The Number One Contender: That's a Wrap

[Editor's Note: The Number One Contender is an exclusive SportsJudge column by licensed boxing manager Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. Today Paul follows up on his February 3 discussion of the Antonio Margarito hand-wrapping scandal now that Margarito and his trainer have lost their licenses.]

In the wake of one of the most controversial incidents in professional boxing in recent years, former welterweight champion Antonio Margarito and his trainer Javier Capetillo had their licenses revoked earlier this week by the California State Athletic Commission (hereinafter the “Commission”) following the discovery of a Plaster of Paris-like substance on Margarito’s hand wraps before his January 24, 2009 welterweight championship bout with Shane Mosley. At their hearing, Margarito pleaded that he had no knowing involvement with his hand wrappings that night, while Capetillo threw himself on his sword and took full responsibility for what happened. Margarito’s plea fell on deaf ears, however, as the Commission revoked both of their licenses. In essence, the Commission held that Margarito had respondeat superior liability over those who work in his corner.

Barring a successful appeal, Margarito will be unable to box in North America for at least a year. After a year, he and Capetillo will be able to re-apply for their licenses, pursuant to California State Athletic Commission Rule 399. The re-application process guarantees that Margarito will get another opportunity to go before the Commission and apologize for the misdeeds of his corner, but will not guarantee him or Capetillo new licenses. In the meantime, Margarito can fight overseas, where the revocation has no binding effect, and has already been invited to box in his hometown of Tijuana, Mexico by Mayor Jorge Ramos.

Margarito’s promoter, Top Rank, expressed its interest in having Margarito appeal the revocation of his license, which he may do upon questions of law. In a press release, Top Rank’s Bob Arum, hinted at the question of law they might seek to appeal upon: whether the doctrine of respondeat superior was properly applied to Margarito by the Commission. In California, as in most jurisdictions, the doctrine of respondeat superior provides for the assessment of liability against an employer for an employee’s tortious actions that are taken within the scope of his employment. To successfully assert that Margarito should not have been found liable, therefore, his attorneys would have to argue either (a) that Margarito should not be deemed an employer of Capetillo in the first instance, or (b) that the placement of a Plaster of Paris-like substance on his hand wraps was not done within the scope of Capetillo’s employment.

Further, California courts accord a strong presumption of correctness to the findings of an administrative body. As such, the party challenging said findings must establish that the administrative decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence. It would, therefore, not suffice for the court to simply find that the doctrine of respondeat superior was improperly applied to Margarito. Rather, Margarito and Capetillo would also have to establish that the decision to revoke their licenses in the face of the evidence regarding Margarito’s hand wraps was not warranted based upon the evidence provided at their hearing. Establishing this point could prove tricky, between the undisputed finding of the Commission’s inspectors that night in his dressing room and Capetillo’s mea culpa during the proceedings.

In addition to filing an appeal in the California courts, Margarito may also seek the intervention of the Association of Boxing Commissions (the “ABC”), the coalition of state, provincial, and tribal boxing commissions that provides a level of uniformity to professional boxing in North America. While the ABC is not a government entity and has no authority to contravene state regulations, a favorable view of Margarito’s purported plight by the ABC may help influence the Commission to either reconsider its revocation or grant him a new license when he is permitted to reapply. The ABC, however, has its credibility on the line, as it is widely regarded as the enforcer of law and order in North American professional boxing. Accordingly, it seems unlikely that it would take a favorable position towards Margarito and Capetillo’s claims in this matter.

All things considered, the bet here is that Margarito, as he did in the fight with Mosley that fateful night, will once again find himself on the mat in the late rounds of any appeal.

Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. is an attorney at the New York law firm of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach, LLP. 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. ©

Related Posts by Subject