What the hell do you mean? This is a legal issue, a case was presented in a court of law. The law has everything to do with it.
Not sure how it works in the US. You were talking earlier about the local boxing governing body, not sure whether that is the same as a court. In the UK, such an issue would be dealt with the BBBOC who govern boxing, but they are not a legal jurisdiction. In any case, whether we are dealing with the rules of a sport or something with legislative force, the point is the same. Some offences are influenced by the intent of the offender (eg killing someone, as you said), others are strict liability. If what you said is correct, it seems that this offence is considered strict liability and the boxer considered to be responsible. In which case intent is irrelevant.
I'm curious where your source is for that statement about Martinez.... Seeing how Cintron didn't even consider the kD legitimate!!!
This is not a strict liability case. Only minor offenses, drunk driving, and statutory **** usually fall under strict liability in the U.S. Strict liability doensn't apply to someone else's actions anyway. The court argued that because the trainer is under the umbrella of the fighter, that the fighter is responsible for his actions. However, the trainer is considered an independant contractor. The theory that the court used against Margo traidtionally only holds true with employees in relation to employers. In this case, the trainer is not considered an employee.
I'm just going by what you have stated. I have no idea what statutes are applicable or who has jurisdiction. If everything you have stated is correct, then it shouldn't be hard to get the decision overturned on appeal. Will that be happening soon?
Not neccesarily. They already tried to appeal but appallete court basically said they didn't want to deal with it and stated that the CSAC has broad authority in its ruling.
So either your courts are bent or Margarito's lawyer may not be presenting the whole unvarnished facts?