Cracks in the Plaster?

August 28th, 2010

This week, two of the United States’ athletic commissions rendered a split decision as to the continued sway of California’s 2009 revocation of the licenses of former welterweight champion Antonio Margarito and his ex-trainer, Javier Capetillo, following the discovery of a Plaster of Paris-like substance on Margarito’s hand wraps before his bout with “Sugar” Shane Mosley. Puerto Rico’s Departamento de Recreacion y Deportes opted to expand on California’s revocation of Capetillo’s license and denied him a trainer’s license in advance of his boxer Giovanni Segura’s title unification bout with WBO light flyweight champion Ivan (Iron Boy) Calderon. Two days later, however, the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation granted a boxing license to Margarito and paved the way for Texas to host his November 13, 2010 bout with Manny (Pac Man) Pacquiao. While some might marvel at this apparent exercise in inconsistency between fellow members of the Association of Boxing Commissions (the “ABC”), the question is begged as to whether either Puerto Rico or Texas were in the wrong for ruling in the ways that they did. To put it another away, did this week’s events reveal the presence of cracks in the plaster of the concept of a reciprocal recognition of another North American commission’s suspensions? An analysis of this question follows.

The ABC and Federal Rules and Regulations on Out-of-State Suspensions for Improper Conduct

The ABC’s Regulatory Guidelines unambiguously state that “ [a]ll medical and administrative suspensions placed on contestants by other athletic commissions will be recognized by the supervising Commission.” Under the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996, which grants certain regulatory powers to the ABC, suspensions include “the revocation of a boxing license.” The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 further states that “[e]ach boxing commission shall establish…[p]rocedures to ensure that…no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension from any boxing commission due to…unsportsmanlike conduct or other inappropriate behavior inconsistent with generally accepted methods of competition in a professional boxing match.”

It is indisputable that unless U.S. boxing commissions have quietly begun to sanction combat sporting events akin to Jean-Claude Van Damme’s final battle in “Kickboxer” that loading one’s hand wraps with a Plaster of Paris-like substance would generally qualify as “behavior inconsistent with generally accepted methods of competition in a professional boxing match” under federal law. As to Margarito and Capetillo, however, stopping the inquiry there is unnecessary as of January 2010, the month in which the revocation of their licenses expired in California and they were free to either reapply in California or seek licensure elsewhere without any official encumbrances. This is because the above-summarized laws governing the recognition of suspensions and revocations in the United States only mandate that they be recognized “while” a boxer or trainer is “under suspension” elsewhere. Thus, the fates of Margarito and Capetillo were appropriately placed in the hands of Puerto Rico, Texas, and any place else where they might have sought licensure in the United States and its territories after January 2010, since they were no longer under suspension in California. The question then is what, if anything, separates Margarito and Capetillo in terms of the hand wraps affair and how Puerto Rico and Texas could justify their respective decisions.

Why Might an Athletic Commission Continue to Penalize Capetillo?

The answer, in part, may lie in Margarito’s statements during his failed bid to obtain a new license in California earlier this month. Margarito declared during his licensing hearing that he “did not know” what was on his hand wraps, inferring that the one who would know was Capetillo, the man in charge of wrapping his hands the night that he fought Mosley. Margarito simultaneously accepted ultimate responsibility for what were on his wraps, as he purported to recognize that his hands are his hands and that he is the don of his team. Therefore, while some jurisdictions, such as California, might not buy Margarito’s ignorance defense or otherwise simply impose strict/ respondeat superior liability upon him, that claim gave Margarito one additional piece of ammunition for his bid to obtain a license that Capetillo did not have. Capetillo is wholly unable to assert that he did not know of the Plaster of Paris-like substance on Margarito’s hand wraps. Indeed, Capetillo fell on his sword at their initial revocation hearing acknowledged his culpability.

Additionally, an argument could be made that, unlike Margarito, Capetillo has not taken any publicized steps towards making amends for his actions. Indeed, the first publicized step that Capetillo made post-revocation was applying for a trainer’s license in Puerto Rico for Segura’s fight with Calderon. Margarito, meanwhile, ousted Capetillo from his corner and hired former world champion Roberto Garcia as his new corner man, a move that could be viewed as a positive, proactive step towards a new day in his professional career. While California rejected this portion of Margarito’s argument as well, its existence on the record gave other commissions yet another justification to say yes to him, but no to Capetillo. One could defend Capetillo by stating that he is merely a hired gun, and thus is unable to make such a public gesture to show his repentance. Nonetheless, Margarito is up 2-0 in the palatable justifications department.

Why Might an Athletic Commission Not Continue to Penalize Margarito?

In addition to the reasons stated above, one could speculate that some commissions may simply recognize that Margarito served his suspension and believe that he now has a right to earn a living again. Unlike Capetillo, who can continue to earn a living training boxers outside of their fights, as Panama Lewis does, Margarito is a boxer. That is what he does to earn a living at this point in his life.

A skeptic could also argue that a given athletic commission may find a way to appreciate that no matter what Margarito did, he is still one of the biggest names in boxing today and a boxer who holds to key to a high profile, big money bout in their state. One needs to look no further than Mike Tyson’s re-licensing for his January 16, 1999 bout against Frans Botha to arguably find similar behavior by an athletic commission. Many may have thought (and may still think) that Tyson should never have been licensed in the United States ever again. However, about a year-and-a-half after the rematch with Evander Holyfield that made a mockery of boxing, Tyson was back in Las Vegas for a fight. Why? Well, one could either go back and accept the given reasons announced by the Nevada State Athletic Commission at that time, or could simply speculate as to why, based on Tyson’s history of participation in big events.

In sum, the opposite fates of Margarito and Capetillo this past week do not reflect a crack in the plaster of U.S. boxing regulation, but more highlight the discretion of individual athletic commissions to make their own decisions at the conclusion of another commission’s suspension and the limitations of the current regulations in terms of their ability to keep boxers such as Margarito sidelined for a longer period of time.

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. Paul can be e-mailed at haberman@8countnews.com.