Tweet
more............
BRC: Mr. Hall, how long have you been a Commissioner in Indiana?
JHALL: We have a three member commission. I have been a Commissioner for thirteen years, and I have served as Chairman in the past.
BRC: What was your reaction when you first heard that Richard Hall and Roy Jones had tested positive for anabolic steroids following their championship fight in your state?
JHALL: Well, two feelings... One as a boxing fan I was somewhat let down to know that these two fighters failed the tests, specially since I'm a big fan of Roy Jones. But as a Commissioner, they did fail it, and I attempted to do something about it.
I first worked with Fred Levin, the attorney for Roy Jones, and indicated that we were going to declare the fight a 'no contest,' we were going to fine Roy Jones and we were going to suspend him. That didn't get a very good reaction. However, we soon discovered that we didn't have a law that allowed us to do any of those things. So then, I talked to Greg Serb, who at the time was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners. I asked Greg what could we do, because I didn't have a law that said I can take any of those actions.
We went back to Jones' attorney Fred Levin based on my comments and talk with Greg Serb. I said we would ask Roy to take a drug test on his next two fights and send those results to us, and that he (Roy) would make a charitable contribution to a local boxing club. They were very cooperative and they did those two things.
BRC: At what point do you find out Richard Hall failed his test too?
JHALL: We found them out at the same time, I started working with Roy first. In defense of Richard Hall, his attorney at that time was David Slutsker, and he requested that we test the second specimen. We take two specimens, we tested specimen A and he failed that... Mr. Slutsker asked that we test specimen B but after dealing with Roy Jones and finding out we didn't have any authority to do drug testing we did not do the second test. David Slutsker did request, on behalf of Richard Hall, that we do a second test.
BRC: Interesting point... Is it fair to say that you didn't have the authority to even ask Roy to take those additional tests?
JHALL: Correct. They did agree because they wanted to show that Roy was not taking a substance to enhance his performance but if an athlete has a certain period of time and knows that he is going to take a test, well, he has the opportunity to make sure that he has nothing in his system, so, that at least ensured that he wasn't on some enhancing drug prior to those next two fights. Other than that, it didn't mean too much.
BRC: I want to go back to something you said. I believe you said that Greg Serb, who now runs the Pennsylvania Boxing Commission, and who was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners... you spoke to him about this situation with Jones and Hall failing their test... Serb knew and he never went public with this story?!?
JHALL: Well, you know, there were quite a few high profile Commissions that were aware of it. California was aware of it, Louisiana was aware of it, nobody really chose to do anything about it...
BRC: (Rudely interrupting, sorry..) Yes, but you just told me, and forgive me for interrupting, that Mr. Serb was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners. Is that correct?
JHALL: Correct.
BRC: And in that capacity of leadership, I can't believe that he didn't... I can't believe that the whole episode was swept under the rug like that... This story just gets better and better all the time...
JHALL: Well, it's probably, we didn't feel it was our.. you know, to call a press conference and release this information.
BRC: WHY NOT???
JHALL: That's not our job as regulators. We are not newsmakers, we are regulators...
BRC: No, no, no.. wait a second, but let me tell you that as a fan, my comment to that reply would be this... As regulators you have also promised us that you would keep the sport clean, and operating within certain boundaries and we as fans trust that you are doing exactly that. I mean, if Roy had tested positive for marijuana, we would we have heard about it.
JHALL: I don't know that you would have. We wouldn't have released that information, so if the IBF wouldn't release it, I don't know that we would have.
All this information was also sent to the IBF and I know they are not regulators, but they didn't choose to strip him of his belt(s). They didn't choose to take any further action; and partly to their defense it's that they said they wanted to test the second specimen, but my position is, why test the second specimen if he already admitted that he was taking a supplement. So they (IBF) chose not to do anything at that point, but the IBF could have taken some action. In the past they have taken action against some high profile fighters for failing drug tests.
BRC: Why do you think they didn't in this case??
JHALL: I'm not sure that Boxing Commission or sanctioning bodies really give a lot of credit to steroids. They have it in their rules, the sanctioning bodies, if you test positive for steroids, you know, it's an illegal substance but I don"t know -and you would have to ask them- but I don't feel that they think it's serious.
If he had done this in Nevada he would have... like they did with Vargas, a nine months suspension, and ten percent of his purse.. you know, that's pretty substantial... So they think it's serious...
BRC: This may be an unfair question, and if it is I apologize, but is it possible that since both fighters tested positive the attitude was more like... well, this is a wash.
JHALL: I don't believe so; when both of them tested positive it kind of concerned me that maybe we didn't have a good test but we tested all the fighters that night and Roy Jones did say that he failed it. My first reaction was they both tested positive, let's declare the fight a "no contest" and in hindsight we should have tried to do that... Go to Court, I guess, in hindsight; but at the least it should have been declared a "no contest" since they both tested positive.
BRC: Granted that hindsight is 20/20, and you have already made a case for the 'no contest' decision... but if this were to ever happen again, do you feel that there should also be some punishment or penalty?
JHALL: Certainly. The ABC just recently had their convention in San Louis on July 24th. We had a medical committee, it was made up of prominent physicians like Margaret Goodman, Flip Homansky, Dominick Colleta, and a couple of others. These are probably the top ringside doctors in the country. They all recommended that we have certain standards; one of them is that all states have a urine test for illegal substances.
They presented this basic requirement for medical qualifications that we put all the fighters through, so they recommended these items and everybody that was there said they supported these items and that they would go back and pass tests in their own states to insure that all states have a urine test for illegal substances. Now, will they do it? If not that's another reason why you probably are gonna have to have a National Commission, because we have meetings like this, we have all states represented and we vote on items like this, sometimes nothing happens.
BRC: Let me take it a step further, suppose everybody votes for the testing, did you also deal with what would happen if and when someone fails the test? Obviously in your state you did the testing, but it seems like you weren't ready to deal with the aftermath of the double positive findings...
JHALL: That's correct and what I've introduced here in Indiana taking Nevada's drug testing rules, I've adapted them here in Indiana and I've introduced them over the past few years, it hasn't passed but.. it's pretty good. It doesn't require mandatory testing, only random, because of the high cost. I've tried to do that, and all the states that were at the Convention, they indicated that yes, they would go back and introduce rules or legislation that would require a urine test for illegal substances.
BRC: (Struggling...) Mr. Hall, I must tell you that I am floored by what I'm hearing...
JHALL: (Interjecting strongly...) The people SHOULD be floored about the fact that the majority of the states don't do drug testing. If I give a talk at a luncheon or something, and I indicate that we don't do drug tests, they can't believe that! The majority of the public out there believes that all states do drug tests.
You had some high profile fights... like in Memphis, I'm sure they don't do drug tests. I don't think Louisiana does drug tests, and they've had big fights down there, and a lot of these states that are having high profile fights, don't have drug testing on their books.
BRC: That's very disturbing... Extremely!
JHALL: Well, it is. As a boxing fan it is disturbing, as a regulator I found out that we need it here in Indiana. I've introduced it here in Indiana right after the incident with Jones and Hall, it's been 2-1/2 years now and it hasn't been published. I've been told by the Licensing Agency that "they are looking into it."
There is a reluctance because they feel that this is going to cost a lot but they have the cost of these tests down to where they are very reasonable, and you don't do them for every fight, you do them randomly or only for title fights. So, in my mind the cost is not prohibitive."
JHALL: We have a three member commission. I have been a Commissioner for thirteen years, and I have served as Chairman in the past.
BRC: What was your reaction when you first heard that Richard Hall and Roy Jones had tested positive for anabolic steroids following their championship fight in your state?
JHALL: Well, two feelings... One as a boxing fan I was somewhat let down to know that these two fighters failed the tests, specially since I'm a big fan of Roy Jones. But as a Commissioner, they did fail it, and I attempted to do something about it.
I first worked with Fred Levin, the attorney for Roy Jones, and indicated that we were going to declare the fight a 'no contest,' we were going to fine Roy Jones and we were going to suspend him. That didn't get a very good reaction. However, we soon discovered that we didn't have a law that allowed us to do any of those things. So then, I talked to Greg Serb, who at the time was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners. I asked Greg what could we do, because I didn't have a law that said I can take any of those actions.
We went back to Jones' attorney Fred Levin based on my comments and talk with Greg Serb. I said we would ask Roy to take a drug test on his next two fights and send those results to us, and that he (Roy) would make a charitable contribution to a local boxing club. They were very cooperative and they did those two things.
BRC: At what point do you find out Richard Hall failed his test too?
JHALL: We found them out at the same time, I started working with Roy first. In defense of Richard Hall, his attorney at that time was David Slutsker, and he requested that we test the second specimen. We take two specimens, we tested specimen A and he failed that... Mr. Slutsker asked that we test specimen B but after dealing with Roy Jones and finding out we didn't have any authority to do drug testing we did not do the second test. David Slutsker did request, on behalf of Richard Hall, that we do a second test.
BRC: Interesting point... Is it fair to say that you didn't have the authority to even ask Roy to take those additional tests?
JHALL: Correct. They did agree because they wanted to show that Roy was not taking a substance to enhance his performance but if an athlete has a certain period of time and knows that he is going to take a test, well, he has the opportunity to make sure that he has nothing in his system, so, that at least ensured that he wasn't on some enhancing drug prior to those next two fights. Other than that, it didn't mean too much.
BRC: I want to go back to something you said. I believe you said that Greg Serb, who now runs the Pennsylvania Boxing Commission, and who was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners... you spoke to him about this situation with Jones and Hall failing their test... Serb knew and he never went public with this story?!?
JHALL: Well, you know, there were quite a few high profile Commissions that were aware of it. California was aware of it, Louisiana was aware of it, nobody really chose to do anything about it...
BRC: (Rudely interrupting, sorry..) Yes, but you just told me, and forgive me for interrupting, that Mr. Serb was the President of the Association of Boxing Commissioners. Is that correct?
JHALL: Correct.
BRC: And in that capacity of leadership, I can't believe that he didn't... I can't believe that the whole episode was swept under the rug like that... This story just gets better and better all the time...
JHALL: Well, it's probably, we didn't feel it was our.. you know, to call a press conference and release this information.
BRC: WHY NOT???
JHALL: That's not our job as regulators. We are not newsmakers, we are regulators...
BRC: No, no, no.. wait a second, but let me tell you that as a fan, my comment to that reply would be this... As regulators you have also promised us that you would keep the sport clean, and operating within certain boundaries and we as fans trust that you are doing exactly that. I mean, if Roy had tested positive for marijuana, we would we have heard about it.
JHALL: I don't know that you would have. We wouldn't have released that information, so if the IBF wouldn't release it, I don't know that we would have.
All this information was also sent to the IBF and I know they are not regulators, but they didn't choose to strip him of his belt(s). They didn't choose to take any further action; and partly to their defense it's that they said they wanted to test the second specimen, but my position is, why test the second specimen if he already admitted that he was taking a supplement. So they (IBF) chose not to do anything at that point, but the IBF could have taken some action. In the past they have taken action against some high profile fighters for failing drug tests.
BRC: Why do you think they didn't in this case??
JHALL: I'm not sure that Boxing Commission or sanctioning bodies really give a lot of credit to steroids. They have it in their rules, the sanctioning bodies, if you test positive for steroids, you know, it's an illegal substance but I don"t know -and you would have to ask them- but I don't feel that they think it's serious.
If he had done this in Nevada he would have... like they did with Vargas, a nine months suspension, and ten percent of his purse.. you know, that's pretty substantial... So they think it's serious...
BRC: This may be an unfair question, and if it is I apologize, but is it possible that since both fighters tested positive the attitude was more like... well, this is a wash.
JHALL: I don't believe so; when both of them tested positive it kind of concerned me that maybe we didn't have a good test but we tested all the fighters that night and Roy Jones did say that he failed it. My first reaction was they both tested positive, let's declare the fight a "no contest" and in hindsight we should have tried to do that... Go to Court, I guess, in hindsight; but at the least it should have been declared a "no contest" since they both tested positive.
BRC: Granted that hindsight is 20/20, and you have already made a case for the 'no contest' decision... but if this were to ever happen again, do you feel that there should also be some punishment or penalty?
JHALL: Certainly. The ABC just recently had their convention in San Louis on July 24th. We had a medical committee, it was made up of prominent physicians like Margaret Goodman, Flip Homansky, Dominick Colleta, and a couple of others. These are probably the top ringside doctors in the country. They all recommended that we have certain standards; one of them is that all states have a urine test for illegal substances.
They presented this basic requirement for medical qualifications that we put all the fighters through, so they recommended these items and everybody that was there said they supported these items and that they would go back and pass tests in their own states to insure that all states have a urine test for illegal substances. Now, will they do it? If not that's another reason why you probably are gonna have to have a National Commission, because we have meetings like this, we have all states represented and we vote on items like this, sometimes nothing happens.
BRC: Let me take it a step further, suppose everybody votes for the testing, did you also deal with what would happen if and when someone fails the test? Obviously in your state you did the testing, but it seems like you weren't ready to deal with the aftermath of the double positive findings...
JHALL: That's correct and what I've introduced here in Indiana taking Nevada's drug testing rules, I've adapted them here in Indiana and I've introduced them over the past few years, it hasn't passed but.. it's pretty good. It doesn't require mandatory testing, only random, because of the high cost. I've tried to do that, and all the states that were at the Convention, they indicated that yes, they would go back and introduce rules or legislation that would require a urine test for illegal substances.
BRC: (Struggling...) Mr. Hall, I must tell you that I am floored by what I'm hearing...
JHALL: (Interjecting strongly...) The people SHOULD be floored about the fact that the majority of the states don't do drug testing. If I give a talk at a luncheon or something, and I indicate that we don't do drug tests, they can't believe that! The majority of the public out there believes that all states do drug tests.
You had some high profile fights... like in Memphis, I'm sure they don't do drug tests. I don't think Louisiana does drug tests, and they've had big fights down there, and a lot of these states that are having high profile fights, don't have drug testing on their books.
BRC: That's very disturbing... Extremely!
JHALL: Well, it is. As a boxing fan it is disturbing, as a regulator I found out that we need it here in Indiana. I've introduced it here in Indiana right after the incident with Jones and Hall, it's been 2-1/2 years now and it hasn't been published. I've been told by the Licensing Agency that "they are looking into it."
There is a reluctance because they feel that this is going to cost a lot but they have the cost of these tests down to where they are very reasonable, and you don't do them for every fight, you do them randomly or only for title fights. So, in my mind the cost is not prohibitive."
Comment