Named and Shamed: Judging the Judges (September 2016)

Felix Sturm is facing a potential 3 year prison sentence at the hands of German police due to a doping investigation opened in the aftermatch of his failed test stemming from the robbery rematch ‘win’ over Fedor Chudinov:–108501

That couldn’t have anything to do with why he recently moved away from Germany and back to his homeland of Bosnia, could it?


The Tyson and Hughie Fury hearing for their failed UKAD drug tests will be on November 4th.

It’s worth noting tht Team Fury still claim that the ankle injury (which forced the Klitschko bout’s penultimate cancellation) was legitimate and that they were informed of the provisional suspension less than an hour after they had announced publicly the postponement of the bout.

Team Fury further claim that, when first informed about the failed tests, they were told by UKAD that they had done nothing wrong and were given dietary information on foods which may contain nandralone.

We can only hope the truth of the matter becomes more clear in the aftermath of the hearing.

While it’s not relevant now in the wake of Tyson’s failed test for cocaine and the cancellation of the October 29th date (whether this was the real reason, or the claims of mental health problems are genuine), it is still crazy to me that the hearing was scheduled for after he would have been potentially allowed to fight again against Klitschko.

What in the hell would have happened if Fury had beaten Klitschko again, only to be found guilty of a doping offence from nearly two years prior & handed a ban?


Another piece of ignominious news worth noting is that UKAD testers were allegedly sent packing and told to “fuck off” without being allowed to collect a sample when they showed up at the Fury camp:

It seems this was a test that was sought to be conducted prior to the September 22nd cocaine failure under the aegis of VADA.

Will this refusal to submit to be tested play a part in the UKAD hearing?


Thomas Hauser continues to expose the incompetence of the New York State athletic commission:

‘ [An] email, sent in the wake of the July 30 Leo Santa Cruz vs. Carl Frampton card at Barclays Center in Brooklyn, read in part, “There are some instances that occurred this past weekend that are very concerning and will need to be addressed immediately. Hopefully, by sending this written communication to all, we can help prevent future mistakes and continually improve our operations.”

Among other things, the email declared (partly in solid capital letters and bold type), “NEVER LEAVE A FIGHTER ALONE FOR ANY REASON AFTER A PRE-FIGHT URINE HAS BEEN COLLECTED. This is one of the most basic and important rules to follow.”

That was followed by another declaration in solid capital letters and bold type: “NEVER TELL A BOXER OR CORNER THAT YOU ARE NEW OR YOU DON’T KNOW THE RULES. In any situation where you may be confused or where clarification is necessary, you should always remain calm and collected, and simply explain to the fighter and their corner that you need to discuss the matter with a supervisor.”

There was more.

“Everyone needs to understand the proper way to wrap a hand, as well as any incorrect methods that a corner may try to sneak past you. We only allow 6 inches of tape on the hand before wrapping; not on the wrists, not on the elbows, not on the fingers, not on the forearms. We also do not allow the knuckle pads to be rolled on the knuckles. They are to remain flat (if necessary, they can be folded in half).”

Bentley further admonished, “As an inspector, if you notice something that you think is being done incorrectly by another inspector, ask your colleague to step to the side and have a private conversation to discuss your concerns. You may be wrong, so to call a matter to the attention of a fighter or their camp (or even the opponent and their camp) is completely unprofessional and is equivalent to shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded room.”

Problems like this arise when inspectors are poorly trained and assigned to fights on the basis of political priorities and personal favoritism rather than competence.’


Sept. 10th – Cathy Leonard’s 117-111 card was well off in the Roman Gonzalez-Carlos Cuadras 115lb. title fight.


The same can be said of Glen Hamada’s 117-111 for Lee Haskins in his rematch win over Stuart Hall, a fight that could have been scored either way.


Sept. 17th – In Gdansk, Poland, Patryk Szymanski was very fortunate to escape with the decision over the visiting Jose Antonio Villalobos.

Przemyslaw Moszumanski (95-94) and Andreas Stenberg (96-94) were the offending parties.


Sept. 24th – It was another bad night for officiating on a British card in the Anthony Crolla-Jorge Linares show.

Firstly, Guillermo Perez Pineda scored Jack Arnfield a 118-110 winner over John Ryder in an even fight.

Serial offender Terry O’Connor, as ref for the main event, repeatedly warned Linares for beltline ‘low blows’, usually at the prompting of Crolla himself, who stopped on multiple occasions and looked to O’Connor for help.

O’Connor happily obliged his countryman, causing Paulie Malignaggi on commentary to rightly blast him for “home cooking”.

In my opinion, it’s ridiculous that any world title bout can be refereed by someone from the same country as one of the particpants.

It’s yet another backwards practice in boxing that routinely invites bias and controversy.

4 thoughts on “Named and Shamed: Judging the Judges (September 2016)

  1. Nice work, as always.

    Terry O’Connor would seem to be Britain’s answer to America’s Laurence Cole.

    Not much more to add r.e. the Furys, who would seem to be visited by the furies of Greek myth. It does seem as if their storied clan gets away with much…but only so much, a propensity for doom catching up with them.

    And speaking of fate… Caught (unusually for me) a Samurai film in the Criterion collection. Do you know Sword of Doom (1966)? Nihilism, self-loathing, social anomie and a good helping of entrails, all in a filmic style drawing heavily on Wellesian and New Wave influences. Wasn’t in the least surprised to learn the author of the novel it’s from was a Dostoyevsky disciple, though I was more than a little impressed to learn he serialized the novel for 30 years in some forty-plus volumes! That’s an awful lot of run throughs for running-throughs.

    The lead put me in mind of a kind of Japanese Robert Mitchum, parts sadist and dark-browed mope, and worth seeing again.

    • Thanks.

      The O’Connor-Cole comparison is apt. Perhaps one of the O’Connor family is a backroom puppeteer of the British commission in the same way as Dickie Cole helps out his incompetent boy.

      I’ve never heard of that film, but it sounds intriguing. I’ve been recently exploiting the Irish library’s new system to order books and DVDs from around the country: Lawrence of Arabia (brilliant, of course, but not without its flaws), Manglehorn & Kids (both of which I didn’t think much of) have already been consumed and I have 15 or so others on the way. Kurosawa and Ozu are on my list, as I’ll endeavour to learn further about Japanese cinema.

      Rewatched Abel Ferrara’s characteristically unusual look at Christianity’s incompatibility with the modern world, Mary, too.

      I’ve also begun John from Cincinnati.

      • That interlibrary loan system sounds splendid.

        Back in the pre-digital dark ages, I relied on the library a lot here in the hinterlands. A world made by Bezos and Jobs has long since put paid to its centrality, but I still love the library, even if these days it’s mainly ebook borrowing for me.

        Just saw this Criterion title:

        The actor is the lead from Sword of Doom; the screenwriter wrote Rashomon; and the director seems to be Japan’s answer to Alain Resnais, that is, a master of sly formalist surfaces with morally brutal underpinnings. It’s a puzzle box playing with time and point of view, but it’s also a pretty timeless portrait of poverty, struggle and authoritarianism. I put it on only wanting to see more of the actor to tell if the first time out was a fluke — ha, how naive! This is a great masterpiece. Not overlooked in its day, either: Jury Special Prize at Cannes in 1962. Suddenly, I am very excited about Japanese film again.

        Need to finally see some Ozu; share any discoveries if you would.

        What are your thoughts on Lean and his Lawrence? Years since I last saw it, but it remains an old favorite, imperial warts and all.

        So you have finished Deadwood? Verdict?

      • It is a fantastic system. I also watched Lav Diaz’s Norte, a challenging but terrific loose adaptation of Crime and Punishment. You may have heard of Diaz’s latest winning the top prize at Venice.

        I’m familiar with Kobayashi, and I must see if that film can be ordered via the library.

        Tokyo Story‘s reputation is deserved: a brilliant work. The only other of Ozu’s I’ve seen is Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family, also terrific.

        I watched Lawrence on DVD and it left me wanting to see it in all its splendour on 70mm. The story is muddled and uneven, but the central character and visuals are so compelling that it hardly matters.

        Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed Deadwood, even if it wasn’t quite among the best tv shows I’ve seen. Its run was cut too short and it was disappointing, in particular, to not to see how the Hearst character would have developed. Al Swearengen must be one of the best characters ever in tv drama, and the dialogue is among the best I’ve heard on the big or small screen. I’m looking forward to checking out those Milch lectures you shared soon.

        Hearn signing Luis Ortiz is interesting news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s