Tweet
Being a d-bag is not a crime. No one is saying it is. Saunders has not been charged with a crime.
He has, however, been suspending pending a hearing under the board's misconduct regulation. Clearly they feel they need to consider whether he is guilty of misconduct. He is suspended until that hearing to consider whether he has broken their guidelines/regulations or not in this area. No one is boxing right now anyway, so a suspension until a hearing is not the end of the world.
Furthermore, having a licence to fight is a privilege not a right. Abuse the privilege, you run the risk of losing your licence. The BBBofC has a number of social media guidelines that it recommends its licence holders follows. One of these is to consider whether your opinons and activity are appropriate.
Finally, the BBBofC exercises its authority in the long-term interests of boxing.
We have a high-profile fighter publishing a video for public consumption on the right way to beat women, which he says is meant as a joke. Is it out of the question that his actions might damage the reputation of boxing? Are his actions therefore in the interests of boxing or contrary to the interests of boxing? Are his actions appropriate? These are the things they will weigh up at his hearing. I don't think that is too unreasonable.
He has, however, been suspending pending a hearing under the board's misconduct regulation. Clearly they feel they need to consider whether he is guilty of misconduct. He is suspended until that hearing to consider whether he has broken their guidelines/regulations or not in this area. No one is boxing right now anyway, so a suspension until a hearing is not the end of the world.
Furthermore, having a licence to fight is a privilege not a right. Abuse the privilege, you run the risk of losing your licence. The BBBofC has a number of social media guidelines that it recommends its licence holders follows. One of these is to consider whether your opinons and activity are appropriate.
Finally, the BBBofC exercises its authority in the long-term interests of boxing.
We have a high-profile fighter publishing a video for public consumption on the right way to beat women, which he says is meant as a joke. Is it out of the question that his actions might damage the reputation of boxing? Are his actions therefore in the interests of boxing or contrary to the interests of boxing? Are his actions appropriate? These are the things they will weigh up at his hearing. I don't think that is too unreasonable.
Comment