Where were the brain scans in the 19th Century then? It is always sad when a young fighter is refused a licence due to an anomaly. But the BBB of C do not do this out of spite, there are rules and regulations that they follow, that seemingly the Luxembourg organization does not. There are appeals in place if Weaver and his people feel he has been wronged. I would like to see them take that path rather than going down the Luxembourg option.
I believe after being turned down he then sought two other expert opinions and appealed. This was turned down hence why he's taking this route
Firstly he is licenced by Spain not Lux. Ireland also approved his scans but turned him down because he doesn't qualify for citizenship. You seem to suggest that because the BBBoC turned him down that theirs regs are better than other European sanctioning organisation because they have turned him down. Well the truth is that the BBBC decision making process is inferior to other boards and that they are simply not competent enough to make a decision no matter what evidence is presented by experts. That's a bad thing not a good thing mate.
No what you are saying there is that other boards are prepared to be more flexible with dodgy brain scans. That means their standards arent as high if they arent there to enforce safety what are the BBBC there for? The BBBC have certain criteria that need to be met. How do they look if the pass a licence and Weaver subsequently has problems. I support their decision.
Bernard Dunne boxed with a cyst and if I am not mistaken so did Wayne McCullough. But, having read both of their books, I understand the medical advice given to both of them was that it did not encumber them more than the boxer without a cyst. They had independent medical experts give them the all clear, as did other sanctioning bodies, but not the BBBoC, although in McCullough's case he was belatedly sanctioned.
I understand that there are exceptions to the rule. There are cysts that are just abnormal growths. What also has to be understood is there are also differing opinions within the medical community about certain abnormalities. So in some cases yes the fighter may box and never have a problem. The flip side is they have an underlying problem that could accelerate their risk of serious damage and the sanctioning body has allowed the fighter to fight knowig that existed. In doing so they bring the sport of boxing into disrepute. If a fighter wants to fight in the modern sport he will probably find a way but I think it's acceptable for the BBBC to take his stance
If there is an underlying problem then the independent medics wouldnt give an all clear, that is the point i.e. take independent medical advice and base the decision on this evidence, not 'one size fits all' approach.
No, the BBB of C have to got to be very careful. Remember Watson could of bankrupted them if he had chosen, after he won his case. It is far better that the board leans on the right side of caution, and lets fighters appeal through the appropriate means. If they win, they will duly be licenced.
Watson was a completely different case and his court case win over the Board is typical of how they do business, what we are discussing here has no correlation whatsoever, in terms of the seriousness of the Watson case. They don't change or adapt unless they are brought kicking and screaming (usually a court case). If you want to discuss improving safety, then tell me how often and rigorously are boxers tested to combat doping? What else can be done to improve weight making of boxers so that it is done safely? How rigorous is the application process to be sanctioned as a trainer? etc
That is easy, the BBB of C needs to sign up to WADA guidelines. Of course this would mean all visiting fighters would have to accept this. This may lead to less quality fights. Again fairly easy to answer (target weight leading up to fights). But that would cost fighters money, and fans would have to accept the last minute substitute brought in to save a bill, would be a thing of the past. Another easy one, rigorous standards can be set, and applied through inspections of gyms and a standardized recognition of training et al excellence. But again that would mean, trainers et al having to pay for courses, and fighters giving more of their purse to the BBB of C to help pay and train inspectors. My point is, it is very easy to solve boxing's problems, providing the fighters and to a point, fans, are willing to pay...
That's a load of bollocks though - not my opinion but the opinion of leading neurosurgeons. Now unless you, or someone from the Board, is more experienced in this field then guess what I'm prepared to believe them that whatever they found or the scan was about as dangerous as a wart on your nose.
I am guessing you are not a neurosurgeon either. So for your point to carry weight surely you need to give empirical evidence to back up your argument? As all myself and I believe wrimc as laymen are suggesting is; it is better with the very limited knowledge we have, to be on the side of caution. A judicial system is in place, where experts can argue the merits of Weaver's case, and come to a conclusion that would carry the weight of that expertize. Boring I know, but safety in modern boxing has to be paramount, if we want the sport to have a long term future.
No I'm not a neurosurgeon, failed the final exam and got ****ed off the course. But I do know that more than one neurosurgeon cleared his scans. I am not a stupid person, I love boxing and wouldn't want it's image damaged by something happening in the ring to a fighter. I also understand the BBBoC's position and their safety first policy. But what I can't understand is their head in the sand attitude on this issue. All boxers have to have scans done. That's great. I'm 100% behind that. If something shows up on a scan then the board are fully entitled to suspend a boxers licence pending further investigation. But you can't say to a boxer that he can't have a licence after has gone away and had further investigations done and that showed that whatever the anomaly was that it put him in no greater danger than any other boxer. That's simply not logical.