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. ©

The Number One Contender: Hands of Steal?

[Editor's Note: The Number One Contender is an exclusive SportsJudge column by licensed boxing manager Paul Stuart Haberman, Esq. Today's article is a discussion of the potential legal implications of Antonio Margarito’s hand-wrapping scandal on his career.]

On January 24, 2009, Antonio Margarito, riding the wave of career momentum that he gained following his emphatic dismantling of the previously undefeated welterweight champion Miguel Cotto, faced perhaps the highest level operator he had ever came across in professional boxing: former multi-division world champion and future Hall of Famer “Sugar” Shane Mosley. Installed as a 4-to-1 favorite, Margarito undoubtedly gave himself every advantage during his preparations for Mosley, from his conditioning drills to top-shelf sparring. But as their fight drew closer on the night of January 24, the question arose as to whether he gave himself one too many advantages, after a foreign substance was found on his hand wraps by staffers of the California State Athletic Commission (hereinafter the “Commission”). Early reports suggested that the still unidentified substance was moist, and appeared to have qualities similar to Plaster of Paris. The implication? That the 4-to-1 favorite and/or his corner sought to enter the ring against Mosley with an extra, potentially lethal advantage to combat Mosley’s superior hand speed and overall skill. The result? As of right now, a temporary suspension of Margarito and his chief corner man, Javier Capetillo, pending a full investigation.

Margarito and Capetillo’s temporary suspensions were administered pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 18842 and California State Athletic Commission Rules 323 and 390. Section 18842 empowers the Commission to temporarily suspend licenses when doing so is necessary to “protect the public welfare[,]” while Rule 323 is the provision of the Commission Rules that places restrictions upon how a boxers hands can be wrapped, and Rule 390 provides, in relevant part, that the Commission that may fine, suspend, or otherwise discipline licensees if they conduct themselves “in a manner which is deemed by the commission to reflect discredit to boxing[.]” Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 18842, Margarito and Capetillo are now entitled to hearings regarding their suspensions, and have been asked to appear for an initial hearing on February 10, 2009. Their prospective penalties range from fines to revocations of their licenses. In the event that their licenses are revoked, they may not apply for new licenses until one year after the date of such a revocation. Any penalties assessed may be appealed to a superior court, but only upon questions of law.

If Margarito has his license suspended or revoked in California, he still has several options with regard to his boxing career. To start, no suspension or revocation in California, or indeed anywhere in the United States, need be recognized by any other country than Canada, as its provinces are aligned with the U.S.-based Association of Boxing Commissions (hereinafter the “Association”). Margarito can therefore take his show outside of North America. Further, given that any suspension or revocation would be administrative in nature, as opposed to medical, other North American commissions are also theoretically free to license him even if they are part of the Association. While “[a]ll medical and administrative suspensions placed on contestants by other athletic commissions will by recognized by the supervising commission[,]” the phrasing of this regulation appears to leave it open to an individual commission as to what they wish do with their knowledge of a suspension. Indeed, the Association’s Regulatory Guidelines contain the more binding term “shall” with regard to other regulations, but not with the regard to the recognition of suspensions by other member commissions. The wiggle room allows less stringent member commissions, such as Texas, which permitted Evander Holyfield to fight despite his administrative suspension in New York, and West Virginia, which hosted Tommy Morrison’s return to ring several years after testing positive for HIV in Nevada, to allow boxers such as Margarito to fight in the United States despite existing suspensions or grave medical concerns. However, the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 federally mandates that a suspending commission and the Association have some measure of notice and input with regard to allowing a suspended boxer to fight under the jurisdiction of another member commission before a license is granted to the suspended boxer by same.

Any gaps in the universal enforcement of suspensions aside, many of the Association’s member commissions generally recognize each other’s suspensions or revocations. Uniformity is the lifeblood of the Association. Additionally, if Margarito does successfully defy any eventual suspension or revocation resulting from this incident, he may find himself shut out of fighting in California for a long time. Under California Business & Professions Code § 18850(a), “[a]ny boxer or martial arts fighter who participates in a contest or match while under suspension by the commission, or any other recognized commission, shall have his or her license revoked.” In short, Margarito can continue to pursue his boxing career in North America or abroad. It may be especially tempting to head back to his homeland, Mexico, where the crowds he can draw would parallel those that he drew to the Staples Center for his bout with Mosley. But if Margarito wishes to fight again in California, or any other major host of boxing in the United States any time soon after any suspension or revocation, he is best advised to sit out until the suspension is over or until he is free to reapply in California. No need for the Mosley fight to continue resulting in career losses for Margarito.

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

[Interested in reading more of Paul Stuart Haberman's boxing analysis? Be sure to check out his tips on how to effectively handicap an upcoming match.]

The Number One Contender: Landing the Knockout Punch (a Guest Column by Paul Haberman, Esq.)

Boxing might be one of the hardest sports to pick winners in. Compelling arguments can be made in favor of a given boxer only for him to show up an entirely different man and get blown out on fight night. One punch can change the course of a match. As a result, the boxing cognoscenti are among the worst handicappers in sport.

A recent example of the above statement came at the expense of Oscar De La Hoya in his fight against Manny Pacquiao. Pacquiao, who was coming up two weight classes to face De La Hoya, came in as a 7 to 1 underdog. For many, the inquiry began and ended with the idea that De La Hoya was the naturally big man and, because of that, Pacquiao would be unable to cope with De La Hoya’s bigger punch and superior physical gifts. Ignored in this analysis was the fact that Pacquiao was the younger man, has uncanny conditioning and work rate, and is generally regarded as the number one pound for pound fighter in world. In short, if he was able to avoid flush shots from elder, more battle worn De La Hoya, he had almost all of the advantages. Again, because much of that was ignored, many were shocked when Pacquiao dominated De La Hoya en route to a one-sided eighth round TKO win.

So how do you go about picking the winners in such an unpredictable sport? While there is no exact science to it, here are some useful items to think about when picking a winner in a given boxing match or picking your boxers for a fantasy league:

(1) Remember Their Entire Career. Many people that picked De La Hoya to defeat Pacquiao remembered the De La Hoya of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the man who expertly followed a game plan, always came ready to fight, and had possibly the best and most accurate jab in boxing south of Lennox Lewis. Forgotten in the analysis was the De La Hoya who took more shots than he needed to against Steve Forbes in his fight prior to Pacquiao, or the one that barely edged out the game, but ordinary, Felix Sturm in his first fight at middleweight. Similar short-term memory loss was exhibited by those who chose Roy Jones, Jr. over Joe Calzaghe. Would a vintage Jones have knocked out Calzaghe following the first round knockdown? Without a doubt. But the post-Tarver/Johnson one? Come on now. Selective memory loss as to recent performances is a surefire way to pick the wrong man in a battle involving a top shelf veteran.

(2) How the Boxers Have Done Against Common Opponents. Some would regard this as the single best indicator of how one boxer would do against another. But then there was Kelly Pavlik vs. Jermain Taylor, Jermain Taylor vs. Bernard Hopkins, and Bernard Hopkins vs. Kelly Pavlik. The moral of the story: Common opponents may be a good starting point, but certainly should not be the end of the inquiry.

(3) Go Behind the Numbers. In a simpler time early in my boxing viewing life, I picked the then-undefeated Larry Donald against the once-defeated ex-heavyweight champion Riddick Bowe in a bet with a high school friend. My thinking was: Donald was undefeated, Bowe was not. The result? Bowe, by far the more experienced boxer whose only loss came to a peak Evander Holyfield, ran Donald out of the ring in route to an easy decision win. The lesson here: The 0 alone is rarely indicative of who the winner will be. Look beyond the win-loss-draw ledger, and see who they actually fought and what can be gleaned from those victories. Ask yourself where the record was built, as different parts of the world lend themselves to harder or softer competition. Most of his fights took place in the Midwestern United States? Good chance he’s got a record built on soft opposition. Most of his fights took place in Germany? The boxer may be right where he needs to be in advance of his world title shot. Ask yourself about the boxer’s amateur background, and what it indicates about the boxer’s potential as a professional. A 10-0 boxer from New York with an 135-10 amateur record that includes several national championships is likely more battle ready than a 30-0 boxer with 5 amateur fights from the sticks.

(4) See What the Record Says About the Boxer’s Weaknesses. Mike Tyson’s record indicated that he had trouble with taller boxers, as many of them tended to last longer into their fights with him or even last the distance. Lennox Lewis sustained his two losses to boxers whose heights allowed them to throw punches straight towards Lewis’ chin. Tyson, however, had less problems (save Evander Holyfield and Danny Williams) with average sized heavyweights and Lewis dominated significantly smaller power punchers like Tyson, David Tua, Tommy Morrison, and Phil Jackson, who all had to punch up to his chin. Many boxers’ records are not as easy to study as theirs, but if you see such patterns, take notes when picking your winners. How does he do against boxers known to be movers? Lefties? Counterpunchers?

(5) The Corners. The right trainer can turn a mediocre boxer into a fringe contender or even world champion. But the inquiry does not end there. Some boxers plainly listen to their corner more than others. Lennox Lewis, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Joe Calzaghe, and Pernell Whitaker, for example, followed game plans better than anyone else I have seen in the sport. On the flip side, watch a clip of any one of “Prince” Naseem Hamed’s fights, and you will note that he barely appears to be paying attention to his trainer between any given round. A well-regarded trainer is not always reliable either, however. Buddy McGirt and Nacho Beristain, for example, are noted as two of the best trainers in the sport, but have had their share of awful outcomes in the past two years.

(6) Location of the Fight. This variable may be irrelevant if the home town fighter can’t take a punch to begin with, but if he’s a boxer that is good enough to look respectable against the opponent brought in to face him, there are plenty of examples in boxing where “home cooking” has purportedly served the local favorite very well in pushing him over the top. This is not a smart thing to end your inquiry with, but definitely an intangible to consider in an equally matched fight on one of the boxers’ home turfs.

(7) The Boxer’s Management. Unless the boxer is at the top of the sport, this may have very little probative value. There’s a bumper crop of managers in the sport. But perhaps if a particular manager has a lot of boxers, or a good track record, a study can be undertaken as to whether that manager has given his boxers the proper fights to develop, has matched them too softly to be taken seriously when they get a world ranking, or if he has used them more as journeymen and gap filler and has thus left them with a spotty record and questionable credentials and self-belief.

(8) Inside Information. Such information can often be very determinative, but the average fan probably has no access to such information. Items that may fall under this section include reports from their training camp or gym on how a boxer has been looking in sparring or conditioning drills and how easy he has been cutting weight in advance of their fight.

While this list is by no means exhaustive, your ability to factor in each of this issues will allow you to go into a bet on any given boxing match or fantasy boxing league draft with an educated response as to why you picked the boxers that you picked.

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