Boxing Health: Enforcement/Consideration of Medical Suspensions

Memorandum by Tim Lueckenhoff, Presidentof the ABC

In order to properly ensure the health, safety and welfare of boxers and to effectively regulate professional boxing in the United States, it is mandatory to ensure that the imposition of a medical suspension by one boxing commission is reciprocally enforced by all other boxing commissions. See, 15 USC §6306(a)(2)(B). In furtherance of this absolute necessity, each boxing commission which is a member of the ABC is directed to adhere to the following procedures when a boxer, suspended in one boxing jurisdiction pending the passage of a particular medical examination, attempts to secure a boxer’s license from, and/or box in, another boxing jurisdiction:

1. Ensure that the requisite medical test has been taken and passed.
2. If the requisite medical test has not yet been taken and passed, require the boxer to do so in compliance with the terms of the suspension.
3. Notify the suspending commission that the boxer has satisfied the terms of the suspension.
4. Have the suspending commission (not the commission for the state or tribe

5. where the boxer is attempting to become licensed or to box) notify Fight Fax (currently, the only certified boxing registry) that the suspension has been lifted.

It is imperative that these procedures be strictly followed; so that the suspending commission in particular, as well as the rest of the boxing world, is aware that the suspension was properly lifted, and that it is safe for the boxer to compete

In a recent decision by the Nevada 8th Judicial Circuit, it was held that the indefinite (“permanent”) suspension of boxer Joe Mesi by the Nevada State Athletic Commission (“NSAC”) was not enforceable beyond the term of the license that was suspended. In effect, the Court concluded that, while the NSAC (or any other boxing commission) is authorized to deny Mesi a license if he should apply for a new one, the suspension attached to the now-expired NSAC license is no longer subject to reciprocal enforcement in other jurisdictions.[1]

In view of the above, the ABC directs its member commissions to adhere to the following procedures in deciding whether or not to grant an application for a boxer’s license:

1. Determine if:

a. the applicant was previously licensed as a boxer;
b. the previous boxer’s license had been indefinitely or permanently suspended for medical purposes; and
c. the previous boxer’s license has expired.

2. If the answer is “yes” to all of the items in ¶¶1(a)(b) and (c), above, carefully consider all of the facts and circumstances attendant to the previously issued “indefinite” or “permanent” suspension prior to deciding to grant or deny the application.[2]

——————————————————————————–

[1] Note: Denials, as opposed to suspensions or revocations, are not required to be reciprocally enforced under the Federal law.
[2] Example: Jim Boxer is “permanently” suspended by Boxing Commission A, following a determination that he had suffered a subdural hematoma during a boxing match. The license “permanently” suspended Boxing Commission A expires at the end of the calendar year; and, as a result, the “permanent” suspension is no longer valid. Jim Boxer applies for a new boxer’s license with Boxing Commission A three months later; and, after conducting a hearing, Boxing Commission A denies Jim Boxer’s application. Later, Jim Boxer applies to Boxing Commission B for a boxer’s license. Boxing Commission B determines that Jim Boxer previously was licensed by Boxing Commission A; that the license had been “permanently” suspended by Boxing Commission A in light of a subdural hematoma suffered by the boxer during a fight in Boxing Commission A jurisdiction; and that the term of the license issued by Boxing Commission A has expired. Considering that neither the previously issued Boxing Commission A “permanent” suspension nor the Boxing Commission A denial is reciprocally enforceable, the Boxing Commission B conducts a hearing during which all of the facts and circumstances attendant to the “permanent” suspension by Boxing Commission A (i.e., the subdural hematoma) are considered in the decision of Boxing Commission B to grant or deny a boxer’s license to Jim Boxer.

[1] Note: Denials, as opposed to suspensions or revocations, are not required to be reciprocally enforced under the Federal law.
[1] Example: Jim Boxer is “permanently” suspended by Boxing Commission A, following a determination that he had suffered a subdural hematoma during a boxing match. The license “permanently” suspended Boxing Commission A expires at the end of

the calendar year; and, as a result, the “permanent” suspension is no longer valid. Jim Boxer applies for a new boxer’s license with Boxing Commission A three months later; and, after conducting a hearing, Boxing Commission A denies Jim Boxer’s application. Later, Jim Boxer applies to Boxing Commission B for a boxer’s license. Boxing Commission B determines that Jim Boxer previously was licensed by Boxing Commission A; that the license had been “permanently” suspended by Boxing Commission A in light of a subdural hematoma suffered by the boxer during a fight in Boxing Commission A jurisdiction; and that the term of the license issued by Boxing Commission A has expired. Considering that neither the previously issued Boxing Commission A “permanent” suspension nor the Boxing Commission A denial is reciprocally enforceable, the Boxing Commission B conducts a hearing during which all of the facts and circumstances attendant to the “permanent” suspension by Boxing Commission A (i.e., the subdural hematoma) are considered in the decision of Boxing Commission B to grant or deny a boxer’s license to Jim Boxer.