On a teleconference this afternoon, Richard Schaefer, the CEO of Golden Boy Promotions, made enough allegations to fill about ten episodes of ?Law & Order.?
Schaefer, taking the side of the fighter he has under contract, former IBF & WBA junior welterweight champion Amir Khan, leveled one of the most serious at the International Boxing Federation (IBF), which just denied his request for an immediate rematch based on a review of the tape of the December 10 fight with Lamont Peterson.
Schaefer intimated that the IBF tampered with its master scorecard for the fight. He said that while everyone was in the ring, crowning the new champion, the D.C. Commission took it from the IBF supervisors, and it, in effect, disappeared, surfacing just a couple of days ago, only to look like it had just been compiled.
?It was too neat,? Schaefer said, referring to the writing of scores on the card.
So in other words, he is as much as accusing the IBF of falsifying the scorecards that held the key to the decision. This was a theme at various points in the teleconference, as Schaefer had pointed out that on judge George Hill?s card, the seventh round had been inadvertently changed from an even 10-10 round to a 10-8 round for Peterson on the WBA?s master scorecard.
He also pointed out several times that Michael Walsh, supervisor for the WBA, was a certified public accountant, and it was curiously that he had a master card that added up to different scores than what were handed in by the judges to the D.C. commission. He said that on the WBA?s master scorecard, the fight was a draw.
As for referee Joseph Cooper, who deducted two points from Khan for ?pushing? which ultimate made a difference in the decision, Schaefer said ?He did a shitty job.?
While he was denied a summary judgment of sorts on the immediate rematch, Khan, through Schaefer, has decided to take things to the next level, and since the IBF had indicated that it would field a request for an appeal, Schaefer presented the IBF with a check for $10,000 ? non-refundable mind you ? to cover the costs of such an appeal. A similar action has been undertaken with the WBA, for what Schaefer indicated was a slightly lower amount.
