CONFLICTS ANYONE?

By Elisa Harrison
www.braggingrightscorner.com

28.09 - The furor over the Oscar de la Hoya-Shane Mosley decision has subsided, along with Bob Arum's anger. The Golden Boy's promoter appears to be making peace with the Nevada Athletic Commission, and yours truly is now set to write about "conflicts" as promised.

Since I posed the question whether Nevada had extended an invitation to violate the law in a recent article, "Did Nevada Issue An Invitation To Break The Law?" (referring to the Muhammad Ali Act which is a federal law), much or little has happened depending on where you sit, and how jaded your perceptions are.

For those readers who may not know, let me offer a quick recap. Nevada's Mark Ratner contacted and assigned judge Stanley Christodoulou to the Hoya-Mosley fight, bypassing and ignoring a list of five other judges proposed by the WBA. Mr. Christodoulou is a member of several WBA committees, including the Rating and Championship Committees, and his appointment could have been perceived as a conflict of interest, a violation of 15 U.S.C. 6308, (Conflict of Interest Clause/Muhammad Ali Act). After all, many questions were legitimately raised as to how did Shane Mosley climb the ratings ladder in a new weight division where he hadn't even enjoyed one single victory, and overall had been winless in two prior fights. Having Mr. Christodoulou judge the Hoya-Mosley fight after possibly having had some input on ranking Mosley could certainly be interpreted as a conflict of interest, particularly since five other judges were proposed -and rejected- by Nevada's Mark Ratner. Arrive at your own conclusions on that one...

In an all out effort to get at the bottom of some of these possible conflicts of interest, we contacted Keith Kizer from the Nevada Attorney General's Office, who counsels the boxing commission; Don Hazelton, Executive Director of the Miccosukee Commission; Chris Meffert, Executive Director of the Florida Commission and Tim Lueckenhoff, President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, (ABC). We asked the same basic questions of all aforementioned gentlemen, and after sorting out their answers, we came up with the appearance of a complete disagreement in the interpretation of the law between Nevada and the ABC, as well as some other uncomfortable revelations.

This is Keith Kizer/Nevada's position and interpretation of the law: "The prohibition contained in 15 U.S.C. 6308 does not apply to ring officials. They are not members or employees of the Commission or the state executive branch. Rather, like boxers, they are licensees of the Commission, and as such, they must follow State boxing law."

If one is to accept this interpretation of the law, then one must accept Christodoulou's appointment as a non-story, and an affront to Florida referee Armando Garcia who was warned to give up either his position as a licensed referee in Florida or his position as Chairman of the WBA's Officials Committee. Garcia's refusal to comply with the ultimatum issued by Tim Lueckenhoff, President of the ABC is -according to the statute- punishable by imprisonment. One would assume Mr. Garcia committed a major infraction, the consequences certainly sound severe. (Read the letter sent to Mr. Garcia at the bottom of this article).

Even more troubling is the fact that Lueckenhoff and Ratner have publicly stated that they did not know Mr. Christodoulou belonged to any WBA committees. Should this be a part of what at least one of these gentlemen needs to know when appointing officials and/or overseeing major events such as this? Lueckenhoff, Meffert and Hazelton stated to yours truly that they would never assign Christodoulou -or someone with a similar conflict- to a fight in their respective jurisdictions. However, upon further research, I uncovered that Guy Jutras, a Canadian official assigned by the Florida Commission to judge the recent Acelino Freitas-Barrios fight IS a member of the WBA Championship Committee. Once again, according to the ABC's interpretation of the law as it applied against Garcia, we have a conflict, a violation of a federal law.

I must confess that my verbal communication with Mr. Lueckenhoff has been brief, most of our exchanges have been in writing and perhaps my perception is erroneous, but I feel that the man is way over his head, overwhelmed, in his present position as President of the ABC. Allow me to explain...

I pointed out several potential conflicts of interest in different jurisdictions and asked Mr. Lueckenhoff if he was aware of any of them, and if so, how did he intend to address them. One of these in particular really reeks, and I'll share it with you. Texas referee Lawrence Cole sells insurance to promoters and has -at times- worked the same shows for which he has sold insurance, and if that is not perceived as a conflict, I don't know what could be. Anyway, Mr. Lueckenhoff's response to me was and I quote: "I don't have the time to police the entire sport of boxing. When I have refereed (sic) alleged violations of the federal law in the past to the U.S. Attorney of State's Attorney General's (sic), I have had no luck of any action being taken." HUH????

There is so much I would like to say to Mr. Lueckenhoff that perhaps I should just post all of his responses and address them individually. Is it any wonder the cries for a National Commission are ringing louder with each passing day? Senator McCain, are you listening, sir?

A good rule of thumb is to not bite more than you can chew, and may I recommend Mr. Lueckenhoff consider either resigning from his position or taking more pride in fulfilling the job he took on.

Mr. Lueckenhoff further stated to me, "I wish before you write articles that you seek out interview (sic) with individuals because you had some untruths in your first article. I will return your calls, however, I has (sic)(?) to fit into my schedule as my responsibilities to my division come way before the ABC, as the ABC position is totally voluntary." DOUBLE HUH???

When I asked Mr. Lueckenhoff to point out the "untruths" he refers to, his answer proved to me that he must be too busy and unable to apply good reading comprehensive skills. I will refer him back to paragraph 3 of "Did Nevada Issue An Invitation To Break The Law?"... and I challenge Mr. Lueckenhoff to point out where I wrote that he and Mark Ratner were lying about not knowing Christoudoulou belonged to the WBA Committees.

Mr. Lueckenhoff adds in closing... "If anything is unclear, please don't hesitate to ask for clarification. I have a fight in Kansas City tomorrow night and will only be in the office until noon central time."

Yes, actually a lot is unclear, Mr. President of the Association of Boxing Commissions. I am truly bothered by your reference that your position as President of the ABC is totally voluntary, with the implication that ... what, exactly? Did you not know it was voluntary when you accepted it? Does that mean the position should be treated with any less respect?

There are many people in our society, people who are crucial to the well being of our nation, who do volunteer work with tremendous pride and impeccable work ethics... Mr. Lueckenhoff, please, your response and perceived attitude from it is really insulting to our nation's volunteers as well as to those of us who at some point or another have been the recipients of a volunteer's devotion. September 11, 2001 comes to mind, but I won't even go there, it's way too painful...

I detect a total lack of interest and leadership on your part, a failure to take advantage of your position to make an impact for the betterment of the sport. Your organization has failed to address serious issues in the past, i.e. the Richard Hall-Roy Jones, Jr. steroids scandal which was revealed to your organization by Indiana Commissioner Jacob Hall, and more recently the grave allegations lodged against former ABC President Greg Sirb by Chuck Cavelo, (a.k.a. Charles Jay of Operation Clean Up fame), which have remained unanswered to date. Is it any wonder the general public views boxing as unsavory and shady?

I do find it of interest, though, that under your leadership the ABC flexes its muscle, exhibiting a clear cut case of selective law enforcement against referee Armando Garcia, and total abandonment in the case of others in similar conflictive positions. I can't help but wonder why was Armando Garcia singled out? Food for thought, we will address that in the next installment...

This Is A Copy Of The Letter Sent To Referee Armando Garcia By Tim Lueckenhoff, President Of The ABC

September 5, 2003

Armando Garcia
Miami, FL

Dear Mr. Garcia:

It has come to the attention of the Association of Boxing Commissions ("ABC") that you currently are licensed as a referee by the Florida State Athletic Commission and the Miccosukee Athletic Commission; and, at the same time, you are functioning as the Chairman of the World Boxing Association's ("WBA") Officials Committee.

I respectfully direct your attention to federal legislation entitled "The Professional Boxers Safety Act of 1996" (amended by "The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act" in 1998), codified as 15 U.S.C. 1, et seq. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. 8 states, in pertinent part:

8. Conflicts of Interest

No member or employee of a boxing commission, no person who administers or enforces State boxing laws, and no member of the Association of Boxing Commissions may belong to, contract with, or receive compensation from, any person who sanctions, arranges or promotes professional boxing matches ...

It is the position of the ABC that, when you perform your role as a referee for the Florida State Athletic Commission and the Miccosukee Athletic Commission, you are functioning as either an "employee of a boxing commission," a "person who administers or enforces State boxing laws," or both. It also is the position of the ABC that your serving as the Chairman of the WBA's Officials Committee constitutes your "belonging" to the WBA. Moreover, if you are receiving remuneration for the services you are providing to the WBA as the Chairman of the WBA's Officials Committee, you have either contracted with, or are receiving compensation from, a "person who sanctions ... professional boxing matches."

In view of the above, your functioning as a licensed referee, as well as the Chairman of the WBA's Officials Committee, appears to constitute a direct violation of the above-quoted Federal Law. Accordingly, you hereby are directed not to function in both capacities. If you continue to do so, please be advised that appropriate sanctions may be sought [see, e.g., 15 USC 9(b)((3)].