[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-914 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Ranking Member
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi, Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Bud Albright, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Ranking Member
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MARY BONO, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska GENE GREEN, Texas
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho JIM DAVIS, Florida
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
JOE BARTON, Texas, (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Schwartz, Michael B., Chairman, American Association of
Professional Ringside Physicians........................... 6
Stevens, Ron Scott, Chairman, New York State Athletic
Commission................................................. 16
Torres, Linda P., Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney &
Carpenter, LLP............................................. 10
Additional material submitted for the record:
McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator State of Arizona, prepared
statement of............................................... 32
(iii)
UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:34 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clifford
Stearns (chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Stearns, Cubin, Bass,
Pitts, Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Schakowsky, and
Towns.
Staff present: Brian McCullough, professional staff; Chris
Leary, policy coordinator; David Cavicke, chief counsel; Will
Carty, professional staff; Billy Harvard, legislative clerk;
Julie Fields, special assistant to the policy coordinator; Jon
Tripp, deputy press secretary; Ashley Groesbeck, research
assistant; Jessica McNiece, research assistant.
Mr. Stearns. Let us start the subcommittee hearing. My
colleagues, it was just last year that the subcommittee was
honored by a visit from one of history's greatest heavyweight
fighters, Muhammad Ali. Unfortunately, the account that he gave
us about his sport--his beloved sport, was not full of tall
tales about the rumble in the jungle or the thriller in Manila,
but it was a call for additional Federal reforms in the sport
of boxing and better protection for its outstanding athletes.
Mr. Ali told us in no uncertain terms that without further,
Federal reforms, the sport of boxing was in grave danger of
becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the public and permanently
scarred by years of scandal and corruption. According to
Muhammad Ali and many other well-known, champion boxers, the
problems surrounding professional boxing are not only
alienating its fan base, but also endangering many of its young
and talented fighters, many of whom, of course, are from
disadvantaged communities like Muhammad Ali, and all they want
is a fair shot at a better life. As Muhammad told us ``for all
of its difficulties, boxing is still a wonderful sport. It
still attracts men and women from all walks of life to reach
for the glory in the ring.''
For many, it is their first experience with really hard
work, determination, and discipline. For still others, it
remains the only way up and out from a life filled with bad
choices, failure, or worse. Although a lot of a hard--a lot of
work has been done to grant greater Federal oversight over
boxing in America, the glamour and glitz of the big Vegas and
Atlantic City bouts continue to obscure the fact that many,
many everyday fighters, some 12,000 in the United States, are
facing severe risk of injury and death as they compete in the
roughly 1,000 professional bouts held in relative obscurity
here in the United States, every year. And if that was not
enough, those fighters who are lucky enough to avoid the
extreme physical risks in the ring still face exploitation
outside of it from the unsavory characters the sport continues
to attract.
To its credit, Congress has been working for over 10 years,
trying to reform the sport at the Federal level. 1996, Congress
passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act that require that all
professional boxing matches be conducted under supervision of
an authorized State boxing commission. That law also created
uniform registration and licensing and established safety
standards. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Act of 2000 continued the
Federal reform effort by prohibiting Federal--prohibiting
financial conflicts of interest between boxing managers and
promoters, requiring certain financial disclosures, and
creating new restrictions on contracts between boxers and
promoters and managers.
As we learned at our hearing last year, both of these laws
have been relatively successful in policing boxing at the State
and tribal level, in particular regarding the health and safety
of boxers; but as several witnesses have also told us, the
enforcement of these requirements is left to the States and
tribal organizations, creating a patchwork of spotty
enforcement, and there is ample opportunity, my colleagues, to
beat the system and simply evade regulation. Last year's
testimony was full of stories about the boxers who fall through
the cracks and compete, unchecked, in jurisdictions that are
less rigorous when they are banned from others.
For these and other reasons, I do believe that additional
Federal oversight to police the sport of boxing will certainly
improve the lives of ordinary boxers. That is why I, along with
my college from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, have introduced the
United States Boxing Commission Act, H.R. 1065. We believe this
bill will create a new Federal Commission, the United States
Boxing Commission, USBC, which will be located within the
Department of Commerce. The United States Boxing Commission Act
specifies the following in the bill: it requires the USBC to
promulgate uniform standards for professional boxing and
consultation--in consultation with the Association of Boxing
Commissioners. It requires the USBC to oversee all professional
boxing matches, except as otherwise determined. It require the
USBC to work with the States and tribal organizations to
improve the state of professional boxing in the United States,
including creating new standards. It requires that boxers be
licensed every 4 years. It also requires that all managers,
promoters, and sanctioning organizations be licensed by the
USBC every 2 years; this includes giving the USBC the authority
to revoke or suspend a license for cause after the opportunity
for a hearing. It allows the USBC to conduct investigations
with full power of subpoena. It requires the USBC to maintain a
unified, national, computerized registry for collecting,
storing, retrieving information that is relevant to the boxing
profession.
This is a tough bill, but it is for a tough sport, my
colleagues. It is also a bill that strikes the right balance
between the rights of local authorities to regulate sports
activities in their communities and the clear need for uniform,
Federal standards and enforcement for a dangerous and
continued-problem-plague sport. I believe this bill is the
necessary foundation to support the progress that has been made
at the Federal level to protect the lives and health of these
great, hard-working athletes. Passage will also ensure the
reestablishment of the integrity and the honor of the great
sport of boxing. With that, I would like to thank my
distinguished panel for coming here this morning, and I look
forward to their testimony. Ranking Member Schakowsky?
[The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Clifford Stearns, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Good Morning. It was just last year that this Subcommittee was
honored by a visit from the one of history's greatest, Muhammad Ali.
Unfortunately, the account that the Greatest gave us about his beloved
sport was not full of tall tales about the Rumble in the Jungle or the
Thriller in Manila, rather it was a call for additional federal reforms
in the sport of boxing and better protections for it's outstanding
athletes. Mohammed Ali told us in no uncertain terms that without
further federal reforms, the sport of boxing was in great danger of
becoming irrelevant in the eyes of the public and permanently scarred
by years of scandal and corruption. According to the Greatest and many
other well-known champion boxers, the problems surrounding professional
boxing are not only alienating its fan base but also endangering many
of its young and talented fighters, many of whom are from disadvantaged
communities like Mohammad Ali and just want a fair shot at making a
better life. As Muhammad told us: ``For all its difficulties, boxing is
still a wonderful sport. It still attracts men and women from all walks
of life to reach for glory in the ring. For many it is their first
experience with hard work, determination and discipline. For still
others it remains the only way up and out from a life filled with bad
choices, failure, or worse.''
Although a lot of work has been done to grant greater federal
oversight over boxing in America, the glamour and glitz of the big
Vegas and Atlantic City bouts continues to obscure the fact that many
everyday fighters, some 12,000 in the U.S., are facing severe risk of
injury and death as they compete in the roughly one thousand
professional bouts held in relative obscurity here in the United States
every year. And if that was not enough, those fighters who are lucky
enough to avoid the extreme physical risks in the ring still face
exploitation outside of it from the unsavory characters the sport
continues to attract.
To its credit, the Congress has been working for over a decade
trying to reform the sport at the federal level. In 1996, the Congress
passed the Professional Boxing Safety Act that requiring that all
professional boxing matches be conducted under supervision of an
authorized state boxing commission. That law also created uniform
registration and licensing and established minimum safety standards.
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Act of 2000 continued the federal reform effort
by prohibiting financial conflicts of interests between boxing managers
and promoters, requiring certain financial disclosures, and creating
new restrictions on contracts between boxers and promoters/managers.
As we learned at our hearing last year, both of these laws have
been relatively successful in policing boxing at the state and tribal
level, in particular regarding the health and safety of boxers. But as
several witnesses also told us, the enforcement of these requirements
is left to the states and tribal organizations creating a patchwork of
spotty enforcement and ample opportunity to beat the system and evade
regulation. Last year's testimony was full of stories about the boxers
who fall through the cracks and compete unchecked in jurisdictions that
are less rigorous when they are banned in others.
For these and other reasons, I do believe that additional federal
oversight to police the sport of boxing will improve the lives of
ordinary boxers. This is why I, along with my colleague from Illinois
Ms. Schakowsky, have introduced the United States Boxing Commission
Act, H.R. 1065. This bill will create a new Federal Commission, the
United States Boxing Commission (USBC), which will be located within
the Department of Commerce. The United States Boxing Commission Act
specifies the following:
Requires the USBC to promulgate uniform standards for professional
boxing, in consultation with the Association of Boxing
Commissioners.
Requires the USBC to oversee all professional boxing matches, except
as otherwise determined.
Requires the USBC to work with the states and tribal organizations to
improve the state of professional boxing in the Unites States,
including creating new standards.
Requires that boxers be licensed every four years, and also requires
that all managers, promoters, and sanctioning organizations be
licensed by the USBC every two years. This includes giving the
USBC the authority to revoke or suspend a license for cause
after the opportunity for a hearing.
Allows the USBC to conduct investigations with full power of
subpoena.
Requires the USBC to maintain a unified national computerized
registry for collecting, storing, and retrieving information
related to professional boxing.
This is a tough bill for a tough sport. It is also a bill that
strikes the right balance between the rights of local authorities to
regulate sports activity in their communities and the clear need for
uniform federal standards and enforcement for a dangerous and problem-
plagued sport. I believe this bill is the necessary foundation to
support the progress that has been made at the federal level to protect
the lives and health of these great athletes. Passage will also ensure
the reestablishment of the integrity and honor of the great sport of
boxing.
With that, I would again like to again graciously thank our
distinguished panel of witnesses for joining us today. We look forward
to your testimony. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Chairman Stearns. I really
appreciate your strong statement, and I thank you for holding
today's hearing on our bill, the United States Boxing
Commission Act.
After our hearing last Congress, I think it was quite clear
that the current boxing regulations, which are meant to ensure
that boxers' health and financial interests are protected, were
not being adhered to as they should be. Not all trainers or
fight promoters are like Clint Eastwood. And we were informed
at that hearing, by the presence and the eloquent testimony of
Muhammad Ali and other great experts, and as a consequence,
Chairman Stearns and I, both, agreed that it was time to do
something about this, and I look forward to working with you,
Mr. Stearns, on this bill.
What we are doing is significant. Historically, as you
know, the regulation of boxing has been purely under the
jurisdiction of the States. In the mid-1990's, when reports of
corruption and scandals became more frequent, Congress decided
it was time to take a closer look at that sport; after all,
boxing is no small affair. The sport generates over $500
million in revenue each year, and with the passage of the
Professional Boxing Safety Act in 1996, soon followed by the
Muhammad Ali Act in 2000, minimum standards were set to protect
the physical and economic well being of the boxer, and each
State boxing commission was charged with meeting those
standards. While some States, such as New York, Pennsylvania,
and Nevada have strong boxing commissions that go well beyond
the minimum Federal requirements, there is still concern that
other States are ignoring the regulations.
Many argue that federally mandated health and safety
standards are not being adhered to because no corresponding
government regulatory body exists. The absence of a national
commission makes boxing unlike all other major professional
sports and I believe should give us pause. Boxing is also
unlike many other sports in that there are often especially
serious physical repercussions. That means if the health and
safety standards are not being met, if the professionals who
are used to monitor boxers' fitness are not experts in the
appropriate medical fields, the boxers' very lives are at
stake. Approximately 50 boxers have died in the ring over the
last 35 years.
Additionally, because so many parties have a financial
stake in each boxing match and their interest may run counter
to getting the boxer the most favorable contract terms, many
boxers end up destitute. In this sense, boxers are like many
other kinds of talent or workers. Their gifts are others
fortunes, and they are treated as disposable assets. Now that
networks and broadcasters are acting more like promoters, but
are not subject to the same regulations that traditional
promoters are, I believe that there are new vulnerabilities in
the sport which we should examine. I believe that is our
responsibility to--that it is our responsibility to ensure that
boxers are not being put in the ring without being protecting,
both physically and economically. That what I am so pleased
that our bill establishes the United States Boxing Commission
to make sure that standards are uniform and boxers are
protected. I am very glad that all of our panelists are here
with us today to help us determine the best role for the
Federal Government to play to ensure the best interest of those
participating in the sport, and I look forward to your
testimony. Thank you, Chairman Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague and distinguished member
of the full committee, Mr. Barton.
Chairman Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put
my statement in the records. I want to thank you for the
hearing, thank you for the bipartisanship work that you and
Ranking Member Schakowsky have put together on this issue. I
want to thank our witnesses and also thank Senator McCain in
the other body for advocacy for reform. While I am not sure
that we have agreement between this body and the other body in
exactly what needs to be done, both bodies agree that something
needs to be done, and this is a good step, so I want to thank
you all for your bipartisanship, thank our witnesses, and I
look forward to being here.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce
Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing today,
following up on your hearing last Congress on whether additional
legislation was needed to address the problems in boxing. Despite the
powerful presence and words of Muhammad Ali, that hearing provided some
lively debate, as not all witnesses were unanimous on the need for
additional legislation or what it should encompass.
This Committee has enacted legislation twice in the past nine years
to improve the boxing business. Those reforms have made progress and
provide boxers today with greater protections than were available to
Muhammad Ali and previous generations of boxers.
Creating a Federal Commission to regulate a sport is a big step for
Congress. The Federal Government simply can't solve all of society's
problems. Introducing new Federal regulations is never an easy task,
and introducing a new REGULATOR is even more challenging. Nonetheless,
I am happy to work on this legislation and devote Committee resources
to examine solutions to some of the problems that have been identified.
Any Federal legislation needs to ensure we do not create unintended
consequences. I am aware of some concerns, for instance, regarding the
role of television and cable networks that broadcast boxing matches. We
need to be sure not to implicate other Federal laws outside the scope
of this legislation that have negative consequences.
I look forward to working with all the interested parties and to
the testimony today. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. I thank the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank
you, Chairman Sterns, for holding this hearing and Ranking
Member Schakowsky for your work. I agree. Something needs to be
done, and I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R.
1065. I would also like to welcome a fellow New Yorker, of
course Ron Scott Stevens, the chairman of the New York State
Athletic Commission. Good to see you. I look forward to hearing
your views on this legislation, as well as those of other
witnesses.
As a longtime boxing fan, I commend the chairman for his
effort to protect the health of boxers and to ensure fairness
in the wonderful profession of boxing. Historically, one could
argue that there is no event more exciting than a championship
fight where a belt is on the line. From Sugar Ray Robinson to
Muhammad Ali to Sugar Ray Leonard, championship boxers have
captivated the American public. Let me conclude by saying this:
I really feel that the public is concerned about the integrity
of the sport, such as scoring or refereeing. Others are worried
about the health of the boxers, you know, who continue to
fight--it seems sometimes long past a period that they should.
Also, we are concerned about the fact that a boxer gets knocked
out in one State, gets in his car and drives and goes to fight
in another State--or gets on a plane and goes to fight in
another State, and there is nothing to stop that.
More importantly, there are so many sanctioning bodies, the
fans do not even know who the champion is. By creating a
centralized body to create a--uniform standard, it appears that
this bill may help address some of the ills that currently
affect the sport.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I really believe in athletics, and
of course--and I think that we should be as supportive as we
possibly can, but when something is broken, we need to fix it.
And let me say to you, this is broken, and we definitely need
to fix it. On that note, I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank my colleague, a gentlelady, Ms. Cubin.
Ms. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have an opening
statement, but I will have questions later for the panel. Thank
you.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you. Ms. Blackburn? No opening
statement? Okay. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. Pitts. I shall submit my opening statement for the
record.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. Mr. Murphy? Okay. With that, we will go
right to the witnesses. Mr. Michael Schwartz, Chairman of the
American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians; Ms.
Linda Torres, Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, and
Carpenter, on behalf of the International Boxing Federation,
you are here. And Mr. Ron Scott Stevens, Chairman of the New
York State Athletic Commission. Thank you very much for coming.
And we will start, Dr. Schwartz, with you for your opening
statement, and welcome.
STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL B. SCHWARTZ, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL RINGSIDE PHYSICIANS; LINDA P.
TORRES, COUNSEL, McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP;
AND RON SCOTT STEVENS, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE ATHLETIC
COMMISSION
Mr. Schwartz. Thank you. My name is Dr. Michael Schwartz. I
am the Chairman and President of the American Association of
Professional Ringside Physicians. I am also the Chief Ringside
Physician for the State of Connecticut, Foxwood's Resort Casino
and Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. In addition, I am a
member of the Medical Advisory Committee for the Association of
Boxing Commissions. I am a board-certified internist, and I
have a private practice in Darien Connecticut. And I would like
to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify in this
most important legislation.
I started working as a ringside physician in 1991, first as
an amateur in amateur boxing, and then, ultimately, in
professional, and I quickly recognized the lack of safeguards
to protect these athletes. In 1997, we were working a fight
with Roy Jones, Jr. and before the fight, none of the medical
requirements that we had required were there; and this was a
very common situation that I would--that would be incurred each
time I would have a fight. And I struggled to get all of the
medical documentation in, and we saved the fight, literally, an
hour before the fight, so some of the commissioners came to me
and said, well, we think it is broken--boxing is broken, and
why don't you try to fix it, Dr. Schwartz. So in 1997, I formed
an association of ringside physicians to try to standardize the
medical aspects of the sport. Right now, we are a non-for-
profit organization. We have about 350 ringside physicians
around the country and some international now, to address
issues pertaining to boxing safety, including medical testing,
standardization of medical requirements, the creation of a
medical data bank, and a comprehensive certification program,
which we recently introduced to ensure that only qualified
physicians work as ringside physicians. Anecdotally, we have
heard stories of chiropractors and veterinarians acting as the
physicians and sometimes simply physician assistants or nurses.
We recently started a medical assistance program to help boxers
who don't have health insurance and a medical review board to
help with issues pertaining to boxing medical safety. We have
an annual medical seminar to educate physicians, to share
ideas, and to discuss relevant boxing safety. Our goal is to
identify those boxers who should never step into the ring in
the first place. By not allowing them to get in the ring,
perhaps we could decrease the risk of mortality and morbidity
in the boxing arena.
We are the only major sport that does not have a
commission. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball all have
commission. Even sports that are individual sports that are
individual sports, like tennis, golf, bowling, have
commissions. We don't.
Commissions are necessary for standardization of the sport.
Right now, we have no standardization from State to State. In
2003, the ABC Medical Advisory Board came up with what we
thought were minimum medical standards to address these issues.
The ABC voted and agreed on it. The AAPRP, later that year,
ratified and agreed with these minimal medical standards;
however, almost no States adopted these. These included things
like CAT scans, MRIs, blood tests, dilated eye exams amongst
other things, and unfortunately a lot of States did not adopt
these, claiming that it either was a legislative issue or a
cost issue or they just chose not to do it. States like New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nevada have either adopted these
or exceeded these; other States don't. Therefore, we have
boxers and managers that are now State shopping. If they know
there is something wrong, they are going to go to a State that
does not require that, and they are going to be able to
compete.
I only find out about these things when they come to my
State and I require the tests. I have found issues such as
hepatitis, brain injuries, eye damage, seizure disorders,
boxers fighting on Coumadin, which is a blood thinner. In
addition, we need a medical registry or a data bank to maintain
these medical tests. We have had situations where I have
received 7 electrocardiograms--that is a heart test--the same
EKG. All they did was whited out the name and copied it and
gave it to me. If there was an administrative responsible for
organizing all of these tests, then we would be able to just
simply download it off the Internet, and we would be able
identify those boxers at risk. In addition, a lot of kids have
these tests in other States and don't know where they put the
results. We make them get it again, and it costs--an additional
cost to them.
There are several bills right now, I know, in the Senate
and in the Congress that address forming a boxing committee, a
boxing organizing/boxing commission. Regardless of what bill is
ultimately passed, it must establish the minimum medical and
safety issues that are necessary to protect these individuals.
It must define a doctor as an MD or a DO. It must establish a
medical registry. It must make sure that the physicians are
qualified through education/certification. And most--the most
important thing is that we protect these kids so that they have
a life after boxing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Michael B. Schwartz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Schwartz, Chairman, American Association
of Professional Ringside Physicians
I am Dr. Michael Schwartz, Chairman of the American Association of
Professional Ringside Physicians (the ``AAPRP''), a not for profit
organization comprised of approximately 350 ringside physicians
throughout the world. In addition, I am the chief ringside physician
for the State of Connecticut, Mohegan Sun Casino and Foxwoods Resort
Casino. I am also a member of the Medical Advisory Board for the
Association of Boxing Commissions (the ``ABC''). I have been a ringside
physician since 1991 and have served as the chief ringside physician at
over 200 boxing matches. I am board certified in Internal Medicine and
have a private practice in Darien, Connecticut.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection (the ``Committee'') for this opportunity to testify
with respect to the proposed United States Boxing Commission Act (the
``Proposed Bill''). As a ringside physician, my goal has always been to
promote the safety and protection of the individual fighter. In 1991,
when I first started to work as a ringside physician, I became aware
that boxing, an inherently dangerous sport, lacked necessary safeguards
to protect the participants. As a result, I formed the AAPRP, to
addresses issues pertaining to boxing safety including medical testing,
standardization of medical requirements, the creation of a medical data
bank and the creation of a comprehensive certification program which
will insure that only qualified and experienced physicians act as the
primary ringside doctor at boxing matches. In addition, the AAPRP
conducts yearly medical seminars to educate physicians, create a forum
for the sharing of ideas and the discussion of relevant issues to
boxing safety.
Through the hard work of our members, I believe that the AAPRP has
indeed improved the current medical environment for the professional
boxer which has resulted in a decrease of serious injuries and, quite
possibly, deaths in professional boxing. Unfortunately, much of the
great work accomplished by the AAPRP has not been adopted by many
States or other boxing jurisdictions. Without a centralized national
boxing commission, the fighter is not guaranteed the safe setting, with
an appropriately trained ringside physician, that he or she justly
deserves. Indeed, I am aware of many situations where ambulances are
not available at the boxing venue for emergencies. Moreover, I know
that many professional boxing matches have gone forward without
physicians experienced in ringside medicine present. For example, while
physicians trained in the practices of obstetrics and gynecology,
dermatology or psychiatry are surely capable of being excellent
ringside physicians, without prior experience they clearly are not
trained in disciplines which would give them the proper insight to
assist an injured boxer or detect a symptom prior to permitting such
boxer to fight. In fact, there have been reports of chiropractors and
even veterinarians acting as primary ringside physicians.
Boxing is the only major sport without a national commission.
Baseball, football, basketball and hockey are all governed by national
commissions. In fact, even individual sports such as tennis, golf and
bowling have commissions. These commissions assure standardization
regardless of where a competition may take place. The rules in one
venue are the same in another. In addition, all athletes are entitled
to receive the same medical evaluation and treatment no matter where
the match may take place. This is not, however, the situation in
boxing. With respect to professional boxing, medical requirements and
care differ from venue to venue. For example, in the state of
Connecticut, each competitor is required to have a complete physical
examination, a dilated eye exam, an electrocardiogram, a CT scan or MRI
of the brain, blood testing including HIV, hepatitis B and C, as well
as a pre and post fight physical examination. Some jurisdictions,
however, require nothing more than a pre-fight ``mini-physical''
examination. This can, and I believe has, resulted in athletes being
exposed to significant risk since certain underlying medical conditions
will not be identified without a complete pre-fight physical
examination and essential testing. In my experience, as a result of a
review of medical examinations and tests required by the Connecticut
State Commission, and the Manshantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribal
Commissions, I have discovered many life threatening issues including
infectious hepatitis B, brain abnormalities and cardiac arrhythmia's,
as well as illicit drug use which can impede a fighters' ability to
perform as he or she should. Many of these health limitations were
identified only because of the pre-fight requirements of these
Commissions. Regrettably, these same fighters fought multiple times in
other jurisdictions which failed to identify these abnormal health
issues simply because the physicians could not look for them. Without
standardized medical requirements in boxing we may never know how many
deaths or chronic injuries might have been prevented.
In 2003, the medical advisory board of the ABC proposed minimum
medical requirements for all jurisdictions to incorporate in
authorizing a boxer to fight. The AAPRP quickly ratified and endorsed
these requirements and applauds the efforts of the ABC. However,
notwithstanding the ABC's recommendation, I understand that most boxing
jurisdictions have elected not to adopt these recommendations citing
cost or legislative concerns (some simply chose not to adopt them
without any explanation). As a result, boxers and managers now ``state
shop,'' i.e., when a fighter has a pre-existing medical condition which
would preclude their participation in one jurisdiction, they simply
find a jurisdiction without requirements in place to identify their
medical abnormality and fight there. Undoubtedly, without a centralized
commission established and governed by official regulation, there will
never be uniformity amongst the various commissions throughout the
United States.
In addition, there is no medical registry or data bank to document
and maintain results of medical tests. Fighters are often required to
unnecessarily repeat medical tests, at a significant cost, since they
are unable to produce the proof or documentation of previous test
results. The expense of repetitive testing, often prohibitive to some
fighters and managers, has resulted in unscrupulous attempts to ``beat
the system.'' For example, one afternoon I received the identical
electrocardiogram (EKG) for seven different fighters during their pre-
fight physicals. Apparently, the manager had ``whited-out'' the name on
one healthy test and inserted each fighter's information onto a copy of
the document. If a central agency was responsible for evaluating and
recording these medical records, ringside physicians would be able to
track each fighter's personal medical history without concern of such
potential deceit. Also, if this information was available to ringside
physicians via the internet, the doctors would have an additional tool
for immediately identifying those who are at risk for injury before
conducting a pre-fight physical examination. Moreover, this information
could also be utilized as a means to further study and research the
medical aspects of boxing. Unfortunately, medical research into boxing
safety is practically non-existent. Additionally, those individuals who
are conducting research have difficulty acquiring information and
basically no funding to support their studies. This helpful information
could be made available if there was an administrative body responsible
for organizing and maintaining a data bank program.
As this Committee is obviously aware, recently on January 25, 2005,
Senator John McCain introduced S.148, the Professional Boxing
Amendments Act of 2005. Similarly, on February 1, 2005, Congressman
Peter King proposed H.R. 468, the ``Professional Boxing Amendments Act
of 2005.'' Both of these bills were proposed ``[t]o establish a United
States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for other
purposes.'' It is important to note that in addition to establishing a
national commission on boxing, both S.148 and H.R. 468 address the
necessity of regulation with respect to the medical aspects related to
the sport of boxing. For example, these bills define the term
``Physician'' as used in the Act, as a doctor of medicine legally
authorized to practice medicine by the State in which the physician
performs such function and who has training and experience in dealing
with sports injuries, particularly head trauma. In addition, they
provide for the establishment and maintenance of a medical registry
which would contain comprehensive medical records, denials and
suspensions for every licensed boxer.
The AAPRP continues to work diligently in its efforts to make
boxing safer for the individual boxer, consequently improving the
respectability and credibility of the sport. Notwithstanding the
AAPRP's selfless efforts, it has become increasingly difficult to
preserve and protect the boxer's health absent standardization,
information sharing and legislative backing. Boxing needs a centralized
commission. A centralized commission will assist the ringside
physician, whose sole goal is to make the sport as safe as possible for
the individual boxer. As chairman of the AAPRP, and individually as a
concerned and dedicated ringside physician, I urge this Committee to
adopt legislation that makes safety its first priority when forming a
national commission for boxing. Accordingly, it is my opinion that any
legislation which creates a Federal Boxing Commission, including the
proposed Bill, must definitively address the medical aspects of the
sport and unconditionally provide support for medical research and
maintenance of a centralized medical data bank similar to that proposed
by S.148 and H.R.468.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mr. Stearns. I thank you. Ms. Torres, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LINDA P. TORRES
Ms. Torres. Thank you, and thank you for inviting us,
Chairman Stearns, and----
Mr. Stearns. You might pull the mic a litter closer to you.
Ms. Torres. Sure.
Mr. Stearns. Oh.
Ms. Torres. Is that better?
Mr. Stearns. That is better.
Ms. Torres. Okay.
Mr. Stearns. Thanks.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Chairman Stearns and the members of
the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection. We are here today--I am here today, representing
both the International Boxing Federation and the World Boxing
Association. That would be 2 different sanctioning
organizations. I would like to address, actually, something
that was said by Mr. Towns of New York, who apparently just
left the room for a moment. He mentioned one of the
difficulties in the world of boxing right now is that there are
so many sanctioning bodies the public does not know who the
champion is. I don't know that having a national boxing
commission will be actually doing away with any of the
sanctioning organizations. What it can do is make sure that the
organizations adhere to the provisions that are already in
place, such as posting rating, posting ratings changes, posting
bylaws, and making an appeal process available to boxers to
contest their ratings; but I don't know that this commission
can actually disband any private business that have been set
up.
The positive thing about having multiple sanctioning
organizations is that they are giving more and more boxers the
opportunity to work their way up in the rankings of the
organizations and actually fight for a title. If you only had 1
group, you would only have 17 weight classes and 15 people in
each weight class, and that would be it. With more than 1
organization, you have got more people being permitted to fight
for titles, and you have go the possibility of the champions
unifying the titles by either getting 2 titles or 3 major
titles.
The--I think the purpose--the stated purpose of the boxing
commission, which is to protect the interests of boxers and to
ensure uniformity, fairness, and integrity and prevent--in
professional boxing is laudable. The actual bill does not
specifically address how any of this is going to be done. When
it talks about something like the commission overseeing all
professional boxing matches--on any given weekend in many
different states, there are a lot of bout cards being produced.
I don't know what the commission is going to actually do with
those fights. Are they going to hire people and send them
there? Are they going to review the contract? So again, to
state certain things is one thing. To actually carry them out
and figure out how to do them is of interest to most people in
the industry, to see how it will be done.
In reviewing the substance of 1065, I was somewhat
concerned that the aspect of health and safely was relegated to
somebody publishing a report in a year or 2 on the
standardization of health and safety. That is a major issue at
the moment. Certain States require ambulances to be at the
site; others don't. Certain States require extensive testing
for infectious diseases, and other States don't. I think if you
are going to protect the boxer, you have got to protect the
health and safety, and perhaps that should be brought a little
more to the forefront of this bill.
Regarding the licensing provisions, as the bill is drafted
right now, again, it is very general as to the grounds for
suspending or revoking a license of a manager, a promoter, or a
sanctioning organization. There are some grounds that say it--a
reasonable ground for belief that a standard is not being met.
Since there are no standards in the bill yet--and this is just
a general bill-setting-up--the commission--it is difficult how
that will be--will play out and be enforced in the future.
Another reason for suspension or revocation of a license is in
the public interest. In the sport of boxing, you may have 1
Internet writer who has a very different view of the public
interest than a boxer would or than a promoter or a manager
would. So again, it is a little vague at this point in time.
Regarding the funding from the licensing fees, there is a
provision in the bill that states that promoter and sanctioning
organization--are to pay the largest proportion of the fees. I
don't know if the committee is aware of the type of fees that a
sanctioning organization charges and for what fights. The
sanctioning organization only charges a fee for a world
championship title fight. Many of the fights that you see on
ESPN and MSG are not world championship title fights. When
there is a title fight, the organization receives a maximum of
3 percent of the fighter's purse. The organizations will also
charge a nominal fee of $1,000 a boxer, no matter what the
boxer is making, on a fight that is called an eliminator. That
is a fight between 2 ranked boxers in order to attain the
position of number 1 or number 2 in the ranking to entitle them
to then move up and fight for the title.
The persons who make the most money on these major fights
are clearly the networks. The networks are making millions of
dollars. They are also dictating who boxers can fight and
rejecting certain opponents and not allowing them to fight
certain opponents. They are entering into long-term contracts
with boxers, and they actually act as promoters. To regulate an
industry, a major player are the networks, and they should be
included.
As recently as yesterday in the New York Daily News, there
was a quote regarding a certain fight. It says--this is an
article by Tim Smith, I believe. It says ``and Showtime,
needing a worthy opponent for its broadcast, on a free-preview
weekend, no less, wouldn't accept just anybody.'' So regardless
of the rules of a sanctioning organization that may say a
champion must fight the next leading, available contender who
has been designated the mandatory opponent, sometimes the
networks just won't buy it. If you did not have sanctioning
organizations, every single match you saw would only be
controlled by the networks and the media darlings would be the
only boxers you would see over and over. The organizations
exist to give up-and-coming, young boxers an opportunity to
fight for a title.
Mr. Stearns. We just need you to sum up, if you couldn't.
You are about 2\1/2\, almost 3 minutes over.
Ms. Torres. I am sorry.
Mr. Stearns. No, that is okay.
Ms. Torres. I am finished.
[The prepared statement of Linda P. Torres follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda P. Torres, Legal Advisor to the
International Boxing Federation, Inc.
Chairman Stearns, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Linda
Torres and I thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the
views of the International Boxing Federation, Inc. (IBF). Over the past
few years, the International Boxing Federation Inc. has worked with the
World Boxing Association (WBA) on efforts to improve the sport of
boxing, and I have been authorized by the WBA to submit this testimony
on behalf of both organizations, in order to provide you with a broad
perspective from world sanctioning bodies. Both the IBF and WBA are
sanctioning organizations with international membership and
affiliations with regional boxing federations in other countries.
Of the hundreds of sports that are practiced in the United States,
we are unaware of any that are comprehensively regulated by a United
States federal agency. That is why we are here today. While a recent
test revealed that between 5 and 7 percent of major-league baseball
players tested positive for steroids, professional baseball is not
comprehensively regulated by a federal agency. While NASCAR drivers
travel at speeds of up to nearly 200 miles per hour which has led to
notable deaths and injuries, race car driving is not comprehensively
regulated by the federal government. Even kickboxing, where
participants can strike each other with elbows and kicks to the head,
and mixed martial arts, where participants can hold another human being
against a chain linked cage and beat them into submission or
unconsciousness, are not regulated by the federal government. Instead,
we are here today to discuss why boxing should be the only sport in the
United States to be comprehensively regulated by the United States
government, through the establishment of a new federal agency, solely
dedicated to the oversight of the sport of boxing.
We have heard the arguments for federal oversight. However, unlike
some of the sports that I previously mentioned, boxing is already
regulated by nearly every state in the United States. Additionally, a
union has recently been formed for boxers, and there are dozens of
promoters, and hundreds of managers, trainers, and matchmakers in the
sport. There is even an Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC), an
organization comprised of employees of state boxing commissions, that
is working to standardize the rules and administration of boxing
throughout the United States. They have developed unified rules for
professional boxing contests and have made suggestions for the criteria
for the ranking of fighters that the IBF, WBA and other world
sanctioning organizations are urged to adopt. To date, the
organizations have incorporated the ratings criteria suggested by the
ABC into their own sets of criteria. We are presently working with the
ABC on reviewing newly suggested criteria.
The IBF and WBA are aware that there is room for improvement in the
sport of boxing. In order to address the problems that plague the
sport, the IBF has taken a lead role by bringing interested parties in
the sport of boxing together to openly discuss improvements that can be
made. At our annual convention last June in San Francisco, the IBF
invited the boxing world, including this committee, to a discussion
titled, ``The Future of Professional Boxing,'' which was an open
discussion of the issues that need to be addressed in the sport of
boxing (see APPENDIX A). Panelists for this event included New Jersey
Athletic Commissioner Larry Hazzard, international matchmaker Carl
Moretti, and IBF World Heavyweight Champion Chris Byrd. When President
Bush proposed a White House ``summit'' on steroid use in sports, the
IBF and WBA informed the Office of National Drug Control Policy's
Assistant Deputy Director that the two organizations are committed to
``maintain[ing] the integrity of the sport of boxing'' and
``protect[ing] the health and safety of fighters'' and would be happy
to attend (see APPENDIX B).
The IBF and WBA do not believe that the federal government should
create a new federal agency to regulate the sport of boxing. Rather,
the organizations believe that the boxing industry itself should be
allowed to address the sport's problems, as other sports do.
Specifically, Congress could direct the Association of Boxing
Commissions to establish minimum health and safety requirements for
boxers to be adopted by each state. This would insure, for example,
that each state has the appropriate medical equipment and personnel
present at a boxing match, and that each state tests fighters for
infectious diseases such as HIV, Hepatitis C and other performance
enhancing drugs and steroids. This would allow Congress to address the
health and safety issues in the sport without having to create and fund
a federal agency to oversee the sport.
Having expressed our concerns and belief that it is not necessary
for Congress to create a new federal agency to oversee boxing, if
Congress intends to regulate the sport through a new federal agency,
the United States Boxing Commission Act is the best model for
accomplishing this task. While other bills have been proposed, they
would attempt to micromanage the sport of boxing. The United States
Boxing Commission Act, on the other hand, recognizes that boxing is an
international sport and instead focuses on the health and safety of
boxers and the standardization of practices throughout the states in
the interest of commerce, trade and consumer protection. However, in
these interests, the IBF and WBA believe that several minor changes
should be made to the bill. They are as follows:
1. The United States Boxing Commission Act should be amended to assure
that law abiding individuals and entities are not put out of
business
The United States Boxing Commission Act requires boxing managers,
promoters and sanctioning organizations to obtain a license from the
United States Boxing Commission (created in the bill) in order to work
fights in the United States (Section 4). However, this license can be
taken away if ``there are reasonable grounds for belief that a standard
prescribed by the Commission . . . is not being met'' or that ``the
suspension or revocation [is] in the public interest'' [Section 7 (1)
B,C]. It appears that, a law abiding individual or entity could have
its license taken away, and essentially be put out of business (as a
license is required to work in the United States), without it ever
being demonstrated that the individual or entity did anything wrong.
``Reasonable grounds for belief'' and the ``public interest'' are
undefined and very vague. A licensee should only lose its license if it
has actually been proven, upon notice and after hearing, that it has
done something illegal or in violation of the statute.
2. The United States Boxing Commission Act should be amended to reflect
the financial reality of the sport
The United States Boxing Commission Act would require sanctioning
organizations and promoters to pay the largest portion of licensing
fees [Section 4 (b) 2B]. Promoters, televisions networks and cable
companies often make millions of dollars on professional boxing
matches. In contrast, sanctioning organizations only collect up to a
maximum of 3% of a fighter's purse (how much the fighter is paid) in a
championship fight. Nominal fees are paid for eliminators. There are no
sanctioning fees paid at all unless the bout is a title fight of
eliminator in a weight class. The bulk of the revenue from a fight is
typically split with the largest portions going to the networks,
promoters, managers and fighters. Therefore, it would be unfair for
sanctioning bodies to pay ``comparatively the largest portion'' of
fees, when they are comparatively paid much less than other licensed
parties.
3. The United States Boxing Commission Act fails to regulate the
largest players in professional boxing
The United States Boxing Commission Act fails to regulate
television networks and cable and satellite service providers (herein
collectively referred to as ``networks''). While, on the surface,
networks appear to only broadcast boxing matches to a viewing audience,
in fact, they play a much larger role in the sport of boxing. They are
actively involved in the business of promoting fights and enter into
long term contracts with boxers, requiring them to fight only for the
subject network and only against opponents that they approve.
The networks dictate the dates of the bouts and the amount that
will be paid to the boxers for each fight. Additionally, they require
that certain bouts be held for certain titles and have provisions in
their contracts stipulating that certain belts be at stake for them to
finance a show. Furthermore, the networks select the opponents of their
boxers under contract without regard to the rules and ratings of
sanctioning organizations. Sanctioning organizations have rules to
insure the orderly defense of titles and to make sure that those boxers
who have earned the right to fight for the title, that is, who are in a
``mandatory'' position, are allowed to fight for the title within a
specified time frame. The ``mandatory'' may not be the media darling
and the network may refuse to buy the fight required by the
organization's rules. Finally, networks derive huge sums of money from
professional fights, especially on high priced, pay-per-view bouts.
Absolving networks from a regulatory licensing structure of boxers and
boxing personnel would be detrimental to positive boxing reform.In
addition to the changes outlined above, the IBF and WBA believe that
the Committee should also consider:
1. Whether the federal government really wants to ``intervene in civil
actions'' [Section 7 (c)].
The United States Boxing Commission Act would allow the United
States Boxing Commission to intervene in civil actions on behalf of the
public interest. Federal courts and state courts have rules governing
permissive intervention in lawsuits. If successful, on a motion to
intervene, the United States would become a party to the litigation.
Litigation is costly and time consuming. What is in the ``public
interest'' is open to interpretation. The government's objective can be
met by filing an amicus brief in the court on behalf of the public as
opposed to actually becoming a party on the lawsuit.
2. How can the United States Boxing Commission Act help to assure that
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and state governments are
not cheated on the taxes that they collect from boxing matches
held in their jurisdictions?
Over the past few years, some fighters have begun to understate
their total compensation for a fight in the official bout agreements
that they file with the state boxing commission where the fight is
held. In some instances, fighters are not reporting millions of dollars
that they are earning. If this money is not being reported to the
states, it is likely that it is not being reported to the IRS either.
This impacts not only state and federal government revenues, but the
sanctioning organizations as well which are not informed of the true
purses and, thus, cannot collect the proper sanctioning fees. Any
action that the Committee could take to correct this problem would not
only be in the best interest of government, but also in the interest of
the business.
The IBF and WBA appreciate the work of the Committee and its
interest in improving the sport of boxing. While we do not believe that
it is necessary to create a new federal agency to oversee the
regulation of boxing, we believe that steps can be taken to improve the
sport. Since the passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (H.R.
1832) in 2000, the IBF and WBA have taken a lead role in working to
maintain the integrity of the sport and in addressing problems within
the sport. We will continue in these efforts and ask that you to work
with us to bring the boxing industry together to address its problems,
as other sports do, before creating a new federal agency. Together we
can improve the sport for boxing participants, boxing personnel and
boxing fans around the world.
Appendix A
Smith Alling Lane
Washington, DC
May 5, 2005
Committee on Energy & Commerce
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Re: Invitation--Issues in Professional Boxing
Dear Committee Members and Staff: The International Boxing
Federation (IBF) would like to invite you to a session entitled The
Future of Professional Boxing during the IBF Annual Convention on
Thursday, June 3rd from 3:00-6:00 p.m. at the Argent Hotel in San
Francisco, California.
The purpose of this session will be to discuss improvements that
can be made within the sport of boxing, various policy issues, and
models for regulation, including Senator McCain's proposal to establish
a National Boxing Commission (S. 275). Specific topics for the policy
session will include:
How can the sport of boxing be improved?
Is congressional legislation necessary?
Do we need a national commission?
Can the boxing industry come together to improve the sport?
The outcomes of this historic meeting could drastically affect the
future of professional boxing. During the meeting, boxers, promoters,
state commissioners, sanctioning bodies, officials and other boxing
personnel will discuss the status of the boxing industry and develop
recommendations for improving the sport.
We would be honored to host any congressional delegate(s) and ask
that you please RSVP for this event by calling Noah Reandeau at (253)
627-1091.
Sincerely,
Noah Reandeau
Appendix B
Smith Alling Lane
Washington, DC
May 8, 2005
Norman Deck
Assistant to Deputy Director
Office of National Drug Control Policy
750 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Deck, The International Boxing Federation (IBF) and World
Boxing Association (WBA) would like to express their interest in
attending the White House's proposed summit on steroid use by athletes.
While marijuana and cocaine are the primary sources of substance
abuse among boxers, steroid use is a growing concern. Unlike marijuana
and cocaine, which are used for their addictive properties, steroids
are used to gain a competitive advantage. This advantage is unfair to
boxers who abide by the rules, is detrimental to the health of the
steroid user, is often against the law, sets a bad example for the
public, and can lead other competitors to begin using to ``keep up''
with the competition.
The IBF and WBA support President Bush's efforts to address steroid
use by athletes. Both professional boxing sanctioning organizations are
committed to maintaining the integrity of the sport of boxing and care
about the health and welfare of boxers. Therefore, they are committed
to finding solutions to this growing problem.
If the IBF and WBA were invited to the proposed summit, they could
present information on the problem of steroid use in boxing and efforts
that have been taken to address steroid use within the sport.
Additionally, they could learn about the actions that other sports have
taken to address this problem. Finally, after the summit, the
organizations could meet with industry representatives to discuss any
additional measures that could be taken to protect the health and
safety of fighters.
Should you have any questions or require any additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at
(253) 627-1091.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Noah Reandeau
Mr. Stearns. All right. That is good. Mr. Stevens, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RON SCOTT STEVENS
Mr. Stevens. On behalf of the State of New York and
Governor Pataki, I would like to thank Chairman Cliff Stearns
and members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection for inviting me to speak on reform and
Federal oversight of the sport of professional boxing.
Boxing is being glamorized today on reality television
shows in the movies, but there are no Clint Eastwoods or
Sylvester Stallones in the timeworn gym in poor neighborhoods
where young boxers dream the dream. Their chances of
succeeding, of becoming a contender, no less a champion, face
enormous odds. Nevertheless, their numbers are great; just look
at the crop of Golden Glove entries each year. The New York
Golden Gloves had 660 entries, up from 600 a year ago, with
most hoping 1 day to turn pro--so many who dream. Some are
skilled, and some are not so skilled. Ladies and gentlemen,
boxing is, figuratively speaking, a risky, bare-knuckled sport.
That is why those of us who are charged with regulating it have
no room for error, because we are dealing with life and death
during every 3-minute round.
For the past 25 years, I have covered the waterfront when
it comes to professional boxing, primarily as a matchmaker and
a promoter. Based on my experience, Governor Pataki appointed
me as the Chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission on
June 10, 2003. I have learned much over the period of time that
I have been involved in professional boxing, and I would like
to take this opportunity to share some of my observations with
all of you.
A Federal bill to protect the general welfare of boxers and
to ensure nationwide fairness in the sport of professional
boxing is a noble idea whose time has come, but if I may,
please allow me to repeat the words of the former 3-time
heavyweight champion, Muhammad Ali, who said on September 9,
2004, before this same subcommittee, ``there is nothing wrong
with boxing that we in boxing cannot fix.''
I would like to add that there are at present many
competent and hard-working commissions, both big and small, who
should be given a voice in this process. First, I would
advocate minimum national standards for medical exams. However,
nothing should prohibit any State from enforcing local
standards that exceed the minimum requirements. In New York,
for example, a boxer must pass several medical exams before he
or she is permitted to box, such as an MRI, an ophthalmologic
exam, an EKG, a full physical exam, and blood screening for
HIV, hepatitis B surface antigen, and hepatitis C virus
antibody. A final pre-fight, mini-physical is also performed at
the venue, prior to the bout. Only Nevada has a similar
standard. It should be noted that States like New Jersey and
Connecticut substitute CAT scans for MRIs--they can use either
one--and that conforms to the Association of Boxing
Commission's medical recommendations.
Conversely, to my knowledge, 12 States only require pre-
fight physicals and nothing else. This often leads to forum
shopping, as Dr. Schwartz mentioned, by boxers and their
handlers who avoid well-regulated jurisdictions, knowing their
boxers might not pass the medical exams previously mentioned.
This could possibly compromise the boxer's health and safety.
If medical records can be centrally controlled, maintained,
and disseminated--a national data base, if you will--a powerful
tool will have been created, which could minimize the risk of
injury to boxers. Most importantly, this will dramatically
reduce the chances of a boxer developing putralistic dementia,
also known as punch-drunk syndrome.
Second, in the name of fair play, rules and regulations
must not deviate from State to State. Since rules do not
deviate in other major sports, then why should they in boxing?
Questions often rise among licensees such as is there a
mandatory 8 count in New York? Is there a standing 8-count in
California? Is there a 3-knockdown rule in Nevada? Can a boxer
be saved by the bell in Texas? Uniform rules must be adopted
and enforced.
Third--and this is a major, probably more major than--like
I say here, it is the issue--I would like to address the issue
of the business of boxing, but that discussion would take a
lifetime.
Therefore, let me just say, for now, that all licensees,
whether they boxers, promoters, managers, trainers, seconds or
matchmakers, are entitled to have their right enforced without
them having to go to civil court to address perceived wrongs;
they don't in most other sports. There are a number of ways
boxing licensees can be protected from the heavy burden of
legal fees and the time consideration of litigation. An
effective form of arbitration and mediation as well as
standardized contracts should be provided, as they are in other
major, professional sports. Also, it should be noted that New
York has the discretion to recognize and enforce out-of-state
findings by way of comedy. I would recommend that comedy be
mandatory, nationwide.
Fourth, a national commission must try to find a way to
create a pension fund for boxers and other licensees who make
boxing their full-time profession. Athletes in other
professional sports are protected. Managers are protected;
coaches are protected; scouts and umpires are protected. It can
be done, and it must be done in some way and in some form.
Fifth, with all due respect to this committee, I think
there is another organizational structure that should be
considered. I agree with the concept of 3 commissioners, but
unlike the current model, I strongly urge that there should be
a full-time chairman for commissioner. In New York, for
example, the commission consists of 3 members who are appointed
by the Governor, with the Governor designating one of the
members as a full-time chairman. All are appointed for terms of
3 years.
Under the New York State statute, the chairman can direct
the administrative functions of the commission and still
maintain his or her full-policy authority as a commissioner. In
essence, the chairman in New York combines your bill's
executive director's responsibilities with that of a full-time
chairman or commissioner. This gives the other 2 commissioners
and inside look at the day-to-day operation of the commission
when voting on a potentially critical issue. Also----
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Stevens, just have you start to sum up, if
you can.
Mr. Stevens. Please--it also creates an environment for
well-informed and decisive action.
I would just like to conclude by saying that the talk of--
about a national commission has been before us for many years,
and the talk in the boxing community, amongst the rank and
file, has existed probably pre-the Federal Government becoming
interested in a Federal Commission or a national commission. I
am surprised that the promoters from years ago--the Tex
Rickerts and the promoters on up--didn't think of creating a
commission like the other sports do; but perhaps because of the
legislatures empowering these commissions, I guess they knew
that they wouldn't have been able to.
But in any event, I would like conclude by saying that, one
way or another, I think it is time to make a decision so that
this cloud that exists over professional boxing on whether or
not we are going to have a national commission or not can
finally be determined.
I want to thank the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ron Scott Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ron Scott Stevens, Chairman, New York State
Athletic Commission
On behalf of the State of New York and Governor George Pataki, I'd
like to thank Chairman Cliff Stearns and the Members of the House
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection for inviting me
to speak on the subject of reform and federal oversight of the sport of
professional boxing.
Boxing is being glamorized today on reality television shows and in
the movies. But there are no Clint Eastwoods or Sylvester Stallones in
the time-worn gyms that populate poor neighborhoods where young boxers
dream the dream. Their chances of succeeding, of becoming a contender
no less a champion, face enormous odds. Nevertheless, their numbers are
great. Just look at the crop of Golden Gloves entries each year. The
New York Golden Gloves had 660 entries this year, up from 600 a year
ago, with most hoping one day to turn pro. So many who dream. Some are
skilled, some are not so skilled. Ladies and gentlemen, boxing is,
figuratively speaking, a risky, bare-knuckled sport. That is why those
of us who are charged with regulating it have no room for error because
we are dealing with life and death during every three-minute round.
For the past 25 years, I've covered the waterfront when it comes to
professional boxing, primarily as a matchmaker and promoter. Based on
that vast experience, Governor Pataki appointed me as Chairman of the
New York State Athletic Commission on June 10, 2003. I have learned
much over that period of time and I would like to take this opportunity
to share some of my observations with you.
A federal bill to protect the general welfare of boxers and to
ensure nationwide fairness in the sport of professional boxing is a
noble idea whose time has come. But if I may, please allow me to repeat
the words of the former three-time heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali
who said on September 9, 2004, before this same committee, ``There is
nothing wrong with boxing that we cannot fix.'' I would like to add
that there are, at present, many competent and hard-working
commissions, both big and small, who should be given a voice in this
process.
First, I would advocate minimum national standards for medical
exams. However, nothing should prohibit any state from enforcing local
standards that exceed the minimum requirements. In New York, for
example, a boxer must pass several medical exams before he or she is
permitted to box such as an MRI, an ophthalmalogic exam, an EKG, a full
physical exam and a blood screening for HIV, Hepatitis B and C. A final
pre-fight mini-physical is also performed at the venue prior to the
bout. Only Nevada has a similar standard. It should be noted that
states like New Jersey and Connecticut substitute CAT Scans for MRIs
which conform to the Association of Boxing Commission's medical
recommendations. Conversely, to my knowledge, twelve states only
require pre-fight physicals and nothing else. This often leads to forum
shopping by boxers and their handlers who avoid well regulated
jurisdictions knowing their boxers might not pass the medical exams
previously mentioned. This could possibly compromise the boxers' health
and safety.
If medical records can be centrally controlled, maintained and
disseminated, a powerful tool will have been created which could
minimize the risk of injury to boxers. Most importantly, this will
dramatically reduce the chances of a boxer developing pugilistic
dementia, also known as ``punch-drunk'' syndrome.
Second, in the name of fair play, rules and regulations must not
deviate from state-to-state. Since rules do not deviate in other major
sports then why should they in boxing? Questions often arise amongst
licensees such as, ``Is there a mandatory eight count in New York? Is
there a standing eight count in California? Is there a three knockdown
rule in Nevada? Can a boxer be saved by the bell in Texas?'' Uniform
rules must be adopted and enforced.
Third, I'd like to address the issue of the business of boxing. But
that discussion would take a lifetime. Therefore, let me just say for
now that all licensees, whether they be boxers, promoters, managers,
trainers, seconds or matchmakers are entitled to have their rights
enforced without them having to go to civil court to address perceived
wrongs. There are a number of ways boxing licensees can be protected
from the heavy burden of legal fees and the time considerations of
litigation. An effective form of arbitration and mediation, as well as
standardized contracts, should be provided as they are in other major
professional sports. Also, it should be noted that New York has the
discretion to recognize and enforce out-of-state findings by way of
comity. I would recommend that comity be mandatory nationwide.
Fourth, a national commission must try to find a way to create a
pension fund for boxers and the other licensees who make boxing their
full-time profession. Athletes in other professional sports are so
protected as are managers, coaches, scouts and umpires. It can be done
and it must be done, in some way and in some form.
Fifth, with all due respect to the Committee, I think there is
another organizational structure that should be considered. I agree
with the concept of three commissioners but unlike the current model, I
strongly urge that there should be a full-time chairman or
commissioner. In New York, for example, the commission consists of
three members who are appointed by the Governor with the Governor
designating one of the members as a full-time Chairman. All are
appointed for terms of three years. Under the New York State statute,
the Chairman can direct the administrative functions of the commission
and still maintain his or her full policy authority as a commissioner.
In essence, the Chairman in New York combines your bill's executive
director's responsibilities with that of a full-time commissioner. This
gives the other two commissioners an inside look at the day-to-day
operations of the commission when voting on a potentially critical
issue. It also creates an environment for well-informed and decisive
action.
Let me conclude by saying that dialogue about creating a national
boxing commission has been going on for some time with boxing's rank
and file debating this issue for just as long. Therefore, in the best
interests of the sport, I believe this issue should be finally
resolved. The status quo inadvertently casts a shadow over many state
commissions by implying inadequate oversight. That often is not the
case and I am sure that this is not what was ever intended.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Stearns and the Members of
this Subcommittee for providing me with this opportunity to testify.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I shall open up with
questions.
You know, the feeling I have about this is--we have been
talking about it, and I think it is--I think it can be summed
up by--when we had the hearing, the Pennsylvania State
Commissioner stated that it wasn't so much that he wanted a
Federal Commission, but rather that we need one now. And I
think that is sort of what I sense here. And let me just say
from the outset: we have a bill. We have put it down. But we
are willing to work with you in any way to help move this
along.
And as you know, any piece of legislation, once it starts
in a hearing like this, it gets marked up; there are
amendments. And then, in the full committee, there is
amendments. Then it goes to floor; there is amendments. And
there is in the Senate the same process, and then it goes to
conference, so we are a far cry from anything here. So we are
willing to work with you, but I sense, Ms. Torres, that you
have some reservation about the bill. But when you look at this
industry, and you hear both Dr. Schwartz and you hear Mr.
Stevens talking about all of their experiences, do you object
to the premise--the basic premise of having a judgment by a
commission that carries national enforcement.
I mean it seems like the testimony we have had has said
that it would be nice to have a Federal Commission some--for
some place to go and some national standards for health and a
place where you could go for appeal. I mean, doesn't that
appeal to you, consider that sport--boxing is the only major
sport not to have a commission. I mean that, alone, it would
seem to me, shows that we have been remiss in not setting up
this Federal Commission, and no States--as Mr. Schwartz has
pointed out, no States have adopted minimum standards, and they
all just shop State to State. I mean, doesn't that all just
make you realize that maybe the time has come for a boxing
commission?
Ms. Torres. I think the time has clearly come for
standardization of----
Mr. Stearns. Well, how are you going to get it without any
Federal----
Ms. Torres. Well----
Mr. Stearns. [continuing] Commission?
Ms. Torres. I guess part of the concern is that while other
sports have commissions----
Mr. Stearns. Yes?
Ms. Torres. [continuing] they are part--they are not a
Federal agency. I can see that in this bill it looks as if the
portions having to do with the investigative and prosecutorial
function of this commission were perhaps a little more clearly
thought out than what, exactly, will be standardized. The IBF
and the WBA are not totally against standardization of
practices or medical----
Mr. Stearns. Particularly with health.
Ms. Torres. Pardon?
Mr. Stearns. Particularly with health.
Ms. Torres. Particularly regarding health.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Ms. Torres. I think you are in a difficult situation here
because States have statutes that actually regulate certain
things having to do with boxing. How----
Mr. Stearns. So you would approve of a non-Federal
commission, but a commission. You would like to see a boxing
commission, but a--not be a Federal----
Ms. Torres. I would like it not to be a Federal agency with
some of these superior powers.
Mr. Stearns. Yes. And why hasn't the boxing industry done
that?
Ms. Torres. Perhaps because they haven't been able to get
on the same page. I think that the work of the----
Mr. Stearns. But wouldn't that tell you----
Ms. Torres. ABC----
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Ms. Torres. The ABC has come a long way. They have adopted
rules for the conduct--for conducting bouts--which we all get
to hear Harold Letterman read frequently--and they have adopted
some standards for ratings criterion.
Mr. Stearns. But you realize that you can't get
consistency. And we had a GAL report in 2003 that said that,
you know, basically they couldn't get any consistencies across
8 States and 2 tribal boxing commissions. There was no
assurance that the professional boxers were receiving the
minimum protection established by Federal Law, just the
minimum.
Ms. Torres. The minimum medical and safety protection?
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Ms. Torres. That is----
Mr. Stearns. So----
Ms. Torres. That is a major problem.
Mr. Stearns. Yes, I mean----
Ms. Torres. I don't know how you are going to deal with all
of the different legislation in the different States.
Mr. Stearns. I can tell you, having dealt with legislation
before, all of these questions come up. But with good minds
like you and others, we somehow work through them. Let me ask
Dr. Schwartz. I see on the television and also in different
places these extreme professional sports in wrestling and
boxing, where they go in with nothing on. I mean it is just the
shorts and their own fists, and they just go at it until
somebody just calls uncle, and it is--sometimes, there is major
bodily injury. Is anything regulated in that? Or is that just a
free-for-all, and it is--I mean what is your feeling about
that?
Mr. Schwartz. Well, such sport, like the Ultimate Fighting
Championship----
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Mr. Schwartz. They kind of have their act together; but
regardless of who comes into my jurisdiction, we still require
the same medical requirements, whether it is boxing, whether it
is kickboxing or ultimate fighting. They are required to get
the same medical tests. We have an ambulance onsite. We have
paramedics. I could land a helicopter if I need to. I am
actually very fortunate because my commission listens to what I
feel are the most important requirements.
However, it is very, very different in other jurisdictions,
as I stated in my testimony. Some of them don't even have
ambulances. Some of them have doctors who aren't even
practicing medicine. Some of them don't even have doctors. So
as far as those other sports, we look at intent; we don't look
at outcome. But boxing is actually less dangerous than football
or auto racing; however, because the intent is to injure the
opponent, we look at that. However, with these other sports, if
they are regulated in a similar manner and are able to meet our
medical requirements, then I don't see a problem with it.
Mr. Stearns. Just a closing: Mr. Stevens, would you support
the bill if there was some changes in it? I mean can I put you
on record as for it or against with--you know, some----
Mr. Stevens. I am for a national boxing commission. I--you
asked Dr. Schwartz a question. If I might----
Mr. Stearns. Sure.
Mr. Stevens. Or maybe it was Ms. Torres. You know, I
believe that--and I am not an attorney--but an athletic
commission is, to my knowledge, a quasi-judicial body that is
empowered by the legislature to, in this particular instance,
regulate boxing. The other sports didn't have that fence to
climb. They weren't created by a legislature to regulate the
sport, so they could--the George Hallases in football and the
early pioneers of baseball and basketball and hockey--they
could create a league, a league office, without having to clear
it through the government.
I think that is why boxing doesn't have or didn't have a
national commission for all of these years. All of the States
that have commissions were all empowered by the State
legislature because--I would imagine the reason they did that
is because to fight with another person is to commit an
assault. At the least, touching of another in anger constitutes
an assault. So in order to make that legal, they needed to--and
there were probably other reasons. Maybe there was a gambling
prohibition or whatever--but I believe it was really about an
assault. So in order to make that assault acceptable, they
needed to create a boxing commission, an athletic commission.
And then, I don't think that these promoters or the managers of
yesteryear, the ones we read about, the famed--the fabled ones
like the Doc Kerns, who was Dempsey's manager, or Tex Rickert,
who was the great promoter out of Madison Square Garden back in
the 1920's and 1930's, or even the Teddy Brenners, the great
matchmakers out of the Garden--they probably couldn't create a
national commission; that is why we don't have one--my opinion.
I think a lot of boxing people, if they thought that they could
have created a commission in the 1940's or 1950's, they would
have done it. Would I support a national boxing commission? I
think Ms. Torres brings up a good point, that this particular
bill is very general, and I think some of the other bills were
too specific. I think, having been a promoter and matchmaker
for most of my professional career, in terms of Mrs. Torres's
testimony with the sanctioning organization, sanctioning
organizations serve a very vital purpose.
Mr. Stearns. My time is up, so----
Mr. Stevens. Okay.
Mr. Stearns. [continuing] I am going to have to----
Mr. Stevens. But I just wanted to end that with saying
that--as long as they follow the rules and regulation.
Mr. Stearns. So I will put you down as a maybe for the
bill.
Mr. Stevens. Well, you could--well, like I said, I think
that----
Mr. Stearns. You are supporting it?
Mr. Stevens. I would support your bill, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Okay. That is all I need to know. Okay?
Mr. Stevens. All right.
Mr. Stearns. Ranking Member Schakowsky.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
reiterate what you said, essentially that this is a work-in-
progress; and therefore, I really appreciate this very
constructive testimony today. And I know that, Ms. Torres, if
we are going to put up a chart of who is for and who is against
that you began your testimony with your reasons that you are
not for it, but then went on--and I appreciate that very much--
to list the suggestions, that if we do go forward, what are
those things that ought to be in a bill. And I truly do
appreciate that.
I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I think--let me
just get your response to the issue of forum shopping. I mean
how can one ignore the fact that this is a serious problem.
Ms. Torres. Do you mean forum shopping by the boxer in
order to get licensed in a State? Is that what----
Ms. Schakowsky. In order to prevent someone who should not
fighting in one State, or could not be fighting in one State,
from going to another, shopping around because there is lower
standards, weaker medical exams, et cetera.
Ms. Torres. I think the only way to address it is to have
uniform medical standards from State to State. I mean there is
an example this very week of a boxer being licensed in
Missouri, and then using that to go fight in Utah, when New
York and New Jersey, and California, and Pennsylvania, and
Nevada probably would not have licensed him. So it happens; it
happens all the time; and it should not be allowed to happen. I
think the idea from the WBA--are very much in support of
uniform medical and safety standards. I just saw that sort of
put on a back burner in this version of the bill. I would like
them to be brought to the forefront.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Good. The other--you alluded to--I
would like you to enhance a little bit. You talk about your
position on the networks being covered under the U.S. Boxing
Commission. Should networks be treated as promoters? What is
your view on that?
Ms. Torres. Our view--and this from--on behalf of both of
these organizations--is that they should be licensed if you are
doing a general licensing structure of the entire industry,
whether you call them promoters or managers or matchmakers,
because they do a little bit of everything. The past few years,
they have become very pervasive in dictating who a boxer fights
and who a boxer doesn't fight, and they enter into contracts
with a boxer. So if we are going to regulate managers and
promoters that enter into contracts with boxers, there is no
reason to exclude the networks, who also have 3- and 4-belt,
long-term contracts with the boxers.
Ms. Schakowsky. And is this a growing area, where----
Ms. Torres. Yes, it is.
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Ms. Torres. It is.
Mr. Schakowsky. Okay. And what do you think about big
hotels which host fights. Is there a role there? Or no?
Ms. Torres. Not that I see that would need----
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay.
Ms. Torres. That would--I can't think of anything off the
top of my head. It is--that would actually just be the venue,
be it a hotel or an arena.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Okay. I wanted to comment on Mr.
Stevens--and I think it was you who said that you would not
want, in our bill, to limit States that might have more
stringent standards. Did you talk about that? The----
Mr. Stevens. Say that again, please.
Ms. Schakowsky. That you would not want Federal legislation
to prohibit States that may have more stringent standards from
enforcing those. I wondered if you wanted to speak at all about
the rights of State commissions----
Mr. Stevens. Well, I really--reiterated your own words in
the United States Boxing Commission Act, where you talk about,
I believe, that if a national commission has minimum standards
that that would not preclude any State from having standards
that go beyond those minimum standards, and that they should--
the States should, then, be able to impose those standards.
Ms. Schakowsky. So you were just--I thought you found
something in the legislation that you though might preclude you
from doing what you needed to do.
Mr. Stevens. No. You--actually----
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay.
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] I parroted what you said. I
agreed with that. Like for example, the--if I might--Nevada, a
few years ago, they had a physical examination, an eye
examination, and ophthalmological exam, dilated eye, and they
had blood tests. Subsequent to a few years ago, they have gone
to an EKG and they have gone to an MRI. Now, let us say for
example, the Federal legislation required a physical, an eye
exam, and blood work, but New York or Connecticut, or Nevada
wanted to do additional testing. I don't believe there should
be a prohibition against that. It is just----
Ms. Schakowsky. But----
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] for the safety of the boxer.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Good. Thank you, Mr.--Dr.--oh, I
guess my time is up.
Mr. Stearns. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, my colleague. Ms. Cubin?
Ms. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start
by addressing some questions to Dr. Schwartz. Your expensive--
or extensive--maybe expensive, too--experience as a ringside
physician has brought you face to face with just how dangerous
this sport is. In your opinion, is the 4-year licensing
requirement sufficient to ensure that athletes are maintaining
a safe and adequate physical condition or do you think that
should be shortened or lengthened?
Mr. Schwartz. I think the medicals need to be shortened. I
mean right now, for example, I think a yearly--a minimum of a
yearly physical exam is necessary by the boxer's own, private
physician, because they know them best. I think the blood tests
should occur at a minimum of twice year, meaning HIV, hepatitis
B, surface-antigen hepatitis c. I think the MRIs and CAT scans
are debatable as long as we have a baseline whether we do that
every 1 to 2 years. The eye exams, I believe, have to be done
on a yearly basis.
But more important than that, I think any time a fighter is
injured--right now, some of the doctors, including myself, have
the right to suspend the individual and require additional
testing. That way, if there was a brain injury, for example, we
wouldn't say, you had a CAT scan, you know, a few months ago,
and we are going to still use that CAT scan; we are going to
send them for more sophisticated tests, including neurological
exams, for example.
Ms. Cubin. And how likely is a doctor to actually do that.
I mean I know as much about boxing as I have seen in movies and
television, so forgive my naivete. But how likely is a doctor
to do that if the situation is marginal? I mean is he going to
throw the towel in--which is 1 thing I know----
Mr. Schwartz. Yes.
Ms. Cubin. [continuing] or not?
Mr. Schwartz. You mean as far as----
Ms. Cubin. I mean if it is a marginal situation whether a
doctor will disqualify someone from fighting because he
suspects that there may be a dangerous condition.
Mr. Schwartz. Well, previous Federal legislation formed
Fight Fax, which is a national suspension agency, so when I
suspend somebody, they can't fight anyplace in the United
States, as long as that State is following the guidelines. As
far as whether or not that boxer should compete again, that is
whether my association, hopefully, helps, because what we try
to do is educate doctors. There is a lot of doctors who really
don't understand boxing medicine. You don't grab a----
Ms. Cubin. Right.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] local, emergency-room doctor and
say, hey, listen. We will give you a ringside seat; enjoy
yourself. It is identifying things before they happen----
Ms. Cubin. Yes.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] before the catastrophe occurs.
This is a dangerous sport, inherently dangerous. People are
going to get injured; people are going to die. But if we do the
best that we can, we can ignorantly minimize that risk.
Ms. Cubin. I am going to switch to Ms. Stevens for just a
second--excuse me--Ms. Torres for just a second. Forgive me.
And then, I want to come back to you if I have time.
But you state that--you stated in your testimony that there
is need for a pension plan for boxers. In view of the fact that
their career life is so short, what kind of a pension plan do
you recommend? Or how would that work? I hear people complain
all the time--I mean all the time--about the exorbitant wages
that are paid to professional athletes. I mean big time. But
when you consider that they are--you know, that their career
might be 5 years--or 2, even, maybe 10, maybe that is one of
the reasons that--or part of the reason that these exorbitant
salaries are paid. What do you recommend for boxers?
Ms. Torres. Well, first of all, that was not my testimony,
but I----
Ms. Cubin. Oh.
Ms. Torres. It was Mr. Stevens.
Ms. Cubin. Was that yours, Mr. Stevens?
Ms. Torres. But I would like to answer it anyway.
Ms. Cubin. Would you both, please?
Ms. Torres. Okay. First of all, the IBF does have a pension
program. It is run, almost, as a mandatory TO planner/401K
plan. For boxers competing in title fights, unless they show us
that they have a similar plan of some sort, the IBS collects 2
percent of their purse, and it is put into a plan that is
structured by a financial institution. And of course, the rules
for taking the money out are very different because of the
short life span of the boxer's career. They have to be in the
plan a certain number of years. They have to be a certain age,
but the age is not 59\1/2\. It is more like 35. So the IBF does
have a pension program. When I hear that----
Ms. Cubin. That is just for title fights?
Ms. Torres. Yes, it is.
Ms. Cubin. So other boxers, then, don't have----
Ms. Torres. Well, this is----
Ms. Cubin. [continuing] that kind of pension.
Ms. Torres. And like I said, it is an enforced 401K-type
plan. Other boxers can set up their own, but we don't force
them to. It is almost a big brother attitude that we are
taking, and we have been criticized for it. I don't know how
one would structure a pension plan for boxers, other than
perhaps, you know, having the boxer contribute some, maybe the
promoter. I don't know.
Ms. Cubin. May Mr. Stevens take a stab at that, too?
Mr. Stearns. You have extra 3 minutes because you waived
your opening statement.
Ms. Cubin. That is right. I do.
Mr. Stevens. I don't even know--I will get some minutes
back. I don't think it will take that long. I really don't know
what the format would be. That is not my area of expertise. But
I do know, having been around this business and sport for the
amount of time I have been around it, that is does need a
pension plan. And I--like I said in my testimony, it needs it
for all of the licensees that make boxing a full-time
profession. If I might--Marvin Mitchell in baseball, when they
were talking about free agency and different things that most
sport didn't have--and I think it was the--Kurt Flood was the
first test case. He was a center fielder for the St. Louis
Cardinals. And they got a label lawyer like a Marvin Mitchell
to come in and to figure out how to apply things that modern
athletes needed that the owners weren't giving them.
Ms. Cubin. And who should be responsible to do that?
Mr. Stevens. Well, I think----
Ms. Cubin. Would it be the Federal Commission if they----
Mr. Stevens. I think if there is----
Ms. Cubin. [continuing] if the bill passes? Or who should
it be--quickly please because----
Mr. Stevens. I think if there were a national commission,
that is one of the things that they should concern themselves
with, is finding out from different experts how to make a
pension system work. I don't think it is not doable. I think it
is very doable. That money has to come from somewhere. It
probably has to come from the licensees themselves--a good part
of it.
Ms. Cubin. Well, some of it, yes.
Mr. Stevens. But they do that----
Ms. Cubin. Dr. Schwartz----
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] they do that in other industries.
Ms. Cubin. Thank you. Dr. Schwartz, do you feel that the
medical standards that are supported by the American
Association of Ringside Physicians go far enough to protect the
health of the boxers? And if you don't, what additional
suggestions would you have?
Mr. Schwartz. No, I think they do. I mean----
Ms. Cubin. Okay.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] this was put together by the
Medical Advisory Board of the ABC and then ratified by the--our
organization. Just let me say one quick thing: the kids pay for
these tests. That is another issue. So we may charge $2,000 for
the tests----
Ms. Cubin. Yes.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] and they may be getting $800 a
fight. They got----
Ms. Cubin. Well, that was another question----
Mr. Schwartz. They got to fight 3 fights----
Ms. Cubin. [continuing] I was going to ask.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] to break even, so what I would
like to see--and again----
Ms. Cubin. Yes.
Mr. Schwartz. [continuing] I am--my only goal here is the
health and safety, but if there is some way that this
legislation attaches--for example, a percent--to form medical
centers to do this testing, so the kids don't have to pay for
it, a lot of this will be much easier for them, and they could
take home more of their money.
Ms. Cubin. Yes. It seems like the structure of this sport
is just very unhealthy compared to the structure of other
professional sports. Ms. Torres--well, I am just about out of
time, but you look like you wanted to answer the last question
that--I guess you don't remember, so--and neither do I, so that
is--I yield back.
Mr. Stearns. All right. Gentlelady yields back. Ms.
Blackburn is recognized.
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
each of you for taking your time to visit with us today and to
have this discussion.
Ms. Torres, I think I want to begin my questioning with
you, and I think it was interesting that Dr. Schwartz mentioned
baseball, football, and NASCAR. I come from Tennessee. We know
a lot about NASCAR in Tennessee, and we know that if a driver
races at Daytona and then goes over into Tennessee and races at
Bristol--that NASCAR has some clear rules, some very clear
rules, regarding the condition of the car and the equipment
that is on the track, the health of the driver. And the Federal
Government does not see a need to get involved because NASCAR,
Major League Baseball, football do a pretty good job of taking
care of this situation on their own.
Now, I am going to--I want to go back to what you were--we
were talking about the need for this and need for the
legislation and what drives the need for the legislation, and I
find it incredibly curious that you are here on behalf of the 2
organizations. And why in the world could the sanctioning
bodies not get together and agree on what is in the best
interest of this sport and do their own non-Federal, national
commission to instill and enforce medical standard and to
create and maintain their own national data base of fighters
and to address some of these contract issues.
What are the constraints here, and why is--why are you
choosing to not come together? Why do the organizations choose
to not come together and do this? Why has it not happened?
Ms. Torres. The other 2--the International Boxing
Federation is headquartered in the United States. The World
Boxing Association is headquartered in Venezuela. The World
Boxing Commission is headquartered in Mexico City. They--the
organizations that are outside of this country are in the
process of understanding Federal legislation to begin with.
They are studying the portions of the Muhammad Ali Act that
they have to comply with, and they are complying with it.
I think that even if the organizations were to get together
and to come up with standards, they wouldn't have any way to
enforce them in the various States. They wouldn't have an
enforcement mechanism for certain things.
They do have--the organization has rules for bouts; it has
rules for certain medical testing; and it does enforce those.
Ms. Blackburn. And you think, even though States like my
State that has a boxing and racing commission, that you could
not enforce those? They would not be enforced?
Ms. Torres. I think there would a difficult time enforcing
certain things. There are standards that the organizations have
that are enforced and that--they have the ability to say, If
you don't do X, Y, and Z, and you don't--for example, we have a
second-day weigh-in, at this point, for champion fights to
ensure that the boxer has not gained more than 10 percent over
the contract weight, so that you don't have two fighters in the
room with a, you know, 25-pound weight difference. And we have
the ability to say to the boxer, If you do not go along with
this, and you refuse to attend the second-day weigh-in, the
fight will not be for our title. The fight will go on----
Ms. Blackburn. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Dr.
Schwartz, she has just mentioned, you know, the U.S.,
Venezuela, Mexico City--I read, recently, Mike Tyson is
training in Australia. And I think we all remember--I know,
growing up, I remember the Joe Frasier/Muhammad Ali Thriller in
Manila fight--so do you think that it would be possible to
enforce some of these regulations on an international basis? Do
you think that we would be able to see enforcement, or are we
going to see--if we try to enforce, are we going to see more
matches leaving the U.S. and going to other countries, and then
we will just be viewing that over TV here?
Mr. Schwartz. Yes. The money is in the United States, so it
is never going to be an issue that you are going to have that
many of the--that many championship fights out of the country.
The only way we could enforce the international aspect is
through the sanctioning bodies. If the sanctioning body goes
into an area--like for example in Thailand--and says that each
boxer needs to have these medical tests, or else the fight
doesn't go on, at the very least, the championship fights will.
As far as the under-card, we don't have any control in that.
What I am trying to do is, obviously, increase the number of
people in my organization to include international members, but
it is hard enough to do it in this country for me, than, you
know, to go across the world and try to enforce these
regulations at this time.
Ms. Blackburn. Do other countries have national boxing
commissions?
Mr. Schwartz. Most do. England, United Kingdom, obviously
has a very good boxing commission; but there are boxing
commissions all around the world, and the sanctioning bodies
could talk better about that, because they deal with them on a
more regular basis.
Ms. Blackburn. Okay. I thank you.
Mr. Stevens, if a boxing commission was created, do you
foresee an eventual progression where States that currently
have active commissions--like in Tennessee where we have an
active commission--do you see that they would disband those
commissions? Or would that be your expectation that they would
slowly start to place the sole responsibility for sanctioning
boxing with the Federal Commission?
Mr. Stevens. I think that the State commissions should
retain their autonomy. The problem that we have is that we
don't have any enforce mechanism, so they created--the Federal
Government did when they created the Boxing Professional Safety
Act and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act--they created
minimum standards, and they sanctioned--or the sanctified the
Association of Boxing Commissions to set up a lot of the
standards we are now talking about. But the ABC has no
enforcement capability, so the States don't feel completed to
follow their guidelines. Many do; some don't. I think a
national commission would want to use the States as a fabulous
resource and let the States self-regulate and only jump in when
they needed to. In other words, make the States comply with the
minimum standards, whether it is about medical or about rules
and regulation or whether it is about the business of boxing,
and use those States to assist you. Without the States, you--I
mean the job, the task, would be enormous. It would require
hundreds of people, a tremendous amount of man-hours. We need
the States. I think that if you consider a bill, the States
should retain their autonomy. They should be used as a tool to
assist the national commission and that, at least, the national
commission would have enforcement power. That is what we are
missing.
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Stearns. I thank you. Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the panel for giving me a lot of information I didn't know
about boxing. I appreciate that.
Doctor, I would like to start with you. In terms of the
things that your organization----
Mr. Schwartz. Sure.
Mr. Murphy. [continuing] and physicians are looking at in
boxers to determine their suitability for a match, do you--you
named a number of things that are done on a physical exam and
reviewing things--et cetera for them. Are there any measures
that are done to also look at other functions besides that that
might show up on an eye exam or a physical exam--for example,
behavioral learning, changes in them, too, over time?
Mr. Schwartz. Yes. As the sport has evolved and our
organization has been more active--and again, as a non-for-
profit organization, we don't have the funding, and there is
not a lot of money in boxing to do research and studies, there
are a select few number of individuals who are looking at this.
We have one company, for example, that is putting things in
gloves to measure the impact for us. We may be able to use that
information over 10 to 15 to 20 years to determine how much
impact one fighter could take before they develop brain damage.
There is blood tests now that may indicate whether somebody is
prone to develop dementia as they get older. We may be able to
preclude those individuals from competing. There are neuropsych
testing--following somebody when they start their career, a
year later, 2 years later, and we start to see a decline,
perhaps we could stop them from competing so that they don't
develop this putralistic dementia down the line.
Mr. Murphy. So for example, you would be able to with the
neuropsych--and I am a psychologist, myself. You would be
looking at such things as changing intellectual functioning,
language functioning, visual/perceptual--other things of that
nature that might affect someone's ability, when they are done
with their boxing years, to even hold a job?
Mr. Schwartz. Right. Well, as you probably know, there are
so many different levels of neuropsych testing. Some of the new
ones that are coming out actually could work with a Palm, and
you could do it in a 5-minute or 10-minute exam. The problem
is, without the standardization, without the enforcement power,
and without the funding, we can't do these things. So then,
once again, these fighters go off; they have their career for
maybe 2, 5, or 10 years, and then 30, 40 years later, you hear
that they are demented and living in a nursing home with no
money. And it is wrong.
Mr. Murphy. My--and like our concerns even about youth
sports and concussions that children may receive and those
issues.
Now, let me ask this--and a question for all of the panel
here. As in any sport, there is a lot of pressure to make
money, not only for the individuals participating, but those
who are the promoters, and obviously for media and other venues
that may be hosting a match, and there is a lot of pressure
among those. I am assuming media is going to put an event on
either Pay-Per-View or broadcast, they would want events to be
done in a certain way. And I am wondering, along those lines,
when we have all of these multiple commissions throughout the
States or the tribes, et cetera, is there enough power, enough
authority, among the States to stand up to pressure from
promoters and other forces to really follow by the rules in a
way that assures the safety of the fighters? Any of you? Yes,
Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens. I don't want to speak for the other State
commissions, but in New York--I mean we are it. We--let me just
go back a second.
Generally, as a general rule, when a fight is televised,
the promoter receives what is known as a rights fee, so the
promoter who is licensed by whatever State the event is taking
place in, he is paid a sum of money from the network, and he
gives the rights to that network so that they can broadcast it.
When a fight is brought to a particular site, especially a
casino, the promoter is also hoping to get a site fee. And
those are the two, basic revenue streams for a promoter, the
rights fee and a site fee. When you hear the expression a club
show, there is generally no site fee. That means the promoter
is selling tickets. When he is at a casino, he gives up the
right to sell tickets in exchange for a fixed amount of money.
Mr. Murphy. My concern is with--I don't know what those
site fees would be or what some of those other fees would be.
What kind of levels are we talking about? If somebody is going
to be broadcast, what would the promoter be getting there?
Mr. Stevens. It could be anywhere from Fox SportsNet or
ESPN.
Mr. Murphy. Well, what kind of money would we be talking
about?
Mr. Stevens. You could--well, listen. EPSN, which a few
years ago was paying $150,000 for what they call their ESPN-1
International Show, $150,000. Eventually, they moved the boxing
to ESPN-2, and they were paying approximately $60,000. And I
have heard, as of late, that they have been asking the
promoters to basically subsidize their rights fee, and I think
it is down to about $15,000, and they are asking--this isn't as
current information as you need; but we are in the ballpark.
And they are asking them to subsidize some of the programming
with sponsors.
Mr. Murphy. I am just wondering, overall here, as we are
looking at whether it is keeping States doing this or using a
national commission here, if a value of the national commission
is to have--as you mentioned there is not--maybe no
enforceability with some of these State and tribal groups. Now,
and what I am trying to find out is, will the Federal cloud be
enough and are there instances where promoters and casinos and
media is putting a lot of pressure on to, say, make the fight
go on, even if someone isn't physically ready.
Mr. Stevens. The Federal legislation would be enough, if--
when who--whatever group the Federal Government decides to make
the commissioners or the executive directors, if there is
enforcement of the action that they take, which would mean in
many instances, spending money and having legal enforcement. If
there is no enforcement, people are going to do what they do,
knowing----
Mr. Murphy. So right now----
Mr. Stevens. [continuing] there is no repercussions.
Mr. Murphy. Right now, Mr. Stevens--and Ms. Torres, I would
like your responses, too. Right now, the way things exist with
the States and tribes and without that kind of power of
enforcement, is it possible, does it happen--or potentially
happen--that there could be tremendous pressure that would
still have boxers fighting who may not be ready, who,
neuropsychologically, neurologically, physically, to go ahead
and do this for the sake of money? Does this happen?
Ms. Torres. Well, I am sure it does happen. I am sure that
some of the boxers may be their own worst enemies. I mean they
may want to fight when they really shouldn't be fighting
because they want to earn money. I don't know how much
influence a national commission is going to have on some of the
economics involved in site fees and in promoting fights. I
don't know that that would necessarily be part of your
function.
Mr. Murphy. Well, I am--there is a commercial on television
now, promoting a certain community where--you know, what goes
there--what goes on there, stays there.
Ms. Torres. Yes, I know that community.
Mr. Murphy. And I find it--actually, I find it pretty
degrading to the gentleman who is a boxer there, who doesn't
know who he is or what he is doing or what happened the night
before. That is yes, come on. He is ready; let us go. I don't
find that amusing because I think that is beyond what the sport
should be doing. I mean fighting can be a fun sport, but if it
is to the point where they are saying here is this gentleman
who doesn't even know what is going on in the world, physically
is clearly, pretty seriously injured, but I just wondered, for
the sake of money, are people just saying let him go and he is
just an expendable human being and who cares?
Ms. Torres. Well, I that can be overcome by the enforcement
of the medical standards. And unfortunately, sometimes you can
see a change in a boxer over the course of only a year. We had
a situation with litigation with a boxer, and he is in our
office, and we deposed him twice. The next time I saw him on
television, he was slurring his words, which was not happening
before. So I think, as Dr. Schwartz said, there has to be at
least yearly check-ups of these boxers. And I apologize if it
looked like I was making fun of that commercial. I have not
seen the one with the boxer.
Mr. Murphy. I hope you get to see it because I don't think
it is a good one for the sport.
Mr. Stevens. Can I just make 1 comment, if I may? Bernard
Hopkins said to me recently that the boxers need somebody to
save them from themselves, and I think that is where the
physicians and these strong commissions--I am never concerned
about a commission like New York or New Jersey or Connecticut,
because they are going to do the right thing. So as far as can
States enforce themselves? Yes. Certain States and
jurisdictions and commissions can. The majority do not, and
that is the problem.
Mr. Stearns. The gentleman's time has expired, and we have
finished our questioning. I want to thank the witnesses. I
think we had the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act we passed.
We, I think, brought out some interesting points about this
bill we have. I think, Dr. Schwartz, you are to be commended
for starting this American Association of Professional Ringside
Physicians. I think that is very impressive, and if we could
get you to get it international that would help, too. I know
you have your hands full.
But I think that it is continuing in our mind that the
boxing community is not doing that it--that we feel it should,
and perhaps there might be a need for Federal regulation, much
like the Professional Boxing Safety Act. So we are willing to
work with you. We are willing to move this very general bill,
as pointed out by you folks--it is not specific--to see if we
can find some happy medium and pass it.
So I will conclude the hearing on that positive note. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, a United States Senator from
the State of Arizona
Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing to discuss
the need for boxing reform and your bill, the United States Boxing
Commission Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a boxing fan for nearly fifty years, and
while I have derived great joy from watching the sweet science, all too
often I have been saddened and dismayed by the lack of integrity that
has weakened professional boxing--called by many the ``red light
district'' of professional sports. Of particular concern to me is the
treatment of the sport's athletes. With rare exception, professional
boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. They are the
poorest and least educated among us, and the most exploited athletes in
our nation.
Congress has made efforts to protect professional boxers before.
The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing
Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for
professional boxers, as well as basic protections for boxers against
the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical business practices
of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. Unfortunately,
ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has
contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical
practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. Further legislative
action is needed.
One very important step we could take to better protect boxers and
the integrity of professional boxing is to establish a Federal
regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform
standards for certain aspects of the sport. Professional boxing remains
the only major sport in the United States that does not have a strong,
centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish
and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit
greatly from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement
of Federal boxing law, a national selfregulating organization--though
preferable to Federal government oversight--is not a realistic option.
Many in professional boxing have concluded that the only rational
solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing commission.
The Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005, which I introduced
in January; the House companion bill introduced in February by
Congressmen King, Osborne, and Pickering; and your own bill all would
establish United States Boxing Commissions that perform substantially
similar functions. I am very pleased that we all agree on the need for
a Federal boxing commission.
Mr. Chairman, the troubles that plague the sport of professional
boxing undermine its credibility in the eyes of the public and--more
importantly--compromise the health and safety of boxers. I believe that
the creation of a Federal boxing commission would effectively curb
these problems. In the last Congress, the Senate passed by unanimous
consent a bill identical to the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of
2005, and this year I expect quick action to approve the act, beginning
with a Senate Commerce Committee executive session in the very near
future to vote on the legislation and report it to the full Senate. I
am hopeful that your committee and the entire House of Representatives
too will pass legislation that establishes a United States Boxing
Commission and helps to improve the health and safety protections for
professional boxers.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.