Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Report Complaints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Athletic Commission closes one complaint, considers reviewing disputed boxing result after video review request
Summary
The Commission voted to close a complaint against a promoter and discussed whether to review a second complaint (case 2024061551) that requests changing a boxing bout result after video review suggested a punch may have struck the back of a fighter's head.
At its March 10 meeting the Tennessee Athletic Commission accepted legal counsel's recommendation to close a complaint against a promoter and discussed a second complaint asking the Commission to overturn a boxing result.
Jesse Gentry, chief counsel for the Department of Commerce and Insurance's Division of Regulatory Boards, summarized two items on the legal report. For the first he said the allegation against a promoter involved an assault allegation by a complainant and that the promoter stated he had no awareness of the allegation; counsel recommended closing the complaint. Commissioner Dan McGrew moved to accept the recommendation; the motion was seconded by Ben Grove and carried by voice vote.
The second matter, complaint number 2024061551, involves a boxer asking the Commission to change a result from a knockout to a disqualification. Counsel said staff had reviewed both regular-speed and slowed video of the match. Gentry said the slowed video "does appear as if the punch that landed the knockout did hit the boxer, the complainant, in the back of the head." He added inspectors who reviewed the video also found it difficult to judge in real time and that other states have reviewed video evidence to overturn or let results stand.
Gentry recommended that if the Commission wished to review the fight and potentially change the result, the parties should be brought in for a hearing—either at the next regular meeting or at a specially convened proceeding—so the Commission could view the video and allow the parties to be heard. Commissioners discussed the evidentiary standard: several members said overturning a result would require clear, convincing evidence and that real-time officials and inspectors may not have all camera angles.
The Commission did not vote to overturn the result at the March 10 meeting. Instead, commissioners expressed interest in reviewing the videotape at a future meeting with the parties present and asked staff to coordinate bringing the parties and evidence to the next meeting for a formal review if the Commission schedules it.
Ending: Staff will notify the parties and, if the Commission schedules a review, bring the video and invited participants to the next meeting so commissioners can make a formal determination.
