Tweet
The IBF have explained to BoxingScene exactly why they have upheld their decision to strip Jamie McDonnell of his bantamweight title for failing to tie down his mandatory defence against Vusi Malinga by the organisation’s November 11 deadline.
An appeal against their decision was made on McDonnell’s behalf by Eddie Hearn of Matchroom last week, but the IBF decided that there aren't sufficient grounds for an appeal despite McDonnell releasing an emotive eleventh hour statement urging the governing body to reconsider his case.
The IBF, though, have stood by their decision. ‘The grounds for an appeal are very specific,’ they stated. ‘Based on the IBF rules, he has no grounds to appeal the IBF’s decision to vacate the Bantamweight title. Rule 12.A of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests cites the grounds for appeal which are: 1. Miscalculation of the score where the correct score would change the outcome of the fight; 2. Inappropriate conduct by the referee which is alleged to have affected the outcome of the fight; 3. Misconduct on the part of the judges or referee which is alleged to have had a material effect on the outcome of the fight; 4. Imposition of penalties under Rule 14; and 5. Any other alleged violation of the rules of the IBF/USBA that may have a detrimental effect on the rights of the complainant. [Click Here To Read More]
An appeal against their decision was made on McDonnell’s behalf by Eddie Hearn of Matchroom last week, but the IBF decided that there aren't sufficient grounds for an appeal despite McDonnell releasing an emotive eleventh hour statement urging the governing body to reconsider his case.
The IBF, though, have stood by their decision. ‘The grounds for an appeal are very specific,’ they stated. ‘Based on the IBF rules, he has no grounds to appeal the IBF’s decision to vacate the Bantamweight title. Rule 12.A of the IBF/USBA Rules Governing Championship Contests cites the grounds for appeal which are: 1. Miscalculation of the score where the correct score would change the outcome of the fight; 2. Inappropriate conduct by the referee which is alleged to have affected the outcome of the fight; 3. Misconduct on the part of the judges or referee which is alleged to have had a material effect on the outcome of the fight; 4. Imposition of penalties under Rule 14; and 5. Any other alleged violation of the rules of the IBF/USBA that may have a detrimental effect on the rights of the complainant. [Click Here To Read More]
Comment