say what you like about the man, but he is making a good case that does highlight the inconsistencies......
He makes a good case. But the BBBofC case is SIMPLE. It's like this : 1. Chisora has had his BBBofC license taken away, because he's "unfit". 2. The BBBofC considers itself - and has been considered by just about everyone in the UK and the professional boxing authority within these shores. Therefore, 3. Any organisation licensing Chisora to fight within these shores is directly challenging the BBBofC's authority over professional boxing within these shores. Any promoter or other staff involved in such a match are directly opposing and undermining the board's authority. It's simple. I can't believe people are actually saying the BBBofC should just turn a blind eye or roll over for Frank and the Luxembourg board. That would be the end of them as the boxing authority within the UK. Most of Warran's arguments about what the board did in this case and that case, and their hypocrisy, are irrelevant arguments. He's trying to make it more complicated that it is. Truth is, he deliberately DECIDED TO CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BRITISH BOARD OF CONTROL because he wants/needs a big blockbuster fight like this. :good
You do make a good case mate, and that is what makes this situation so interesting; there are good arguments to be made on BOTH sides! One thing that does bother me though............. In light of the news this morning about Scott Harrison and the new allegations, and all the other things we know about him over the past 2-3 years, how can the BBBC think he is a fit person to hold a licence? I have no problems with punishing people when they do wrong, but I am struggling with the inconsistencies here.
