A Quick Look at the Lessons to Learn from the Nevada State Athletic Commission?s Request That ?Vicious? Victor Ortiz Explain His Actions in the Mayweather Fight Before Being Licensed for the Berto Rematch
Much of the conversation following Floyd (Money) Mayweather, Jr.?s crushing September 17, 2011 fourth round knockout of ?Vicious? Victor Ortiz revolved around Mayweather?s arguably unsportsmanlike conduct in coldcocking Ortiz while Ortiz tried to apologize after touching gloves following a time-out and point deduction occasioned by his head-butting of Mayweather. Many who witnessed the spectacle ripped Mayweather and declared that he was the epitome of a bad sportsman who did a disservice to his sport. The sentiment was seemingly buttressed by the venom Mayweather spewed at HBO boxing commentator Larry Merchant in their now infamous post-fight interview. Ortiz?s own controversial conduct in his bout with Mayweather, however, apparently did not go unnoticed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission, as it was reported this past week that Ortiz has been summoned to a January 11, 2012 meeting to explain both why he intentionally head-butted Mayweather that night, and his recent comments on same during a Max Boxing interview, in advance of his licensure for a scheduled February 11, 2012 rematch with Andre Berto. What can be learned from this turn of events for the once-sympathetic victim of one of the most memorable, albeit controversial, knockouts in recent years? A quick looks follows.
An Eye for an Eye Does Not Officially Extend to Fouls
When Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield?s ears during Standing 8 Court?s selection for lowest moment in modern boxing history, Bobby Czyz, who was part of the commentary team for Showtime Pay-Per-View, opined that if he were Holyfield, he would have kicked Tyson. While an overwhelming majority of viewers probably agreed with Czyz, Holyfield did exactly what he was supposed to do in response: Nothing. You will not find in any athletic commission?s rules a provision providing carte blanche to foul an opponent who has just fouled you. Thus while some might sympathize with Ortiz?s remarks in his recent Max Boxing interview that he was trying to break Mayweather?s nose following a host of alleged elbows by Mayweather to his right eye, such comments are not the best way to win friends and influence members of the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Professional boxers and mixed martial artists are professionals, and are expected to conduct themselves as such at all times in the ring no matter what they are faced with.
Foul in Silence
Does anyone recall Felix Trinidad sitting down to explain why he threw that crushing, and seemingly flagrant, low blow when it appeared that he needed a time-out during his December 2, 2000 classic with Fernando Vargas? To Standing 8 Court?s recollection, no such interview ever happened. Instead, Trinidad took his breather, his point deduction, and his final round knockout victory and moved on to William Joppy without much discussion as to whether not he would be licensed for his opening bout in the middleweight unification tournament. As recently discussed in ?@LosersbyTweetKO? (http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/4619/2011-10-09.html) there is a lot to be said for keeping your thoughts and comments to yourself as a professional athlete. What can be learned from Ortiz is that if you don?t, be prepared to face the consequences not just in the ring, but from the athletic commission in charge of issuing your next license.
Can an Athletic Commission Use a Threat to One?s Licensure to Curb Their Speech?
Without getting into an extensive and tedious analysis of constitutional law as it applies to athletic commissions who, as state agencies, are extensions of their respective state governments, the denial of a license to engage in regulated activity may not be the result of a mere whim, caprice, or prejudice on the part of an agency. The decision must have a rational basis. Thus, while it would be improper to deny Ortiz a license because he is (hypothetically speaking) an outspoken liberal, Nevada?s interest in maintaining a culture of good sportsmanship and adherence to the rules of professional boxing within its borders is unquestionably a rational basis to deny Ortiz a license if his head-butt of Mayweather and published rationale for same are considered an appropriate occasion to exercise such discretion.
This coming week, we may find out if Ortiz has made a complete 180 from victim to villain in the eyes of the Nevada State Athletic Commission and is denied a license based on his actions during, and comments after, his bout with Mayweather. Whatever the outcome of Ortiz?s appearance before the Commission is, however, Nevada?s summoning of Ortiz served notice to the rest of the professional boxing community that illegal actions in the ring, no matter what the given rationale is later, will not go unnoticed on its watch. Ortiz may end up being the Victor this week, given the sizeable interest in seeing many people?s choice for 2011 ?Fight of the Year? contested again, but the next boxer who acts as flagrantly and speaks as openly as he did after may not be so lucky when its his turn in front of the Commission.
***
Floyd (Morals) Mayweather?: For separate reasons, Ortiz?s vanquisher may also have to appear before the Nevada State Athletic Commission in advance of his next fight. It was reported by TMZ this past week that if Mayweather applies for a license in advance of his much talked about May 5, 2012 against an opponent-to-be-determined, he too might be summoned before the Commission so that it can speak with him about his recent domestic violence conviction. At the same time, one has to wonder what the companies who sponsor and/or receive endorsement from Mayweather are thinking, following his December 21, 2011 plea, and whether there is a morals clause in their agreements with him to keep their options open as to his future affiliation with their products. For more on the use of moral clauses in the professional boxing context, please see ?Throwing Stones When Living with a Glass Jaw?? at http://www.8countnews.com/news/138/ARTICLE/1872/2009-08-31.html.
Berto-Ortiz II a Step Toward Contracted Uniformity?: Two years ago, it was Mayweather?s highly publicized demand that Manny Pacquiao submit to Olympic-style drug testing that was credited with killing the potential mega-bout of 2010 and brought the issue of random blood and urine tests to the forefront of the boxing world?s mind. Now, it is former and potential future Mayweather opponents who have taken the latest step towards making Olympic-style drug testing a common component of major bout agreements. It was reported in mid-December that Berto and Ortiz agreed to random, Olympic-style drug testing in advance of their anticipated February 11, 2012 rematch. The contractual provision arose from Berto?s allegations following their epic first bout that Ortiz used performance-enhancing drugs in preparation for same. Whether the employment of such a provision will become a more regular occurrence for bouts in jurisdictions that normally do not provide for such testing remains to be seen, but it would appear to be a step in the right direction. For more on contracting towards uniformity in professional boxing, please see ?Has the Mayweather-Pacquiao Drug Controversy Touched on the Cure for a Lack of Uniform Rules?? at http://www.8countnews.com/news/138/ARTICLE/2209/2010-01-07.html.
Will the Licensing of Taylor and Dirrell Knock Out the Rule?: Had Standing 8 Court not previously addressed the risks of an athletic commission making an exception to its usual rules and licensing a boxer with a history of head injuries, the December 30, 2011 Shobox tripleheader featuring the returns of former middleweight champion Jermain (Bad Intentions) Taylor and 2004 U.S. Olympic bronze medalist Andre (The Matrix) Dirrell would have presented a golden opportunity to do so. Taylor was returning to boxing 26 months after reportedly sustaining a brain bleed in his Showtime Super Six Boxing Classic bout with ?King? Arthur Abraham, while Dirrell was returning from a nearly two year absence after reportedly sustaining neurological injuries in his own bout with Abraham during the same tourney. While both of them reportedly underwent extensive testing and were medically cleared to fight, one has to wonder whether a stronger commission than the one dictating boxing policy for the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (Showtime?s host that evening) would have licensed them. For more on the potential issues raised by licensing boxers with a history of serious injury, please see both ?Edwin Valero: Would an Exceptional Knock Out the Rule? (http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/1535/2009-04-13.html) and ?Will the Exception for Margarito Knock Out the Rule?? (http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/4892/2011-12-02.html).
Standing 8 Court of Appeals- A Quick Revisiting of the Analysis of Hopkins-Dawson: Standing 8 Court would like to issue a quick apology to the California State Athletic Commission and its readership for erroneously reporting on the low number of enumerated penalties specified under California law in ?Standing 8 Court After the Bell: Hopkins-Dawson a Shoulder Check to the Issue of Uniformity in Handling Fouls.? The author, who had his hands full with a two-month-old daughter at the time, failed to take into account California Code of Regulations Article 8, ? 337 (?Fouls in Boxing?), which enumerates some 13 different fouls, during the drafting of his article. Notwithstanding the same, the message of the article remains unscathed. Thankfully, California saw fit to correct itself as well, and declared Bernard Hopkins vs. Chad Dawson a ?no contest? in early December.
Khan-Peterson Bout Another ?Push? for the More Uniform Training of Referees: There has been plenty of analysis of the bizarre foul calls of referee Joseph Cooper during the December 10, 2011 junior welterweight title bout between Lamont Peterson and Amir Khan. Indeed, not since the Nintendo Entertainment System?s video game ?Double Dribble? has Standing 8 Court heard as many references to a push foul. This past week, the WBA reportedly agreed that Cooper?s calls might have improperly influenced the outcome of an exceptionally close bout. It is now expected to order an immediate rematch. In the meantime, the Khan-Peterson bout should serve notice that there needs to be more uniformity in the training of referees in the handling of the varying degrees of fouls. For more on this issue, please see ?Standing 8 Court After the Bell: Hopkins-Dawson a Shoulder Check to the Issue of Uniformity in Handling Fouls? at http://www.8countnews.com/news/125/ARTICLE/4786/2011-11-10.html.
Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is a New York-based health and sports law attorney. He is also a New York State licensed boxing manager and the Chairman of the Sports Law Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association. Paul can be e-mailed at [email protected]. He can also be followed on Twitter at @Standing8Court.
