1. After a full hearing conducted on the 19th November 2013 a panel of the BBB of C found Bruce Baker guilty of serious misconduct in respect of boxing promotions held on the 27th April 2013 and the 4th October 2013, David Currivan guilty of misconduct in respect of a boxing promotion held on the 27th April 2013 and James Evans guilty of misconduct in respect of a boxing promotion held on the 27th April 2013.
2. Detailed reasons for the panel’s decisions were given in writing. The serious nature of the allegations found proven against Mr. Baker and the nature of the allegations found proven against Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans are set out in the written reasons for the panel’s decisions.
3. Those acting for Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans were provided with the written reasons for the panel’s decisions. They could have made them public if they had wished to do so. As far as the Board is concerned they have not done so.
4. The panel heard mitigation on behalf of Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans on the 11th February 2014. Having taken all relevant matters of mitigation into account the panel imposed the following sanctions upon them:
Bruce Baker’s licence was withdrawn on the basis that his misconduct jeopardised the health and safety of the boxers, undermined the integrity of the sport of boxing, was seriously detrimental to the interests of professional boxing and the public interest and this seriously compromised the sporting rules of fairplay.
David Currivan was fined £750 for misconduct.
James Evans was fined £1250 for misconduct.
Each of them was ordered to pay £220 towards the costs.
5. Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans have appealed to the Stewards of Appeal. Their appeals will be heard later this year.
6. In the light thereof the BBB of C were surprised that a barristers chambers saw fit to hold a media conference advertising the details of “the forthcoming High Court action” to be brought by Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans.
7. The BBB of C, acting as a responsible, regulatory body of integrity, will await the outcome of the appeals to the Stewards of Appeal and any High Court action before making any further comment, other than to correct wholly misleading statements contained in the BoxingAction.com article.
8. The BBB of C make it clear that:
i) Messrs Baker, Currivan and Evans did not “remain banned” in respect of the Haye v Chisora promotion in July 2012 as stated in the BoxingAction.com article;
ii) In respect of the Haye v Chisora promotion all licence holders were treated in exactly the same way. To suggest “the ban by the BBB of C becomes selective justice” and “appears to reek of unfairness” is simply incorrect and the article’s headline is inappropriate;
iii) Mr. Baker has had his licence withdrawn in respect of matters wholly unconnected to the Haye v Chisora promotion in July 2012. Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans were fined in respect of matters wholly unconnected to the Haye v Chisora promotion in July 2012.
iv) Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans have not been “banned” as suggested in the BoxingAction.com article.
9. Finally, the BBB of C wishes to emphasise that their objectives are to ensure that the sport of boxing is conducted fairly, including the need to safeguard equal chances for the boxers, the boxers’ health, the integrity and objectivity of the sport and the ethical values in the sport. Such objectives are pursued without fear or favour.