Last week we reported that the District of Columbia Boxing and Wrestling Commission declined to reverse the decision made in the ring on August 15 concerning the fight between Ishmail Arvin and Anthony Thompson for the USBO Jr. Middleweight title, making the local fighter, Arvin winner by TKO 6. This week we’d like to add some commentary.
First of all, here is a copy of the letter from Chairman Jason E. Turner to Ed Levine, IBO president informing him of the decision:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL LICENSING ADMINISTRATION
* * *
D.C. BOXING AND WRESTLING COMMISSION
Edward S. Levine, President
International Boxing Organization
Coral Gables, Fl
Re: Anthony Thompson vs. Ishmail Arvin
USBO Junior Middleweight Title- August 15th, 2008
Dear Mr. Levine:
The District of Columbia Boxing and Wrestling Commission (Commission) is in receipt of your letter dated August 18, 2008, concerning the above-captioned matter. By your letter, you formally request that the Commission review the final decision. Further, you “strongly recommend” that we change the ruling and award either a ”technical decision” to Anthony Thompson or, in the alternative, declare this fight a “no decision” due to a head butt which caused injury to Mr. Thompson and precluded him from continuing the fight.
In this instance, Malik Waleed, the referee, did not witness a head butt, nor was a head butt alleged by anyone within the timing of the bout itself. Further, at the end of Round Three, which video footage shows the head butt to have occurred, no one from Mr. Thompson’s comer, including the fighter himself, signaled or alerted the referee, or anyone from the Commission. Only after the fight was stopped, and video footage on ESPN was introduced ringside to the parties, did the head butt assertion
emerge from the Thompson camp.
While you are correct in your contention that our local rules do not specifically provide for the use of TV replays to assist the referee during or immediately after the fight, and that there is nothing in our rules Which would prohibit the Commission’s use of video evidence subsequent to the fight to rectify an untenable result, those rules are not at issue here.
Rather, all relevant parties, including the Commission, agreed to observe the Rules and Regulations of the International Boxing Organization governing World Championship contests (I.B.O. Rules).
Pursuant to I.B.O. Rules, specifically in the referee section that reads ”the referee shall be the only person authorized to determine if injuries were the result of legal blows, accidental fouls or intentional fouls.” Therefore, the Commission has no authority to overrule the determination made by referee Malik Waleed.
Further, the I.B.O. Rules state in the miscellaneous section that reads “in an event of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of these rules, the I.B.O. Fight Commissioner in attendance shall be the final arbiter.”
Hilton Whitaker, III, the I.B.O. Fight Commissioner in attendance, served in
that capacity. Accordingly, when the issue of the alleged head butt and the ESPN video were brought to the attention of the participating officials and the Commission, Mr. Whitaker was not only consulted, but was in fact central to the discussion, interpretation, and execution of the fight decision. More importantly, in interpreting the I.B.O. Rules, the I.B.O itself, through Mr. Whitaker, made the determination that the video tape would not be used and, thus, Ishmail Arvin would be declared the winner by technical knockout.
While the Commission agrees that there is a need to protect the integrity of the sport, the Commission finds that the final decision was made in accordance to the rules we all agreed to follow, as interpreted by I.B.O., and therefore must stand.
Finally, in seeking to avoid this type of controversy in future contests, the I.B.O. may want to consider amending its rules to allow for the use of video evidence subsequent to a match to rectify what it considers an untenable result.
If you have any questions or concerns that may linger regarding this matter, please feel tree to contact me directly. The Commission would welcome a rematch in Washington, D.C.; so that a fair and true champion might emerge…an outcome we all want to see.
Jason E. Turner, Chairman
DC Boxing and Wrestling Commission
Thompson was unable to continue due to a severe cut over his left eye, caused by a clash of heads in round three. Referee Malik Waleed made no official ruling at the time, having not seen the head clash that was discovered after the round by ESPN’s video replay.
Levine protested the result and withdrew title recognition to Arvin, a journeyman who is a fixture at club fights in the Washington-Baltimore corridor. The decision of the DC Commission would indicate that either Arvin was the beneficiary of some home cooking or possibly the commission is made up of a bunch of numbskulls.
I’ve read the DC decision a number of times and it makes less sense each time I do. I can understand the decision made on the night of the fight. It was a state of chaos after the fight with ESPN announcer Joe Tessitore showing the replay to Waleed, members of the commission, and the IBO supervisor on hand, along with seemingly anyone else who wanted to see it.
Several minutes went by before it was decided to go with the decision made in the ring by Waleed. So given the circumstances that night, they did what needed to be done. The DC rules do not provide for the use of TV replays to assist the referee nor is there anything in the rules to prohibit the use of such video evidence, just as Turner stated in his letter.
But it would be unprecedented in the sport to change a ruling using video replay, and given the confusion that existed on August 15, that would hardly be the place to start.
However, I find it disappointing that after reviewing the tape in the quiet of their office, the DC commission allowed the ruling to stand when there was clear evidence that the cut was caused by a clash of heads before the end of four rounds. As far as I’m concerned all this mumbo-jumbo about observing the rules and regulations of the IBO is strictly hogwash. Shouldn’t the major objective be to get the decision right for the sake of the fighters and the fans?
There is recent precedent for such matters. The recent Rahman v. Toney case was reversed by the State of California. In that case, to make a long story short, the commission screwed up royally on the night of the fight, reversing a referee’s decision. But, at least they corrected the decision within a couple of weeks. Faced with visual evidence, even Armando Garcia will do the right thing.
The Arvin-Thompson fight was held at a second rate night club in a second rate part of town. Were it not for the ESPN TV exposure, it would have been a forgotten matter after the fight was over. There were only about 120 fans in attendance, and some of them had their backs turned at the bar. To show what a “seat of the pants” operation it was, workers began tearing down the ring before ESPN even went off the air because the venue had been rented out to another group.
So far only New Jersey has language allowing video replay in their rulebook, and they don’t use it. The problem is that there are many commissions with members that have little or no boxing expertise. And no one knows exactly the best way to use the technology. So it’s easier to ignore it.
No promoter wants to spend the estimated $5,000 for the equipment for replay, particularly when they find out they have to share with everyone. No one wants to trust the corners on the “challenges,” for fear of a stalling tactic to give their fighter a rest, and delay the fight. Who wants an evening of that?
You would like to think that if the ESPN crew can pinpoint the problem in seconds, that any knowledgeable boxing person could, but such is not the case. This is why it is unlikely that instant replay will work in boxing.
The NFL has had replay for years, but ask Norv Turner how he feels about his recent experiences.
Still there just has to be some measure of hope for an Anthony Thompson, a blue chip prospect whose second loss in a row isn’t going to help him one bit. Who is going to look out for him? Certainly not anyone in DC, and it’s a shame. When a fighter has a fight, he puts his life and career on the line; he should be treated fairly and professionally.
An IBO spokesperson told me this week that, “IBO President Ed Levine is not recognizing the decision and would hope that the commission would reconsider. The title is vacant and the IBO urges a rematch.”
I guess it goes without saying that Thompson would be best advised not to have that rematch in Washington D.C.