Top Rank Promotions CEO Bob Arum, has indicated that Antonio Margarito is the front runner to face Manny Pacquiao on Nov. 13 for the vacant WBC junior middleweight (154 pounds) title either in Las Vegas, if Margarito's license is renewed there, or Monterrey, Mex.If it happens, Pacquiao would be pursuing a record eighth crown in as many different weight classes against the 32-year-old Margarito (38-6, 27 knockouts), who was in the running with WBA king Miguel Cotto (35-2, 28 knockouts), a man Pacquiao dethroned by 12th-round knockout in November, for his current WBO welterweight (147 pounds) belt.
Margarito still is not licensed to fight in America, this after his boxing license was revoked by the California State Athletic Commission following an illegal hand-wrapping scandal in January 2009. Margarito, whose suspension officially ended on Feb. 11, unsuccessfully applied for a license in Nevada, whose state athletic commission ruled that he must re-apply in California and have his case re-tried there before attempting to fight in Las Vegas.
But Nevada State Athletic Commission director Keith Kizer, told FanHouse that Margarito, through his attorney, David Marroso, has applied for a "conditional," one-fight license to meet Pacquiao in Las Vegas, a situation Kizer addresses in this Q&A.
FanHouse: Can you explain the situation with Antonio Margarito and the status for a request for a temporary license in Las Vegas?
Keith Kizer: Well, I can tell you this. I received a phone call from Bob Arum on this past Wednesday evening telling me that Mr. Margarito's attorney, David Marroso, was going to be sending the commission another letter.
We had received one earlier in the week regarding his alleged inability to get a hearing in California. I just told him to send it to me, and that all five commissioners would get it.
I explained that it would be completely up to the five commissioners what action, if any, would be taken at this time. It's my understanding that Mr. Margarito has yet to actually file an application to be licensed again in California.
So, obviously, if he doesn't file an application in California, then they can't hear an application in California. I'm not sure if that has changed or not since I last talked to Mr. Margarito's attorney, which I did last Monday.
So it's been about a week since I talked to him. So I'm not sure if anything has changed there.
What were the letters asking for on behalf of Antonio Margarito?
What Mr. Arum told me was that what he had heard happened at the most recent Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) meeting in New Orleans is that a representative of the California State Athletic Commission told a representative of the New Jersey Commission that Margarito could not get a hearing in California before the end of September.
Unless he dismissed his appeal [lawsuit against California] of his license revocation. I have no idea what the case is there, however, because it's third-hand information.
Mr. Marroso wrote an initial letter asking for a one-fight license. Instead of asking for a full license, period, they're asking for a license just for Nov. 13 at the MGM. That was sent on a Monday. They were going to send a second letter as a follow up to the first letter.
What would it take for Antonio Margarito to get a hearing for a temporary license in Nevada?
Well, he would have to get on our agenda for the next meeting of the commission. Our next hearing is on Aug. 9 for the Nevada State Athletic Commission. That's a Monday afternoon. So that's two weeks from this Monday coming up.
That agenda won't be set for another week. I don't know what, if anything, is on the agenda yet. So that's the extent of my knowledge. Again, our hearing is not until Aug. 9, and we don't set the agenda until the first week of August -- like Aug. 2 or Aug. 3.
So, really, for the next week, I'll have no idea what our five commissioners will want to do with the matter. It's going to be up to the five of them.
Can you speculate on the likelihood that your commission would amend your decision in regard to Antonio Margarito?
I have no idea. Obviously that was a 4-to-1 vote by the five-member commissioners. So for anything to be voted on and put into motion, you have to get at least three votes in favor of it by the commission.
So in Margarito's case, there were four votes in favor of tabling the decision. So, unless at least two of those commissioners changes their minds, nothing would change.
I have no idea whether or not the new circumstances would have an effect one way or another with any of the commissioners, let alone, the majority of them.
Is this an unprecedented situation with Antonio Margarito where someone had a license revoked by one commission and came to you for a license?
I don't recall. I've been with the commission for 13 years now, and I don't remember anything anywhere analogous to this. On the flip side, though, you know, Mike Tyson had the ear-biting situation against Evander Holyfield here in Las Vegas.
Mike Tyson's license was revoked here in Las Vegas, and he went to New Jersey first and then came back to Nevada. So we were sort of, back then, in the shoes of the California commission. That was the only thing I can say that was close.
But in that situation, we were on the other side. Las Vegas had suspended him, and he went to New Jersey, and then, came back to Las Vegas' commission.
If I recall correctly, I don't know if it was the Nevada Commission who was saying that Tyson should come back and apply in Las Vegas, but more, people like you and reporters, etc., saying, "hey, you really should go back to Nevada and apply before going to New Jersey."
There was no legal obligation to do so, and the Nevada Commission didn't really take a stand either way. It was just the general public outrage and media outrage that he didn't go to Nevada first.
Tyson then went to New Jersey, had a hearing, and at the end of that hearing, he withdrew so that he could go to Nevada first. And then he came back before our Nevada commission and there was a two-day hearing over a 30-day period.
After that, they gave him back his license and he fought Francois Botha.
Can you remind us of the ruling made by the Nevada Commission in regard to Antonio Margarito?
Well, if you remember, the motion had two parts. First, he had to go back and file an application with the California commission, and California had to consider that application.
Obviously, Mr. Margarito can't control the results of the second part. But he can control the first part, which is, to file an application with the California commission. Like I said, the last I had heard, he had not done that yet.
But that was almost a week ago. That was last Monday. Regardless of whether he files or not, whatever letter is sent to me in regard to Mr. Margarito, I will send it out to the five Nevada commissioners, and they control their agenda, not me.
They'll decide what to put on the August agenda.
Nevada commission chairwoman, Pat Lundvall, went on the record saying that the NSAC "kicked the can down the road" by not making a decision, up or down, on Margarito. Do you have a personal opinion about whether or not Antonio Margarito has served his time or not?
I really have no personal feeling on that. My job is to get the information to the commissioners. I've done that. It's really up to them. It's not my role to express my opinions on that. I'm doing what I need to do.
It's always been a goal of the athletic commission to be fair and to comply with the statutes and the regulations. I think that we had a very good hearing with the commissioners.
I think that Mr. Margarito did a good job as well to the extent that he answered the questions that were asked of him. I think that it was a very fruitful hearing. We were able to get a lot of the information that was needed.
Again, what I have heard from the members who voted is that if Mr. Margarito is truly as regretful and contrite as he says that he is, then he should go back to California, where the incident happened, and let them weigh in on the situation.
They haven't looked at it for 18 months. They're the ones who have most of the knowledge. I think all five of the commission members explained where they were as of July 9 [the date of Margarito's hearing with the NSAC.] Whether it's going to be different on Aug. 9, it's too early to tell.
But, basically, Marroso wants Margarito to be put back on the commission's next agenda for a hearing. Instead of asking for a full license, which would be good now until the end of December, they want to be licensed for a specific date, for a specific venue, and for a specific opponent.
They want to fight on Nov. 13 at the MGM Grand Arena against Manny Pacquiao. Their second letter is in response to the alleged decision by California not to hear Margarito's request to be relicensed until the end of September.
Source: boxing.fanhouse.com
No comments:
Post a Comment