A Closer Look at the BBB of C – Boxing News

By Donald “Braveheart” Stewart

An opinion piece from the only Donald worth listening to…

Full Stop – In British English grammar a full stop is a lengthy pause, in the US, you call it a period. In the UK that tends to suggest feminine products. Here it means a period of time where I look at something in boxing in a little more depth. I am typing from my perspective of a fan who watches the sport closely. It’s an opinion. It is my opinion. Don’t like it? There are other opinions out there but if you don’t like it then good, debate and democracy are a good thing. If you do like it, feel free to spread the word.

Race to the finish?

Some people have suggested that race will be the issue upon which the British Boxing Board of Control (BBB of C) flounders and dies. Me? I am not so sure…

Boxing in the United Kingdom is mainly controlled and licensed through the BBB of C. There is the British and Irish Boxing Authority (BIBA) but like many other commissions, they were established due to people feeling that the previous commission – the BBB of C – were not doing a particularly good job. They do sanction a number of fights and are increasingly making their presence felt but they are still a minor player in the game here – the BBB of C are the “big boys”.

But that is an oxymoron.

Given the huge amount of cash involved in boxing, the BBB of C are a small outfit. They are lean and administratively mighty. They can stop people fighting and they have rules. When they enforce the rules, people are happy, when they do not…

Most boxers, pundits, managers, promoters, like the BBB of C and think they do a good job. In the recent past they have been at the forefront of boxer safety though their ability to read a failed drugs test and follow a process is very much in doubt. But, overall, there are plenty who think they are a good thing for boxing.

Now, they are at the center of a row on racism. Now, I am slightly exaggerating here because as you will see, this is a row but how much of an impact it is likely to have is questionable. Why? Well, let me start with what is, absolutely, not in doubt.

The BBB of C is run by white people. Predominantly male white people. The Board itself has no ethnic minorities on it. There are no black judges or referees. 30% of British boxers, registered and licensed by the BBB of C, are from a minority ethnic background.

That is wrong and needs corrected. Why? Because to be able to manage and regulate a sport with authority, those who do must reflect the experience of those within it. 30% of boxers do not have that safeguard.

But UK broadcaster Channel 4 has broadcast an expose of racism within the BBB of C thanks to three people: two of them are referees and one a female boxer.

Firstly, Ian John Lewis was a referee, and has been for the BBB of C since 1996. Lewis was downgraded from an A* referee to an A class referee because his scorecard in the Jack Catterall v Josh Taylor fight was widely condemned as being too out of synch with what people had seen. There have been many examples of scorecards being way off, however this fight got political coverage and national attention. The BBB of C acted. But they downgraded the only black judge in the UK. Of course, the fact that Lewis is black should not stop the BBB of C acting, but the fact that white judges up and down the country have also been guilty of scoring irregularities but are facing no such punishments is decidedly questionable. This is partly down to the BBB of C being huge and tiny at the same time. Most people at fights are freelance and not full-time officials. To keep an eye on this phenomenon, of woeful scoring, may take resources which the BBB of C simply do not have. And so, at best they have been guilty of political naivete, but at worst racism. It’s at the center of a court case between Lewis and the BBB of C.

The second judge to claim racism is Jeff Hinds. At one point both Hinds and Lewis were the black face of the BBB of C. They were the only two ethnic minority officials in boxing. They are no more.

Hinds was a veteran – over 1,500 fights in a 25-year career and his allegations of being denied big fight opportunities seem to be the most damning facing the Board. Having been given the responsibility, and often the lives of fighters in a ring, he was never given that same responsibility in big world title fights. Considering we are talking nearly 3 decades, there were plenty of opportunities for him to be given them – so why did he never manage to achieve the pinnacle of the sport in his capacity? Again, there is an ongoing legal dispute.

But the problem for both is that Lewis has been involved in more than one controversial judging incident which has tarnished his career. Hind’s own career may have had fights denied because of a variety of factors that now will be difficult to prove. That is not to say either are wrong, but we are talking about two officials with grievances. The Board have strenuously denied racism throughout the process.

As for the boxer, flyweight Ruqsana Begum has a slightly more complex issue which may at heart be very simple. In a fight Begum wore leggings because her family who are Muslim were in attendance. She wanted to pay respect to them and show her modesty. Begum was suspended by the BBB of C after she was approached by an BBB of C official ringside before the fight and given what feels like a “big row” for wearing them: he apparently claimed they were not allowed in the sport. A few weeks later she was suspended, and Begum has continued her career abroad rather than in the UK. Her the allegation was put quite simply, you do the math…

What Channel 4 did not air was that, apparently according to the BBB of C she was suspended for issues around her fitness to fight and the fact she lost 4 fights in a row for which a suspension is covered in their rules. Except she did not lose 4 fights in a row and was only a 3-fight novice at the time, though had she warned the Board she was going to wear leggings, according to the Boards, there would have been no issue at all.

Serious though these allegations are, Channel 4 took a year to put them together and asked the Board two days before they aired to respond. The BBB of C have been incandescent and constrained by legalities, but they have been a bit mealy mouthed too.

This has raised some issues and though there may be some other issues of who has raised them and why they are raising them too, they may not be the greatest example of victimization and discrimination, but they at least have raised an issue with which the BBB of C should deal in a much better fashion.

How can they deal with it?

Their ethnic mix, at the top, is so far way from the presenting experiences that they do not have the ability to judge properly, do they? It’s a quagmire but one that will rumble along. Let’s hope that something positive comes out of it before Connor Benn adds racism to his pleas of innocence and the whole saga of drug testing does not get caught up in it…

Click Here to Order Boxing Interviews Of A Lifetime By “Bad” Brad Berkwitt