[Previous entry: "Exciting Prospect: Adrian Granados Interview"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Joey Gilbert Opens Camp in San Diego, Preps for Reno Showdown with Brinkley!"]
01/03/2009 Archived Entry: "Minutes from ABC Conference Call"
2. (a) Allegations of the Canadian Boxing Federation that the River Cree Combative Sports Commission is acting “illegally” in regulating boxing and MMA in Canada as a result of its not being properly created under Canadian law.
(b) Assertions of the Canadian Boxing Federation that the associate membership of the River Cree Combative Sports Commission in the ABC should be rescinded.
By e-mail dated December 1, 2008, Tim Dunlop, an attorney representing the Canadian Boxing Commission (“CBF”), reiterated the previous assertions of the CBF that the River Cree Combative Sports Commission (a tribal athletic commission in Canada) was not properly created under Canadian Law and, as a result, is acting illegally in its licensing and regulation of boxing and MMA in Canada.
(a) In July, 2008, during the ABC annual conference in Montreal, Tim Dunlop had presented the Chairman of the ABC Legal Committee (by slipping the document under his hotel room door in the late evening hours) a legal memorandum, prepared by another attorney on the CBF’s behalf, which concluded that the River Cree had not been properly formed and, as a result, was acting illegally. Separate and apart from this “presentation,” legal counsel for the River Cree provided the ABC Legal Committee with legal arguments in support of the River Cree having been properly formed. After considering these respective arguments, the ABC Legal Committee concluded then, and continues to adhere to the same conclusion now, that the legality of the River Cree Combative Sports Commission is a matter to be resolved by the Canadian Courts – not by the ABC. Further, the ABC Legal Committee strongly advises that this matter not be brought to its attention, or the attention of the ABC itself, until, and unless, a Canadian Court with proper jurisdiction has ruled in these regards.
(b) The River Cree Combative Sports Commission, since its inception, has complied with all of the Constitutional provisions and By-laws of the ABC; and, in addition, has demonstrated its abilities to effectively regulate boxing and MMA. Accordingly, until, and unless, a Canadian Court rules that the River Cree Combative Sports Commission was created illegally and, as a result, has been regulating combative sports in Canadian without proper authority, the River Cree should remain an associate member of the ABC.
3. ABC Equipment Committee
The ABC Equipment Committee was created for the purpose of lending advice as to the propriety and effectiveness of various products and equipment for combat sports. On behalf of the ABC Equipment Committee, one of its members has made inquiry as to potential “legal pitfalls” that need to be avoided in the performance of that Committee’s task.
The ABC Legal Committee strongly advises against any endorsement of a particular brand or model that may be directly or indirectly attributable to the ABC. Instead, it is suggested that the ABC Equipment Committee, as part of its mandate, solicit from the different manufacturers and distributers of products and equipment for combat sports the exact specifications (“specs”) regarding each of their products. The Committee should then determine what the preferable “specs” are as to each such product or piece of equipment, and why. A compilation of such determinations should then form the substance of their report. In effect, the ABC Equipment Committee should be defining standards. Under no circumstances, should the ABC Equipment Committee: (1) endorse a particular product or piece of equipment, or (2) attempt to determine whether a particular product or piece of equipment is adequate to “do its job.”
Old Business
1. Legality of MMA in jurisdictions without laws or regulations expressly authorizing, or prohibiting, such activity. [MMA event, scheduled in Cromwell, Connecticut for 12/27/08, to be "supervised" by sanctioning organization in the absence of any governmental oversight]
Dr. Michael Schwartz, President of the AAPRP, learned of a professional MMA event which was to be held in Cromwell, Connecticut on 12/27/08 (to be “supervised” by a sanctioning organization); albeit, the State of Connecticut has no statutory authority for MMA to be held in that state or any regulatory provisions prescribing the rules under which MMA is to be conducted (including any required “medicals”). Dr. Schwartz’ repeated efforts to stop this planned MMA event (including contact with the Cromwell Chief of Police) were unsuccessful; and he turned to the ABC for any assistance it could lend.
The somewhat unusual circumstance in the State of Connecticut is that boxing comes under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety, and, in turn, the Connecticut State Police. The ABC was advised that, in Connecticut, a decision to enjoin, or to arrest and prosecute, those who promote or otherwise participate in MMA is within the sole discretion of local law enforcement. Nevertheless, several days later, Mike Kostrzewa, the boxing regulation administrator for the Conn. Dept. of Public Safety and a member of the Connecticut State Police (and an active member of the ABC) advised the ABC Legal Committee that Dr. Anthony Allesi, a neurologist who functions as a ringside physician for, among others, the State of Connecticut (and a member of the AAPRP), contacted a "local health official" in the Cromwell, Conn. area; and that the "local health official" was able to put the "kibosh" on the MMA event planned to be held in Cromwell, Conn. on 12/27/08.
Approximately one week later, the Attorney General of Connecticut issued an Opinion of the Attorney General in which the same conclusion the ABC Legal Committee had proclaimed in September, 2007 was reached; i.e., in the absence of statutory authority for MMA, and the attendant governmental regulation of MMA, such activity may not take place (see, ABC Legal Committee Minutes, September 9, 2008).
2. Regulation of boxing by ABC representatives in jurisdictions without a boxing commission.
The ABC Legal Committee previously recommended that the ABC no longer agree have any of its representatives regulate boxing in jurisdictions without a boxing commission; particularly in light of liability issues, the exorbitant costs attendant to satisfying such liability issues, and the difficulty in securing the same (e.g., a $20 Million liability insurance policy as prescribed by Guidelines previously developed by the ABC). Joe Montano, Executive Director of the Arizona Athletic Commission, suggested that this policy be amended; so that ABC representatives would regulate boxing in jurisdictions without a boxing commission if there is, in place, an “inter-governmental agreement” (e.g., a Memorandum of Understanding or similar written agreement), or statutory provision, which expressly provides the ABC representatives with the same sovereign immunity protections otherwise applicable to the employees of that jurisdiction. The Legal Committee agrees with this amendment and, hereby incorporates the same in its previously rendered advice.
The ABC Legal Committee also noted that such an “inter-governmental agreement” will provide satisfactory liability protections to an ABC representative who “monitors” the regulatory activities of a boxing commission desirous of gaining membership in the ABC.
Respectfully submitted,
Bruce C. Spizler
Chair
NEXT MEETING:
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2008 AT 2:00 P.M. EST
