Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Boxing: The Sweet Science -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (3616)	5/5/2001 8:51:18 PM
From: LPS5	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10489

Main Events blasts Tyson lawsuit by Scott Shaffer The ink is barely dry on the Mike Tyson’s lawsuit against the WBC, but the latest legal maneuver for control of the heavyweight championship has already drawn criticism from a key legal advisor of Lennox Lewis. The lawsuit, filed Friday, is Tyson's attempt to force the WBC to steer champion Hasim Rahman into a Tyson fight instead of a rematch with Lennox Lewis. As reported yesterday by Fightnews, *Mike Tyson, the WBC’s number one heavyweight contender, has sued the WBC to make sure that the sanctioning body enforces its own rules.* Although Fightnews has not yet obtained a copy of the complaint, the rules at issue would appear to be those covering mandatory defenses and immediate rematches. "I think the suit is premature because there has been no request for the WBC to sanction Rahman-Lewis II yet," said Patrick English, the attorney for Lewis’ promoter, Main Events. "The people who have been associated with Tyson over the years seem to fall into a continuous pattern of thinking that no one has rights except them. This is just a grandstand play. Tyson’s people are trying to scare Rahman into fighting Tyson." Rahman recently knocked out Lewis to win the WBC and IBF belts, as well as general recognition as the world heavyweight champion. In order to get the shot at Lewis, Rahman signed a contract containing a rematch clause in the event that he beat Lewis. Although there is some dispute regarding how to interpret that clause, it appears that unless the clause is thrown out by a judge, Rahman will have to fight Lewis before Tyson The WBC’s rule concerning mandatory defenses provides that Rahman inherits Lewis’ mandatory obligation to fight Tyson. Lewis made his last WBC mandatory on November 11 against David Tua. Because WBC rules allow the heavyweight champion one year in between mandatories, Rahman should have until at least November 11, 2001 to fight Tyson. English believes Rahman has even longer. "The way it works in practice is that if the parties can’t agree to terms before the mandatory comes due, then Tyson would become entitled to a purse bid on November 11. I have never seen the WBC call for a purse bid before the due date," said English emphatically. English believes that because Tyson is not entitled to any action from the WBC until November 11, the mandatory rule is not a basis on which a Tyson suit could succeed at the present time. The other likely basis for the lawsuit is the WBC’s rule concerning direct rematches. However, a close reading of WBC rule 1.30 shows that the rule does not prohibit all direct rematches. The WBC clearly has discretion to permit Rahman-Lewis II if it so desires because the rule reads "a direct rematch or another contest may be approved or ordered . . . if there is an agreement between both parties involved. " Here, the rematch clause is such an agreement, so the WBC may approve the rematch. Although the WBC may ultimately choose not to approve the rematch, it seems unlikely that Tyson can use a lawsuit to force the WBC not to approve the rematch. English is quick to point out that the WBC certified the Rahman-Lewis contract. When asked directly, English insisted the contract provided to the WBC contained the rematch clause. According to English, the WBC has previously approved Tyson contracts which contained direct rematch clauses, such as in 1996 when Tyson was WBC champ and the contract for a unification match with then-WBA titlist Bruce Seldon called for an immediate rematch should Seldon win. Seldon went down from a questionable shot and didn’t make it out of the first round. None of this means, however, that the WBC has to go along with the rematch clause. It is possible the WBC could refuse to sanction Rahman-Lewis II but that Rahman could either voluntarily choose to fight Lewis, or get taken court and forced to fight Lewis. In such a scenario, the WBC could strip Rahman and order a fight between the two leading available contenders, likely to be Tyson and Vitali Klitschko. It wouldn’t be the first time a contractual obligation forced the splintering of the heavyweight title. Just last year, Lewis was forced by a judge to vacate the WBA title because the judge ruled he had to meet the WBA number one contender instead of fighting Michael Grant. There will certainly be more legal wrangling in the weeks to come.