U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–914PDF 2005

UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 3, 2005

Serial No. 109–6

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

Vice Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

Ranking Member

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JIM DAVIS, Florida

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director

JAMES D. BARNETTE, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

JOE BARTON, Texas,

(Ex Officio)

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

Ranking Member

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

JIM DAVIS, Florida

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Schwartz, Michael B., Chairman, American Association of Professional

Ringside Physicians ...................................................................................... 6

Stevens, Ron Scott, Chairman, New York State Athletic Commission ........ 16

Torres, Linda P., Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter,

LLP ................................................................................................................. 10

Additional material submitted for the record:

McCain, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator State of Arizona, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 32

(III)

(1)

UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:34 a.m., in room

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Clifford Stearns

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Cubin, Bass, Pitts,

Murphy, Blackburn, Barton (ex officio), Schakowsky, and Towns.

Staff present: Brian McCullough, professional staff; Chris Leary,

policy coordinator; David Cavicke, chief counsel; Will Carty, professional staff; Billy Harvard, legislative clerk; Julie Fields, special assistant to the policy coordinator; Jon Tripp, deputy press secretary;

Ashley Groesbeck, research assistant; Jessica McNiece, research

assistant.

Mr. STEARNS. Let us start the subcommittee hearing. My colleagues, it was just last year that the subcommittee was honored

by a visit from one of history’s greatest heavyweight fighters, Muhammad Ali. Unfortunately, the account that he gave us about his

sport—his beloved sport, was not full of tall tales about the rumble

in the jungle or the thriller in Manila, but it was a call for additional Federal reforms in the sport of boxing and better protection

for its outstanding athletes.

Mr. Ali told us in no uncertain terms that without further, Federal reforms, the sport of boxing was in grave danger of becoming

irrelevant in the eyes of the public and permanently scarred by

years of scandal and corruption. According to Muhammad Ali and

many other well-known, champion boxers, the problems surrounding professional boxing are not only alienating its fan base,

but also endangering many of its young and talented fighters,

many of whom, of course, are from disadvantaged communities like

Muhammad Ali, and all they want is a fair shot at a better life.

As Muhammad told us ‘‘for all of its difficulties, boxing is still a

wonderful sport. It still attracts men and women from all walks of

life to reach for the glory in the ring.’’

For many, it is their first experience with really hard work, determination, and discipline. For still others, it remains the only

way up and out from a life filled with bad choices, failure, or worse.

Although a lot of a hard—a lot of work has been done to grant

greater Federal oversight over boxing in America, the glamour and

glitz of the big Vegas and Atlantic City bouts continue to obscure

2

the fact that many, many everyday fighters, some 12,000 in the

United States, are facing severe risk of injury and death as they

compete in the roughly 1,000 professional bouts held in relative obscurity here in the United States, every year. And if that was not

enough, those fighters who are lucky enough to avoid the extreme

physical risks in the ring still face exploitation outside of it from

the unsavory characters the sport continues to attract.

To its credit, Congress has been working for over 10 years, trying

to reform the sport at the Federal level. 1996, Congress passed the

Professional Boxing Safety Act that require that all professional

boxing matches be conducted under supervision of an authorized

State boxing commission. That law also created uniform registration and licensing and established safety standards. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Act of 2000 continued the Federal reform effort by

prohibiting Federal—prohibiting financial conflicts of interest between boxing managers and promoters, requiring certain financial

disclosures, and creating new restrictions on contracts between

boxers and promoters and managers.

As we learned at our hearing last year, both of these laws have

been relatively successful in policing boxing at the State and tribal

level, in particular regarding the health and safety of boxers; but

as several witnesses have also told us, the enforcement of these requirements is left to the States and tribal organizations, creating

a patchwork of spotty enforcement, and there is ample opportunity,

my colleagues, to beat the system and simply evade regulation.

Last year’s testimony was full of stories about the boxers who fall

through the cracks and compete, unchecked, in jurisdictions that

are less rigorous when they are banned from others.

For these and other reasons, I do believe that additional Federal

oversight to police the sport of boxing will certainly improve the

lives of ordinary boxers. That is why I, along with my college from

Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, have introduced the United States Boxing Commission Act, H.R. 1065. We believe this bill will create a

new Federal Commission, the United States Boxing Commission,

USBC, which will be located within the Department of Commerce.

The United States Boxing Commission Act specifies the following

in the bill: it requires the USBC to promulgate uniform standards

for professional boxing and consultation—in consultation with the

Association of Boxing Commissioners. It requires the USBC to

oversee all professional boxing matches, except as otherwise determined. It require the USBC to work with the States and tribal organizations to improve the state of professional boxing in the

United States, including creating new standards. It requires that

boxers be licensed every 4 years. It also requires that all managers,

promoters, and sanctioning organizations be licensed by the USBC

every 2 years; this includes giving the USBC the authority to revoke or suspend a license for cause after the opportunity for a

hearing. It allows the USBC to conduct investigations with full

power of subpoena. It requires the USBC to maintain a unified, national, computerized registry for collecting, storing, retrieving information that is relevant to the boxing profession.

This is a tough bill, but it is for a tough sport, my colleagues.

It is also a bill that strikes the right balance between the rights

of local authorities to regulate sports activities in their commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 06:44 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 99914.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
3

nities and the clear need for uniform, Federal standards and enforcement for a dangerous and continued-problem-plague sport. I

believe this bill is the necessary foundation to support the progress

that has been made at the Federal level to protect the lives and

health of these great, hard-working athletes. Passage will also ensure the reestablishment of the integrity and the honor of the great

sport of boxing. With that, I would like to thank my distinguished

panel for coming here this morning, and I look forward to their testimony. Ranking Member Schakowsky?

[The prepared statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD STEARNS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Good Morning. It was just last year that this Subcommittee was honored by a

visit from the one of history’s greatest, Muhammad Ali. Unfortunately, the account

that the Greatest gave us about his beloved sport was not full of tall tales about

the Rumble in the Jungle or the Thriller in Manila, rather it was a call for additional federal reforms in the sport of boxing and better protections for it’s outstanding athletes. Mohammed Ali told us in no uncertain terms that without further

federal reforms, the sport of boxing was in great danger of becoming irrelevant in

the eyes of the public and permanently scarred by years of scandal and corruption.

According to the Greatest and many other well-known champion boxers, the problems surrounding professional boxing are not only alienating its fan base but also

endangering many of its young and talented fighters, many of whom are from disadvantaged communities like Mohammad Ali and just want a fair shot at making

a better life. As Muhammad told us: ‘‘For all its difficulties, boxing is still a wonderful sport. It still attracts men and women from all walks of life to reach for glory

in the ring. For many it is their first experience with hard work, determination and

discipline. For still others it remains the only way up and out from a life filled with

bad choices, failure, or worse.’’

Although a lot of work has been done to grant greater federal oversight over boxing in America, the glamour and glitz of the big Vegas and Atlantic City bouts continues to obscure the fact that many everyday fighters, some 12,000 in the U.S., are

facing severe risk of injury and death as they compete in the roughly one thousand

professional bouts held in relative obscurity here in the United States every year.

And if that was not enough, those fighters who are lucky enough to avoid the extreme physical risks in the ring still face exploitation outside of it from the unsavory

characters the sport continues to attract.

To its credit, the Congress has been working for over a decade trying to reform

the sport at the federal level. In 1996, the Congress passed the Professional Boxing

Safety Act that requiring that all professional boxing matches be conducted under

supervision of an authorized state boxing commission. That law also created uniform registration and licensing and established minimum safety standards. The Muhammad Ali Boxing Act of 2000 continued the federal reform effort by prohibiting

financial conflicts of interests between boxing managers and promoters, requiring

certain financial disclosures, and creating new restrictions on contracts between

boxers and promoters/managers.

As we learned at our hearing last year, both of these laws have been relatively

successful in policing boxing at the state and tribal level, in particular regarding

the health and safety of boxers. But as several witnesses also told us, the enforcement of these requirements is left to the states and tribal organizations creating a

patchwork of spotty enforcement and ample opportunity to beat the system and

evade regulation. Last year’s testimony was full of stories about the boxers who fall

through the cracks and compete unchecked in jurisdictions that are less rigorous

when they are banned in others.

For these and other reasons, I do believe that additional federal oversight to police the sport of boxing will improve the lives of ordinary boxers. This is why I,

along with my colleague from Illinois Ms. Schakowsky, have introduced the United

States Boxing Commission Act, H.R. 1065. This bill will create a new Federal Commission, the United States Boxing Commission (USBC), which will be located within

the Department of Commerce. The United States Boxing Commission Act specifies

the following:

• Requires the USBC to promulgate uniform standards for professional boxing, in

consultation with the Association of Boxing Commissioners.

4

• Requires the USBC to oversee all professional boxing matches, except as otherwise determined. • Requires the USBC to work with the states and tribal organizations to improve

the state of professional boxing in the Unites States, including creating new

standards. • Requires that boxers be licensed every four years, and also requires that all managers, promoters, and sanctioning organizations be licensed by the USBC every

two years. This includes giving the USBC the authority to revoke or suspend

a license for cause after the opportunity for a hearing. • Allows the USBC to conduct investigations with full power of subpoena. • Requires the USBC to maintain a unified national computerized registry for collecting, storing, and retrieving information related to professional boxing.

This is a tough bill for a tough sport. It is also a bill that strikes the right balance

between the rights of local authorities to regulate sports activity in their communities and the clear need for uniform federal standards and enforcement for a dangerous and problem-plagued sport. I believe this bill is the necessary foundation to

support the progress that has been made at the federal level to protect the lives

and health of these great athletes. Passage will also ensure the reestablishment of

the integrity and honor of the great sport of boxing.

With that, I would again like to again graciously thank our distinguished panel

of witnesses for joining us today. We look forward to your testimony. Thank you.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Stearns. I really appreciate your strong statement, and I thank you for holding today’s

hearing on our bill, the United States Boxing Commission Act.

After our hearing last Congress, I think it was quite clear that

the current boxing regulations, which are meant to ensure that

boxers’ health and financial interests are protected, were not being

adhered to as they should be. Not all trainers or fight promoters

are like Clint Eastwood. And we were informed at that hearing, by

the presence and the eloquent testimony of Muhammad Ali and

other great experts, and as a consequence, Chairman Stearns and

I, both, agreed that it was time to do something about this, and I

look forward to working with you, Mr. Stearns, on this bill.

What we are doing is significant. Historically, as you know, the

regulation of boxing has been purely under the jurisdiction of the

States. In the mid-1990’s, when reports of corruption and scandals

became more frequent, Congress decided it was time to take a closer look at that sport; after all, boxing is no small affair. The sport

generates over $500 million in revenue each year, and with the

passage of the Professional Boxing Safety Act in 1996, soon followed by the Muhammad Ali Act in 2000, minimum standards

were set to protect the physical and economic well being of the

boxer, and each State boxing commission was charged with meeting those standards. While some States, such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Nevada have strong boxing commissions that go well

beyond the minimum Federal requirements, there is still concern

that other States are ignoring the regulations.

Many argue that federally mandated health and safety standards

are not being adhered to because no corresponding government regulatory body exists. The absence of a national commission makes

boxing unlike all other major professional sports and I believe

should give us pause. Boxing is also unlike many other sports in

that there are often especially serious physical repercussions. That

means if the health and safety standards are not being met, if the

professionals who are used to monitor boxers’ fitness are not experts in the appropriate medical fields, the boxers’ very lives are

at stake. Approximately 50 boxers have died in the ring over the

last 35 years.

5

Additionally, because so many parties have a financial stake in

each boxing match and their interest may run counter to getting

the boxer the most favorable contract terms, many boxers end up

destitute. In this sense, boxers are like many other kinds of talent

or workers. Their gifts are others fortunes, and they are treated as

disposable assets. Now that networks and broadcasters are acting

more like promoters, but are not subject to the same regulations

that traditional promoters are, I believe that there are new

vulnerabilities in the sport which we should examine. I believe that

is our responsibility to—that it is our responsibility to ensure that

boxers are not being put in the ring without being protecting, both

physically and economically. That what I am so pleased that our

bill establishes the United States Boxing Commission to make sure

that standards are uniform and boxers are protected. I am very

glad that all of our panelists are here with us today to help us determine the best role for the Federal Government to play to ensure

the best interest of those participating in the sport, and I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Chairman Stearns.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague and distinguished member of

the full committee, Mr. Barton.

Chairman BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put

my statement in the records. I want to thank you for the hearing,

thank you for the bipartisanship work that you and Ranking Member Schakowsky have put together on this issue. I want to thank

our witnesses and also thank Senator McCain in the other body for

advocacy for reform. While I am not sure that we have agreement

between this body and the other body in exactly what needs to be

done, both bodies agree that something needs to be done, and this

is a good step, so I want to thank you all for your bipartisanship,

thank our witnesses, and I look forward to being here.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing today, following up on

your hearing last Congress on whether additional legislation was needed to address

the problems in boxing. Despite the powerful presence and words of Muhammad Ali,

that hearing provided some lively debate, as not all witnesses were unanimous on

the need for additional legislation or what it should encompass.

This Committee has enacted legislation twice in the past nine years to improve

the boxing business. Those reforms have made progress and provide boxers today

with greater protections than were available to Muhammad Ali and previous generations of boxers.

Creating a Federal Commission to regulate a sport is a big step for Congress. The

Federal Government simply can’t solve all of society’s problems. Introducing new

Federal regulations is never an easy task, and introducing a new REGULATOR is

even more challenging. Nonetheless, I am happy to work on this legislation and devote Committee resources to examine solutions to some of the problems that have

been identified.

Any Federal legislation needs to ensure we do not create unintended consequences. I am aware of some concerns, for instance, regarding the role of television and cable networks that broadcast boxing matches. We need to be sure not

to implicate other Federal laws outside the scope of this legislation that have negative consequences.

I look forward to working with all the interested parties and to the testimony

today. Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns.

6

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank

you, Chairman Sterns, for holding this hearing and Ranking Member Schakowsky for your work. I agree. Something needs to be

done, and I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R.

1065. I would also like to welcome a fellow New Yorker, of course

Ron Scott Stevens, the chairman of the New York State Athletic

Commission. Good to see you. I look forward to hearing your views

on this legislation, as well as those of other witnesses.

As a longtime boxing fan, I commend the chairman for his effort

to protect the health of boxers and to ensure fairness in the wonderful profession of boxing. Historically, one could argue that there

is no event more exciting than a championship fight where a belt

is on the line. From Sugar Ray Robinson to Muhammad Ali to

Sugar Ray Leonard, championship boxers have captivated the

American public. Let me conclude by saying this: I really feel that

the public is concerned about the integrity of the sport, such as

scoring or refereeing. Others are worried about the health of the

boxers, you know, who continue to fight—it seems sometimes long

past a period that they should. Also, we are concerned about the

fact that a boxer gets knocked out in one State, gets in his car and

drives and goes to fight in another State—or gets on a plane and

goes to fight in another State, and there is nothing to stop that.

More importantly, there are so many sanctioning bodies, the fans

do not even know who the champion is. By creating a centralized

body to create a—uniform standard, it appears that this bill may

help address some of the ills that currently affect the sport.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I really believe in athletics, and of

course—and I think that we should be as supportive as we possibly

can, but when something is broken, we need to fix it. And let me

say to you, this is broken, and we definitely need to fix it. On that

note, I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank my colleague, a gentlelady, Ms. Cubin.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have an opening

statement, but I will have questions later for the panel. Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. Ms. Blackburn? No opening statement?

Okay. Mr. Pitts?

Mr. PITTS. I shall submit my opening statement for the record.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. Mr. Murphy? Okay. With that, we will go

right to the witnesses. Mr. Michael Schwartz, Chairman of the

American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians; Ms.

Linda Torres, Counsel, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney, and Carpenter, on behalf of the International Boxing Federation, you are

here. And Mr. Ron Scott Stevens, Chairman of the New York State

Athletic Commission. Thank you very much for coming. And we

will start, Dr. Schwartz, with you for your opening statement, and

welcome.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL B. SCHWARTZ, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL RINGSIDE PHYSICIANS; LINDA P. TORRES, COUNSEL, McELROY, DEUTSCH,

MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP; AND RON SCOTT STEVENS,

CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE ATHLETIC COMMISSION

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Thank you. My name is Dr. Michael Schwartz.

I am the Chairman and President of the American Association of

7

Professional Ringside Physicians. I am also the Chief Ringside Physician for the State of Connecticut, Foxwood’s Resort Casino and

Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut. In addition, I am a member

of the Medical Advisory Committee for the Association of Boxing

Commissions. I am a board-certified internist, and I have a private

practice in Darien Connecticut. And I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify in this most important legislation.

I started working as a ringside physician in 1991, first as an

amateur in amateur boxing, and then, ultimately, in professional,

and I quickly recognized the lack of safeguards to protect these

athletes. In 1997, we were working a fight with Roy Jones, Jr. and

before the fight, none of the medical requirements that we had required were there; and this was a very common situation that I

would—that would be incurred each time I would have a fight. And

I struggled to get all of the medical documentation in, and we

saved the fight, literally, an hour before the fight, so some of the

commissioners came to me and said, well, we think it is broken—

boxing is broken, and why don’t you try to fix it, Dr. Schwartz. So

in 1997, I formed an association of ringside physicians to try to

standardize the medical aspects of the sport. Right now, we are a

non-for-profit organization. We have about 350 ringside physicians

around the country and some international now, to address issues

pertaining to boxing safety, including medical testing, standardization of medical requirements, the creation of a medical data bank,

and a comprehensive certification program, which we recently introduced to ensure that only qualified physicians work as ringside

physicians. Anecdotally, we have heard stories of chiropractors and

veterinarians acting as the physicians and sometimes simply physician assistants or nurses. We recently started a medical assistance

program to help boxers who don’t have health insurance and a

medical review board to help with issues pertaining to boxing medical safety. We have an annual medical seminar to educate physicians, to share ideas, and to discuss relevant boxing safety. Our

goal is to identify those boxers who should never step into the ring

in the first place. By not allowing them to get in the ring, perhaps

we could decrease the risk of mortality and morbidity in the boxing

arena.

We are the only major sport that does not have a commission.

Baseball, football, hockey, basketball all have commission. Even

sports that are individual sports that are individual sports, like

tennis, golf, bowling, have commissions. We don’t.

Commissions are necessary for standardization of the sport.

Right now, we have no standardization from State to State. In

2003, the ABC Medical Advisory Board came up with what we

thought were minimum medical standards to address these issues.

The ABC voted and agreed on it. The AAPRP, later that year, ratified and agreed with these minimal medical standards; however,

almost no States adopted these. These included things like CAT

scans, MRIs, blood tests, dilated eye exams amongst other things,

and unfortunately a lot of States did not adopt these, claiming that

it either was a legislative issue or a cost issue or they just chose

not to do it. States like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Nevada have either adopted these or exceeded these; other States

8

don’t. Therefore, we have boxers and managers that are now State

shopping. If they know there is something wrong, they are going

to go to a State that does not require that, and they are going to

be able to compete.

I only find out about these things when they come to my State

and I require the tests. I have found issues such as hepatitis, brain

injuries, eye damage, seizure disorders, boxers fighting on

Coumadin, which is a blood thinner. In addition, we need a medical

registry or a data bank to maintain these medical tests. We have

had situations where I have received 7 electrocardiograms—that is

a heart test—the same EKG. All they did was whited out the name

and copied it and gave it to me. If there was an administrative responsible for organizing all of these tests, then we would be able

to just simply download it off the Internet, and we would be able

identify those boxers at risk. In addition, a lot of kids have these

tests in other States and don’t know where they put the results.

We make them get it again, and it costs—an additional cost to

them.

There are several bills right now, I know, in the Senate and in

the Congress that address forming a boxing committee, a boxing organizing/boxing commission. Regardless of what bill is ultimately

passed, it must establish the minimum medical and safety issues

that are necessary to protect these individuals. It must define a

doctor as an MD or a DO. It must establish a medical registry. It

must make sure that the physicians are qualified through education/certification. And most—the most important thing is that we

protect these kids so that they have a life after boxing. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Michael B. Schwartz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION

OF PROFESSIONAL RINGSIDE PHYSICIANS

I am Dr. Michael Schwartz, Chairman of the American Association of Professional

Ringside Physicians (the ‘‘AAPRP’’), a not for profit organization comprised of approximately 350 ringside physicians throughout the world. In addition, I am the

chief ringside physician for the State of Connecticut, Mohegan Sun Casino and

Foxwoods Resort Casino. I am also a member of the Medical Advisory Board for the

Association of Boxing Commissions (the ‘‘ABC’’). I have been a ringside physician

since 1991 and have served as the chief ringside physician at over 200 boxing

matches. I am board certified in Internal Medicine and have a private practice in

Darien, Connecticut.

I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (the ‘‘Committee’’) for this opportunity to testify with respect to the proposed

United States Boxing Commission Act (the ‘‘Proposed Bill’’). As a ringside physician,

my goal has always been to promote the safety and protection of the individual

fighter. In 1991, when I first started to work as a ringside physician, I became

aware that boxing, an inherently dangerous sport, lacked necessary safeguards to

protect the participants. As a result, I formed the AAPRP, to addresses issues pertaining to boxing safety including medical testing, standardization of medical requirements, the creation of a medical data bank and the creation of a comprehensive

certification program which will insure that only qualified and experienced physicians act as the primary ringside doctor at boxing matches. In addition, the AAPRP

conducts yearly medical seminars to educate physicians, create a forum for the sharing of ideas and the discussion of relevant issues to boxing safety.

Through the hard work of our members, I believe that the AAPRP has indeed improved the current medical environment for the professional boxer which has resulted in a decrease of serious injuries and, quite possibly, deaths in professional

boxing. Unfortunately, much of the great work accomplished by the AAPRP has not

been adopted by many States or other boxing jurisdictions. Without a centralized

national boxing commission, the fighter is not guaranteed the safe setting, with an

appropriately trained ringside physician, that he or she justly deserves. Indeed, I

9

am aware of many situations where ambulances are not available at the boxing

venue for emergencies. Moreover, I know that many professional boxing matches

have gone forward without physicians experienced in ringside medicine present. For

example, while physicians trained in the practices of obstetrics and gynecology, dermatology or psychiatry are surely capable of being excellent ringside physicians,

without prior experience they clearly are not trained in disciplines which would give

them the proper insight to assist an injured boxer or detect a symptom prior to permitting such boxer to fight. In fact, there have been reports of chiropractors and

even veterinarians acting as primary ringside physicians.

Boxing is the only major sport without a national commission. Baseball, football,

basketball and hockey are all governed by national commissions. In fact, even individual sports such as tennis, golf and bowling have commissions. These commissions

assure standardization regardless of where a competition may take place. The rules

in one venue are the same in another. In addition, all athletes are entitled to receive

the same medical evaluation and treatment no matter where the match may take

place. This is not, however, the situation in boxing. With respect to professional boxing, medical requirements and care differ from venue to venue. For example, in the

state of Connecticut, each competitor is required to have a complete physical examination, a dilated eye exam, an electrocardiogram, a CT scan or MRI of the brain,

blood testing including HIV, hepatitis B and C, as well as a pre and post fight physical examination. Some jurisdictions, however, require nothing more than a pre-fight

‘‘mini-physical’’ examination. This can, and I believe has, resulted in athletes being

exposed to significant risk since certain underlying medical conditions will not be

identified without a complete pre-fight physical examination and essential testing.

In my experience, as a result of a review of medical examinations and tests required

by the Connecticut State Commission, and the Manshantucket Pequot and Mohegan

Tribal Commissions, I have discovered many life threatening issues including infectious hepatitis B, brain abnormalities and cardiac arrhythmia’s, as well as illicit

drug use which can impede a fighters’ ability to perform as he or she should. Many

of these health limitations were identified only because of the pre-fight requirements of these Commissions. Regrettably, these same fighters fought multiple times

in other jurisdictions which failed to identify these abnormal health issues simply

because the physicians could not look for them. Without standardized medical requirements in boxing we may never know how many deaths or chronic injuries

might have been prevented.

In 2003, the medical advisory board of the ABC proposed minimum medical requirements for all jurisdictions to incorporate in authorizing a boxer to fight. The

AAPRP quickly ratified and endorsed these requirements and applauds the efforts

of the ABC. However, notwithstanding the ABC’s recommendation, I understand

that most boxing jurisdictions have elected not to adopt these recommendations citing cost or legislative concerns (some simply chose not to adopt them without any

explanation). As a result, boxers and managers now ‘‘state shop,’’ i.e., when a fighter

has a pre-existing medical condition which would preclude their participation in one

jurisdiction, they simply find a jurisdiction without requirements in place to identify

their medical abnormality and fight there. Undoubtedly, without a centralized commission established and governed by official regulation, there will never be uniformity amongst the various commissions throughout the United States.

In addition, there is no medical registry or data bank to document and maintain

results of medical tests. Fighters are often required to unnecessarily repeat medical

tests, at a significant cost, since they are unable to produce the proof or documentation of previous test results. The expense of repetitive testing, often prohibitive to

some fighters and managers, has resulted in unscrupulous attempts to ‘‘beat the

system.’’ For example, one afternoon I received the identical electrocardiogram

(EKG) for seven different fighters during their pre-fight physicals. Apparently, the

manager had ‘‘whited-out’’ the name on one healthy test and inserted each fighter’s

information onto a copy of the document. If a central agency was responsible for

evaluating and recording these medical records, ringside physicians would be able

to track each fighter’s personal medical history without concern of such potential deceit. Also, if this information was available to ringside physicians via the internet,

the doctors would have an additional tool for immediately identifying those who are

at risk for injury before conducting a pre-fight physical examination. Moreover, this

information could also be utilized as a means to further study and research the

medical aspects of boxing. Unfortunately, medical research into boxing safety is

practically non-existent. Additionally, those individuals who are conducting research

have difficulty acquiring information and basically no funding to support their studies. This helpful information could be made available if there was an administrative

body responsible for organizing and maintaining a data bank program.

10

As this Committee is obviously aware, recently on January 25, 2005, Senator

John McCain introduced S.148, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005.

Similarly, on February 1, 2005, Congressman Peter King proposed H.R. 468, the

‘‘Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005.’’ Both of these bills were proposed

‘‘[t]o establish a United States Boxing Commission to administer the Act, and for

other purposes.’’ It is important to note that in addition to establishing a national

commission on boxing, both S.148 and H.R. 468 address the necessity of regulation

with respect to the medical aspects related to the sport of boxing. For example,

these bills define the term ‘‘Physician’’ as used in the Act, as a doctor of medicine

legally authorized to practice medicine by the State in which the physician performs

such function and who has training and experience in dealing with sports injuries,

particularly head trauma. In addition, they provide for the establishment and maintenance of a medical registry which would contain comprehensive medical records,

denials and suspensions for every licensed boxer.

The AAPRP continues to work diligently in its efforts to make boxing safer for

the individual boxer, consequently improving the respectability and credibility of the

sport. Notwithstanding the AAPRP’s selfless efforts, it has become increasingly difficult to preserve and protect the boxer’s health absent standardization, information

sharing and legislative backing. Boxing needs a centralized commission. A centralized commission will assist the ringside physician, whose sole goal is to make the

sport as safe as possible for the individual boxer. As chairman of the AAPRP, and

individually as a concerned and dedicated ringside physician, I urge this Committee

to adopt legislation that makes safety its first priority when forming a national commission for boxing. Accordingly, it is my opinion that any legislation which creates

a Federal Boxing Commission, including the proposed Bill, must definitively address

the medical aspects of the sport and unconditionally provide support for medical research and maintenance of a centralized medical data bank similar to that proposed

by S.148 and H.R.468.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you. Ms. Torres, welcome.

STATEMENT OF LINDA P. TORRES

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, and thank you for inviting us, Chairman Stearns, and——

Mr. STEARNS. You might pull the mic a litter closer to you.

Ms. TORRES. Sure.

Mr. STEARNS. Oh.

Ms. TORRES. Is that better?

Mr. STEARNS. That is better.

Ms. TORRES. Okay.

Mr. STEARNS. Thanks.

Ms. TORRES. Thank you, Chairman Stearns and the members of

the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. We are here today—I am here today, representing both the

International Boxing Federation and the World Boxing Association.

That would be 2 different sanctioning organizations. I would like

to address, actually, something that was said by Mr. Towns of New

York, who apparently just left the room for a moment. He mentioned one of the difficulties in the world of boxing right now is

that there are so many sanctioning bodies the public does not know

who the champion is. I don’t know that having a national boxing

commission will be actually doing away with any of the sanctioning

organizations. What it can do is make sure that the organizations

adhere to the provisions that are already in place, such as posting

rating, posting ratings changes, posting bylaws, and making an appeal process available to boxers to contest their ratings; but I don’t

know that this commission can actually disband any private business that have been set up.

11

The positive thing about having multiple sanctioning organizations is that they are giving more and more boxers the opportunity

to work their way up in the rankings of the organizations and actually fight for a title. If you only had 1 group, you would only have

17 weight classes and 15 people in each weight class, and that

would be it. With more than 1 organization, you have got more people being permitted to fight for titles, and you have go the possibility of the champions unifying the titles by either getting 2 titles

or 3 major titles.

The—I think the purpose—the stated purpose of the boxing commission, which is to protect the interests of boxers and to ensure

uniformity, fairness, and integrity and prevent—in professional

boxing is laudable. The actual bill does not specifically address how

any of this is going to be done. When it talks about something like

the commission overseeing all professional boxing matches—on any

given weekend in many different states, there are a lot of bout

cards being produced. I don’t know what the commission is going

to actually do with those fights. Are they going to hire people and

send them there? Are they going to review the contract? So again,

to state certain things is one thing. To actually carry them out and

figure out how to do them is of interest to most people in the industry, to see how it will be done.

In reviewing the substance of 1065, I was somewhat concerned

that the aspect of health and safely was relegated to somebody

publishing a report in a year or 2 on the standardization of health

and safety. That is a major issue at the moment. Certain States require ambulances to be at the site; others don’t. Certain States require extensive testing for infectious diseases, and other States

don’t. I think if you are going to protect the boxer, you have got

to protect the health and safety, and perhaps that should be

brought a little more to the forefront of this bill.

Regarding the licensing provisions, as the bill is drafted right

now, again, it is very general as to the grounds for suspending or

revoking a license of a manager, a promoter, or a sanctioning organization. There are some grounds that say it—a reasonable ground

for belief that a standard is not being met. Since there are no

standards in the bill yet—and this is just a general bill-settingup—the commission—it is difficult how that will be—will play out

and be enforced in the future. Another reason for suspension or

revocation of a license is in the public interest. In the sport of boxing, you may have 1 Internet writer who has a very different view

of the public interest than a boxer would or than a promoter or a

manager would. So again, it is a little vague at this point in time.

Regarding the funding from the licensing fees, there is a provision in the bill that states that promoter and sanctioning organization—are to pay the largest proportion of the fees. I don’t know if

the committee is aware of the type of fees that a sanctioning organization charges and for what fights. The sanctioning organization

only charges a fee for a world championship title fight. Many of the

fights that you see on ESPN and MSG are not world championship

title fights. When there is a title fight, the organization receives a

maximum of 3 percent of the fighter’s purse. The organizations will

also charge a nominal fee of $1,000 a boxer, no matter what the

boxer is making, on a fight that is called an eliminator. That is a

12

fight between 2 ranked boxers in order to attain the position of

number 1 or number 2 in the ranking to entitle them to then move

up and fight for the title.

The persons who make the most money on these major fights are

clearly the networks. The networks are making millions of dollars.

They are also dictating who boxers can fight and rejecting certain

opponents and not allowing them to fight certain opponents. They

are entering into long-term contracts with boxers, and they actually act as promoters. To regulate an industry, a major player are

the networks, and they should be included.

As recently as yesterday in the New York Daily News, there was

a quote regarding a certain fight. It says—this is an article by Tim

Smith, I believe. It says ‘‘and Showtime, needing a worthy opponent for its broadcast, on a free-preview weekend, no less, wouldn’t

accept just anybody.’’ So regardless of the rules of a sanctioning organization that may say a champion must fight the next leading,

available contender who has been designated the mandatory opponent, sometimes the networks just won’t buy it. If you did not have

sanctioning organizations, every single match you saw would only

be controlled by the networks and the media darlings would be the

only boxers you would see over and over. The organizations exist

to give up-and-coming, young boxers an opportunity to fight for a

title.

Mr. STEARNS. We just need you to sum up, if you couldn’t. You

are about 21⁄2, almost 3 minutes over.

Ms. TORRES. I am sorry.

Mr. STEARNS. No, that is okay.

Ms. TORRES. I am finished.

[The prepared statement of Linda P. Torres follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LINDA P. TORRES, LEGAL ADVISOR TO THE INTERNATIONAL

BOXING FEDERATION, INC.

Chairman Stearns, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Linda Torres and

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the views of the International

Boxing Federation, Inc. (IBF). Over the past few years, the International Boxing

Federation Inc. has worked with the World Boxing Association (WBA) on efforts to

improve the sport of boxing, and I have been authorized by the WBA to submit this

testimony on behalf of both organizations, in order to provide you with a broad perspective from world sanctioning bodies. Both the IBF and WBA are sanctioning organizations with international membership and affiliations with regional boxing federations in other countries.

Of the hundreds of sports that are practiced in the United States, we are unaware

of any that are comprehensively regulated by a United States federal agency. That

is why we are here today. While a recent test revealed that between 5 and 7 percent

of major-league baseball players tested positive for steroids, professional baseball is

not comprehensively regulated by a federal agency. While NASCAR drivers travel

at speeds of up to nearly 200 miles per hour which has led to notable deaths and

injuries, race car driving is not comprehensively regulated by the federal government. Even kickboxing, where participants can strike each other with elbows and

kicks to the head, and mixed martial arts, where participants can hold another

human being against a chain linked cage and beat them into submission or unconsciousness, are not regulated by the federal government. Instead, we are here today

to discuss why boxing should be the only sport in the United States to be comprehensively regulated by the United States government, through the establishment

of a new federal agency, solely dedicated to the oversight of the sport of boxing.

We have heard the arguments for federal oversight. However, unlike some of the

sports that I previously mentioned, boxing is already regulated by nearly every state

in the United States. Additionally, a union has recently been formed for boxers, and

there are dozens of promoters, and hundreds of managers, trainers, and matchmakers in the sport. There is even an Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC),

13

an organization comprised of employees of state boxing commissions, that is working

to standardize the rules and administration of boxing throughout the United States.

They have developed unified rules for professional boxing contests and have made

suggestions for the criteria for the ranking of fighters that the IBF, WBA and other

world sanctioning organizations are urged to adopt. To date, the organizations have

incorporated the ratings criteria suggested by the ABC into their own sets of criteria. We are presently working with the ABC on reviewing newly suggested criteria.

The IBF and WBA are aware that there is room for improvement in the sport of

boxing. In order to address the problems that plague the sport, the IBF has taken

a lead role by bringing interested parties in the sport of boxing together to openly

discuss improvements that can be made. At our annual convention last June in San

Francisco, the IBF invited the boxing world, including this committee, to a discussion titled, ‘‘The Future of Professional Boxing,’’ which was an open discussion of

the issues that need to be addressed in the sport of boxing (see APPENDIX A). Panelists for this event included New Jersey Athletic Commissioner Larry Hazzard,

international matchmaker Carl Moretti, and IBF World Heavyweight Champion

Chris Byrd. When President Bush proposed a White House ‘‘summit’’ on steroid use

in sports, the IBF and WBA informed the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s

Assistant Deputy Director that the two organizations are committed to

‘‘maintain[ing] the integrity of the sport of boxing’’ and ‘‘protect[ing] the health and

safety of fighters’’ and would be happy to attend (see APPENDIX B).

The IBF and WBA do not believe that the federal government should create a new

federal agency to regulate the sport of boxing. Rather, the organizations believe that

the boxing industry itself should be allowed to address the sport’s problems, as other

sports do. Specifically, Congress could direct the Association of Boxing Commissions

to establish minimum health and safety requirements for boxers to be adopted by

each state. This would insure, for example, that each state has the appropriate medical equipment and personnel present at a boxing match, and that each state tests

fighters for infectious diseases such as HIV, Hepatitis C and other performance enhancing drugs and steroids. This would allow Congress to address the health and

safety issues in the sport without having to create and fund a federal agency to

oversee the sport.

Having expressed our concerns and belief that it is not necessary for Congress to

create a new federal agency to oversee boxing, if Congress intends to regulate the

sport through a new federal agency, the United States Boxing Commission Act is

the best model for accomplishing this task. While other bills have been proposed,

they would attempt to micromanage the sport of boxing. The United States Boxing

Commission Act, on the other hand, recognizes that boxing is an international sport

and instead focuses on the health and safety of boxers and the standardization of

practices throughout the states in the interest of commerce, trade and consumer

protection. However, in these interests, the IBF and WBA believe that several minor

changes should be made to the bill. They are as follows:

1. The United States Boxing Commission Act should be amended to assure

that law abiding individuals and entities are not put out of business

The United States Boxing Commission Act requires boxing managers, promoters

and sanctioning organizations to obtain a license from the United States Boxing

Commission (created in the bill) in order to work fights in the United States (Section 4). However, this license can be taken away if ‘‘there are reasonable grounds

for belief that a standard prescribed by the Commission . . . is not being met’’ or that

‘‘the suspension or revocation [is] in the public interest’’ [Section 7 (1) B,C]. It appears that, a law abiding individual or entity could have its license taken away, and

essentially be put out of business (as a license is required to work in the United

States), without it ever being demonstrated that the individual or entity did anything wrong. ‘‘Reasonable grounds for belief’’ and the ‘‘public interest’’ are undefined

and very vague. A licensee should only lose its license if it has actually been proven,

upon notice and after hearing, that it has done something illegal or in violation of

the statute.

2. The United States Boxing Commission Act should be amended to reflect

the financial reality of the sport

The United States Boxing Commission Act would require sanctioning organizations and promoters to pay the largest portion of licensing fees [Section 4 (b) 2B].

Promoters, televisions networks and cable companies often make millions of dollars

on professional boxing matches. In contrast, sanctioning organizations only collect

up to a maximum of 3% of a fighter’s purse (how much the fighter is paid) in a

championship fight. Nominal fees are paid for eliminators. There are no sanctioning

14

fees paid at all unless the bout is a title fight of eliminator in a weight class. The

bulk of the revenue from a fight is typically split with the largest portions going

to the networks, promoters, managers and fighters. Therefore, it would be unfair for

sanctioning bodies to pay ‘‘comparatively the largest portion’’ of fees, when they are

comparatively paid much less than other licensed parties.

3. The United States Boxing Commission Act fails to regulate the largest

players in professional boxing

The United States Boxing Commission Act fails to regulate television networks

and cable and satellite service providers (herein collectively referred to as ‘‘networks’’). While, on the surface, networks appear to only broadcast boxing matches

to a viewing audience, in fact, they play a much larger role in the sport of boxing.

They are actively involved in the business of promoting fights and enter into long

term contracts with boxers, requiring them to fight only for the subject network and

only against opponents that they approve.

The networks dictate the dates of the bouts and the amount that will be paid to

the boxers for each fight. Additionally, they require that certain bouts be held for

certain titles and have provisions in their contracts stipulating that certain belts be

at stake for them to finance a show. Furthermore, the networks select the opponents

of their boxers under contract without regard to the rules and ratings of sanctioning

organizations. Sanctioning organizations have rules to insure the orderly defense of

titles and to make sure that those boxers who have earned the right to fight for

the title, that is, who are in a ‘‘mandatory’’ position, are allowed to fight for the title

within a specified time frame. The ‘‘mandatory’’ may not be the media darling and

the network may refuse to buy the fight required by the organization’s rules. Finally, networks derive huge sums of money from professional fights, especially on

high priced, pay-per-view bouts. Absolving networks from a regulatory licensing

structure of boxers and boxing personnel would be detrimental to positive boxing reform.In addition to the changes outlined above, the IBF and WBA believe that the

Committee should also consider:

1. Whether the federal government really wants to ‘‘intervene in civil actions’’ [Section 7 (c)].

The United States Boxing Commission Act would allow the United States Boxing

Commission to intervene in civil actions on behalf of the public interest. Federal

courts and state courts have rules governing permissive intervention in lawsuits. If

successful, on a motion to intervene, the United States would become a party to the

litigation. Litigation is costly and time consuming. What is in the ‘‘public interest’’

is open to interpretation. The government’s objective can be met by filing an amicus

brief in the court on behalf of the public as opposed to actually becoming a party

on the lawsuit.

2. How can the United States Boxing Commission Act help to assure that

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and state governments are not

cheated on the taxes that they collect from boxing matches held in

their jurisdictions?

Over the past few years, some fighters have begun to understate their total compensation for a fight in the official bout agreements that they file with the state

boxing commission where the fight is held. In some instances, fighters are not reporting millions of dollars that they are earning. If this money is not being reported

to the states, it is likely that it is not being reported to the IRS either. This impacts

not only state and federal government revenues, but the sanctioning organizations

as well which are not informed of the true purses and, thus, cannot collect the proper sanctioning fees. Any action that the Committee could take to correct this problem would not only be in the best interest of government, but also in the interest

of the business.

The IBF and WBA appreciate the work of the Committee and its interest in improving the sport of boxing. While we do not believe that it is necessary to create

a new federal agency to oversee the regulation of boxing, we believe that steps can

be taken to improve the sport. Since the passage of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (H.R. 1832) in 2000, the IBF and WBA have taken a lead role in working

to maintain the integrity of the sport and in addressing problems within the sport.

We will continue in these efforts and ask that you to work with us to bring the boxing industry together to address its problems, as other sports do, before creating a

new federal agency. Together we can improve the sport for boxing participants, boxing personnel and boxing fans around the world.

15

APPENDIX A

SMITH ALLING LANE

WASHINGTON, DC

May 5, 2005

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & COMMERCE

United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Invitation—Issues in Professional Boxing

DEAR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND STAFF: The International Boxing Federation

(IBF) would like to invite you to a session entitled The Future of Professional Boxing

during the IBF Annual Convention on Thursday, June 3rd from 3:00-6:00 p.m. at

the Argent Hotel in San Francisco, California.

The purpose of this session will be to discuss improvements that can be made

within the sport of boxing, various policy issues, and models for regulation, including Senator McCain’s proposal to establish a National Boxing Commission (S. 275).

Specific topics for the policy session will include:

• How can the sport of boxing be improved? • Is congressional legislation necessary? • Do we need a national commission? • Can the boxing industry come together to improve the sport?

The outcomes of this historic meeting could drastically affect the future of professional boxing. During the meeting, boxers, promoters, state commissioners, sanctioning bodies, officials and other boxing personnel will discuss the status of the

boxing industry and develop recommendations for improving the sport.

We would be honored to host any congressional delegate(s) and ask that you

please RSVP for this event by calling Noah Reandeau at (253) 627-1091.

Sincerely,

NOAH REANDEAU

APPENDIX B

SMITH ALLING LANE

WASHINGTON, DC

May 8, 2005

NORMAN DECK

Assistant to Deputy Director

Office of National Drug Control Policy

750 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20503

DEAR MR. DECK, The International Boxing Federation (IBF) and World Boxing

Association (WBA) would like to express their interest in attending the White

House’s proposed summit on steroid use by athletes.

While marijuana and cocaine are the primary sources of substance abuse among

boxers, steroid use is a growing concern. Unlike marijuana and cocaine, which are

used for their addictive properties, steroids are used to gain a competitive advantage. This advantage is unfair to boxers who abide by the rules, is detrimental to

the health of the steroid user, is often against the law, sets a bad example for the

public, and can lead other competitors to begin using to ‘‘keep up’’ with the competition.

The IBF and WBA support President Bush’s efforts to address steroid use by athletes. Both professional boxing sanctioning organizations are committed to maintaining the integrity of the sport of boxing and care about the health and welfare of

boxers. Therefore, they are committed to finding solutions to this growing problem.

If the IBF and WBA were invited to the proposed summit, they could present information on the problem of steroid use in boxing and efforts that have been taken

to address steroid use within the sport. Additionally, they could learn about the actions that other sports have taken to address this problem. Finally, after the summit, the organizations could meet with industry representatives to discuss any additional measures that could be taken to protect the health and safety of fighters.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do

not hesitate to contact me. I may be reached at (253) 627-1091.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

NOAH REANDEAU

Mr. STEARNS. All right. That is good. Mr. Stevens, welcome.

16

STATEMENT OF RON SCOTT STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. On behalf of the State of New York and Governor

Pataki, I would like to thank Chairman Cliff Stearns and members

of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer

Protection for inviting me to speak on reform and Federal oversight

of the sport of professional boxing.

Boxing is being glamorized today on reality television shows in

the movies, but there are no Clint Eastwoods or Sylvester Stallones

in the timeworn gym in poor neighborhoods where young boxers

dream the dream. Their chances of succeeding, of becoming a contender, no less a champion, face enormous odds. Nevertheless, their

numbers are great; just look at the crop of Golden Glove entries

each year. The New York Golden Gloves had 660 entries, up from

600 a year ago, with most hoping 1 day to turn pro—so many who

dream. Some are skilled, and some are not so skilled. Ladies and

gentlemen, boxing is, figuratively speaking, a risky, bare-knuckled

sport. That is why those of us who are charged with regulating it

have no room for error, because we are dealing with life and death

during every 3-minute round.

For the past 25 years, I have covered the waterfront when it

comes to professional boxing, primarily as a matchmaker and a

promoter. Based on my experience, Governor Pataki appointed me

as the Chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission on

June 10, 2003. I have learned much over the period of time that

I have been involved in professional boxing, and I would like to

take this opportunity to share some of my observations with all of

you.

A Federal bill to protect the general welfare of boxers and to ensure nationwide fairness in the sport of professional boxing is a

noble idea whose time has come, but if I may, please allow me to

repeat the words of the former 3-time heavyweight champion, Muhammad Ali, who said on September 9, 2004, before this same subcommittee, ‘‘there is nothing wrong with boxing that we in boxing

cannot fix.’’

I would like to add that there are at present many competent

and hard-working commissions, both big and small, who should be

given a voice in this process. First, I would advocate minimum national standards for medical exams. However, nothing should prohibit any State from enforcing local standards that exceed the minimum requirements. In New York, for example, a boxer must pass

several medical exams before he or she is permitted to box, such

as an MRI, an ophthalmologic exam, an EKG, a full physical exam,

and blood screening for HIV, hepatitis B surface antigen, and hepatitis C virus antibody. A final pre-fight, mini-physical is also performed at the venue, prior to the bout. Only Nevada has a similar

standard. It should be noted that States like New Jersey and Connecticut substitute CAT scans for MRIs—they can use either one—

and that conforms to the Association of Boxing Commission’s medical recommendations.

Conversely, to my knowledge, 12 States only require pre-fight

physicals and nothing else. This often leads to forum shopping, as

Dr. Schwartz mentioned, by boxers and their handlers who avoid

well-regulated jurisdictions, knowing their boxers might not pass

17

the medical exams previously mentioned. This could possibly compromise the boxer’s health and safety.

If medical records can be centrally controlled, maintained, and

disseminated—a national data base, if you will—a powerful tool

will have been created, which could minimize the risk of injury to

boxers. Most importantly, this will dramatically reduce the chances

of a boxer developing putralistic dementia, also known as punchdrunk syndrome.

Second, in the name of fair play, rules and regulations must not

deviate from State to State. Since rules do not deviate in other

major sports, then why should they in boxing? Questions often rise

among licensees such as is there a mandatory 8 count in New

York? Is there a standing 8-count in California? Is there a 3-knockdown rule in Nevada? Can a boxer be saved by the bell in Texas?

Uniform rules must be adopted and enforced.

Third—and this is a major, probably more major than—like I say

here, it is the issue—I would like to address the issue of the business of boxing, but that discussion would take a lifetime.

Therefore, let me just say, for now, that all licensees, whether

they boxers, promoters, managers, trainers, seconds or matchmakers, are entitled to have their right enforced without them having to go to civil court to address perceived wrongs; they don’t in

most other sports. There are a number of ways boxing licensees can

be protected from the heavy burden of legal fees and the time consideration of litigation. An effective form of arbitration and mediation as well as standardized contracts should be provided, as they

are in other major, professional sports. Also, it should be noted that

New York has the discretion to recognize and enforce out-of-state

findings by way of comedy. I would recommend that comedy be

mandatory, nationwide.

Fourth, a national commission must try to find a way to create

a pension fund for boxers and other licensees who make boxing

their full-time profession. Athletes in other professional sports are

protected. Managers are protected; coaches are protected; scouts

and umpires are protected. It can be done, and it must be done in

some way and in some form.

Fifth, with all due respect to this committee, I think there is another organizational structure that should be considered. I agree

with the concept of 3 commissioners, but unlike the current model,

I strongly urge that there should be a full-time chairman for commissioner. In New York, for example, the commission consists of 3

members who are appointed by the Governor, with the Governor

designating one of the members as a full-time chairman. All are

appointed for terms of 3 years.

Under the New York State statute, the chairman can direct the

administrative functions of the commission and still maintain his

or her full-policy authority as a commissioner. In essence, the

chairman in New York combines your bill’s executive director’s responsibilities with that of a full-time chairman or commissioner.

This gives the other 2 commissioners and inside look at the dayto-day operation of the commission when voting on a potentially

critical issue. Also——

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stevens, just have you start to sum up, if you

can.

18

Mr. STEVENS. Please—it also creates an environment for well-informed and decisive action.

I would just like to conclude by saying that the talk of—about

a national commission has been before us for many years, and the

talk in the boxing community, amongst the rank and file, has existed probably pre-the Federal Government becoming interested in

a Federal Commission or a national commission. I am surprised

that the promoters from years ago—the Tex Rickerts and the promoters on up—didn’t think of creating a commission like the other

sports do; but perhaps because of the legislatures empowering

these commissions, I guess they knew that they wouldn’t have been

able to.

But in any event, I would like conclude by saying that, one way

or another, I think it is time to make a decision so that this cloud

that exists over professional boxing on whether or not we are going

to have a national commission or not can finally be determined.

I want to thank the Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ron Scott Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON SCOTT STEVENS, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE

ATHLETIC COMMISSION

On behalf of the State of New York and Governor George Pataki, I’d like to thank

Chairman Cliff Stearns and the Members of the House Subcommittee on Commerce,

Trade and Consumer Protection for inviting me to speak on the subject of reform

and federal oversight of the sport of professional boxing.

Boxing is being glamorized today on reality television shows and in the movies.

But there are no Clint Eastwoods or Sylvester Stallones in the time-worn gyms that

populate poor neighborhoods where young boxers dream the dream. Their chances

of succeeding, of becoming a contender no less a champion, face enormous odds.

Nevertheless, their numbers are great. Just look at the crop of Golden Gloves entries each year. The New York Golden Gloves had 660 entries this year, up from

600 a year ago, with most hoping one day to turn pro. So many who dream. Some

are skilled, some are not so skilled. Ladies and gentlemen, boxing is, figuratively

speaking, a risky, bare-knuckled sport. That is why those of us who are charged

with regulating it have no room for error because we are dealing with life and death

during every three-minute round.

For the past 25 years, I’ve covered the waterfront when it comes to professional

boxing, primarily as a matchmaker and promoter. Based on that vast experience,

Governor Pataki appointed me as Chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission on June 10, 2003. I have learned much over that period of time and I would

like to take this opportunity to share some of my observations with you.

A federal bill to protect the general welfare of boxers and to ensure nationwide

fairness in the sport of professional boxing is a noble idea whose time has come.

But if I may, please allow me to repeat the words of the former three-time heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali who said on September 9, 2004, before this same

committee, ‘‘There is nothing wrong with boxing that we cannot fix.’’ I would like

to add that there are, at present, many competent and hard-working commissions,

both big and small, who should be given a voice in this process.

First, I would advocate minimum national standards for medical exams. However,

nothing should prohibit any state from enforcing local standards that exceed the

minimum requirements. In New York, for example, a boxer must pass several medical exams before he or she is permitted to box such as an MRI, an ophthalmalogic

exam, an EKG, a full physical exam and a blood screening for HIV, Hepatitis B and

C. A final pre-fight mini-physical is also performed at the venue prior to the bout.

Only Nevada has a similar standard. It should be noted that states like New Jersey

and Connecticut substitute CAT Scans for MRIs which conform to the Association

of Boxing Commission’s medical recommendations. Conversely, to my knowledge,

twelve states only require pre-fight physicals and nothing else. This often leads to

forum shopping by boxers and their handlers who avoid well regulated jurisdictions

knowing their boxers might not pass the medical exams previously mentioned. This

could possibly compromise the boxers’ health and safety.

If medical records can be centrally controlled, maintained and disseminated, a

powerful tool will have been created which could minimize the risk of injury to boxVerDate 11-MAY-2000 06:44 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 99914.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
19

ers. Most importantly, this will dramatically reduce the chances of a boxer developing pugilistic dementia, also known as ‘‘punch-drunk’’ syndrome.

Second, in the name of fair play, rules and regulations must not deviate from

state-to-state. Since rules do not deviate in other major sports then why should they

in boxing? Questions often arise amongst licensees such as, ‘‘Is there a mandatory

eight count in New York? Is there a standing eight count in California? Is there a

three knockdown rule in Nevada? Can a boxer be saved by the bell in Texas?’’ Uniform rules must be adopted and enforced.

Third, I’d like to address the issue of the business of boxing. But that discussion

would take a lifetime. Therefore, let me just say for now that all licensees, whether

they be boxers, promoters, managers, trainers, seconds or matchmakers are entitled

to have their rights enforced without them having to go to civil court to address perceived wrongs. There are a number of ways boxing licensees can be protected from

the heavy burden of legal fees and the time considerations of litigation. An effective

form of arbitration and mediation, as well as standardized contracts, should be provided as they are in other major professional sports. Also, it should be noted that

New York has the discretion to recognize and enforce out-of-state findings by way

of comity. I would recommend that comity be mandatory nationwide.

Fourth, a national commission must try to find a way to create a pension fund

for boxers and the other licensees who make boxing their full-time profession. Athletes in other professional sports are so protected as are managers, coaches, scouts

and umpires. It can be done and it must be done, in some way and in some form.

Fifth, with all due respect to the Committee, I think there is another organizational structure that should be considered. I agree with the concept of three commissioners but unlike the current model, I strongly urge that there should be a fulltime chairman or commissioner. In New York, for example, the commission consists

of three members who are appointed by the Governor with the Governor designating

one of the members as a full-time Chairman. All are appointed for terms of three

years. Under the New York State statute, the Chairman can direct the administrative functions of the commission and still maintain his or her full policy authority

as a commissioner. In essence, the Chairman in New York combines your bill’s executive director’s responsibilities with that of a full-time commissioner. This gives the

other two commissioners an inside look at the day-to-day operations of the commission when voting on a potentially critical issue. It also creates an environment for

well-informed and decisive action.

Let me conclude by saying that dialogue about creating a national boxing commission has been going on for some time with boxing’s rank and file debating this issue

for just as long. Therefore, in the best interests of the sport, I believe this issue

should be finally resolved. The status quo inadvertently casts a shadow over many

state commissions by implying inadequate oversight. That often is not the case and

I am sure that this is not what was ever intended.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman Stearns and the Members of this Subcommittee for providing me with this opportunity to testify.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. I shall open up with questions.

You know, the feeling I have about this is—we have been talking

about it, and I think it is—I think it can be summed up by—when

we had the hearing, the Pennsylvania State Commissioner stated

that it wasn’t so much that he wanted a Federal Commission, but

rather that we need one now. And I think that is sort of what I

sense here. And let me just say from the outset: we have a bill. We

have put it down. But we are willing to work with you in any way

to help move this along.

And as you know, any piece of legislation, once it starts in a

hearing like this, it gets marked up; there are amendments. And

then, in the full committee, there is amendments. Then it goes to

floor; there is amendments. And there is in the Senate the same

process, and then it goes to conference, so we are a far cry from

anything here. So we are willing to work with you, but I sense, Ms.

Torres, that you have some reservation about the bill. But when

you look at this industry, and you hear both Dr. Schwartz and you

hear Mr. Stevens talking about all of their experiences, do you obVerDate 11-MAY-2000 06:44 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 99914.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
20

ject to the premise—the basic premise of having a judgment by a

commission that carries national enforcement.

I mean it seems like the testimony we have had has said that

it would be nice to have a Federal Commission some—for some

place to go and some national standards for health and a place

where you could go for appeal. I mean, doesn’t that appeal to you,

consider that sport—boxing is the only major sport not to have a

commission. I mean that, alone, it would seem to me, shows that

we have been remiss in not setting up this Federal Commission,

and no States—as Mr. Schwartz has pointed out, no States have

adopted minimum standards, and they all just shop State to State.

I mean, doesn’t that all just make you realize that maybe the time

has come for a boxing commission?

Ms. TORRES. I think the time has clearly come for standardization of——

Mr. STEARNS. Well, how are you going to get it without any

Federal——

Ms. TORRES. Well——

Mr. STEARNS. [continuing] Commission?

Ms. TORRES. I guess part of the concern is that while other sports

have commissions——

Mr. STEARNS. Yes?

Ms. TORRES. [continuing] they are part—they are not a Federal

agency. I can see that in this bill it looks as if the portions having

to do with the investigative and prosecutorial function of this commission were perhaps a little more clearly thought out than what,

exactly, will be standardized. The IBF and the WBA are not totally

against standardization of practices or medical——

Mr. STEARNS. Particularly with health.

Ms. TORRES. Pardon?

Mr. STEARNS. Particularly with health.

Ms. TORRES. Particularly regarding health.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Ms. TORRES. I think you are in a difficult situation here because

States have statutes that actually regulate certain things having to

do with boxing. How——

Mr. STEARNS. So you would approve of a non-Federal commission, but a commission. You would like to see a boxing commission,

but a—not be a Federal——

Ms. TORRES. I would like it not to be a Federal agency with some

of these superior powers.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. And why hasn’t the boxing industry done

that?

Ms. TORRES. Perhaps because they haven’t been able to get on

the same page. I think that the work of the——

Mr. STEARNS. But wouldn’t that tell you——

Ms. TORRES. ABC——

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Ms. TORRES. The ABC has come a long way. They have adopted

rules for the conduct—for conducting bouts—which we all get to

hear Harold Letterman read frequently—and they have adopted

some standards for ratings criterion.

Mr. STEARNS. But you realize that you can’t get consistency. And

we had a GAL report in 2003 that said that, you know, basically

21

they couldn’t get any consistencies across 8 States and 2 tribal boxing commissions. There was no assurance that the professional boxers were receiving the minimum protection established by Federal

Law, just the minimum.

Ms. TORRES. The minimum medical and safety protection?

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Ms. TORRES. That is——

Mr. STEARNS. So——

Ms. TORRES. That is a major problem.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, I mean——

Ms. TORRES. I don’t know how you are going to deal with all of

the different legislation in the different States.

Mr. STEARNS. I can tell you, having dealt with legislation before,

all of these questions come up. But with good minds like you and

others, we somehow work through them. Let me ask Dr. Schwartz.

I see on the television and also in different places these extreme

professional sports in wrestling and boxing, where they go in with

nothing on. I mean it is just the shorts and their own fists, and

they just go at it until somebody just calls uncle, and it is—sometimes, there is major bodily injury. Is anything regulated in that?

Or is that just a free-for-all, and it is—I mean what is your feeling

about that?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, such sport, like the Ultimate Fighting

Championship——

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. They kind of have their act together; but regardless of who comes into my jurisdiction, we still require the same

medical requirements, whether it is boxing, whether it is

kickboxing or ultimate fighting. They are required to get the same

medical tests. We have an ambulance onsite. We have paramedics.

I could land a helicopter if I need to. I am actually very fortunate

because my commission listens to what I feel are the most important requirements.

However, it is very, very different in other jurisdictions, as I stated in my testimony. Some of them don’t even have ambulances.

Some of them have doctors who aren’t even practicing medicine.

Some of them don’t even have doctors. So as far as those other

sports, we look at intent; we don’t look at outcome. But boxing is

actually less dangerous than football or auto racing; however, because the intent is to injure the opponent, we look at that. However, with these other sports, if they are regulated in a similar

manner and are able to meet our medical requirements, then I

don’t see a problem with it.

Mr. STEARNS. Just a closing: Mr. Stevens, would you support the

bill if there was some changes in it? I mean can I put you on record

as for it or against with—you know, some——

Mr. STEVENS. I am for a national boxing commission. I—you

asked Dr. Schwartz a question. If I might——

Mr. STEARNS. Sure.

Mr. STEVENS. Or maybe it was Ms. Torres. You know, I believe

that—and I am not an attorney—but an athletic commission is, to

my knowledge, a quasi-judicial body that is empowered by the legislature to, in this particular instance, regulate boxing. The other

sports didn’t have that fence to climb. They weren’t created by a

22

legislature to regulate the sport, so they could—the George

Hallases in football and the early pioneers of baseball and basketball and hockey—they could create a league, a league office, without having to clear it through the government.

I think that is why boxing doesn’t have or didn’t have a national

commission for all of these years. All of the States that have commissions were all empowered by the State legislature because—I

would imagine the reason they did that is because to fight with another person is to commit an assault. At the least, touching of another in anger constitutes an assault. So in order to make that

legal, they needed to—and there were probably other reasons.

Maybe there was a gambling prohibition or whatever—but I believe

it was really about an assault. So in order to make that assault acceptable, they needed to create a boxing commission, an athletic

commission. And then, I don’t think that these promoters or the

managers of yesteryear, the ones we read about, the famed—the fabled ones like the Doc Kerns, who was Dempsey’s manager, or Tex

Rickert, who was the great promoter out of Madison Square Garden back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, or even the Teddy Brenners, the

great matchmakers out of the Garden—they probably couldn’t create a national commission; that is why we don’t have one—my

opinion. I think a lot of boxing people, if they thought that they

could have created a commission in the 1940’s or 1950’s, they

would have done it. Would I support a national boxing commission?

I think Ms. Torres brings up a good point, that this particular bill

is very general, and I think some of the other bills were too specific. I think, having been a promoter and matchmaker for most of

my professional career, in terms of Mrs. Torres’s testimony with

the sanctioning organization, sanctioning organizations serve a

very vital purpose.

Mr. STEARNS. My time is up, so——

Mr. STEVENS. Okay.

Mr. STEARNS. [continuing] I am going to have to——

Mr. STEVENS. But I just wanted to end that with saying that—

as long as they follow the rules and regulation.

Mr. STEARNS. So I will put you down as a maybe for the bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Well, you could—well, like I said, I think that——

Mr. STEARNS. You are supporting it?

Mr. STEVENS. I would support your bill, yes.

Mr. STEARNS. Okay. That is all I need to know. Okay?

Mr. STEVENS. All right.

Mr. STEARNS. Ranking Member Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to reiterate what you said, essentially that this is a work-in-progress; and

therefore, I really appreciate this very constructive testimony

today. And I know that, Ms. Torres, if we are going to put up a

chart of who is for and who is against that you began your testimony with your reasons that you are not for it, but then went on—

and I appreciate that very much—to list the suggestions, that if we

do go forward, what are those things that ought to be in a bill. And

I truly do appreciate that.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I think—let me just

get your response to the issue of forum shopping. I mean how can

one ignore the fact that this is a serious problem.

23

Ms. TORRES. Do you mean forum shopping by the boxer in order

to get licensed in a State? Is that what——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In order to prevent someone who should not

fighting in one State, or could not be fighting in one State, from

going to another, shopping around because there is lower standards, weaker medical exams, et cetera.

Ms. TORRES. I think the only way to address it is to have uniform

medical standards from State to State. I mean there is an example

this very week of a boxer being licensed in Missouri, and then

using that to go fight in Utah, when New York and New Jersey,

and California, and Pennsylvania, and Nevada probably would not

have licensed him. So it happens; it happens all the time; and it

should not be allowed to happen. I think the idea from the WBA—

are very much in support of uniform medical and safety standards.

I just saw that sort of put on a back burner in this version of the

bill. I would like them to be brought to the forefront.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. Good. The other—you alluded to—I

would like you to enhance a little bit. You talk about your position

on the networks being covered under the U.S. Boxing Commission.

Should networks be treated as promoters? What is your view on

that?

Ms. TORRES. Our view—and this from—on behalf of both of these

organizations—is that they should be licensed if you are doing a

general licensing structure of the entire industry, whether you call

them promoters or managers or matchmakers, because they do a

little bit of everything. The past few years, they have become very

pervasive in dictating who a boxer fights and who a boxer doesn’t

fight, and they enter into contracts with a boxer. So if we are going

to regulate managers and promoters that enter into contracts with

boxers, there is no reason to exclude the networks, who also have

3- and 4-belt, long-term contracts with the boxers.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And is this a growing area, where——

Ms. TORRES. Yes, it is.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes.

Ms. TORRES. It is.

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. And what do you think about big hotels

which host fights. Is there a role there? Or no?

Ms. TORRES. Not that I see that would need——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay.

Ms. TORRES. That would—I can’t think of anything off the top of

my head. It is—that would actually just be the venue, be it a hotel

or an arena.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. Okay. I wanted to comment on Mr. Stevens—and I think it was you who said that you would not want,

in our bill, to limit States that might have more stringent standards. Did you talk about that? The——

Mr. STEVENS. Say that again, please.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That you would not want Federal legislation

to prohibit States that may have more stringent standards from enforcing those. I wondered if you wanted to speak at all about the

rights of State commissions——

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I really—reiterated your own words in the

United States Boxing Commission Act, where you talk about, I believe, that if a national commission has minimum standards that

24

that would not preclude any State from having standards that go

beyond those minimum standards, and that they should—the

States should, then, be able to impose those standards.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you were just—I thought you found something in the legislation that you though might preclude you from

doing what you needed to do.

Mr. STEVENS. No. You—actually——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay.

Mr. STEVENS. [continuing] I parroted what you said. I agreed

with that. Like for example, the—if I might—Nevada, a few years

ago, they had a physical examination, an eye examination, and

ophthalmological exam, dilated eye, and they had blood tests. Subsequent to a few years ago, they have gone to an EKG and they

have gone to an MRI. Now, let us say for example, the Federal legislation required a physical, an eye exam, and blood work, but New

York or Connecticut, or Nevada wanted to do additional testing. I

don’t believe there should be a prohibition against that. It is

just——

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But——

Mr. STEVENS. [continuing] for the safety of the boxer.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. Good. Thank you, Mr.—Dr.—oh, I guess

my time is up.

Mr. STEARNS. Yes.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, my colleague. Ms. Cubin?

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by

addressing some questions to Dr. Schwartz. Your expensive—or extensive—maybe expensive, too—experience as a ringside physician

has brought you face to face with just how dangerous this sport is.

In your opinion, is the 4-year licensing requirement sufficient to

ensure that athletes are maintaining a safe and adequate physical

condition or do you think that should be shortened or lengthened?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. I think the medicals need to be shortened. I

mean right now, for example, I think a yearly—a minimum of a

yearly physical exam is necessary by the boxer’s own, private physician, because they know them best. I think the blood tests should

occur at a minimum of twice year, meaning HIV, hepatitis B, surface-antigen hepatitis c. I think the MRIs and CAT scans are debatable as long as we have a baseline whether we do that every

1 to 2 years. The eye exams, I believe, have to be done on a yearly

basis.

But more important than that, I think any time a fighter is injured—right now, some of the doctors, including myself, have the

right to suspend the individual and require additional testing. That

way, if there was a brain injury, for example, we wouldn’t say, you

had a CAT scan, you know, a few months ago, and we are going

to still use that CAT scan; we are going to send them for more sophisticated tests, including neurological exams, for example.

Ms. CUBIN. And how likely is a doctor to actually do that. I mean

I know as much about boxing as I have seen in movies and television, so forgive my naivete ́. But how likely is a doctor to do that

if the situation is marginal? I mean is he going to throw the towel

in—which is 1 thing I know——

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes.

25

Ms. CUBIN. [continuing] or not?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. You mean as far as——

Ms. CUBIN. I mean if it is a marginal situation whether a doctor

will disqualify someone from fighting because he suspects that

there may be a dangerous condition.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Well, previous Federal legislation formed Fight

Fax, which is a national suspension agency, so when I suspend

somebody, they can’t fight anyplace in the United States, as long

as that State is following the guidelines. As far as whether or not

that boxer should compete again, that is whether my association,

hopefully, helps, because what we try to do is educate doctors.

There is a lot of doctors who really don’t understand boxing medicine. You don’t grab a——

Ms. CUBIN. Right.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] local, emergency-room doctor and

say, hey, listen. We will give you a ringside seat; enjoy yourself. It

is identifying things before they happen——

Ms. CUBIN. Yes.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] before the catastrophe occurs. This

is a dangerous sport, inherently dangerous. People are going to get

injured; people are going to die. But if we do the best that we can,

we can ignorantly minimize that risk.

Ms. CUBIN. I am going to switch to Ms. Stevens for just a second—excuse me—Ms. Torres for just a second. Forgive me. And

then, I want to come back to you if I have time.

But you state that—you stated in your testimony that there is

need for a pension plan for boxers. In view of the fact that their

career life is so short, what kind of a pension plan do you recommend? Or how would that work? I hear people complain all the

time—I mean all the time—about the exorbitant wages that are

paid to professional athletes. I mean big time. But when you consider that they are—you know, that their career might be 5 years—

or 2, even, maybe 10, maybe that is one of the reasons that—or

part of the reason that these exorbitant salaries are paid. What do

you recommend for boxers?

Ms. TORRES. Well, first of all, that was not my testimony, but

I——

Ms. CUBIN. Oh.

Ms. TORRES. It was Mr. Stevens.

Ms. CUBIN. Was that yours, Mr. Stevens?

Ms. TORRES. But I would like to answer it anyway.

Ms. CUBIN. Would you both, please?

Ms. TORRES. Okay. First of all, the IBF does have a pension program. It is run, almost, as a mandatory TO planner/401K plan. For

boxers competing in title fights, unless they show us that they have

a similar plan of some sort, the IBS collects 2 percent of their

purse, and it is put into a plan that is structured by a financial

institution. And of course, the rules for taking the money out are

very different because of the short life span of the boxer’s career.

They have to be in the plan a certain number of years. They have

to be a certain age, but the age is not 591⁄2. It is more like 35. So

the IBF does have a pension program. When I hear that——

Ms. CUBIN. That is just for title fights?

Ms. TORRES. Yes, it is.

26

Ms. CUBIN. So other boxers, then, don’t have——

Ms. TORRES. Well, this is——

Ms. CUBIN. [continuing] that kind of pension.

Ms. TORRES. And like I said, it is an enforced 401K-type plan.

Other boxers can set up their own, but we don’t force them to. It

is almost a big brother attitude that we are taking, and we have

been criticized for it. I don’t know how one would structure a pension plan for boxers, other than perhaps, you know, having the

boxer contribute some, maybe the promoter. I don’t know.

Ms. CUBIN. May Mr. Stevens take a stab at that, too?

Mr. STEARNS. You have extra 3 minutes because you waived your

opening statement.

Ms. CUBIN. That is right. I do.

Mr. STEVENS. I don’t even know—I will get some minutes back.

I don’t think it will take that long. I really don’t know what the

format would be. That is not my area of expertise. But I do know,

having been around this business and sport for the amount of time

I have been around it, that is does need a pension plan. And I—

like I said in my testimony, it needs it for all of the licensees that

make boxing a full-time profession. If I might—Marvin Mitchell in

baseball, when they were talking about free agency and different

things that most sport didn’t have—and I think it was the—Kurt

Flood was the first test case. He was a center fielder for the St.

Louis Cardinals. And they got a label lawyer like a Marvin Mitchell to come in and to figure out how to apply things that modern

athletes needed that the owners weren’t giving them.

Ms. CUBIN. And who should be responsible to do that?

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I think——

Ms. CUBIN. Would it be the Federal Commission if they——

Mr. STEVENS. I think if there is——

Ms. CUBIN. [continuing] if the bill passes? Or who should it be—

quickly please because——

Mr. STEVENS. I think if there were a national commission, that

is one of the things that they should concern themselves with, is

finding out from different experts how to make a pension system

work. I don’t think it is not doable. I think it is very doable. That

money has to come from somewhere. It probably has to come from

the licensees themselves—a good part of it.

Ms. CUBIN. Well, some of it, yes.

Mr. STEVENS. But they do that——

Ms. CUBIN. Dr. Schwartz——

Mr. STEVENS. [continuing] they do that in other industries.

Ms. CUBIN. Thank you. Dr. Schwartz, do you feel that the medical standards that are supported by the American Association of

Ringside Physicians go far enough to protect the health of the boxers? And if you don’t, what additional suggestions would you have?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. No, I think they do. I mean——

Ms. CUBIN. Okay.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] this was put together by the Medical

Advisory Board of the ABC and then ratified by the—our organization. Just let me say one quick thing: the kids pay for these tests.

That is another issue. So we may charge $2,000 for the tests——

Ms. CUBIN. Yes.

27

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] and they may be getting $800 a

fight. They got——

Ms. CUBIN. Well, that was another question——

Mr. SCHWARTZ. They got to fight 3 fights——

Ms. CUBIN. [continuing] I was going to ask.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] to break even, so what I would like

to see—and again——

Ms. CUBIN. Yes.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. [continuing] I am—my only goal here is the

health and safety, but if there is some way that this legislation attaches—for example, a percent—to form medical centers to do this

testing, so the kids don’t have to pay for it, a lot of this will be

much easier for them, and they could take home more of their

money.

Ms. CUBIN. Yes. It seems like the structure of this sport is just

very unhealthy compared to the structure of other professional

sports. Ms. Torres—well, I am just about out of time, but you look

like you wanted to answer the last question that—I guess you don’t

remember, so—and neither do I, so that is—I yield back.

Mr. STEARNS. All right. Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Blackburn is

recognized.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to

each of you for taking your time to visit with us today and to have

this discussion.

Ms. Torres, I think I want to begin my questioning with you, and

I think it was interesting that Dr. Schwartz mentioned baseball,

football, and NASCAR. I come from Tennessee. We know a lot

about NASCAR in Tennessee, and we know that if a driver races

at Daytona and then goes over into Tennessee and races at Bristol—that NASCAR has some clear rules, some very clear rules, regarding the condition of the car and the equipment that is on the

track, the health of the driver. And the Federal Government does

not see a need to get involved because NASCAR, Major League

Baseball, football do a pretty good job of taking care of this situation on their own.

Now, I am going to—I want to go back to what you were—we

were talking about the need for this and need for the legislation

and what drives the need for the legislation, and I find it incredibly

curious that you are here on behalf of the 2 organizations. And why

in the world could the sanctioning bodies not get together and

agree on what is in the best interest of this sport and do their own

non-Federal, national commission to instill and enforce medical

standard and to create and maintain their own national data base

of fighters and to address some of these contract issues.

What are the constraints here, and why is—why are you choosing to not come together? Why do the organizations choose to not

come together and do this? Why has it not happened?

Ms. TORRES. The other 2—the International Boxing Federation is

headquartered in the United States. The World Boxing Association

is headquartered in Venezuela. The World Boxing Commission is

headquartered in Mexico City. They—the organizations that are

outside of this country are in the process of understanding Federal

legislation to begin with. They are studying the portions of the MuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 06:44 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 99914.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
28

hammad Ali Act that they have to comply with, and they are complying with it.

I think that even if the organizations were to get together and

to come up with standards, they wouldn’t have any way to enforce

them in the various States. They wouldn’t have an enforcement

mechanism for certain things.

They do have—the organization has rules for bouts; it has rules

for certain medical testing; and it does enforce those.

Ms. BLACKBURN. And you think, even though States like my

State that has a boxing and racing commission, that you could not

enforce those? They would not be enforced?

Ms. TORRES. I think there would a difficult time enforcing certain

things. There are standards that the organizations have that are

enforced and that—they have the ability to say, If you don’t do X,

Y, and Z, and you don’t—for example, we have a second-day weighin, at this point, for champion fights to ensure that the boxer has

not gained more than 10 percent over the contract weight, so that

you don’t have two fighters in the room with a, you know, 25-pound

weight difference. And we have the ability to say to the boxer, If

you do not go along with this, and you refuse to attend the secondday weigh-in, the fight will not be for our title. The fight will go

on——

Ms. BLACKBURN. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Schwartz,

she has just mentioned, you know, the U.S., Venezuela, Mexico

City—I read, recently, Mike Tyson is training in Australia. And I

think we all remember—I know, growing up, I remember the Joe

Frasier/Muhammad Ali Thriller in Manila fight—so do you think

that it would be possible to enforce some of these regulations on

an international basis? Do you think that we would be able to see

enforcement, or are we going to see—if we try to enforce, are we

going to see more matches leaving the U.S. and going to other

countries, and then we will just be viewing that over TV here?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes. The money is in the United States, so it is

never going to be an issue that you are going to have that many

of the—that many championship fights out of the country. The only

way we could enforce the international aspect is through the sanctioning bodies. If the sanctioning body goes into an area—like for

example in Thailand—and says that each boxer needs to have

these medical tests, or else the fight doesn’t go on, at the very

least, the championship fights will. As far as the under-card, we

don’t have any control in that. What I am trying to do is, obviously,

increase the number of people in my organization to include international members, but it is hard enough to do it in this country for

me, than, you know, to go across the world and try to enforce these

regulations at this time.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Do other countries have national boxing commissions?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Most do. England, United Kingdom, obviously

has a very good boxing commission; but there are boxing commissions all around the world, and the sanctioning bodies could talk

better about that, because they deal with them on a more regular

basis.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Okay. I thank you.

29

Mr. Stevens, if a boxing commission was created, do you foresee

an eventual progression where States that currently have active

commissions—like in Tennessee where we have an active commission—do you see that they would disband those commissions? Or

would that be your expectation that they would slowly start to

place the sole responsibility for sanctioning boxing with the Federal

Commission?

Mr. STEVENS. I think that the State commissions should retain

their autonomy. The problem that we have is that we don’t have

any enforce mechanism, so they created—the Federal Government

did when they created the Boxing Professional Safety Act and the

Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act—they created minimum standards, and they sanctioned—or the sanctified the Association of Boxing Commissions to set up a lot of the standards we are now talking about. But the ABC has no enforcement capability, so the

States don’t feel completed to follow their guidelines. Many do;

some don’t. I think a national commission would want to use the

States as a fabulous resource and let the States self-regulate and

only jump in when they needed to. In other words, make the States

comply with the minimum standards, whether it is about medical

or about rules and regulation or whether it is about the business

of boxing, and use those States to assist you. Without the States,

you—I mean the job, the task, would be enormous. It would require

hundreds of people, a tremendous amount of man-hours. We need

the States. I think that if you consider a bill, the States should retain their autonomy. They should be used as a tool to assist the

national commission and that, at least, the national commission

would have enforcement power. That is what we are missing.

Ms. BLACKBURN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield

back.

Mr. STEARNS. I thank you. Mr. Murphy?

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the

panel for giving me a lot of information I didn’t know about boxing.

I appreciate that.

Doctor, I would like to start with you. In terms of the things that

your organization——

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Sure.

Mr. MURPHY. [continuing] and physicians are looking at in boxers to determine their suitability for a match, do you—you named

a number of things that are done on a physical exam and reviewing

things—et cetera for them. Are there any measures that are done

to also look at other functions besides that that might show up on

an eye exam or a physical exam—for example, behavioral learning,

changes in them, too, over time?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Yes. As the sport has evolved and our organization has been more active—and again, as a non-for-profit organization, we don’t have the funding, and there is not a lot of money in

boxing to do research and studies, there are a select few number

of individuals who are looking at this. We have one company, for

example, that is putting things in gloves to measure the impact for

us. We may be able to use that information over 10 to 15 to 20

years to determine how much impact one fighter could take before

they develop brain damage. There is blood tests now that may indicate whether somebody is prone to develop dementia as they get

30

older. We may be able to preclude those individuals from competing. There are neuropsych testing—following somebody when

they start their career, a year later, 2 years later, and we start to

see a decline, perhaps we could stop them from competing so that

they don’t develop this putralistic dementia down the line.

Mr. MURPHY. So for example, you would be able to with the

neuropsych—and I am a psychologist, myself. You would be looking

at such things as changing intellectual functioning, language functioning, visual/perceptual—other things of that nature that might

affect someone’s ability, when they are done with their boxing

years, to even hold a job?

Mr. SCHWARTZ. Right. Well, as you probably know, there are so

many different levels of neuropsych testing. Some of the new ones

that are coming out actually could work with a Palm, and you

could do it in a 5-minute or 10-minute exam. The problem is, without the standardization, without the enforcement power, and without the funding, we can’t do these things. So then, once again,

these fighters go off; they have their career for maybe 2, 5, or 10

years, and then 30, 40 years later, you hear that they are demented and living in a nursing home with no money. And it is

wrong.

Mr. MURPHY. My—and like our concerns even about youth sports

and concussions that children may receive and those issues.

Now, let me ask this—and a question for all of the panel here.

As in any sport, there is a lot of pressure to make money, not only

for the individuals participating, but those who are the promoters,

and obviously for media and other venues that may be hosting a

match, and there is a lot of pressure among those. I am assuming

media is going to put an event on either Pay-Per-View or broadcast, they would want events to be done in a certain way. And I

am wondering, along those lines, when we have all of these multiple commissions throughout the States or the tribes, et cetera, is

there enough power, enough authority, among the States to stand

up to pressure from promoters and other forces to really follow by

the rules in a way that assures the safety of the fighters? Any of

you? Yes, Mr. Stevens.

Mr. STEVENS. I don’t want to speak for the other State commissions, but in New York—I mean we are it. We—let me just go back

a second.

Generally, as a general rule, when a fight is televised, the promoter receives what is known as a rights fee, so the promoter who

is licensed by whatever State the event is taking place in, he is

paid a sum of money from the network, and he gives the rights to

that network so that they can broadcast it.

When a fight is brought to a particular site, especially a casino,

the promoter is also hoping to get a site fee. And those are the two,

basic revenue streams for a promoter, the rights fee and a site fee.

When you hear the expression a club show, there is generally no

site fee. That means the promoter is selling tickets. When he is at

a casino, he gives up the right to sell tickets in exchange for a fixed

amount of money.

Mr. MURPHY. My concern is with—I don’t know what those site

fees would be or what some of those other fees would be. What

31

kind of levels are we talking about? If somebody is going to be

broadcast, what would the promoter be getting there?

Mr. STEVENS. It could be anywhere from Fox SportsNet or ESPN.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, what kind of money would we be talking

about?

Mr. STEVENS. You could—well, listen. EPSN, which a few years ago was paying $150,000 for what they call their ESPN-1 International Show, $150,000. Eventually, they moved the boxing to

ESPN-2, and they were paying approximately $60,000. And I have

heard, as of late, that they have been asking the promoters to basically subsidize their rights fee, and I think it is down to about

$15,000, and they are asking—this isn’t as current information as

you need; but we are in the ballpark. And they are asking them

to subsidize some of the programming with sponsors.

Mr. MURPHY. I am just wondering, overall here, as we are looking at whether it is keeping States doing this or using a national

commission here, if a value of the national commission is to have—

as you mentioned there is not—maybe no enforceability with some

of these State and tribal groups. Now, and what I am trying to find

out is, will the Federal cloud be enough and are there instances

where promoters and casinos and media is putting a lot of pressure

on to, say, make the fight go on, even if someone isn’t physically

ready.

Mr. STEVENS. The Federal legislation would be enough, if—when

who—whatever group the Federal Government decides to make the

commissioners or the executive directors, if there is enforcement of

the action that they take, which would mean in many instances,

spending money and having legal enforcement. If there is no enforcement, people are going to do what they do, knowing——

Mr. MURPHY. So right now——

Mr. STEVENS. [continuing] there is no repercussions.

Mr. MURPHY. Right now, Mr. Stevens—and Ms. Torres, I would

like your responses, too. Right now, the way things exist with the

States and tribes and without that kind of power of enforcement,

is it possible, does it happen—or potentially happen—that there

could be tremendous pressure that would still have boxers fighting

who may not be ready, who, neuropsychologically, neurologically,

physically, to go ahead and do this for the sake of money? Does this

happen?

Ms. TORRES. Well, I am sure it does happen. I am sure that some

of the boxers may be their own worst enemies. I mean they may

want to fight when they really shouldn’t be fighting because they

want to earn money. I don’t know how much influence a national

commission is going to have on some of the economics involved in

site fees and in promoting fights. I don’t know that that would necessarily be part of your function.

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I am—there is a commercial on television

now, promoting a certain community where—you know, what goes

there—what goes on there, stays there.

Ms. TORRES. Yes, I know that community.

Mr. MURPHY. And I find it—actually, I find it pretty degrading

to the gentleman who is a boxer there, who doesn’t know who he

is or what he is doing or what happened the night before. That is

yes, come on. He is ready; let us go. I don’t find that amusing beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 06:44 Jun 08, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 99914.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1
32

cause I think that is beyond what the sport should be doing. I

mean fighting can be a fun sport, but if it is to the point where

they are saying here is this gentleman who doesn’t even know what

is going on in the world, physically is clearly, pretty seriously injured, but I just wondered, for the sake of money, are people just

saying let him go and he is just an expendable human being and

who cares?

Ms. TORRES. Well, I that can be overcome by the enforcement of

the medical standards. And unfortunately, sometimes you can see

a change in a boxer over the course of only a year. We had a situation with litigation with a boxer, and he is in our office, and we

deposed him twice. The next time I saw him on television, he was

slurring his words, which was not happening before. So I think, as

Dr. Schwartz said, there has to be at least yearly check-ups of

these boxers. And I apologize if it looked like I was making fun of

that commercial. I have not seen the one with the boxer.

Mr. MURPHY. I hope you get to see it because I don’t think it is

a good one for the sport.

Mr. STEVENS. Can I just make 1 comment, if I may? Bernard

Hopkins said to me recently that the boxers need somebody to save

them from themselves, and I think that is where the physicians

and these strong commissions—I am never concerned about a commission like New York or New Jersey or Connecticut, because they

are going to do the right thing. So as far as can States enforce

themselves? Yes. Certain States and jurisdictions and commissions

can. The majority do not, and that is the problem.

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we have

finished our questioning. I want to thank the witnesses. I think we

had the 1996 Professional Boxing Safety Act we passed. We, I

think, brought out some interesting points about this bill we have.

I think, Dr. Schwartz, you are to be commended for starting this

American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians. I think

that is very impressive, and if we could get you to get it international that would help, too. I know you have your hands full.

But I think that it is continuing in our mind that the boxing

community is not doing that it—that we feel it should, and perhaps

there might be a need for Federal regulation, much like the Professional Boxing Safety Act. So we are willing to work with you. We

are willing to move this very general bill, as pointed out by you

folks—it is not specific—to see if we can find some happy medium

and pass it.

So I will conclude the hearing on that positive note. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF ARIZONA

Thank you, Chairman Stearns, for holding this hearing to discuss the need for

boxing reform and your bill, the United States Boxing Commission Act.

Mr. Chairman, I have been a boxing fan for nearly fifty years, and while I have

derived great joy from watching the sweet science, all too often I have been saddened and dismayed by the lack of integrity that has weakened professional boxing—called by many the ‘‘red light district’’ of professional sports. Of particular concern to me is the treatment of the sport’s athletes. With rare exception, professional

boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. They are the poorest and

least educated among us, and the most exploited athletes in our nation.

33

Congress has made efforts to protect professional boxers before. The Professional

Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety standards for professional boxers, as well as basic

protections for boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical

business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning organizations. Unfortunately, ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has contributed

to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical practices, and unnecessary

deaths in the sport. Further legislative action is needed.

One very important step we could take to better protect boxers and the integrity

of professional boxing is to establish a Federal regulatory entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards for certain aspects of the sport. Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States that does not

have a strong, centralized association, league, or other regulatory body to establish

and enforce uniform rules and practices. Because a powerful few benefit greatly

from the current system of patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing

law, a national selfregulating organization—though preferable to Federal government oversight—is not a realistic option. Many in professional boxing have concluded that the only rational solution is an effective and accountable Federal boxing

commission.

The Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005, which I introduced in January;

the House companion bill introduced in February by Congressmen King, Osborne,

and Pickering; and your own bill all would establish United States Boxing Commissions that perform substantially similar functions. I am very pleased that we all

agree on the need for a Federal boxing commission.

Mr. Chairman, the troubles that plague the sport of professional boxing undermine its credibility in the eyes of the public and—more importantly—compromise

the health and safety of boxers. I believe that the creation of a Federal boxing commission would effectively curb these problems. In the last Congress, the Senate

passed by unanimous consent a bill identical to the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2005, and this year I expect quick action to approve the act, beginning

with a Senate Commerce Committee executive session in the very near future to

vote on the legislation and report it to the full Senate. I am hopeful that your committee and the entire House of Representatives too will pass legislation that establishes a United States Boxing Commission and helps to improve the health and

safety protections for professional boxers.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.

Æ