Benedict Alexander?

On March 6, 2010, boxing fans around the world bore witness to one of the most impressive junior welterweight title fight victories in recent memory, as undefeated Devon Alexander unified the WBC and IBF titles in devastating fashion by stopping Juan Urango in the eighth round live on HBO. The victory appeared to be the coronation of Alexander, who looked the part of a future pound-for-pound entrant as he seamlessly mixed uncanny defense with an aggressive, fan friendly style and accurate punching. Alexander’s rise, however, was quickly undermined by the bizarre ways of the WBC. Dan Rafael of ESPN.com reported this week that Jose Sulaiman, long-time head of the WBC, recently asked that Alexander resign as WBC junior welterweight champion. The reason: Alexander dared to express an interest in facing fellow titleholder Timothy (Desert Storm) Bradley, the undefeated WBO champion who many regard as the number one fighter in the junior welterweight division. To Sulaiman, Alexander’s expression of interest was equivalent to treason. As patently absurd as Sulaiman’s position appears to be, however, the question arises as to whether it is within the WBC’s power to strip Alexander of his title if he does not voluntarily resign. A quick analysis of the WBC’s power to unseat a champion follows.

WBC Rule 1.23(a) provides that "[e]xcept as provided for in Rule 1.25, the Board of Governors may, by 2/3 vote, withdraw or suspend recognition of a boxer as WBC champion if he fails to defend his title in accordance with the Constitution, Rules and Regulations, or for holding the title of another boxing organization without the approval or sanctioning of the WBC, or for any other reason which justifies suspension or withdrawal, such as the violation of the Constitution, Rules and Regulations." Rule 1.25 provides, in relevant part, that "[i]n the event that the holder of a WBC title is convicted and imprisoned for a crime involving moral turpitude, the WBC Board of Governors shall declare the champion’s title vacated[.]"

Did Alexander’s Expressed Interest in Facing Bradley Violate WBC Rules 1.23 or 1.25?

Alexander was neither convicted nor imprisoned for anything, so WBC Rule 1.25, the morals clause of the WBC Rules, is plainly inapplicable. Under Rule 1.23, however, it would appear that Alexander’s comments may fall under the category of "any other reason which justifies suspension or withdrawal" in the mind of Sulaiman. Indeed, that vague catchall provision would appear to open the door to withdrawing the recognition of a world champion’s status for nearly any reason. Alexander’s only protection would, therefore, appear to come from the requirement that a 2/3 vote by the Board of Governors is required to withdraw recognition. Sulaiman would thus have to convince enough WBC "governors" that Alexander’s mere expression of interest in facing arguably the boxer in his weight class justifies the stripping of his title in the absence of the requested resignation.

WBC Rule 5 outlines the process by which an aggrieved boxer can appeal the disciplinary actions taken against him. At the end of several layers of referrals and mediations lies the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the "CAS") and the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, to which Alexander and the WBC would have to submit to mandatory arbitration if all other attempts at resolution fail. At that point, the WBC would have to convince the CAS, an internationally recognized body that handles matters ranging from anti-doping violations to determining the rights of handicapped runners to participate in the Olympics with special prosthetic limbs, that Alexander’s expressed interest in facing Bradley was enough to justify stripping him of his title.

The thought here is that even if the WBC Board of Governors approves the stripping of Alexander, or if Sulaiman simply unilaterally strips Alexander on his own accord, the WBC would be hard pressed to convince a panel of CAS arbitrators, who are among the sharpest and most diversified legal minds in the sports law world, that the mere expression of interest in facing a fellow world champion was enough to label its world champion a traitor, or perhaps, a Benedict Alexander, and strip him of his title. A decision for Sulaiman would have a chilling effect on the speech of the boxers who hold the WBC’s titles, and could result in the suppression of the very talk that whets the boxing public’s appetite for unification bouts between boxing’s top competitors.

***

:

: It was reported in the last two weeks that WBC lightweight champion Edwin (El Inca) Valero, Alexander’s fellow titleholder one division due south, entered a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center following an arrest stemming from charges of harassing and assaulting his wife. Unlike Alexander, however, whose expression of interest in facing Bradley may cost him his title, Sulaiman is standing by Valero, who is already incapable of boxing in the United States because of a DUI arrest. While Valero’s actions also appear to fall outside the purview of Rule 1.25, one has to marvel about where the demarcation line gets drawn by the WBC….

: Even if the WBC stands by its troubled champion after repeated arrests for substance abuse related offenses, one has to wonder if his promoter or management are starting to review their respective agreements with him to determine what to do if he becomes any bigger a liability to them and/or their image in light of his recent problems. That being said, Valero is also one of the premier knockout punchers in the sport, no matter how long his personal problems keep him out of the ring…

: This past weekend, boxing brothers Tarvis and Travis Simms were arrested in Norwalk, Connecticut and charged with assault following a violent altercation with one another. Regardless of what happened and who was at fault, Travis Simms, the former WBA super welterweight champion, is also a city councilman in Norwalk. One has to wonder, therefore, how the good citizens of Norwalk will take this episode. Somewhere in Connecticut, a future political rival is licking his chops while he awaits his own bout with Travis Simms. As for the boxing public, at least we can be confident that Jose Suliaman would probably stand by Travis Simms’ side, unless he verbalized an interest in unifying Connecticut’s political parties…

: The New York Court of Claims found this week that the New York State Athletic Commission was negligent as to their responsibilities at the weigh-in for the fight between Joey Gamache and Arturo (Thunder) Gatti back on February 25, 2000. Gamache, however, was not awarded monetary damages since the Court was unable to conclude that the Commission’s negligence, combined with Gatti’s excessive extra weight, substantially contributed to either Gamache’s crushing knockout defeat in their bout, or his subsequent injuries. A full analysis on this matter will follow if Standing 8 Court gets a hold of the 47-page decision…

: While Arturo Gatti’s death remains shrouded in mystery and suspicion, and an extensive piece on his passing is airing shortly on HBO’s "Real Sports" with Bryant Gumbel, a Quebec Superior Court judge recently rewarded his widow, Amanda Rodrigues, $100,000 as compensation for legal fees stemming from Gatti’s death and $2,000 a month in child support from the deceased legend’s estate. Rodrigues’ claim to the estate is being contested by Gatti’s mother and brother.

haberman@8countnews.com. ©