Dear Sirs,
EBU Membership
We inform you that the EBU General Assembly, held on 6th June last in Paris, has decided to reject the application for membership of the Malta Boxing Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Enza Jacoponi General Secretary
Regulation 25.
Appeared before the Board. Fined. To be monitored.
It is with great sadness that the British Boxing Board of Control advise that Mr. Phil Lundgren passed away last week.
Mr. Lundgren was a former 1960 Rome Olympian, Southern Area Champion at Featherweight and Lightweight, a long standing Chairman of the Southern Area Council and Representative Steward of the British Boxing Board of Control.
Phil dedicated his life to the Sport of professional Boxing and will be sadly missed.
PRESS CIRCULAR
This Press Notice is issued by the British Boxing Board of Control (“the BBBofC”) in respect of the WBA Interim World Middleweight Championship between Dmitry Chudinov and Chris Eubank Jnr. held at the O2 Arena, London on the 28th February 2015.
The BBBofC has decided to issue this notice to correct misinformation that has been disseminated surrounding the appointment of officials for that contest.
That contest was due to, and did, take place, under the jurisdiction of the BBBofC. As such, in accordance with the BBBofC Rules and Regulations, it was for the Board to control the contest and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges.
That was recognised by the contract signed by or on behalf of both boxers, which provided as follows:
“ 3. Rules and Regulations
(a) Designation of the officials, referee and judges shall be made by the Boxing Commission (“BBBofC”). The final decision on all appointments will remain with the BBBofC. The parties agree to immediately write to both the WBA and BBBofC to request that all judges are from neutral territories from that of both CEJ and DC. ”
On the 6th February 2015 Robert Smith, the General Secretary of the BBBofC, advised that the BBBofC had appointed a BBBofC licensed referee and a BBBofC licensed judge to officiate at the contest, both of whom were on the WBA’s approved list of officials. He also indicated that the BBBofC would approve 2 judges appointed by the WBA from neutral territories from that of both boxers.
Subsequently, having had discussions with the promoter, Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, agreed that the BBBofC would approve the appointment of all 3 judges from neutral territories from that of both boxers. Both the promoter and Chris Eubank Jnr. were content with that decision.
However, Dmitry Chudinov and his team were not content, even though such decision was in accordance with the terms of the contract as set out above and even though he agreed to be bound by the BBBofC’s Rules and Regulations. Indeed, at all material times he was considered as being a licence holder of the BBBofC.
Dmitry Chudinov insisted that the referee should also be from a neutral territory from that of both boxers. Contrary to what has been said in the media, Dmitry Chudinov was not within his rights to insist upon the referee being from a neutral territory from both boxers. He was certainly not within his rights to threaten that he would not box unless the appointed referee was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory be appointed.
The referee Mr. Smith had appointed was a world-class referee of immense experience and integrity. He was on the WBA approved list. There was absolutely no basis upon which his appointment could be criticised. It is common for a referee from the territory of one of the boxers to be appointed to officiate. Further, a regulatory body cannot allow a promoter and/or a manager and/or a boxer or anyone else for that matter, to dictate the appointment of officials. The appointment of officials is one of the most important roles of a regulatory body and is essential for the integrity of the sport of boxing.
On the evening of the contest Dmitry Chudinov was still maintaining, in breach of contract, that he would not box unless the referee appointed by Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory was appointed to officiate.
By reason thereof the BBBofC’s representatives present at the promotion and the appointed referee were placed in an invidious, intolerable position. As a result Mr. Smith was contacted. The position was explained to him. In the bests interests of the promotion, the innocent parties who would be adversely affected if the contest did not proceed, the public who had paid to attend the promotion and had subscribed to see the contest on television and the sport of boxing generally, he was left with no alternative but to agree that the appointed referee be replaced by a referee from a neutral territory.
The BBBofC wish to make it clear that, in respect of contests under its jurisdiction, it is the BBBofC who will approve and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges, and that what happened on the 28th February 2015 will not be allowed to happen again.
BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
The British Boxing Board of Control issued a Press Circular dated the 8th April 2014 in response to a BoxingAction.com article (a copy of the article is attached hereto numbered 1).
At that time the appeals of Bruce Baker, David Currivan and James Evans against the decisions of a panel of the Board withdrawing Mr. Baker’s Manager’s licence and fining Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans £750.00p and £1,250.00p respectively were pending.
Those appeals to the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control have now been determined in accordance with the document entitled “Award” (this document is attached hereto numbered 2).
NUMBER ONE
Response of the BBB of C to BoxingAction.com article
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans have appealed to the Stewards of Appeal. Their appeals will be heard later this year.
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.
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.
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.
NUMBER TWO
BEFORE THE STEWARDS OF APPEAL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE STEWARDS OF THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
BETWEEN:
(1) BRUCE BAKER
(2) JAMES EVANS
(3) DAVID CURRIVAN
Appellants
THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
Respondent
AWARD
Following a hearing of the Appellants’ appeals before the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control Limited on 21 and 22 July, and again on 2 September 2014, and for the reasons set out in writing and provided to the parties, and following submissions made by Counsel for the Appellants and Counsel for the Respondent on the issues of sanction, and costs, the Stewards of Appeal made the following Award at a hearing on 6 October 2014:
The Appellants’ appeals are dismissed.
The sanctions and costs orders imposed on the Appellants by the Board are upheld and not varied by the Stewards of Appeal. As to sanction:
a) Mr Baker’s Boxer’s Manager licence is withdrawn;
b) Mr Evans is fined £1,250;
c) Mr Currivan is fined £750.
Mr Baker is ordered to pay the Board’s costs of the appeal assessed in the sum of £40,000 within 28 days of this Award, namely by Monday 3 November 2014.
The parties shall be provided with a written note of the proceedings by the Stewards of Appeal. Such note (and the contents of the same) shall remain confidential to the parties save that it may be used in these proceedings including any applications made in these proceedings to the Court.
The Board is permitted to publish this Award.
Dear Sirs,
EBU Membership
We inform you that the EBU General Assembly, held on 6th June last in Paris, has decided to reject the application for membership of the Malta Boxing Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Enza Jacoponi General Secretary
Regulation 25.
Appeared before the Board. Fined. To be monitored.
It is with great sadness that the British Boxing Board of Control advise that Mr. Phil Lundgren passed away last week.
Mr. Lundgren was a former 1960 Rome Olympian, Southern Area Champion at Featherweight and Lightweight, a long standing Chairman of the Southern Area Council and Representative Steward of the British Boxing Board of Control.
Phil dedicated his life to the Sport of professional Boxing and will be sadly missed.
PRESS CIRCULAR
This Press Notice is issued by the British Boxing Board of Control (“the BBBofC”) in respect of the WBA Interim World Middleweight Championship between Dmitry Chudinov and Chris Eubank Jnr. held at the O2 Arena, London on the 28th February 2015.
The BBBofC has decided to issue this notice to correct misinformation that has been disseminated surrounding the appointment of officials for that contest.
That contest was due to, and did, take place, under the jurisdiction of the BBBofC. As such, in accordance with the BBBofC Rules and Regulations, it was for the Board to control the contest and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges.
That was recognised by the contract signed by or on behalf of both boxers, which provided as follows:
“ 3. Rules and Regulations
(a) Designation of the officials, referee and judges shall be made by the Boxing Commission (“BBBofC”). The final decision on all appointments will remain with the BBBofC. The parties agree to immediately write to both the WBA and BBBofC to request that all judges are from neutral territories from that of both CEJ and DC. ”
On the 6th February 2015 Robert Smith, the General Secretary of the BBBofC, advised that the BBBofC had appointed a BBBofC licensed referee and a BBBofC licensed judge to officiate at the contest, both of whom were on the WBA’s approved list of officials. He also indicated that the BBBofC would approve 2 judges appointed by the WBA from neutral territories from that of both boxers.
Subsequently, having had discussions with the promoter, Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, agreed that the BBBofC would approve the appointment of all 3 judges from neutral territories from that of both boxers. Both the promoter and Chris Eubank Jnr. were content with that decision.
However, Dmitry Chudinov and his team were not content, even though such decision was in accordance with the terms of the contract as set out above and even though he agreed to be bound by the BBBofC’s Rules and Regulations. Indeed, at all material times he was considered as being a licence holder of the BBBofC.
Dmitry Chudinov insisted that the referee should also be from a neutral territory from that of both boxers. Contrary to what has been said in the media, Dmitry Chudinov was not within his rights to insist upon the referee being from a neutral territory from both boxers. He was certainly not within his rights to threaten that he would not box unless the appointed referee was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory be appointed.
The referee Mr. Smith had appointed was a world-class referee of immense experience and integrity. He was on the WBA approved list. There was absolutely no basis upon which his appointment could be criticised. It is common for a referee from the territory of one of the boxers to be appointed to officiate. Further, a regulatory body cannot allow a promoter and/or a manager and/or a boxer or anyone else for that matter, to dictate the appointment of officials. The appointment of officials is one of the most important roles of a regulatory body and is essential for the integrity of the sport of boxing.
On the evening of the contest Dmitry Chudinov was still maintaining, in breach of contract, that he would not box unless the referee appointed by Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory was appointed to officiate.
By reason thereof the BBBofC’s representatives present at the promotion and the appointed referee were placed in an invidious, intolerable position. As a result Mr. Smith was contacted. The position was explained to him. In the bests interests of the promotion, the innocent parties who would be adversely affected if the contest did not proceed, the public who had paid to attend the promotion and had subscribed to see the contest on television and the sport of boxing generally, he was left with no alternative but to agree that the appointed referee be replaced by a referee from a neutral territory.
The BBBofC wish to make it clear that, in respect of contests under its jurisdiction, it is the BBBofC who will approve and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges, and that what happened on the 28th February 2015 will not be allowed to happen again.
BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
The British Boxing Board of Control issued a Press Circular dated the 8th April 2014 in response to a BoxingAction.com article (a copy of the article is attached hereto numbered 1).
At that time the appeals of Bruce Baker, David Currivan and James Evans against the decisions of a panel of the Board withdrawing Mr. Baker’s Manager’s licence and fining Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans £750.00p and £1,250.00p respectively were pending.
Those appeals to the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control have now been determined in accordance with the document entitled “Award” (this document is attached hereto numbered 2).
NUMBER ONE
Response of the BBB of C to BoxingAction.com article
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans have appealed to the Stewards of Appeal. Their appeals will be heard later this year.
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.
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.
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.
NUMBER TWO
BEFORE THE STEWARDS OF APPEAL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE STEWARDS OF THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
BETWEEN:
(1) BRUCE BAKER
(2) JAMES EVANS
(3) DAVID CURRIVAN
Appellants
THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
Respondent
AWARD
Following a hearing of the Appellants’ appeals before the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control Limited on 21 and 22 July, and again on 2 September 2014, and for the reasons set out in writing and provided to the parties, and following submissions made by Counsel for the Appellants and Counsel for the Respondent on the issues of sanction, and costs, the Stewards of Appeal made the following Award at a hearing on 6 October 2014:
The Appellants’ appeals are dismissed.
The sanctions and costs orders imposed on the Appellants by the Board are upheld and not varied by the Stewards of Appeal. As to sanction:
a) Mr Baker’s Boxer’s Manager licence is withdrawn;
b) Mr Evans is fined £1,250;
c) Mr Currivan is fined £750.
Mr Baker is ordered to pay the Board’s costs of the appeal assessed in the sum of £40,000 within 28 days of this Award, namely by Monday 3 November 2014.
The parties shall be provided with a written note of the proceedings by the Stewards of Appeal. Such note (and the contents of the same) shall remain confidential to the parties save that it may be used in these proceedings including any applications made in these proceedings to the Court.
The Board is permitted to publish this Award.
Dear Sirs,
EBU Membership
We inform you that the EBU General Assembly, held on 6th June last in Paris, has decided to reject the application for membership of the Malta Boxing Commission.
Sincerely yours,
Enza Jacoponi General Secretary
Regulation 25.
Appeared before the Board. Fined. To be monitored.
It is with great sadness that the British Boxing Board of Control advise that Mr. Phil Lundgren passed away last week.
Mr. Lundgren was a former 1960 Rome Olympian, Southern Area Champion at Featherweight and Lightweight, a long standing Chairman of the Southern Area Council and Representative Steward of the British Boxing Board of Control.
Phil dedicated his life to the Sport of professional Boxing and will be sadly missed.
PRESS CIRCULAR
This Press Notice is issued by the British Boxing Board of Control (“the BBBofC”) in respect of the WBA Interim World Middleweight Championship between Dmitry Chudinov and Chris Eubank Jnr. held at the O2 Arena, London on the 28th February 2015.
The BBBofC has decided to issue this notice to correct misinformation that has been disseminated surrounding the appointment of officials for that contest.
That contest was due to, and did, take place, under the jurisdiction of the BBBofC. As such, in accordance with the BBBofC Rules and Regulations, it was for the Board to control the contest and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges.
That was recognised by the contract signed by or on behalf of both boxers, which provided as follows:
“ 3. Rules and Regulations
(a) Designation of the officials, referee and judges shall be made by the Boxing Commission (“BBBofC”). The final decision on all appointments will remain with the BBBofC. The parties agree to immediately write to both the WBA and BBBofC to request that all judges are from neutral territories from that of both CEJ and DC. ”
On the 6th February 2015 Robert Smith, the General Secretary of the BBBofC, advised that the BBBofC had appointed a BBBofC licensed referee and a BBBofC licensed judge to officiate at the contest, both of whom were on the WBA’s approved list of officials. He also indicated that the BBBofC would approve 2 judges appointed by the WBA from neutral territories from that of both boxers.
Subsequently, having had discussions with the promoter, Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, agreed that the BBBofC would approve the appointment of all 3 judges from neutral territories from that of both boxers. Both the promoter and Chris Eubank Jnr. were content with that decision.
However, Dmitry Chudinov and his team were not content, even though such decision was in accordance with the terms of the contract as set out above and even though he agreed to be bound by the BBBofC’s Rules and Regulations. Indeed, at all material times he was considered as being a licence holder of the BBBofC.
Dmitry Chudinov insisted that the referee should also be from a neutral territory from that of both boxers. Contrary to what has been said in the media, Dmitry Chudinov was not within his rights to insist upon the referee being from a neutral territory from both boxers. He was certainly not within his rights to threaten that he would not box unless the appointed referee was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory be appointed.
The referee Mr. Smith had appointed was a world-class referee of immense experience and integrity. He was on the WBA approved list. There was absolutely no basis upon which his appointment could be criticised. It is common for a referee from the territory of one of the boxers to be appointed to officiate. Further, a regulatory body cannot allow a promoter and/or a manager and/or a boxer or anyone else for that matter, to dictate the appointment of officials. The appointment of officials is one of the most important roles of a regulatory body and is essential for the integrity of the sport of boxing.
On the evening of the contest Dmitry Chudinov was still maintaining, in breach of contract, that he would not box unless the referee appointed by Mr. Smith, on behalf of the BBBofC, was stood down and a referee from a neutral territory was appointed to officiate.
By reason thereof the BBBofC’s representatives present at the promotion and the appointed referee were placed in an invidious, intolerable position. As a result Mr. Smith was contacted. The position was explained to him. In the bests interests of the promotion, the innocent parties who would be adversely affected if the contest did not proceed, the public who had paid to attend the promotion and had subscribed to see the contest on television and the sport of boxing generally, he was left with no alternative but to agree that the appointed referee be replaced by a referee from a neutral territory.
The BBBofC wish to make it clear that, in respect of contests under its jurisdiction, it is the BBBofC who will approve and appoint all officials, including the referee and judges, and that what happened on the 28th February 2015 will not be allowed to happen again.
BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
The British Boxing Board of Control issued a Press Circular dated the 8th April 2014 in response to a BoxingAction.com article (a copy of the article is attached hereto numbered 1).
At that time the appeals of Bruce Baker, David Currivan and James Evans against the decisions of a panel of the Board withdrawing Mr. Baker’s Manager’s licence and fining Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans £750.00p and £1,250.00p respectively were pending.
Those appeals to the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control have now been determined in accordance with the document entitled “Award” (this document is attached hereto numbered 2).
NUMBER ONE
Response of the BBB of C to BoxingAction.com article
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mr. Baker, Mr. Currivan and Mr. Evans have appealed to the Stewards of Appeal. Their appeals will be heard later this year.
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.
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.
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.
NUMBER TWO
BEFORE THE STEWARDS OF APPEAL
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE STEWARDS OF THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
BETWEEN:
(1) BRUCE BAKER
(2) JAMES EVANS
(3) DAVID CURRIVAN
Appellants
THE BRITISH BOXING BOARD OF CONTROL
Respondent
AWARD
Following a hearing of the Appellants’ appeals before the Stewards of Appeal of the British Boxing Board of Control Limited on 21 and 22 July, and again on 2 September 2014, and for the reasons set out in writing and provided to the parties, and following submissions made by Counsel for the Appellants and Counsel for the Respondent on the issues of sanction, and costs, the Stewards of Appeal made the following Award at a hearing on 6 October 2014:
The Appellants’ appeals are dismissed.
The sanctions and costs orders imposed on the Appellants by the Board are upheld and not varied by the Stewards of Appeal. As to sanction:
a) Mr Baker’s Boxer’s Manager licence is withdrawn;
b) Mr Evans is fined £1,250;
c) Mr Currivan is fined £750.
Mr Baker is ordered to pay the Board’s costs of the appeal assessed in the sum of £40,000 within 28 days of this Award, namely by Monday 3 November 2014.
The parties shall be provided with a written note of the proceedings by the Stewards of Appeal. Such note (and the contents of the same) shall remain confidential to the parties save that it may be used in these proceedings including any applications made in these proceedings to the Court.
The Board is permitted to publish this Award.