person who are either promoters or managers do
not license themselves as such. Instead they go by the rubric of
``matchmaker.''
Lawlessness in the contractual aspects of the sport is as egregious
as I have seen in 20 years. Contracts--legitimate arm's length
contracts--means nothing. Allow me to give what I consider to be a
particularly egregious example--one which has not made headlines. A
boxer sought to break a managerial contract. He had no grounds, but at
the request of the parties the Executive Director of the New Jersey
Athletic Control Board (which had jurisdiction over the contract), held
a full hearing. Both sides were permitted to state their cases in full.
He then issued a ruling, holding the contract to be valid.
One would think that would be the end of it--but it wasn't. The
boxer then fought in a different state, which did hold the manager's
share of the purse, but would not turn it over to him. Instead it tried
to pay over the manager's share to the New Jersey Athletic Control
Board, which has no mechanism to accept it. The money remains
undistributed to the manager. The boxer then fought in yet another
state; that state declined to honor the New Jersey ruling at all.
The situation is, obviously, ludicrous. Full faith and credit
should be given when a due process hearing has been given and resulted
in a determination.
I have deliberately chosen an example of contractual lawlessness
which is not prominently displayed in the press. It is, unfortunately,
all too typical.
To highlight a more public dispute, we have reached the point where
a prominent promoter brings a suitcase full of cash--or was it a duffel
bag--to induce a boxer who appears to be under contract to breach that
contract. I enclose a sworn statement by the current Heavyweight
Champion outlining how he was induced by Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00) in cash to breach a contract prior to his becoming the
Heavyweight Champion. Apparently the cost of his soul increased by
fiftyfold, because the cash recently reportedly slipped to him by the
very same promoter who induced the first breach was Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00).
In my 1998 testimony I offered a series of suggestions some were
ultimately incorporated into the Muhammad Ali Act. However, I confess
that I do not have a solution to the utter contractual lawlessness
which exists. I am not sure that there can be a legislative solution.
My purpose in this regard is simply to report what is one prevalent
problem in the boxing industry.
______
Sworn Statement of Hasim Rahman
SWORN STATEMENT of HASIM RAHMAN, held at the offices of Solovay,
Edlin & Eiseman, Esqs., 845 Third Avenue, New York, New York, on
September 25, 1998, at 3:20 p.m., before a Notary Public of the State
of New York.
Hasim Rahman, having been first duly sworn before a Notary Public
of the State of New York, was examined and testified as follows:
Examination by Mr. Edlin:
Question. Please state your name for the record.
Answer. Hasim Rahman.
Question. Mr. Rahman, my name is Richard Edlin, as you know. We
have met before. I represent Cedric Kushner Promotions.
I have got a couple of questions for you just to establish certain
facts as it relates to you and conversations and communications that
you have had with Don King, okay?
Answer. Okay.
Question. Did there come a time in or around April of this year
when you received phone calls from Don King?
Answer. Yes, April, May.
Question. Would you describe for me, please, those phone calls and
what Mr. King said to you in those phone calls?
Answer. Well, basically he said he would like to have meetings with
me concerning my career and he would get further into detail when he
sees me, when we meet.
Question. Did you know where Mr. King was calling you from when he
made those phone calls?
Answer. Well, yes, I do, because caller ID. So I would see Don King
Productions or he would call from a cell phone. It would be a 516 area
code. Then I found out later he was in New York. He was calling from
New York. He was presently on trial, and he was going back and forth to
court. And also--yes, he was in New York for court trial.
Question. Where were you at the time?
Answer. I was in Maryland, Baltimore, at my home in Maryland.
Question. Did Mr. King tell you what he wanted to talk to you about
during those phone calls?
Answer. Basically he would summarize conversations, you know,
concerning my career; they want me, and I should come up and speak with
them right away.
Question. Did you go to visit with Mr. King following those phone
calls?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Would you tell me, to the best of your recollection, of
the first meeting you had with Mr. King and where that meeting took
place?
Answer. Okay. Well, the first meeting took place at the hotel he
was staying in. He was waiting for court, and it was basically just
about him wanting to sign me and me fight for Don King Promotions and
what he could do for me and how he rules boxing.
Question. What did he tell you that he could do for you?
Answer. He said he could get me a title shot within a year to 18
months--no later--and that he could keep me the number one in the
world. He said, well, I can't get you number one right now because I
got to deal with Butch.
So, he made a deal with Butch Lewis, and he couldn't do nothing
about moving him, but as soon as Vaughn Bean fights, I would move right
into number one position.
Question. Did he tell you how you would do that?
Answer. Not specifically. He just stated it would be done, that,
you know, he would, Bob Lee is his man. Like I said, I just took that
Bobby Lee would do whatever King tells him to do.
Question. At the time, did you discuss with Don King whether or not
you had a contract with Cedric Kushner Promotions?
Answer. Yes. I did.
Question. What did you tell him about that?
Answer. I mean, I told him I am still under contract with Cedric
Kushner.
Question. What did Mr. King say, if anything?
Answer. Well, he said, don't worry about that. And he said he going
to get a contract drawn up for me and I would meet him in Florida on
the weekend. This was like on Monday I met him, but then maybe on
Wednesday, he called me and asked me to come back up to New York. He
said he had a contract up there in New York, could I come back up. He
got some money to give me--no, he said he want to talk to me. I said,
talk, talk? He said, I can't give you money over the phone. You got to
come back up. So I went back up the next day, spoke with him.
Question. What period of time was this?
Answer. The exact date? You have the paper. I can tell you the
exact date. It was May. The contract, the exact date is on the
contract, but that was the day.
Question. This was sometime in May?
Answer. May, right.
Question. You are pretty sure about that?
Answer. I am positive it was May.
Question. This was a second meeting with Mr. King?
Answer. Right.
Question. Where did that meeting take place?
Answer. Same place.
Question. In his hotel in New York City?
Answer. Right.
Question. Did Mr. King show you a contract at that time?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did he give you money at that time?
Answer. Yes.
Question. How much money did he give you?
Answer. $25,000.
Question. Had Mr. King ever given you any money before?
Answer. He gave me money every time I saw him. I only met him, was
alone with him one prior time. He gave me like $2,000. He gave my
friend $1,000. This time he gave me $25,000, and gave my friend $5,000.
Question. What is the name of your friend?
Answer. His name is Melvin Walker. Everybody knows him as Winkie. I
am referring to him as Winkie. That's who I am talking about.
Question. Going back to the second time you met with Don King at
his hotel room and he gives you $25,000 and he gives you a contract,
can you tell me anything else about your conversations with Don King at
that time?
Answer. Well, he basically was telling me, you know, I shouldn't
fight for Kushner anymore, and that I could live off this money until,
you know, I am ready to start my reign with him. If I need anything, to
call him, because, you know, just give him a call. He would take care
of him for me, and that we are going to make a good team. We are going
to make the championship. He is going to deliver Evander for me. He was
the best promoter out there. He rules boxing. He is the best man for
the job, telling me a little bit about his history, just that kind of
stuff.
Question. Do you specifically recall Don King saying at that second
meeting in New York that you shouldn't fight for Kushner anymore?
Answer. Yes, I said I shouldn't and I don't.
Question. He said you shouldn't and don't?
Answer. Right.
Question. That's the meeting that he gave you $25,000?
Answer. Right.
Question. And your friend $5,000?
Answer. Right.
Question. Do you recall anything else at that meeting?
Answer. I mean, it is a whole lot. I mean, it is a whole lot. I am
trying--I'm sure more things happened that I probably remember. Right
now, I can't.
Question. That's fair enough. If there are other things that you
recall at a later time, that is fine. I am just really looking to see
what it is that you recall as we sit here today.
Answer. Okay.
Question. After that second meeting with King in New York city, did
there come a time when you had the opportunity to fight a boxer named
David Tua?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you tell me how that came up?
Answer. How the fight came up?
Question. Yes. How did you get the opportunity to fight David Tua?
Answer. Well, David Tua is a fighter that a lot of people in the
boxing world holds in high esteem and HBO was looking for a replacement
for Michael Grant. So my manager and I thought that David Tua was
perfect for myself. So we had to convince our promoter to make the
fight.
Question. When you say ``our promoter,'' whom are you referring to?
Answer. Cedric Kushner. So we tried to get my promoter, Cedric
Kushner, the same feeling as us, saying it is a good fight for us. It
looks like a high risk on paper, but it is really an easy fight.
So we sent back and forth and they finally came up with something
that everybody believed in the fight, so we made the fight.
Question. Did you call Cedric Kushner and ask him to make the fight
for you?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Eventually did Mr. Kushner make that fight?
Answer. Yes, he did.
Question. Were there contracts signed in connection with the fight
between yourself and David Tua?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Were those contracts known as bout agreements, to the
best of your knowledge?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you sign a bout agreement for the David Tua fight?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Was that fight to take place on September 26th of 1998?
Answer. Yes.
Question. About when do you recall the fight with Tua being made,
about what time?
Answer. What date?
Question. Yes.
Answer. Well, you can get the exact day. It was a press conference
for Lennox Lewis, Zeljko Mavrovic. That was the exact date is that the
fight was really made and announced.
The press conference, I am sure that day it was documented, that
date that the press conference, you know, I was on the phone with
Cedric when they announced it. He told me they have a deal and they
announced the fight.
Question. Following that press conference, what did you do to begin
to get ready for fighting David Tua?
Answer. We set up training camp in Phoenix, Arizona. I went out to
Phoenix, Arizona to start training, getting ready; sparring, running,
training, weight lifting, doing the whole regimen you normally do
before a fight.
Question. Did you have a trainer?
Answer. Yes, I did.
Question. Who was that?
Answer. Chuck McGregor.
Question. Was he with you in Phoenix, Arizona?
Answer. Yes.
Question. About when do you recall going to Phoenix to start
training for the Tua fight? Was it the 4th of August?
Answer. First week in August.
Question. After you began training for the David Tua fight in
Phoenix, Arizona, did there come a time when you received any
communications from Don King?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you tell me when the first of those was?
Answer. I don't know the exact date. I can find out the exact date.
Question. In relation to your going out to Phoenix is really what I
am interested in.
Answer. Okay, it was maybe--I was out there for maybe 3 weeks,
about 3 weeks in the training camp.
Question. Did Mr. King give you a call?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you know where he was calling you from?
Answer. He called me--I think he either called from--all right.
Wait a minute. His lawyer called me, had me call him at his house in
Ohio.
Question. Do you know where his lawyer was calling you from?
Answer. He was calling you from New York.
Question. So is it accurate that, after you were in training camp
in Phoenix, Arizona for a short period of time, Don King's lawyer
called you in Phoenix and asked you to call Don King in Ohio?
Answer. Right.
Question. Did you call Don King?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What do you recall of that conversation?
Answer. Don telling me to meet him in Baltimore the next day. He
had some important things he needed to discuss with me, like very
urgent.
Question. Did he tell you what it had to do with?
Answer. I don't think at that point he did.
Question. But he did tell you that it was very urgent that you meet
him the next day?
Answer. Well, I knew what it had to do with actually because his
lawyer told me what it had to do with.
Question. What did his lawyer tell you it had to do with?
Answer. His lawyer told me about the fight, Hasan Murphy, the
lawyer's son told me, why am I taking this fight? I don't need this
fight. Don got a plan and I should stick with the plan and I should
give Don a call.When I called Don, Don said, you know, I need to speak
with you face-to-face, you know, you can meet me in Baltimore tomorrow.
You know, we have a lot of things to talk about. I have some things to
tell you.
Question. Now, the call that you received from, did you say Hasan
Murphy?
Answer. Right.
Question. Is that the son of Don King's lawyer?
Answer. Right. I think he worked the case also, so he was like part
of the team too.
Question. Hasan Murphy is also a lawyer?
Answer. Right.
Question. A lawyer who works for Don King?
Answer. Right.
Question. Did Mr. Hasan Murphy tell you that he was calling at Don
King's request?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you meet Don King in Baltimore?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Where did you meet?
Answer. Originally we met at a restaurant. Then we proceeded to
like a press conference at Legg-Mason, L-E-G-G-MA-S-O-N.
Question. Do you recall what restaurant you at?
Answer. We met at the Prime Rib.
Question. During the time that you spent with Mr. King in
Baltimore, did you have any discussions concerning your fight with
David Tua?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Can you tell me what you recall of those conversations?
Answer. Well, basically, that Tua wasn't in the plans, and that I
don't need Tua. That we can go to number one. We don't need Tua. Tua
was behind me and that it really is a step back to take this fight, and
that nobody has my best interest in mind when making this fight.
Question. Did Mr. King tell you that Cedric Kushner did not have
your best interests in mind?
Answer. I'm not sure if he told me at this time. I think maybe he
told me that the second time I saw him, after I went back again.
Question. But in Baltimore, do I understand, if I understand you
correctly, are you saying that Mr. King told you not to fight David
Tua?
Answer. Yes.
Question. At that point in time though you had already signed the
bout agreement for the Tua fight, correct?
Answer. No, I didn't.
Question. You hadn't signed it yet?
Answer. No.
Question. All right. But you had taken the fight?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And you were in training for the fight?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And you had agreed to make that fight?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you recall Don King saying anything else to you in
this meeting in Baltimore?
Answer. Basically, I mean, that really sums it up that meeting.
Question. What happened after that meeting? What did you do?
Answer. I went home and pulled out of the fight, told them that I
wasn't fighting. Told my manager and told Cedric Kushner that I wasn't
fighting.
Question. Was that as a result of Mr. King telling you that he
didn't want you to fight?
Answer. Basically, yes.
Question. What happened next in relation to your involvement with
Don King?
Answer. Okay. I went--at that point I was out of the fight and I
just--I was laying at home and just thinking about the whole situation.
Upon further talking to my managers, I reconsidered and said, well, I
am going to go ahead and take this fight because I can win this fight,
so I am going to go ahead back to camp, which is Phoenix. So I jumped
right on the plane the next day, went back to Phoenix, went there,
signed the bout agreement and was getting ready to prepare to start
this fight. Five minutes after I signed the bout agreement, Don King
called me, asked me to come out to Vegas, he has some important thing
to talk to me about. He had an important person for me to see.
So I said, okay. so they got me--they said they would call me back
with my flight information. They called me back with my flight
information. So I went out to Vegas and met with him.
Question. When Don King called you, you were in Phoenix at the
time.
Answer. Right.
Question. And he was in Las Vegas?
Answer. Right.
Question. Did Mr. King arrange for your airfare to Las Vegas?
Answer. Yes.
Question. And you flew to Las Vegas, right?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Did you meet with Mr. King at that time?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Where did that meeting take place?
Answer. At his home.
Question. At his home in Las Vegas?
Answer. Right.
Question. What can you tell us about that meeting in Las Vegas?
Answer. Well, Don King told me that I can't win this fight. I can't
beat David Tua in and out the ring. That Cedric Kushner doesn't really
care about me losing this fight because he knows that I am leaving him
and coming to him, leaving Kushner and going with King and he can't do
nothing with it, and that the judge was not going to let me win that
fight. That I had to really knock Tua out.
If I didn't, there was no way I was winning that fight, and he
said--he told me that stay for dinner, stay overnight, that he had some
things to tell me about, that I don't have to take his word for it.
The president of the IBF, Bobby Lee, was flying in tonight. He
would tell me out of his own mouth that Kushner is not with me, he is
against me. I could stay around and meet him. He would be in later this
evening. He would put me up at the Hilton for the night. Bobby Lee
would tell me himself.
He said you don't have to take my word for it. Bobby Lee would tell
me everything I need to know and more. This is not the man I need to be
with. He don't have my best interests at heart.
Question. Did he ever explain to you what he meant when he said
that Cedric Kushner didn't have your best interests at heart?
Answer. Well--he said that Cedric and Main Events didn't have my
best interests at heart. What I took from that was that Cedric Kushner
was conspiring to have David Tua win the fight.
Question. Can you describe for me in what way Mr. King explained
that Cedric Kushner was conspiring with Main Events against you?
Answer. Well, he said that Kushner and Main Events was coming away
with Tua and I was going to be empty, coming to him empty, and, you
know, Tua was going to move right into the number one spot.
Question. In the course of that explanation, did Mr. King ever say
to you directly or imply to you that Mr. Kushner would have a piece of
David Tua?
Answer. Yes. I mean, when he said Tua and Main Events is the only
winners and I was coming away--coming to him empty, then what I took
from it was that Tua was going to go ahead to the number one spot and
fight for the championship and they would have plenty of money to
divide amongst themselves and I would probably fall out of the top 10,
whatever.
Question. ``They'' being Main Events?
Answer. Main Events and Kushner.
Question. Did Mr. King ever give you any money at that meeting?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What did he give you?
Answer. He gave me $25,000--no, he gave me $10,000 cash.
Question. Aside from the cash, did Mr. King give you any other kind
of monies?
Answer. Well, he gave me a check.
Question. For how much?
Answer. $125,000.
Question. Do you recall on whose bank account that check was drawn?
Answer. Don King Productions.
Question. Were there any notations on that check?
Answer. No.
Question. Was there anything on that check that indicated in
writing that it was for a loan or an advance or for--with relation to
any contract that you had signed with him?
Answer. Not at all.
Question. He just gave you money at the time?
Answer. He gave me money to make up for the loss of money that I
wasn't going to get for fighting David Tua?
Question. Was the money that Mr. King gave you, in your
understanding of the monies that Mr. King gave you in Las Vegas, did
any of those monies relate to any of the contracts that you signed with
Mr. King?
Answer. No. I made sure of that.
Question. You made sure that they didn't relate to it?
Answer. Right.
Question. As a result of those conversations with Mr. King in Las
Vegas and his giving you the money that you just described, can you
tell me whether or not that had any effect on your participation in the
David Tua fight?
Answer. Ultimately it had everything to do with it.
Question. What was the effect of that?
Answer. There would be no David Tua fight?
Question. Now, what did you do after you left the meeting with Don
King?
Answer.I went back to Phoenix and the next day I had a meeting with
Cedric Kushner, Jim DiLorenzo, Steven Munisteri, M-U-N-I-S-T-E-R-I,
Steven Nelson, Robert M-I-T-T-L-E-M-A-N, Mittleman and Chuck McGregor.
Question. What was the result of that meeting?
Answer. The result of the meeting was, I was angry and from that
meeting I just went right back to Baltimore.
Question. Did there come a time after you went back to Baltimore
that you had any other conversations with Don King?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What can you tell me about those conversations?
Answer. Well, he told me I don't have to fight. All I have to do,
all I have to have is an injury, I don't have to fight. Nobody can make
me fight. So I should be coming up with an injury.
Question. Do I take it from your testimony that Mr. King suggested
to you that you fake an injury in order to pull out of the David Tua
fight?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Mr. Rahman, I want to thank you for sitting with us today
and providing us with some of the facts and events that have occurred
in the last few months.
I am sure that we didn't cover everything today and we might have
an opportunity at a later point in time to get into some more issues,
but I want to thank you for coming in and talking with us today.
Answer. Okay. No problem.
______
CERTIFICATE
I, LILLIAN SCHINDLER, hereby certify that the Sworn Statement of
HASIM RAHMAN was held before me on the 25th day of September, 1998;
that said witness was duly sworn before the commencement of his
testimony; that the testimony was taken stenographically by myself and
then transcribed by myself; that the party was represented by counsel
as appears herein;
That the within transcript is a true record of the Sworn Statement
of said witness;
That I am not connected by blood or marriage with any of the
parties; that I am not interested directly or indirectly in the outcome
of this matter; that I am not in the employ of any of the counsel.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th day of
September, 1998.
LILLIAN SCHINDLER
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Hendrick, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KIRK HENDRICK, FORMER CHIEF
COUNSEL TO NEVADA ATHLETIC COMMISSION, JONES VARGAS
Mr. Hendrick. Thank you, again, Senator McCain and thank
you for taking the time on this important issue to the country.
On such a very important day for this Senate and for the
country, it is very nice to see that you take the time to
listen to us on this issue. By way of introduction, I am an
attorney in private practice in Las Vegas, Nevada with the law
firm of Jones Vargas.
However, up until about a week and a half ago, I had the
honor and privilege of serving as the chief deputy attorney
general for the state of Nevada and had the privilege of being
the chief legal counsel for the Nevada Athletic Commission for
the last 3 years.
In my prepared testimony, I have reviewed several areas
where I believe that Nevada has been trying to improve this
sport over the last year or so since the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act was passed. And I also included a few suggestions
for further improvement at the state and national levels.
Initially I want to say the Professional Boxing Safety Act
and the Muhammad Ali Act have shined much needed light into
some very dark corners of this sport. As Dr. Homansky alluded
to, however, there are so many dark corners in this sport that
it can always take more light to be shined upon them to draw
out the negative factors.
In the interest of conserving time, I'd like to go over
just a few suggestions that I have grouped into the categories
of medical protection, consumer protection, and financial
protection.
With regard to medical protection, I echo the comments of
Dr. Homansky, who is a worldwide respected ringside physician
and now a commissioner. I would defer to him on all medical
issues, but I want to note one area that would be of great
benefit to both fighters and state commissions, and that is a
national registry or repository where fighters can send their
medical examinations and tests.
I reviewed the bill that was introduced last week by
Senator Reid of Nevada and co-sponsored by yourself, Mr.
Chairman, and I was encouraged by the fact that the bill does
propose just exactly that, a medical registry to be created by
federal law.
Even more encouraging is the fact that the bill would
require boxers to have baseline testing done before they ever
receive their first professional license. This is very
important because such testing could track whether a fighter's
physical well-being has diminished over the course of his
career, and that information could be a valuable tool for
determining and knowing when a fighter should retire.
From a legal standpoint, it is also very important that the
information be kept confidential. Necessary exceptions could be
made for state commissions to review the information to
determine a fighter's physical and mental fitness, and also for
specifically approved legal, administrative and judicial
proceedings. Such a registry or repository of medical
information would save boxers the enormous amount of time and
money that they currently have in retaking and retaking the
same tests every time they go from one state to another state
to be relicensed.
The centralization of medical information would also save
state commissions the enormous amount of time that is currently
spent tracking down medical information from fighters who quite
frankly just don't always carry on them the medical evaluations
that they have taken.
That has taken state commissions a lot of time that could
be better spent on properly regulating this industry.
The Chairman. Did you hear that recommendation, sir?
Mr. Sirb. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you agree?
Mr. Sirb. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr. Hendrick. Thank you, Senator. With regard to consumer
protection, I submit that boxing fans would benefit if every
boxing match was governed under the same rules. Currently, as
mentioned, the Association of Boxing Commissions has drafted
and has enacted unified rules for championship bouts, but the
undercard rules continue to be significantly different from
state to state.
The consistency of rules for every boxing match will
benefit the fighters, the ring officials and also boxing's
fans. Consistency will benefit the boxer because it is very
difficult for them to protect themselves if they are having to
try to remember things like whether or not this particular
jurisdiction has enacted and is using the three knockdown rule
or not.
Similarly, inconsistency makes it very difficult for
referees to focus on a contest when they are having to remember
whether or not the rules change from bout to bout. This would
be the equivalent of a Wimbledon line judge having to always
keep in mind whether or not the lines are in or out, depending
on which match they are playing on a particular day.
Finally, consistency will benefit the live and television
audiences of boxing, because it is quite frustrating and
confusing for the audience and the fans of boxing if they have
to keep track of all the rules that change from bout to bout
after the announcer mentions them before the fight starts. It
is my opinion that more consistency in the sport should
translate into more credibility by its fans.
With regard to financial protection, this Committee and
yourself, Senator McCain, should be applauded for the measures
already taken to protect not only the physical well-being of
the fighters, but also their fiscal well-being.
It is no secret that the disparity between the business
acumen of boxers and that of their managers and promoters has
led to many fighters being taken advantage of. Nevada and
several other jurisdictions where boxing is held are
continually trying to revise their laws to ensure that fighters
get to keep as much as possible of what they earn inside the
ring.
One area where Nevada has had great success is binding
arbitration. And with all due respect to Mr. English and his
concerns about binding arbitration, I can tell you that in
Nevada, it has worked on several occasions. And Nevada, and its
commissioners, spend a great deal of time being sure that the
fighters have available to them arbitration or alternative
dispute resolution measures that can speed up the process and
can make it more economically feasible for the fighter. This
should be encouraged in all boxing jurisdictions.
The obvious caveat to this, and I think one that Mr.
English would agree with me on, is that any arbitrators should
be knowledgeable in this sport, the industry and its laws. If
they are not, then arbitration will not help because all we do
is get a speedier, irrelevant and probably incorrect answer.
One way to achieve the objective of having important binding
arbitrations that help this industry would be perhaps having a
federal grant that could train volunteer potential arbitrators;
those with knowledge in the industry who are not trying to
economically benefit by helping the boxers and the managers
receive a fast and speedy resolution to any disputes under
their contracts.
In conclusion, I want to again thank you, Senator McCain,
and thank this Committee for not only allowing me to represent
Nevada, but I believe all states where boxing is held and for
allowing me to offer a few suggestions on how the states and
the federal government can continue to work cooperatively
together to protect and effectively regulate this very valuable
sport.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hendrick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kirk Hendrick, Former Chief Counsel to Nevada
Athletic Commission, Jones Vargas
As Chief Deputy Attorney General for the state of Nevada, I had the
privilege of being Chief Legal Counsel to the Nevada Athletic
Commission from May 1998 to May 2001. Those 3 years proved to be one of
the busiest times for boxing in Nevada's history. During 2000 alone,
the Nevada Athletic Commission approved and supervised 64 boxing
events, containing 387 separate boxing matches. While California leads
the nation in total number of boxing events each year, Nevada remains
the ``Boxing Capitol of the World.'' Thousands of fans come to Nevada
each year to watch boxing, and hundreds of thousands more watch the
spectacle that is boxing on their television sets around the world.
Whenever boxing fans gather, someone inevitably asks whether the
sport can ever be controlled. Well, I am proud to tell you that in my
humble opinion, I believe the sport can be effectively regulated.
Indeed, the success that Nevada has achieved would not have occurred
without tight regulatory controls, or without good faith cooperation
from its licensees.
As a member of the National Association of Attorneys General Boxing
Task Force, I had the opportunity to work with legal counsel from 17
other boxing jurisdictions to try and improve the sport. Also through
the Task Force, I witnessed people in every facet of this industry
eagerly volunteering their time to make this sport better.\1\ And
indeed, boxing has gotten better over the last few years. Milestones,
such as the Professional Boxing Safety Act and the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act, have shined a spotlight into many of the darker corners of
this sport. Unfortunately, there remain so many areas in this sport
that could be improved, I could not possibly cover them all within the
allotted time. Consequently, I want to speak briefly about a few things
that Nevada has done in the last year to protect boxers, and then offer
a few suggestions for further improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Association of Attorneys General Boxing Task Force
culminated its work by releasing an extensive report in May 2000. A
copy of the report can be viewed online at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/
press/reports/boxing_task_force/table_of_contents.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Protection
First of all, let me say that the Professional Boxing Safety Act
(15 USC Sec. Sec. 6301 et seq.) has assisted the states' demands that
promoters must always protect the health and safety of the fighters. I
know that Dr. Edwin ``Flip'' Homansky, who is not only a current Nevada
commissioner but is respected around the world as a leading ringside
physician, is one of your witnesses today, so I will defer to him on
the medical issues in the sport. However, I wanted to point out two
areas where I think Nevada has clarified potential ambiguities in the
federal law. I highlight these areas not so much for substance, but
rather to illustrate how the states can implement, and hopefully
improve upon, national legislation.
In specific, 15 USC Sec. 6304(2) requires that an ``ambulance or
medical personnel with appropriate resuscitation equipment'' be
continuously at the event. The Nevada Athletic Commission recently had
an opportunity to review a similar provision in its regulations; and to
prevent any uncertainty, the commission mandated that the ambulance be
``available to transport'' an injured boxer to a medical facility. See
Nev. Admin. Code 467.414(1). While common sense would seem to dictate
that the on-site ambulance would be prepared to transport (i.e.
ambulate) a boxer, it's surprising how many promoters would prefer to
simply call ``911'' if a transporting ambulance is required. While that
arrangement might be more cost effective for the promoter, those
initial minutes waiting for an ambulance to arrive could be the most
crucial in a fighter's ultimate recovery.
The other area in 15 USC Sec. 6304 that should be mentioned is
section (4). That provision compels a promoter to provide ``health
insurance for each boxer.'' Nevada has had a similar statute for years,
but recently had to pass a regulation clarifying that the promoter must
provide ``primary insurance coverage'' for all boxers. See Nev. Admin.
Code 467.149(1) (emphasis added). Again, this point seems to need no
clarification, but some promoters are far too quick to try and save a
dollar at the fighters' expense.
Financial Protection
Many state commissions have become much more involved in the
financial aspects of this professional sport. The commissions realize
that they must protect the well-being of the athletes both inside and
outside the ring. Likewise, fighters now realize that they must protect
themselves at all times in the ring, and they must protect their
wallets at all times outside the ring.
It wasn't that long ago when fighters were getting ``physically
beaten'' inside the ring and ``fiscally beaten'' outside the ring. The
stories are legendary about professional boxers who made thousands
(even millions) of dollars during their careers and then lost it all.
One of the greatest fighters of all time, Joe Louis, would have wound-
up penniless if it wasn't for the assistance of a few good fans.
As counsel to the Nevada Athletic Commission, rarely did a week go
by without me, or my Senior Deputy Keith Kizer, talking to a fighter,
manager or promoter about Nevada's boxing contract laws. While the
Attorney General's office is prohibited by state law from advising
anyone other than state officers and agencies, Senior Deputy Kizer and
I always took the time to explain where the individuals could locate
Nevada and/or federal law on the subject.\2\ Additionally, whenever it
was feasible, Senior Deputy Kizer and I also explained the reasoning
behind many of the state's boxing laws. For instance, most of the
financial laws surrounding boxing usually occurred for one of two
reasons: (1) a need to protect the fighter's interests, or (2) a need
to protect the state's interests (e.g. tax collection). Historically,
most drafters of state boxing laws have believed that managers and
promoters possess more business acumen than fighters, and therefore
government intervention was necessary to level the playing field.
Consequently, almost every law written regarding fighters' purses has
been intended to ensure that the fighter gets paid what he agreed upon
with the promoter before he stepped into the ring. The remainder of the
laws regarding boxers' compensation normally seek to ensure that the
fighters enter into truthful and knowing arrangements with their
managers and promoters. The obvious intent behind such laws is that
participants will get paid as much as possible for their services, and
hopefully they will be able to hold onto some of that money after their
short professional boxing careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It bears mentioning that the Internet has greatly improved this
constituent service. For example, Nevada's statutes and regulations
concerning ``unarmed combat'' can be found on the Athletic Commission's
website at http://www.state.nv.us/b&i/ac/regs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are many more sad stories like Joe Louis, a few
positive financial stories are starting to emerge as well. For
instance, Sugar Ray Leonard has become a very wealthy and sophisticated
businessman. He recently became licensed as a promoter in the state of
Nevada and commented during his licensing hearing that one of his
objectives was to help other boxers keep some of the money they earn in
their careers. That is a noble goal because there is a very small
window of economic opportunity in this sport.
Most boxing fans don't realize that the great majority of
professional boxers never earn more than a few hundred dollars per
bout. Out of that purse, the typical fighter usually is obligated to
pay 33\1/3\ percent to his managers,\3\ pay another 10 percent to his
trainers, pay an annual license fee for each state,\4\ and pay for
medical tests required by each state's athletic commission.\5\ So, out
of a $1,000 purse, a fighter is generally lucky if he walks home with
enough money for two good steaks: one for his dinner and one for his
black eye.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Nevada law prohibits a manager or managers from receiving more
than 33\1/3\ percent of a fighter's earnings. Nev. Admin. Code
467.102(6).
\4\ Nevada charges an annual fee of $25 for a professional unarmed
combatant's license. Nev. Admin Code 467.012(5).
\5\ The Nevada Athletic Commission requires each applicant for a
boxing license to have a physical examination, an ophthalmologic eye
examination, and negative results on recent tests for HIVand hepatitis.
Nev. Admin. Code 467.027. Additionally, the commission has authority to
order any other ``examination or testing'' it deems necessary to
protect the health and safety of the fighter, his opponent, the ring
officials and the public. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the above breakdown sounds appalling when considering that
the boxer just put his physical well-being on the line, it's a whole
lot better than the old days when some unscrupulous promoters would
come to the boxers after the fight and say that ticket sales hadn't
gone as well as expected. The crooked promoters would then renege on
any signed contracts (if there even were any), and pay the fighters
less than promised. Even worse, are the stories about some fly-by-night
promoters who would give checks to the fighters knowing that there were
insufficient funds to pay all of the bills for the event. Thus, whoever
got to the bank first on Monday morning would get paid, the others
would not.
Thanks to strong regulation by good athletic commissions, most
promoters are now required to post bonds before holding an event.
However, those bonds are generally intended to protect the ticket-
buying public from a promoter who might abscond with the ticket money
or fail to put on a show. In order to protect the fighters from crooked
promoters, some states are beginning to require promoters, especially
the newer promoters, to put enough money up front before an event to
insure that all the fighters get paid. In Nevada for instance,
Executive Director Marc Ratner has made it a standard request that any
new promoter's license should be conditioned that the total amount of
fighters' purses must be placed in advance into the vault at the host
hotel. That way, the fighters can get their checks cashed immediately
after the fight.
The state of Nevada has taken many other affirmative steps to
ensure that fighters actually get paid for the services they provide
inside the ring. Such measures have included restricting the monetary
advances promoters make to fighters. See Nev. Admin. Code 467.127.
Historically, such advances were an easy way for under-handed promoters
to financially bind a fighter for long periods of time. In essence, the
fighter was obligated to keep climbing into the ring simply to pay off
prior indebtedness to the promoter. Another area where Nevada has
achieved great success is permitting boxers and managers to
contractually agree that any disputes will be submitted to binding
arbitration. See Nev. Admin. Code 467.102(4). This process has steadily
become an important safeguard for boxers who believe their manager is
not using his or her best efforts to secure remunerative bouts for the
fighter.
Pursuant to Nevada law, when a boxer or manager requests an
arbitration, the chairman of the commission must appoint a
representative of the commission (traditionally one of the
commissioners) to serve as arbitrator in the matter. Customarily, the
assignments are dispersed on a voluntarily basis and rotate amongst all
of the commissioners. This arbitration process is very significant to
fighters, because they can resolve disagreements with their managers in
an expeditious manner. Since most fighters' careers are relatively
short, they don't have the luxury of waiting for the slow wheels of the
judicial system to settle their disputes. Moreover, due to the general
disparity between the business skills of managers and boxers, an
unscrupulous manager could intentionally try to tie up a boxer's career
by filing a civil action. Conversely, by agreeing to binding
arbitration, both parties know that any conflicts will be resolved
quickly and economically.
Sanctioning Organizations
Although the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act placed some
requirements on sanctioning organizations, it is still difficult to
determine how many of these groups actually provide anything useful for
the sport. One of the reasons why Nevada is recognized as the ``Boxing
Capitol of the World,'' is because of the number of championship fights
held in the state each year. During 2000 alone, Nevada hosted 26 world
championship fights and 28 continental championships. For each one of
those championships, a sanctioning organization made money from Nevada
licensees (usually the boxer, but sometimes the promoter). Many of the
championship fight cards attracted thousands of fans in person, and
hundreds of thousands of more fans watched the events on television;
and I would venture to guess that most of those fans didn't have any
real notion of what the organization behind the ``belt'' actually does
for the sport. The more knowledgeable fans would note that the
organization ``ranks'' the fighters in each weight class, and awards a
``belt'' to the champion in each category. Beyond those aspects
however, even the most ardent fan probably could not describe what else
these organizations do to earn 3 percent of the champion's purse.
Because Nevada hosts so many championship fights each year, it is
very difficult for someone to sneak anything by the Nevada Athletic
Commission. Simply stated, the commissioners, Executive Director Marc
Ratner, and his staff have heard all of the stories before.
When it came to light last year that the International Boxing
Federation (IBF) was involved in potentially corruptive practices,
Nevada took swift disciplinary action against those who held privileged
promoter's licenses in the state and had admitted their involvement in
the matter. In summary, Nevada's Executive Director with legal
assistance from the Attorney General's office, filed public
disciplinary proceedings against promoters, Top Rank, Inc. and Cedric
Kushner Promotions, Ltd. Discipline was warranted because the
presidents of both those promotional companies acknowledged during the
IBF proceedings that they had paid the president of the IBF, Robert
Lee, money that was beyond the organization's standard sanctioning
fees. After the disciplinary actions were filed, the parties reached
stipulated settlements in both cases. The settlements included
regulatory fines of $125,000 against Top Rank, Inc. and $175,000
against Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. Additionally, the commission
placed conditions on each promoter's license regarding further dealings
with sanctioning organizations.
In a related matter, admissions by Dino Duva, the former president
of New Jersey Sports Promotions, dba Main Events, caused Nevada's
commission to call that promoter forward into a licensing hearing to
explain why it also should not be subject to monetary fines and
conditions on any future licenses. The commission ultimately determined
that the immediate remedial actions taken by Main Events, in
conjunction with the company's extensive cooperation with the federal
government's investigation, favored re-licensing of the company for the
2001 calendar year with appropriate conditions.
Due in part to the IBF criminal proceedings, and recognizing that
sanctioning organizations play a significant role in boxing, the Nevada
Athletic Commission decided to study the involvement that the various
sanctioning organizations have in Nevada. In November 1999, the
commission asked Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa to
undertake a comprehensive look at how the sanctioning organizations are
structured and how the organizations enhance or detract from the
commission's goals of protecting the boxers, as well as the ticket
buying and pay-per-view buying public.
The commission's Report to the Governor on the Role of Sanctioning
Organizations in Nevada's Boxing Industry was presented to Nevada
Governor Kenny C. Guinn at the end of April 2001.\6\ The report is the
most extensive review of sanctioning organizations ever conducted by
Nevada. Indeed, the commission believes that the report is possibly the
most comprehensive analysis of sanctioning organizations ever conducted
by a regulatory body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A copy of the commission's report can be found on the Nevada
Attorney General's website at http://ag.state.nv.us/gaming/
sanctioning.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk of the report is an effort to better understand the
internal structure and workings of sanctioning organizations. To
accomplish this goal, the Attorney General's office sent letters to
eleven organizations that sanction boxing title bouts. Those eleven
sanctioning organizations are: the International Boxing Association
(IBA), the International Boxing Council (IBC), the International Boxing
Federation (IBF), the International Boxing Organization (IBO), the
North American Boxing Federation (NABF), the National Boxing
Association (NBA), the World Boxing Association (WBA), the World Boxing
Council (WBC), the World Boxing Federation (WBF), the World Boxing
Organization (WBO) and the World Boxing Union (WBU).
Although varying in detail, all eleven sanctioning bodies responded
to the letter. Additionally, Executive Director Marc Ratner, Senior
Deputy Kizer and I met with representatives of the WBC, IBA and NABF.
Those three organizations provided very detailed information about
their activities, as did the WBO. Correspondence was received from two
organizations, the WBU and NBA, stating that those entities do not plan
to sanction any title bouts in Nevada in the near future. Consequently,
those two organizations provided very little information.
Beyond the information voluntarily provided by the organizations,
Nevada Attorney General Investigator Jim Freeman also compiled detailed
information summarizing the sanctioning fees paid to the organizations
from fighters' purses. Investigator Freeman created a chart
illustrating that from 1996 to 2000, five selected organizations (IBF,
WBA, WBC, WBO and USBA) sanctioned approximately 124 title bouts in
Nevada, resulting in payment of approximately $8.85 million in fees
from Nevada licensees to those organizations. The Nevada Athletic
Commission hopes to use the report to better understand the sanctioning
organizations, and therefore to better regulate the industry.
Having gone through some of the areas that Nevada has improved upon
over the past year or so, I would now like to offer a few suggestions
for further improved regulation of the sport.
Recommendations
Medical
There needs to be a central repository where fighters can send
their medical examinations and tests. In addition to the standard
tests, it would be very helpful if all boxers had ``baseline'' tests
conducted before they are able to receive their first professional
license. Such testing could track whether a fighter's physical well-
being has diminished over the course of his career; a valuable tool for
knowing when a fighter should retire.
The information within the repository should be maintained as
confidential. Necessary exceptions could be made for state commissions
to review the information in order to determine a boxer's physical and
mental fitness, and for specifically approved legal, administrative or
judicial proceedings.
Such a repository would save boxers the time and money of repeating
the same tests each time they apply for a different state's license.
Also, the centralization of the medical information would save state
commissions enormous time currently spent tracking down the medical
information from fighters.
Unified Rules
Every boxing match in the United States should be conducted under
the same rules. Currently, the Association of Boxing Commissions has
established Unified Championship Rules for title bouts. The consistency
of these rules helps the fighters; assists the ring officials and
better informs the boxing fans.
In an effort to standardize its rules, Nevada has modified most of
its rules to mirror those within the Unified Championship Rules. This
is important because it's very difficult for fighters to concentrate on
protecting themselves when they are trying to remember things like
whether this particular state uses the ``3 knockdown rule'' or not.
Similarly, it's quite difficult for referees to focus on the bout if
they are constantly having to worry about the rules changing for
different bouts. This would be the equivalent of a line judge at
Wimbledon having to remember from match to match whether the lines are
in or out. Finally, uniformity is also better for the live and
television audiences, because it's hard to remember all the different
rules the announcer goes over before each fight. For instance, some
states still use the ``3 knockdown rule,'' but the Unified Championship
Rules has no such provision. That difference explains why some fight
fans still automatically think that a fight is over when one boxer goes
down for a third time in one round.
Arbitrations
As set forth above, the binding arbitration process that Nevada
provides is a useful tool for expeditiously and economically resolving
conflicts between boxers and managers. The availability of such
alternative dispute resolution measures should be encouraged in other
jurisdictions. The obvious caveat to such a proposal is that the
arbitrators need to be knowledgeable about the industry and its laws.
One way to achieve that objective would be to obtain a federal grant
for training potential arbitrators about the process and the laws.
Sanctioning Organizations
After reviewing all of the information compiled by the Nevada
Attorney General's officer, Nevada's commission is contemplating two
changes regarding how the state interacts with sanctioning
organizations.
First Recommendation: While the commission does not license
sanctioning bodies, the commission does have significant authority to
regulate championship bouts held in the state. As with non-championship
bouts, the commission and/or its Executive Director can refuse to allow
a championship bout if it would constitute a probable mismatch.
Furthermore, the commission must approve all championship bouts.
Consequently, if the commission believes that it would be detrimental
to the sport of boxing and/or the state of Nevada, then it may deny
such approval. In addition to a potential mismatch, grounds for such
denial could include a sanctioning body requiring its champion to
defend against an undeserving mandatory contender.
However, those powers are limited to the approval and regulation of
actual bouts. Thus, the commission is supporting Nevada Assembly Bill
Number. 446 (AB446) which was introduced by Assembly Speaker Richard
Perkins. If passed into law, AB446 will provide the commission with
statutory authority to pass regulations concerning sanctioning
organizations and broadcast television networks. In essence, the law
would allow for ``discretionary'' registration of sanctioning bodies by
the Nevada Athletic Commission. This course of action was necessary
because these entities continually come into Nevada, avail themselves
of the state's well-regulated industry, then leave the jurisdiction
without anyone knowing exactly what role they play in furthering the
positive aspects of the sport. If a sanctioning organization or
television network is directed to register with the commission, the
entity will thereafter be required to submit all requested information,
including how the entity receives funds from a Nevada boxing event, how
the entity is structured and to what extent the entity expends the
collected funds on boxing related causes. The law would also permit the
commission to pass regulations explaining what remedial measures can be
taken against a sanctioning organization if it fails to comply with the
reporting requirements. Such measures could include barring the
organization from sanctioning its championship contests in the state.
If that were to occur, the bout between the two fighters might still be
approved to take place in Nevada; however, the commission could rule
that the winner of the fight not be presented with the organization's
``belt'' in the ring. Furthermore, the commission could instruct that
the sanctioning organization not be allowed to have any representatives
(aka ``supervisors'') receive ``credentials'' for the event. The notion
of sanctioning organizations having numerous ``supervisors'' at fights
has potential pitfalls for state commissions, not the least of which is
the fact that some of the organizations sometimes forget that it is the
governmental body regulating the event, not the private organization.
As a result of seeing how some organizations have tried to influence
state commissions, Nevada will be considering another possible change
to its regulations concerning sanctioning organizations.
Second Recommendation: Many sanctioning organizations request that
a supervisor for the organization be sitting ringside to verify the
compilation of the judges' scores. While it can be beneficial to have
someone ``double check'' the math of commission personnel, too often
more than one person from an organization comes over to see the round-
by-round results. This may create an unacceptable situation where an
informed party (with an invested interest in the outcome of a title
bout) could divulge the judges' scores during the course of the bout.
Such action could cause a change in the strategy of one of the
fighters.
Consequently, the commission may consider a regulation requiring
that only one representative from each involved organization be allowed
to sit ringside and see the scores during the bout. Moreover, the name
of the representative must be given to the commission at least 48 hours
before the bout, and the commission may deny the request for any cause
deemed reasonable. In the event of a denial, the organization must
immediately submit the name of another representative. Finally, except
for emergencies, the representative may not leave his or her ringside
seat during the title bout, nor may he signal or otherwise inform
anyone of the judges' scores prior to announcement of the winner.
Confidentiality Provision Within the Professional Boxing Safety Act
There is a provision within the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act,
specifically 15 USC Sec. 6307e, which provides that promoters must
disclose certain information to boxing commissions. However, there is a
later provision in the act providing that if a state cannot statutorily
protect the confidentiality of the documents submitted by promoters,
then the promoters must submit the documents to the Association of
Boxing Commissions. See 15 USC Sec. 6307g(b). Although certainly well-
intentioned, that particular provision has proven to be a hindrance--
not a help--to Nevada (and possibly other states). Under current Nevada
law, the promoters' documents are not statutorily prevented from public
inspection (or from inspection by the promoter's business competitors),
so Nevada presumes that its licensed promoters have been submitting the
required documents to the Association of Boxing Commissions. As a
result, not only is Nevada barred from receiving the documents, it also
knows that the documents are housed somewhere in another jurisdiction
(where they are not helping regulate Nevada's industry). As a
consequence of this law, Nevada has been forced to take a backseat to a
voluntary organization for the past year. As part of Nevada's AB446,
the commission is attempting to rectify the matter by creating an
exemption to the state's public records laws. The exemption would make
confidential ``Any information required to be disclosed to the
commission and kept confidential pursuant to federal law.'' Nevada
Assembly Bill 446 at Sec. 8. If passed, that revision should eliminate
the problem for Nevada, but many other states will continue to
experience the dilemma until the law is revised.
In conclusion, I want to once again thank you Mr. Chairman, and all
the members of this Committee for allowing me to represent not only
Nevada, but all states which host boxing events, and for allowing me to
articulate how the states and federal government can continue to work
together to protect and effectively regulate this valuable sport.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Hendrick. We are
joined by Mr. Roy Jones, Jr. We would like to hear from you,
sir. Thank you for joining us.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROY JONES, JR., PROFESSIONAL BOXER,
C/O THE JONES HOUSE
Mr. Jones. First, I thank you, Senator McCain and this
Committee for passing the Muhammad Ali Reform Act. You have
started the fight against the people who have brought our sport
down to the level it is today. But events in recent days show
that much more has to be done.
Does the world really believe that the box-off among Ruiz,
Holyfield and Rahman will determine who the true heavyweight
champion of the world is? There are many who believe that there
are three or four other heavyweights who could beat any of the
three. I am at the twilight of my boxing career and most people
know I say what I think. I would be willing to do anything to
help you help boxing.
I believe the way to get our sport back to the good old
days is to provide a league concept, something like the NFL, or
maybe baseball, NHL, etc. Every sport has a governing body. We
have the television networks and promoters governing our sport.
This is a problem. I don't know much about how to do this, but
I hope this Committee will study the problem and use its
influence to try to legitimately bring the boxing rules back to
where they were.
What we have today is a joke. We need some new ideas. We
need you and the Committee to bring people together so people
who are very knowledgeable of the sport, people who are honest
and willing to try to save the sport that we love. Why don't we
look at some experts in some of the other sports who also love
and know boxing?
In closing, I commend the work that you have done. Please
don't stop. Use your influence to try one more time to bring
the private sector into boxing so that the changes can be made
without legislation. If this fails, then maybe the only other
answer is to outlaw those contracts between boxers and those
who now control the sport, the networks and promoters. Thank
you for giving me this opportunity. Respectfully, Mr. Roy Jones
Jr.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Jones, who promotes your
fights?
Mr. Jones. I do most of my promotion myself, along with
maybe, sometimes I use another promoter to help co-promote my
fights.
The Chairman. If you were not at the skill level that you
are, do you think you could promote your own fights?
Mr. Jones. No. I probably could not promote my own fights
because if I were not at the skill level I am, I wouldn't be
able to generate the money, or to get somebody to legitimately
come--HBO, they wouldn't expect that I am a boxer. If they
don't know you, if you are not a big fish in the sea, they are
not going to step up and do anything for you. I as a promoter
sit back and watch them and other networks look all around me
and not even give me the opportunity to promote, unless I
fought. So I know for a fact if I was not in the position that
I am in, they would not allow that to happen.
The Chairman. How much of a role do you think the networks
play in this problem?
Mr. Jones. A big role. Reason being is because they are the
ones who go select what promoters they use. And it is like, it
is as though they have a monopoly. The promoters have a deal
with, at one time with Don King and Showtime against HBO.
Then something happened. The promoter goes and establishes
some relationship with the network. He can go get more done at
the network than any of the fighters can because they know that
he will be back next year with a new fighter or he will be back
2 years from now with a new improved fighter. Whereas when a
fighter goes he has a struggle to fight just as if he would in
the ring.
The Chairman. Let us talk about with the witnesses some of
the recommendations that have been made here. I am intrigued by
this idea of somehow taking the ABC and increasing its powers
so that it would have national impact. I think the states would
be very reluctant to give up their control of, or some of the
control of boxing that they have. After all, governors appoint
commissioners, etc. I would like to flesh out that idea a
little bit. Does anybody have any ideas exactly how that would
work? Mr. English?
Mr. English. Well, this really developed from a discussion
we were having just about a year ago this time at a seminar
that was held by Seton Hall Law School on boxing. There is no
question, having attended ABC conventions, that there is a
strong element of home rule, almost to the point of
mulishness--with all due respect, because if you listen----
The Chairman. Because they would lose power.
Mr. English. Well, not only that. It's--there are some
members of the ABC who in my perception are wedded to old ways,
whether it is because of power or because of entrenchment,
mental entrenchment, I can't----
The Chairman. Should we not also put this in the context
that the majority of major boxing events take place in Nevada,
New York, or New Jersey?
Mr. English. California and Texas.
The Chairman. So we have 50 states that have equal
representation, right, Greg?
Mr. Sirb. Correct.
The Chairman. But the overwhelming majority of boxing
events certainly as far as revenue is concerned take place in a
handful--or on one hand--of states.
Mr. English. Well, we say that, but--let's just analyze
that for a half a moment. It happens that New Jersey is going
through a dry period the last two years.
The Chairman. Other witnesses, jump, respond on this. Go
ahead.
Mr. English. It happens that New Jersey has been going
through a dry period the last few years. A couple of years ago,
Nevada did. Michigan, for some reason, and I will go on record
as saying I think that that commission was among the worst I
have ever seen in my life, has right now a fair number of
boxing matches. I don't know how you apportion power based upon
that, with the fluctuations that occur.
The Chairman. So what do you do? You have the ABC appoint
or elect a select group of----
Mr. English. One thing that the ABC has been managing to do
the last--frankly the last four, eight years anyway, I am not
familiar before that--because it was such a weak organization,
they managed to elect very good leadership, and I am not simply
saying that because Greg Sirb is here on the panel with me.
Between Marc Ratner, Greg Sirb and, while he sometimes causes
friction, Larry Hazard, these are very, very capable people.
And so long as that type of person is in the leadership
position, if the ABC has some clout to uniformly enforce
certain things across state boundaries--which it doesn't have
right now, it can recommend, it can do a lot, but it really
can't say to the folks in, say, Louisiana, you know, you really
have to do look at the suspension list, and sort of be guided
by that.
I mean, I know that is part of the federal law, but it
doesn't happen. We know that it doesn't happen. We know that
sometimes boxers fight when they are on the suspension list in
the lower level club fights.
So as long as there is no body with the money, the
willingness to tackle some of the investigations that needs to
be done.
The Chairman. The authority.
Mr. English. The authority.
Mr. Goossen. Senator, what I would like to add to that is
this. And again, it almost boils down to having that--not
almost, it boils down to having that authority.
If a certain state, and I don't care if it is one of the
big ones that host 60 percent of the fights or one of the
smaller ones that does 15 fights a year, if one of the states
do not adhere or join the ABC, then it would take the people in
the industry such as the promoter, such as the television
network, not to promote fights in the areas, the states that do
not abide by the rules and regulations of the ABC.
It is the only way that you can force the states, if they
do not belong to the ABC, if they do not follow their rules,
and not violate their own state policies, then the promoters
and the networks would not be able to promote in that state. I
think that would be certainly enough motivation for those
states to join an ABC.
The second situation that we would have to do in
conjunction with that is obviously find a way to fund the ABC.
Again, you have got certain situations with states that
certainly wouldn't want to give up any of their revenue.
However, whatever it would take again, Senator, to get an
overseer of our industry is what we are willing to do as a
promoter. I speak on our behalf.
The Chairman. In the context of your answer, what about a
commissioner?
Dr. Homansky. Well, I was at the first ABC meeting 14 years
ago. It was totally ineffectual until you all's involvement, in
my opinion, of leading us to the next step. Can it be the right
framework? I truly believe it can. The states can work through
the framework of the ABC.
And my example of that would be the NCAA. The NCAA is a
voluntary organization that people join. You don't join, you
are not a member, you don't get to fight--you don't get to
compete in those championships. But that is a framework.
The Chairman. And that would come out of the ABC?
Dr. Homansky. That would come out of the ABC. The ABC with
the state commissions is the right framework to go forward. The
government can look at certain aspects of this and give
direction. But this sport will be able to regulate itself or it
will not be able to survive.
The Chairman. Mr. Hendrick, do you want to comment?
Mr. Hendrick. Thank you, Senator. I was just going to
follow up on your comment that with all due respect to the ABC
and its current form and its current leadership, I would be a
little bit concerned about majority rule, where it is
universally recognized that Nevada is the boxing capital of the
world, and I would be somewhat concerned if a majority rule of
states that are only putting on one or two fights a year were
to tell Nevada how to properly do something.
So from that standpoint, I am a little concerned about an
overriding Committee where there isn't some kind of
representation based on who is doing the yeoman's work. And I
say that not because I come from Nevada, but because if you
stand in the batter's box enough, you are going to hit a curve
ball because you see enough curve balls. Nevada, our
commissioners, our executive director, Marc Ratner, they see
curve balls every day. Thus, they are not going to have one
slip by them. But a majority rule would concern me if we
couldn't have a little bit of say-so, because we are seeing
those curve balls every day.
The Chairman. In other words, some are more equal than
others, like senators. But I think the other point, too,
another added wrinkle, of course, is the Indian tribes, who are
sovereign nations and therefore, you would have to somehow make
sure that they are part of this as well.
Before you came in, Mr. Jones, there was a recommendation
for ``binding arbitration.'' As a fighter, would you feel
comfortable if you have a dispute over money that it go to an
individual who would make a decision? In other words, you can
either go to court or as in baseball, a procedure for a binding
arbitration would exist. But I would like to remind you that in
baseball, the arbiter does not have a range of choices. He has
two choices. One, the player's position, and two, the
management position. Would you feel comfortable with that kind
of situation?
Mr. Jones. Probably. It is according to, probably, who that
person is or what that person is. I would have to see where
that person's background came from, do I believe he is in the
right position to make a fair decision to me. If he is, then of
course. If everybody has to abide by this, then I am going to
abide by it because that is the way everybody should do it. And
that is the type of steps that we have to have in boxing, so
that people can see and everybody can follow suit. If this is
the way you are going to do it, this is the way you have to do
it.
So everything is, I feel with the IBF, the WBA and the WBC
where everybody came down to the IBF because it is right here
in the United States, but nobody said nothing about the WBC and
WBA, because they are out of the country. That is not fair to
me. Although what they were doing was wrong--don't get me
wrong--but everybody don't have to abide by the same rules. We
can't go get into the offices like we can in the IBF.
So if it is the same and everybody has to abide by it, I am
always going to abide by it. And I am always going to be for
that, because I feel like that would help everybody else.
The Chairman. You are a role model to millions of young
Americans. How do you feel when you read that promoters are
giving people duffle bags full of cash in order to get them to
break agreements with other promoters?
Mr. Jones. That is the problem. That is part of the problem
that we have in boxing. That is part of what has brought boxing
to where it is today. And it is a horrible feeling to me
because it makes the fighter look bad, it makes the promoter--
it makes the business look just like everybody perceives it to
be. I am a person who has been able to get a deal with Nike, I
had a deal with brand Jordan, but none of these people wanted
to deal with me after they found out that I did not have a
promoter. That I was by myself.
The Chairman. But as you said, you are one of the few
boxers in America that could be your own promoter.
Mr. Jones. Well, because of the way the promoters can give
you a bag full of money and make guys--influence guys to do
things like that. That is one of the problems, because they are
able to come by and do that and make him sign and do whatever.
Now he is committed to that guy for however long it is, because
of that one little bag of money. And it is like, to me, I think
that is unfair, and I think something should be done to the
promoters for doing that. But nothing happens so they
continuously do it.
The Chairman. Well, if the witnesses will indulge me for a
moment in my old age. I have observed recently some terrible
decisions, and one of them being a fight that took place in San
Antonio where a fighter from Mexico City clearly won the fight.
Again, I believe that it was against Ayala, because Ayala had a
big fight already contracted that was coming up. The announcer
on television said, ``Follow the money, follow the money.''
That is why this decision was rendered.
What are you going to--I guess I am directing my comments
primarily to Greg, and anybody else who wants to comment, when
fights are obviously, obviously misjudged? I guess that is the
right terminology. And one of the reasons why I was so upset
about this fighter from Mexico City, because he did not get the
decision, he may fade into obscurity. He may never have another
fight that would be televised nationwide again.
What in the world can be done about--I am not talking about
differences of view. I am talking about blatant, blatant
miscalls of a fight?
Mr. Sirb. Well, I have to agree with you in that case. And
there is obviously more than those cases that have come up over
the years. One of the things that any national body, and I
stick with national, not federal body--but any national body
needs to have, and that's the training of the officials. Like
major league baseball, you have to be go to school, you have to
be trained, you have to come up through the ranks to reach a
major league baseball type level.
The Chairman. How are they selected in Nevada?
Dr. Homansky. We select them. We have input, but no
official is chosen outside the state of Nevada. The ultimate
authority, the ultimate decision is the referees and the judges
are chosen by us. That does not happen everywhere.
The Chairman. Are you sure? I have seen these fights where
they call in somebody from a foreign country because the
promoter demands that country be represented. Or that America
not be represented.
Dr. Homansky. There is no question. It is an international
sport and we do at times use international officials. But it is
our choice on the officials that we have observed.
The Chairman. Without pressure from the promoters?
Dr. Homansky. Without pressure.
Mr. Goossen. Senator, that pressure usually comes from the
organization, that they want one of their international
officials to be a part of it. I think Greg hit the nail on the
head. Obviously that is also another big undertaking, but one
that is sorely needed. And I think that to go beyond that, if
you look at any of the other major sports--football,
basketball--if you have got someone that consistently blows the
call, he is not going to be reffing any more football games or
basketball games. We don't have that procedure in our industry,
where again too many states are going to penalize the
incompetence of certain judges.
That is what we need to get rid of. It gives the taste of
what you have just said with the announcer: ``Go follow the
money.'' Unfortunately, in other sports, if a referee blows a
call, there is no tinge of unethical practices there. It is
just the ump is blind. In our sport, it automatically jumps
out: Who paid this guy off?
So that is what we have got to get rid of. And the only way
we are going to get rid of it is through a national commission,
through a body that governs our sport and then has the ability
to penalize people--again any licensee, whoever does not stand
up to the rules and regulations.
The Chairman. I do not want to spend too much time on the
issue, but it is just terrible when you see a young fighter
fight his heart out.
Mr. Goossen. You are right.
The Chairman. And then be the victim of a bad decision.
Mr. Goossen. And it is what you said again, Senator. He may
go into obscurity, but worse yet he might end up fighting for a
lot less than what he made for this fight, and still never get
a fair decision because now he's labeled a loser.
Mr. Sirb. One of the things to follow up on. I know we gave
you some of the copies, the first time we gave you a world
judge's report. With the help of some statistics that we have
gathered that I know we share with all the states, every world
judge, each round that they have scored for the past 4 years,
and shows them side by side. So there are some judges over
there that each commission now knows should not be judging.
They are horribly outside the average score.
The Chairman. Would you be guided by that, sir?
Dr. Homansky. Yes, sir. Thre is no question we also look at
objective data. And here are officials that come into the state
of Nevada that have had too many even rounds, that their scores
do not make sense. We do keep records of that. There is
communication between our executive director, Marc Ratner and
Greg, and we do not use those officials again.
The Chairman. Greg, I would like to have the ABC come up
with a recommendation along the lines of the NCAA, so that we
can get some kind of national oversight, perhaps without the
appointment of a boxing commissioner or a boxing czar, etc. I
am always uncomfortable with, well, also from a political
standpoint, it would be very difficult to override the
objections of most governors if we took away the authority. But
if we had some kind of concept where, following along the lines
of the NCAA, where there could be oversight enforcement that
would cross state lines. And I would be glad to try to turn
that into some kind of legislation.
Mr. Sirb. One of the things, besides the NCAA, one of the
things I follow closely because I handle athletic agents'
issues, is the Amateur Sports Act that Senator Stevens did, and
I thought he did a wonderful job on it. It is basically gives
authority for amateur boxing to a private organization,
Colorado Springs, USAA Boxing that runs amateur boxing through
state lines. I think the legislation can be patterned after the
Amateur Sports Act.
Just to get one thing that Kirk said that I know that has
been a problem in our association about how we share the wealth
of the votes. At meetings when I am with the athletic agents, I
mean, I deal with the Yankees on one hand, who rake in millions
upon millions of dollars, but when they go to the table, the
Pittsburgh Pirates, one of my beloved teams in one of my
states, who rake in maybe one-tenth of what they do, still has
one vote. And the Yankees have to follow, once the Pirates have
their vote, if they get beat, they have to follow it. It is
sort of similar to what we have here.
There are eight states, and these are statistics. On the
West Coast you have Nevada, California, and Texas. They do
probably 80 percent of the fights over on the West Coast. On
the East Coast over the past 5 years a number of fights, you
have New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida doing the fights. The
large number of fights. So if you put those, six states
together, you have probably got about 60 or 65 percent of the
fights occurring in six states. But just like NCAA, the Indiana
basketball teams has got to do the same thing that Fairfield
University has to do. It just has just got to be a compromise
that has to be worked out.
The Chairman. There is no disagreement among the witnesses
that we need a medical registry or repository system such as
Dr. Homansky has recommended? There is no disagreement on that?
You might want to do that separately so that we could get that
done.
And you suggest a sanctioning fee as being the means of
funding that?
Dr. Homansky. I throw that out to you as a rough estimate
in America of 4 to 5 million dollars in sanctioning fees, 10
percent of that to fund this. And I think the world body should
be happy to do this for the fighters.
The Chairman. Mr. Jones, let us talk just for a second
about sanctioning fees. Do you pay those?
Mr. Jones. Yes, I do.
The Chairman. Do you think you should?
Mr. Jones. No, sir. I don't.
The Chairman. What kind of range are you talking for a
major fight?
Mr. Jones. I have seen it go up as high as around, once I
paid close to $500,000 in sanctioning fees.
The Chairman. Which meant someone's signature on a piece of
paper.
Mr. Jones. Yes.
The Chairman. What do you do about that?
Mr. Sirb. Again, if we registered the sanctioning bodies,
if the ABC in the law registered the sanctioning bodies, we
would set those fees. Those fees would have to be set and they
could not go against it.
That is outrageous. I have a fighter that I know well,
again, Nate Miller, who was the reigning cruiserweight champion
of the world for like 18 years, we added up all the figures
that he paid. For his belt he ended up paying like over a
million dollars for a belt that we priced out at under $475.
The Chairman. And they are ugly besides.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Homansky. Senator McCain, I have to take a little
opposing view here. Roy could have said no. Roy is big enough
that he could have said no, and the only reason I bring that up
is because he didn't. And I am not going to speak for him or
for other people, but the belts still do mean something. They
mean history.
The Chairman. This was my next question. Roy, does it
matter to you whether you are the WBO, IBF, WBC, WBA, any other
alphabet soup champion, or you are recognized by USA Today in
their rankings and throughout America as the best fighter in
the world, pound for pound?
Mr. Jones. Right now the alphabet order doesn't really
matter to me. But if I don't have a championship belt around my
waist, then I am competing for nothing. Because always as a
child coming up you want to be a world champion. That was my
goal when I turned professional. And it's like, people put
their pressure on you, and yeah, you could have said no but how
many of us are going to say no?
The Chairman. What does it mean if you are in the WBO?
Mr. Jones. Right now it don't mean nothing to me because I
know what I truly am. But in boxing if you aren't in the WBC or
the WBA or the IBF, you are nobody. And that's the ultimate
thing. If you have just those three titles, you're considered
undisputed champion of the world.
Mr. Goossen. Senator, the way we fix it is having this
ruling body, the organizations have to live within those rules
and regulations. The ABC has taken steps in that regard with
ratings criteria. Some of the organizations have followed
through on it, some have ignored it. They have got to be, they
have got to be standards set there. As Roy said, and I have
seen it every day, fighters, and you know, it's funny, the best
example we have, the HBO for years have vilified the
organizations and said we don't need them. It is the fighters.
And quite honestly, they are correct. But yet, they are
fighting, they went from $3.5 million, they were supposed to
pay Hasim Rahman to fight Lennox Lewis for close to $20 million
because they didn't want to lose the title.
That was the bottom line. They wanted those titles. So they
are a valuable asset, the fighters, the networks, the
promoters, but not valuable enough where they extort money from
fighters, extort moneys from promoters, and/or not follow the
rules and regulations as dictated by our commission that we
should have that oversees our industry.
The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Jones. And comment on whether
you think this is a good thing that has been going on, this box
off for the title that is going to end up some day with you and
Mr. Trinidad fighting.
Mr. Sirb. You mean Mr. Hopkins from Philadelphia.
The Chairman. Yeah, Hopkins, excuse me. If Mr. Trinidad
beats Hopkins, excuse me.
Mr. Jones. I agree with what Mr. Goosen said. And I think
that box-off could be helpful in a sense because those guys are
guys who really don't have big names with the exception of
Trinidad. So that brought Jaffe, that brought Keith Holmes
tribute that they may have never received, so always it is not
a bad situation when you look at it and it is beneficial to
more than one fighter.
Now at the end of the roller coaster it is going to be
beneficial to me and the winner of the Trinidad-Hopkins fight.
So by building that hype, that is the type of promotions that I
think is supposed to take place. People don't realize that at
the end of the road, Don King could get ridiculous and the
fight could never take place. And that is what's bad about it.
Because in this sport, nobody can go in and say, Well, Don, you
are only allowed this much, the fighters should get the lion's
share of the money, and the fight should happen. Because in
that instance, I would say no. But with the title issue is like
they are using my pride, my motivation to keep me going against
me. And when you say you are going to pay this or give my title
up, no, I don't want to give my title up. Networks say we don't
care about the titles, give the rights up yet the first thing
they ask you is, is this a title bout? Tomorrow you tell me the
reason you took this fight or the reason you paid this guy so
much as opposed to that guy is because it was a title fight. I
can't get my titles like that.
The Chairman. Another great fan of boxing and one of the
members of this Committee who has been extremely helpful to us
in passing legislation we have in the past, and a friend of
Virgil Hill's, is Senator Dorgan.
Mr. Jones. I didn't mean to hit him.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am not very happy with Mr.
Jones.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Jones. I didn't mean to hit him, he actually ran into
it.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roy Jones, Jr., Professional Boxer,
c/o the Jones House
I want to thank Senator McCain and this Committee for passing the
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. You have started the fight against the
people who have brought our sport down to the level it is today. But
events in recent days show that much more has to be done.
Does the world really believe that the Box-Off among Ruiz,
Holifield, and Rahman will determine the true heavyweight champion of
the world? There are many who believe that there are three or four
heavyweights in the world who could beat any of the three.
I am at the twighlight of my career and as most boxing people
realize I say what I think. I would be willing to do anything to help
you help boxing.
I believe the way to get our sport back to the ``good old days'' is
to provide a league concept--something like the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL,
etc. Every sport has a governing body. We have the television networks
and the promoters governing our sport. This is the problem.
I don't know how to do this, but I hope this Committee will study
the problem and use its influence to try and get a legitimate boxing
ruling body that will control the sport. What we have today is a joke!
We need some new ideas. We need you as a Committee to bring
together some people who are very knowledgeable of the sport! People
who are honest and are willing to try to save the sport which I love.
Why don't we look to some of the experts in other sports who also have
a love and knowledge of boxing?
In closing, I commend the work you have done. Please do not stop.
Use your influence to try one more time to bring the private sector
into boxing so that the changes can be made without legislation. If
this fails, then maybe the only answer is for you to outlaw those
contracts between the boxers and those that now control the sport . . .
the networks and the promoters.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity.
Respectfully submitted,
Roy Jones, Jr.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Jones, welcome and welcome to the rest
of you. I am really pleased that Senator McCain has taken such
an interest as Chairman of this Committee over a number of
years on this subject. And we have made progress. I think the
Muhammad Ali Act is progress. That credit goes to Senator
McCain.
I was thinking as I was sitting here in the mid 1980s, when
I was a member of the House of Representatives, Bill
Richardson, Pat Williams, myself and others, and Senator McCain
were interested in boxing and even back then we talked about
trying to get some legislation. The fact is we never could. And
it was kind of the same argument that I am hearing here today.
Well, gosh, you cannot do anything that hinges on Las Vegas
because we handle most of the fights and we know how to do it
and, you know, we do not want somebody else telling us what to
do.
We have made some progress in some areas and I think that
is good. But I recall sitting over in a hearing that another
chairman held in which Sammy the Bull Gravano came under guard
to the hearing, and this is I think 4, 5, or 6 years ago, and
he described flying to Las Vegas to one of the boxing
organization representatives and meeting him and saying he was
trying to set up a fight with Rinaldo Snipes, that they had a
fighter that was going to fight Snipes. Snipes had fallen out
of the top 10 and they really needed him to be in the top 10 to
make this a fight that they could springboard from.
So the guy said, well, we could, you know, put him in at
number seven for $10,000. And he, Sammy the Bull Gravano told
us in testimony, he said I explained to him that he was asking
on behalf of John Gotti. He said well, in that case we could
rank him number seven for $5,000. And so goes too much of
boxing, not all of boxing, but too much of boxing.
I think it was Mr. Sirb or Mr. Homansky who said the
pressure--when Senator McCain asked about judges--the pressure
comes from organizations. Maybe so. But you know, and I know,
that there are some organizations that have a substantial
connection to certain promoters. I mean, I was just involved
with an organization here over the last couple of years about a
fighter who was not getting the fight he was supposed to get by
contract and by the organization's rules. And what I discovered
was well, some promoters are able to go to organizations
because they have a very close relationship and jockey around
and get exemptions, and this, that, and the other thing.
My guess is the same thing happens with respect to
officials at a fight. It might be coming from an organization,
but it might be coming from then promoter to the organization,
then on to the body. So I think that is also something that
happens too often.
Let me just say that my own view is that we need an
organization with some muscle, and that is the only way it is
going to work. Every other professional sport has it. There are
different iterations of it. Some have no connection with
government, some do. But if you do not have a commissioner with
some clout, if you do not have the capability to establish some
standardization of rules and safety, it is not going to work.
And it seems to me you have got to have something that helps--
from these gate receipts--accumulate some money, so that at the
end of the fighter's career, the fighter is not thrown away
penniless, that there is something available at the end of that
career for those fighters as well. They provide wonderful
sport.
And I grew up, Mr. Chairman, as a young boy in southwestern
North Dakota. I mean, never saw a fight but I was listening to
the Pabst Blue Ribbon fights on the radio. My grandad got me a
copy of Ring Magazine--he got me a subscription to Ring
Magazine, not Fleischer. And I listened to Kid Gavilan and
Sugar Ray and Archie Moore and Ike Williams. I grew up knowing
fighters. So there was only, you know, there is one heavyweight
champion and one light heavyweight champion.
The Chairman. And eight divisions.
Senator Dorgan. Yeah. And now we have got this
proliferation. And in many ways, boxing is a wonderful sport
and in many ways, it is a pretty shabby, tawdry situation as
well. So, I did not mean to give a speech here. Let me thank
Roy Jones for being here. As I said, I got involved in helping
Virgil Hill earlier in his career when he was not invited to
the Olympic trials. And I called them and said this boy is from
North Dakota, you do not know him but it does not hurt you to
invite him to trials. And he went on and won the trials in the
Midwest and went on to win a Silver Medal in the Olympics. He
is a wonderful young man. And you ought to fight him two, three
more times and see what happens.
[Laughter.]
In any event, I am delighted you are here, and I think you
are a real role model in boxing and I think your willingness to
come and testify in open hearings about all of these things
requires a great deal of courage, but I think I will also pave
the way for changes Senator McCain wants to make, and I and
others want to make that will improve the sport of boxing.
Mr. Jones. Thank you so much. And one thing I want to add,
when you say a committee with muscle, they also should have the
right to be able to go back and look at fights that were badly
judged and overrule. Because I felt just as bad, when you were
saying that, I have been one of the biggest victims of a bad
decision in my life, but that decision didn't hurt me. It
actually helped me catapult myself and it gave me more
fighting. But I don't like to call names, but when I watched
Gutierrez Espadas fight Eric Morales----
Senator Dorgan. Right.
Mr. Jones.--and to see them just take Gutierrez's Espadas's
title because they thought Nasseem Hamed was going to be the
one they were fighting with, that bothered me. I sat there with
tears in my eye wondering, how is it in this country they can
just do, and when nobody does anything about it? That can
happen to me. That could happen to my kid one day. And that is
why I think something should be done.
Senator Dorgan. Just one other question. Is there some risk
to you being here, any of you? I mean, boxing is a really
interesting sport in terms of control these days. You know what
I am talking about. You get frozen out very quickly, very
easily, and now we have got a couple of other interests that
probably cannot be frozen out, but are some of you--do you feel
a little pressure coming to testify today?
Mr. Goossen. Senator, I would just tell you on my behalf
that there is not enough money in the world not to have me
sitting here. Any threats of expulsion from boxing that would
allow me not to be here. Because I was just thinking in my mind
when I heard Senator McCain mention to Greg to start planning,
seeing how this can be enacted--this is what we need. I don't
care, the only people that wouldn't want us here are the ones
that would have to follow these rules and regulations that we
finally get into place.
So damn them, and this is what we have got to do. And I
know this is the first day of establishing a national
commission for industry and making it something that I am going
to be very proud of.
Mr. English. Senator, I think that the risk, to the extent
that there is risk, really lies most with Roy Jones, Jr., who I
think we should all be proud of for being here today. In terms
of the promotional company that I represent, Main Events, that
decision was made a long time ago.
As an example, Main Events supported Michael Moorer in a
suit against the IBF that ultimately led to the disclosures of
bribery, indictments and what have you. We did not go into that
unknowing. We knew what the consequences would be. We didn't
know it was going to be dragged out as long over so many years.
But there is a decision you don't sell out the boxers that are
associated with you. And for years after that, many years after
that, it happened that the Main Events boxers were not ranked
highly by the IBF as a direct retribution for having made those
disclosures which ultimately led to the indictments and the
convictions.
Yeah, there is some risk, in that sense. But forget the
promotion company; the risk really lies to boxers like Roy
Jones. I think he should be commended for being here.
The Chairman. Mr. Hendrick?
Mr. Hendrick. Senator, I just want to say as well that I am
in a unique position because I left the government so I have no
allegiance to any political aspirations at this point. And I
have just started in private practice, and I have always
believed that there should be no fear of ever doing the right
thing and I have no fear of that. If my career doesn't take on
any of this industry, I'll be just fine. But I also want to
echo the fact that Mr. Jones is in a very precarious position.
For him to come out and publicly say the things that he has
said, not only to this commission, but constantly saying in
order to improve this sport, says a lot more about him as a man
than it does as a boxer. And I congratulate him on that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Homansky. The risk is really with the fighter. That is
what we have to remember here. The tawdriness, the problems
that have come up, the issues that we are trying to face are
worthwhile. It is worthwhile because of the risks that kids
themselves undertake when they go into this wonderful sport.
For all of the issues we have been talking about this
morning, for the time that we have put into it, we do it
because these men and women fight their hearts out in the
ultimate competition, and that is where the risk is and that is
why this is worthwhile.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, if I might just as a final
comment say, Muhammad Ali was always one of my favorite
fighters, a wonderful fighter obviously. But I also liked as a
very, very young man Ezzard Charles who ended up in desperate
poverty shining shoes, I believe, at the Fontainebleau Hotel in
Florida after he had been a wonderful heavyweight champion.
And my hope is that you will accept the Chairman's
challenge to submit some information for your ideas on
structure and so on. I commit, as I am sure some of my
colleagues will, to working with Senator McCain. We need to
continue to make advances here and continue to address these
problems and I really appreciate your willingness.
And Mr. Jones, thanks for your courage and your willingness
to be here today as well. You are a wonderful fighter and I
have watched many of your fights, and I wish you well.
The Chairman. I would just like to say that one of the
areas that we did not cover that we have talked about a lot in
the past is the issue of pensions, and I would like your inputs
as far as that is concerned as well. Obviously it has to come
out of pay-per-view, at least that is where the money is. And
we have to set up criteria for eligibility. But even if we set
up an organization, modeled along the lines of the NCAA for the
oversight of boxing, we still have not addressed the pension
issue, and I would hope that we could attempt to make some
progress in that area.
And I just briefly, I would like to hear any real quick
views that you have.
But before you do, Mr. Jones, I also want to applaud you.
And I want to say that for whatever it is worth, a lot of us
will be trying to pay a lot of attention and focus a lot of
attention on what happens after the Trinidad-Hopkins fight as
far as you're being able to have a reasonable contract for
fighting the winner of that fight. And I hope that you
understand that there will be a lot of us that will be trying
to pay attention to what goes on in that situation, not because
of our affection for you, but also our respect for you, and the
fact that Americans deserve an opportunity to see what may be
one of the great matches of the century.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
The Chairman. Pensions, real quick. Flip?
Dr. Homansky. Got to happen. And it can happen. And there
is no question in my mind that the money is there. No question.
And it doesn't have to come just out of one source, but it is
got to benefit all of the fighters, especially the club
fighters.
The Chairman. Greg?
Mr. Sirb. It is started. And we've got the beginning stages
of it with the foundations that we started with. But the
pension system, the difficult part is there is no union for the
boxers, and so it makes it a little bit different when I try to
pattern the pension system sort of on major league baseball.
But pay-per-view on a little piece of every little fight, even
a small club fight, make it a small part of that club fight
going into a centralized funding area, where we have already
set the parameters up through, the National Association of
Attorney Generals I thought did a good job on that. And each
fighter hitting that parameter after 40 having so many fights,
getting their share back.
The Chairman. Get with the National Association of
Attorneys General, get the ABC to give us a proposal that we
can turn into some kind of legislation, okay? So you have got
two tasks, all right?
Mr. Sirb. No problem.
The Chairman. Mr. Goosen, do you have anything?
Mr. Goossen. Senator, your dream has always been to protect
the fighter, and that dream cannot be realized without the
final touch of a pension for the ones that aren't as fortunate
as Roy Jones and a handful of other fighters. It is, we have
talked about it with the opponent that Ayala fought. Most
fighters, and it is a shame that there is not more money
generated at the lower levels of our industry, but it is a
shame of what some of these fighters that are fighting four-
round, six-round, eight-round fights, are making.
In our industry it is very cash-poor at the bottom. It is
feast or famine. And the only way that we are going to rectify
that is to be able to have some type of pension for the
fighters that don't have the ability, but still give the fans,
give the promoters, give the networks what we are all looking
for, and that is a good athletic contest.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. English?
Mr. English. I think it is an extraordinarily complex
problem. I think it is, I think we all support some sort of a
pension plan for boxers. However, we know that there are a
couple of models which have failed. The California pension plan
system collapsed. The IBF pension plan system, as far as I am
aware, works for a couple of boxers, but only a couple of
boxers. It only works at the championship level.
I have looked, again, I was a member of the NAG group so I
looked very closely at the proposals that came out, the
actuarial tables. It would be nice for me to sit here and say
yes, Senator McCain, we could do that. I am not sure we can. I
hope we can. But I think a lot more work can be done.
The Chairman. Do you think they could if they had a union?
Mr. English. I think you could if you had a national
system. You certainly can't do it on only a title bout basis,
as the IBF is trying to do. You can't do it on a state by state
basis because fighters naturally migrate from state to state
where the action is.
The Chairman. I understand. I agree. Mr. Hendrick?
Mr. Hendrick. Thank you, Senator. I was just going to echo
the comments that it is a difficult problem, but it is one that
I commit my resources in the state of Nevada to trying to
achieve. And again I want to thank you for taking your time on
such a day that is so important to this country, and what you
have to be doing for the rest of your day, to take a few
moments to help this sport.
The Chairman. It is my honor. I thank you all for coming.
And I would like to have those two issues addressed by the ABC.
And how soon do you think, Greg, you could put that together?
Mr. Sirb. I think we can put that together in weeks. I
don't think it should take us a very long time. We have a draft
in front of us that we have tried to put together.
The Chairman. I'd like to introduce legislation this
summer.
Mr. Sirb. It will be there.
The Chairman. I want to thank all of you for being here. I
appreciate your dedication and efforts to the ``sweet science''
or the ``red light district of sports,'' whichever philosopher
you happen to agree with. Thank you very much. This hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:02 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]