Read part 1 here


An Attempt to Unravel The Confusion Surrounding the Cancellation of the Rematch Between WBA Heavyweight “Champion in Recess” Ruslan Chagaev and “Champion” Nikolay Valuev

 

            On May 30, 2009, Ruslan Chagaev, 25-0-1 (17 KOs), the former Uzbekistani amateur sensation and undefeated World Boxing Association (the “WBA”) heavyweight champion was scheduled for a rematch with boxing’s own “Eighth Wonder of the World,” the seven foot, 300 plus pounds Nikolay Valuev, 50-1 (34 KOs), in Helsinki, Finland.  Their first bout ended with Chagaev winning the WBA world heavyweight championship by shutting down the physically imposing Valuev with smart boxing.  Had their second bout taken place as scheduled, Chagaev would have had the opportunity to repeat his accomplishment in the first world heavyweight title fight ever held in Finland.  However, the Finland Professional Boxing Federation declined to sanction the fight after the weigh-in, after the blood tests submitted by Chagaev purportedly tested positive for hepatitis B.[1] It was the third time that Chagaev had cancelled a rematch with Valuev.[2]

 

            In the aftermath of the cancellation, the WBA Medical Committee held a hearing on the hepatitis B test and its implications.[3]  In the balance was whether Valuev should now be regarded as the one and only WBA world heavyweight champion and whether Valuev should then be compelled to defend against the top available challenger, John (The Quiet Man) Ruiz.  Valuev won the “vacant” WBA world heavyweight championship with a split decision win over Ruiz on August 30, 2008.[4]  The title apparently became vacant after Chagaev was adjudged a “champion in recess” following an Achilles tendon injury after his first defense of the title on January 19, 2008 and before the first scheduled date for his rematch with Valuev.  However, both Chagaev and Valuev have successfully defended the WBA title since that time, with Valuev winning a decision over Evander Holyfield on December 20, 2008 and Chagaev winning a six-round technical decision over Carl Davis Drumond on February 7, 2009.  

 

            If the above synopsis seems confusing, little additional clarification can be provided from a WBA ruling on February 2, 2009 which stated, in part, that “[i]f Chagaev should incur another injury or impediment that would prevent him from defending against the Champion [Valuev], he will vacate whatever title he may hold and will be correspondingly lowered in his ranking.”[5]  To put the ruling another way, whatever title Chagaev may have had as of February 2, 2009, he had to defend it against “champion” Valuev without any further injury or medical problems or he would lose whatever title that he had and would be lowered in the WBA rankings.

 

The questions raised from the status of the WBA heavyweight championship are numerous:  Is Chagaev a “champion in recess” or not?  If Chagaev is, or was, the “champion in recess,” what exactly did he defend against Drumond two months after Valuev defended the title against Holyfield?  Is Ruiz the boxer who should get the next shot at the WBA title?   An attempt to answer some of these questions follows.

 

Is or Was Chagaev a “Champion in Recess” Under the WBA’s Rules and What Title Did He Defend Against Drumond?

 

Under WBA Rule C (22):

 

“[w]hen a World Champion is unable to defend his title within the prescribed time period for debilitating medical reasons, legal reasons beyond his control, or any other justifiable reason the inactive champion may be named a Champion in Recess, and the Committee may select official contenders who will fight for an Interim Title.  The medical reasons must be documented to the satisfaction of the Legal Director and Championships Committee.  In general, the status of ‘Champion in Recess’ may not be longer than the applicable defense period.”

 

            As to “prescribed time period[s],” WBA Rule C (11) provides, in relevant part, that “[u]nless otherwise directed by the Championship Committee, a boxer who obtains a title by defeating a champion must defend his title as follows…If the Official Contender, within nine (9) months from the date the title was obtained; if not the Official Contender, within one hundred twenty (120) days.”  Prescribed time periods for mandatory defenses, however, may be reduced, extended, or otherwise modified “for good cause, either in response to a request for a Special Permit, or on [the Championships Committee’s] own initiative.”[6]

 

            When a so-called Champion in Recess “returns after having overcome to the satisfaction of the Championships Chairman whatever obstacle that caused his inactivity, the Association may order a bout between the Champion in Recess and the Interim Champion, if one exists, or against another boxer designated by the Committee.”[7]  The Champion in Recess “cannot defend his title as Champion in Recess, and may lose his status if he boxes anyone other than the Interim Champion.” 

 

            Indisputably, medical concerns resulted in the cancellations of Chagaev’s scheduled rematches with Valuev, as he first suffered an Achilles heel injury and later reportedly tested positive for hepatitis B.  However, if Chagaev was designated a “champion in recess” prior to Valuev winning the “vacant” WBA title against Ruiz, it is unclear why Chagaev was permitted to defend against Drumond on February 7, 2009.   According to the WBA rules, Chagaev “cannot defend his title as Champion in Recess, and may lose his status if he boxes anyone other than the Interim Champion.”  It therefore appears that that two things had to happen to allow the Drumond defense to take place.   First, Chagaev had to have received a “special permit” pursuant to WBA Rule C (16) to clear the way for a title bout with Drumond.  Second, the WBA apparently had to have had two boxers that were its “world heavyweight champion” as of February 7, 2009.  Valuev, it seems, was never an “interim champion,” but rather the winner of the vacant championship after Chagaev was initially named a “champion in recess.”[8]  It does not appear, however, that Chagaev was ever stripped of the full title, so the question of why it was deemed vacant for Valuev’s fight against Ruiz has to be asked as well.[9]   

 

            In light of the cancellation of his recent rematch with Chagaev, it also has to be asked if he is now a true “champion in recess.”  Chagaev retained “whatever title he may hold”[10] in his February 2, 2009 technical decision win over Drumond.  Valuev, as the other WBA heavyweight champion, is or was his official challenger.  It would appear, therefore, that if not for the February 7, 2009 ruling by the WBA, Chagaev should not have been deemed a “champion in recess” unless he was unable to defend against Valuev within nine months, pursuant to WBC Rule C (11). 

 

Alternately, an argument can be made that Chagaev is now legitimately a “champion in recess” even without the February 7, 2009 ruling, since neither of his title defenses, against Britain’s Matt Skelton or Drumond, were against his official challenger, Valuev.  Under this argument, Chagaev could have been deemed a “champion in recess” if he was unable to defend the title within 120 days of winning the title from Valuev on April 14, 2007.  The argument fails, however, since it was the WBA that permitted Chagaev to make voluntary defenses of his title against Skelton and Drumond rather than a mandatory defense against Valuev.   Plainly, Chagaev was available to defend the title on the dates that he fought both Skelton and Drumond.  It appears, therefore, that the WBA’s February 7, 2009 ruling was little more than a tool with which to correct its situation of having two active “world heavyweight champions” at the same time.

 

            Is Ruiz the Highest Available Contender for the WBA Title?

 

            Ruiz, who is the #3 ranked WBA heavyweight contender as of the WBA’s May 2009 rankings,[11] launched a public relations campaign to compel the WBA to mandate a title fight between himself and Valuev, following the cancellation of the Chagaev-Valuev rematch.[12]  Kali Meehan, an Australia-based heavyweight contender, is currently ranked number one and Taras Bidenko, a Germany-based Ukrainian heavyweight contender, is currently ranked number two.  So what of Ruiz’s claim that he is the highest ranked available contender?

 

            At present, Meehan appears to be available to fight.[13]  As for Bedenko, he suffered a knock out loss to Dennis Boytsov for the “WBA Inter-Continental heavyweight title” on June 6, 2009[14] and will likely drop in the rankings.   In short, if Ruiz gets the next shot at the title as an official (as opposed to voluntary) challenger and Meehan is available to fight, the WBA will be disregarding its own number one contender in sanctioning the bout.  While boxing cognoscenti question the merits of both Meehan’s and Ruiz’s rankings, logic dictates that the number one contender should get a title fight before the number three contender if both are available to fight.  Alternatively, perhaps Meehan and Ruiz can just fight each other in an effort to become the third active WBA “world heavyweight champion.”

 

            *                                                           *                                               *

 

            Punches After the Bell:  If anyone was wondering how Hector (Macho) Camacho, age 47, was issued a license to fight Luis Ramon (Yory Boy) Campas, age 37, in Florida on May 9, 2009 after being denied a license to fight in New Jersey only a week or so earlier,[15] look no further than the regulatory guidelines of the Association of Boxing Commissions (the “ABC”), the quasi-governing body of professional boxing in North America.  Under the ABC’s guidelines, “[a]ll medical and administrative suspensions placed on contestants by other athletic commissions will be recognized by the supervising Commission.”[16]  Camacho apparently did not have a license to box in New Jersey to begin with and was simply denied a license to box, not suspended.  There was, therefore, no suspension in place for Florida to recognize.  Yet another of boxing’s regulatory loopholes…

 

            Nevada boxing judge Paul G. Smith was indicted in late May on one count of Social Security fraud in connection with his collection of approximately $250,000 in Social Security disability benefits between 1994 and 2005.[17]  While some might be tempted to second guess Smith’s judging in certain boxing matches because of his indictment, an attack on the decisions that he rendered would have a very little chance of success.  To begin, the indictment does not take issue with his judging of boxing matches itself, but rather that he judged more than 100 boxing matches while he was purportedly disabled and collecting disability payments. [18]  Secondly, even if there was some evidence of wrongdoing in connection with Smith’s scoring of boxing matches, he could have still been overruled by the two other judges that he was scoring fights with at any given time.  This fact would make it difficult to establish that any one of the bouts Smith judged would have had a different result if he had honestly judged it.   To the extent that the Nevada State Athletic Commission rules even allow such challenges to the validity of a given judge’s decision, therefore, a lot would have to be established for a successful appeal…   

             

            The World Boxing Council’s stripping of Timothy (Desert Storm) Bradley in late April for refusing to fight number one contender Devon Alexander initially seemed as if it would be good focal point for the “Sanctioned Offenses” line of articles.  However, Bradley never sought to contest the WBC’s decision and simply thanked them for the opportunity to fight for their championship.[19]  At the next opportunity, an analysis of the WBC and its arcane appeals processes and championship policies will most certainly be provided.

           

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.  ©