The ABC’s of Margarito’s Texas License

By "Old Yank" Schneider on November 24, 2011
The ABC’s of Margarito’s Texas License
In this sport of boxing that all of us love, there are shadows aplenty for everyone to hide in

Any conjecture of wrongdoing is entirely based on a reader’s ability to speculate and an ability to allow one’s mind to imagine the possibilities…

The ABC’s of how Antonio Margarito (and those acting on his behalf) obtained a license to box in Texas is as easy to figure out as the childhood game of connect-the-dots, or as intriguing as any spy novel ever written. One view leads to wild speculation of corruption based on a review of the facts and the other leads to wild speculation of widespread corruption based on imagination; and neither are anything more than conjecture.

Speculation and imagination are certainly insufficient to build any fair case against any individuals or institutions. However, the common thread in it all remains the age-old boxing nemesis of corruption; real or imagined.

If we are to connect any dots we must label them like we do in the child’s game. When we connect all the dots in the proper sequence they end up revealing a picture—and not some avant-garde optical illusion, but rather a caricature of a recognizable figure. The dots in this game will be labeled Antonio Margarito; the ABC (the Association of Boxing Commissions and two officials named Tim Lueckenhoff, Executive Director of the Missouri Office of Athletics and President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, and Greg Sirb, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State Athletic Commission and 2nd Vice President of the ABC); the CSAC (the California State Athletic Commission); the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (the Texas Licensing Department and, alternately, the Texas Commission and William Kuntz, Executive Director of the Licensing Department and Dick Cole, Texas Combative Sports Program); Robert Arum (The Bobfather and President of Top Rank, Inc.); a Disciplinary Action Questionnaire (a Texas form); the Superior Court of the State of California (the Superior Court);  the Nevada State Athletic Commission (the NSAC); and a host of informed and protected sources to be added as the intriguing game of connect-the-dots develops.

The background to this story begins on January 24, 2009, when Antonio Margarito attempted to enter a ring against Sugar Shane Mosley with his gloves loaded with a foreign substance, “jeopardizing the health and safety of a fellow combatant” (or so read the eventual adjudication of the California State Athletic Commission). This loathsome and hideous act of attempting to load his gloves lead to a hearing before the CSAC on February 11, 2009 where Margarito’s license to box in the State of California was revoked for a one-year period (the harshest penalty available under CSAC rules at the time). In addition, Margarito’s trainer Javier Capetillo had his license revoked for the period. Many of Margarito’s detractors suspect that the story of his glove loading began long before his meeting with Mosley in 2009.

Margarito was a fighter in the stable of Top Rank. Despite the CSAC finding the testimony of Margarito and his trainer insulting in its lack of credibility, Arum was outraged. Not only had he hired high profile attorney Daniel Petrocelli to represent Margarito before the CSAC with the full expectation that Petrocelli would succeed, but he now threatened to use Petrocelli to appeal the matter to a higher authority; and in expected Bobfather fashion, he followed through on his threat.

It was clear that The Bobfather was determined to get his win at all cost—no money would be spared nor tactic removed from the table. Arum’s investment in or loyalty to Margarito was going to be on full display for months and months to come.

It is the custom in the US (where boxing is regulated not at the federal level but at the state level), that all state athletic and licensing commissions would honor California’s decision to revoke Margarito’s license. This national ban would deprive Margarito from making a living in the most lucrative market available to him—the entire US. This would, of course, deprive The Bobfather of any income off of his charge as well. Margarito could (and eventually would) choose to fight in Mexico, but this would give all appearances of slapping the CSAC in the face and potentially hurt any chance of reapplying for a boxing license after his one-year revocation expired. But when one has Bob Arum in his corner, one should recognize that slaps in the face of a major state boxing commission or other potential improprieties never get in the way.

So to Margarito’s rescue Arum came.

It is no secret that the State of Texas has a reputation for very lose standards in the licensing of boxers. In 2007, after being denied a license in other states for failing an HIV/AIDS test, Texas granted heavyweight Tommy Morrison a license. Edwin Valero who had been denied a license to fight in the US since 1994 due to medical issues stemming from an irregular brain scan, was granted a license to fight in Texas in March of 2008. The force behind Valero being granted a license was none other than Bob Arum himself.

Via threats of continued legal action, the New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC) settled a case with Arum involving Edwin Valero. The NYSAC had suspended Valero’s license after a medical review of his brain scans revealed that he had a prior brain bleed. Arum argued that since New York had never actually granted Valero a license in the first place, that there was no license to suspend. Arum used the Joe Mesi case in Nevada as the basis for his threat.

Mesi also had a license suspended in Nevada because of a brain bleed. In Nevada a boxing license expires after one year unless the boxer renews it. Mesi allowed his Nevada license to expire, leaving him with the status of being unlicensed in any state. Mesi’s attorneys argued that since Mesi no longer had a license in Nevada, there was no license for Nevada to suspend. The courts agreed with Mesi’s attorneys, paving the way for Mesi to legally apply for a license in any other state.  Since the major boxing venue states of New York, New Jersey, California and Connecticut uphold the highest standards of licensing, Mesi would not likely have been successful in applying for a license in any of these states. So he would apply in a state with a reputation for lax standards. Joe Mesi applied for and was granted a license in Texas.

Using the Mesi case as an example, Arum threatened legal action against New York unless they lifted the suspension against Valero. New York agreed and Valero was free to be licensed in any state in the US. Where did Arum march Valero to obtain a license? You guessed it; Texas.

Roll forward to Margarito’s predicament. Now strapped with a fighter unable to be licensed in California in 2009, where did The Bobfather take his tainted goods in the form of Antonio Margarito to get licensed? You guessed it again; Texas!

It is unclear if Texas at this point sought out the council of Tim Lueckenhoff, President of the Association of Boxing Commissions, or if the ABC offered up its unsolicited opinion. But by all appearances, in January of 2010, the ABC offered up a preemptive, unsolicited opinion to Texas in the following letter:

January 29, 2010

Dick Cole
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
Combative Sports Program
Post Office 12157
Austin, TX 78711

Dear Mr. Cole:

It has come to the attention of the Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) that Antonio Margarito is attempting, or will attempt, to become licensed in the state of Texas to participate in a WBC light middle weight title fight against Carson Jones at the Cowboy’s Stadium in Arlington, Texas on March 13, 2010 (subject to the approval of the Executive Director of the Combative Sports Program, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation).

The ABC Legal Committee previously determined that the reciprocal enforcement of the revocation of Margarito’s license was mandatory; as it was for an offense constituting “unsportsmanlike conduct or other inappropriate behavior inconsistent with generally accepted methods of competition in a professional boxing match.”  15 USC §6306(a)(2)(E).

The boxer’s license issued to Margarito by the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) on or about January 24, 2009, which was later revoked, expires, by its terms, one year following its date of issuance.  Arguably, reciprocal enforcement of the revocation (or suspension) of a boxer’s license is not mandatory beyond the term of the license itself.  Compare, Mesi v. Nevada State Athletic Commission.  Therefore the Texas Combative Sports Program would not be in violation of the federal law should your office license Mr. Margarito after expiration of his current license issued by the CSAC.

The ABC Board of Directors encourages the Texas Combative Sports Program, if applicable to hold a public hearing regarding Mr. Margarito’s application for licensure.  The Texas Combative Sports Program should seek testimony from all interested parties prior to a decision to issue such a license to Mr. Margarito.

The ABC Board of Directors also opined that Mr. Margarito should not be licensed at this time due to the seriousness of the violations surrounding the revocation Mr. Margarito’s license by the CSAC.


Tim Lueckenhoff, President
Jim Erickson, 1st Vice President
Greg Sirb, 2nd Vice President
E. “Buddy” Embanato, Treasurer
Joe Miller, Secretary

This letter is stunning on several levels, the most obvious being this statement contained in the last paragraph: “The ABC Board of Directors also opined that Mr. Margarito should not be licensed at this time due to the seriousness of the violations surrounding the revocation Mr. Margarito’s license by the CSAC.”

The most authoritative boxing body in the country, the impartial and independent ABC deemed Margarito unfit to be licensed in any state due to the seriousness of his violations.

We need to provide absolute clarity to the integrity, impartiality and independence of the ABC. The ABC draws its membership from state and tribal commissions in the US and Canada. It was spawned into existence by The Ali Act of the United States Congress. Those who have had the pleasure of contact with its leadership universally recognize the ABC as a collection of one of the most knowledgeable groups of competitive sports talent in North America and universally recognize the professional conduct of these individuals at the executive level as impeccable.  Its members in Canada and the US are constantly looking over their shoulders. They may end up being the best and greatest hope of returning integrity to our tainted sport. Those among us looking for an independent, single source to replace often maligned sanctioning bodies and state commissions have reason to hold out hope because the ABC exists and is growing in influence—EXCEPT in the case of Antonio Margarito!

Is there a rogue commission in Texas (the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation)?

Recalling that Arum, under the advice of his high profile hired gun Daniel Petrocelli, filed an appeal in California, what became of the appeal?

The appeal went before the Superior Court of the State of California. It was now out of the hands of the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC). The importance of this is that the CSAC had recently undergone a major revamping as a result of allegations of mismanagement and corruption. Even though all former CSAC members had been replaced prior to the Margarito hearing in February of 2009, it was important for the Margarito matter to be litigated independently of the CSAC. The Court upheld the findings of the CSAC and as a result upheld the revocation of Margarito’s license.

In late 2009, Bob Arum announced that he wanted Margarito to fight on the undercard of the Manny Pacquiao/Joshua Clottey bout in Dallas Stadium in March of 2010. Arum submitted an application in Texas that prompted the apparently preemptive, unsolicited response from the ABC published above.

The Texas Commission, with Margarito’s application in hand—and equipped with the original CSAC revocation of Margarito’s license and a letter from the ABC opining that Margarito was unfit to be licensed in any state—punted. They informed Arum and Margarito that should a license in Texas be denied, an applicant would need to wait one full year before reapplying. With this notification from Texas, Margarito withdrew his application (for the time being).

Undeterred, Arum took up his search for the Holy Grail with the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC). Nevada was swift in their response. Arum was told that the proper venue for adjudication of any application for Margarito was the state commission equipped with all the records and all the evidence: California.

Due to the seriousness of Margarito’s violation (again I repeat that glove loading is universally seen by the boxing community as the most loathsome violation in the sport), by this time Margarito had been rejected by the CSAC, the Superior Court of the State of California, the independent Association of Boxing Commissions, the State of Texas, and the State of Nevada. To most people, it looked like a lost cause.

But remember that The Bobfather had to win at all costs and was unwilling to take any options off the table.

Margarito and his council marched back to California to reapply for a license. Margarito’s one-year revocation was complete, but no state commission was willing to touch him with a 10-foot pole unless he brought his case back before the CSAC. So on August 19, 2010 the CSAC set aside virtually an entire day’s agenda for hearing the case for the reapplication of Antonio Margarito for a license in California. After five and a half hours of testimony and deliberation, the CSAC, in a 5 to 1 vote, denied Margarito’s reapplication for a license.

If all looked hopeless before the reapplication, surely a 5-1 vote denying a license, following a unanimous vote in February of 2009 for revocation, and a Superior Court decision rejecting Margarito’s appeal, and an opinion from the ABC that Margarito was unfit to be licensed due to the seriousness of the violation and rejections of sorts from both Texas and Nevada, and…one would objectively conclude that all was now clearly lost.

To add insult to injury, in August of 2010 the ABC issued a second letter as a follow-up to the CSAC rejection of Margarito’s reapplication. It was mostly intended for Texas authorities to read:

To: Association of Boxing Commission Members

From:    Tim Lueckenhoff, President
Jim Erickson, 1ST Vice President
Greg Sirb, 2nd Vice President
A. E. “Buddy” Embanato, Treasurer
Joe Miller, Secretary

Date:    August 19, 2010

Re: Antonio Margarito

In the matter of the Antonio Margarito case the Association of Boxing Commissions, (ABC), officers were pleased that Mr. Antonio Margarito did indeed appear before the California State Athletic Commission, (CSAC), for licensure, the ABC had maintained since the beginning of this matter that Mr. Margarito should seek a hearing with CSAC.  The ABC was also pleased that other member commissions held firm against licensing Mr. Margarito until he could appear before CSAC since they were the original disciplining commission.

The ABC believes that the CSAC did their due diligence in conducting a fair and impartial hearing and should be commended for laying out the facts and findings surrounding this matter.

At this time Mr. Margarito has fulfilled his obligations per the ABC (which was to appear before the CSAC before applying for licensure to another state/tribal commission in the United States) and thus he is now free to pursue licensure with any ABC member commission.  There is nothing under the federal law that would prohibit consideration for licensure. 

The ABC would hope that each ABC member commission would examine the facts that have been laid out by the CSAC and weigh those facts in determining if Mr. Margarito should indeed be licensed to compete in their jurisdiction.

I had a phone conversation at the time with Greg Sirb, 2nd VP at the Association of Boxing Commissions. He indicated that the above letter was intended to be a clear directive of sorts to members suggesting that in the opinion of the ABC, the CSAC had been thorough, fair and impartial in their denial of Margarito’s reapplication. Mr. Sirb assured me that the intent of the ABC was for Texas to take the first letter from the ABC (the one that opined that Margarito was unfit to be licensed in any state), and combine it with the second letter and arrive at an unmistakable conclusion: Texas only had one option: to review all the information available and arrive at the only logical conclusion—deny Margarito a license!

I asked Lueckenhoff and Sirb why the second letter dropped the language from their first letter regarding the seriousness of the violations resulting in Margarito being unfit to be licensed. I asked if their opinion had changed from the first letter to the second letter. The response (Mr. Sirb’s via a phone conversation and Mr. Lueckenhoff’s via email) was that due to the seriousness of the violation and the fair and impartial re-hearing of the evidence in California, there was no need to repeat language from one letter to the next. Both executives from the ABC were clear in their answers; both saw no change in the seriousness of the violations and both thought that Texas would combine the two letters to arrive at the only reasonable conclusion. Sirb emphasized that he “did not know how to provide Texas with a clearer road map.”


Something changed in Texas. Something important changed in Texas between the initial suggestion that Margarito withdraw his application in late 2009 and the state of affairs in August of 2010 at the Department of Licensing. What changed?

If you are a barber in Arkansas and relocate to Texas, you must obtain a license from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation before you can operate as a barber in the Lone Star State. This is the very same department that reviews combatant’s license (boxing license). When you complete an application for a license to be a barber in Texas, you are required to complete a Disciplinary Action Questionnaire. “If you have had a license revoked, suspended, probated or denied in any state, county or municipality, the Department must review your disciplinary action history to determine of you are eligible to obtain a license” (directly quoted from the actual Disciplinary Action Questionnaire).  his questionnaire is required if you are applying for a plumber’s license, a barber’s license, an architect’s license, or virtually any professional license in the state of Texas.

In December of 2009, this questionnaire was prominently attached to the online application for not only all of the licenses referenced above, but also (as one would logically expect) for a boxing license)

Why is the Questionnaire important? Based on information I obtained from a source inside the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, should any disciplinarily actions have occurred in an applicant’s past, the application must be reviewed by the full board. If no Disciplinary Action Questionnaire is involved, only one department head is required to review the application for final approval—no hearing, no board-one individual makes the decision.

Here comes the atomic bomb: In August of 2010 (when Margarito applied for a license in Texas), the Questionnaire mysteriously disappeared from the Combatant’s section of the Department’s online application website. For reasons my source inside the Department was unable to explain, the requirement for the Disciplinary Action Questionnaire to be completed for a combatant’s application was inexplicably dropped. My source told me that Antonio Margarito’s application in the State of Texas did NOT have a completed questionnaire attached to it. Oddly, my source revealed that the Questionnaire requirement for all other licenses (barber’s license, plumber’s license, etc.) remained intact. 

Why is this intriguing? Without a Disciplinary Action Questionnaire, one and only one person is needed to review and approve or deny Margarito’s application; a completed questionnaire would have likely required the full commission to review the facts and vote on the application. No hearing was necessary—one man made the decision—a completed questionnaire might have prompted the need for a hearing in Texas. In fact, the ABC had recommended Texas conduct a public hearing on the Margarito matter in their letter of January 29, 2010 (“The ABC Board of Directors encourages the Texas Combative Sports Program, if applicable to hold a public hearing regarding Mr. Margarito’s application for licensure.”) Texas held no hearing. The tool that might have compelled them to do so had mysteriously vanished as a requirement for a combatant. The Disciplinary Action Questionnaire was not even required of Margarito; a man with a license once revoked and subsequently denied in a reapplication process. Many would find this intriguing indeed!

In February 2009, the CSAC by unanimous vote revoked Margarito’s license. Upon appeal, the Superior Court of the State of California upheld the revocation. Margarito withdrew his application in Texas in 2009. The ABC deemed Margarito unfit to be licensed in January of 2010. Nevada would not take an application without Margarito returning to California. Upon returning to California, Margarito was denied a license by a 5-1 vote in August of 2010. Ratifying California’s decision, the ABC issued a second letter in August 2010, commending the CSAC in their impartiality and fairness in denying Margairto a license and further suggested to all commission members that they carefully consider the facts and conclusions of California. One would need to be a total dolt to misinterpret the picture that connecting these dots convey. But Texas, equipped with a mysterious disappearance of the Disciplinary Action Questionnaire (that could potentially prompt a need for a hearing), ended up leaving the decision in the hands of a single individual. No dots were connected in Texas.

Any salesman would tell you that influencing one person to climb aboard and take your sales-pitch bait is a lot easier than convincing an entire board and certainly easier than presenting your sales-pitch case during a hearing. Some people are more easily sold than others; others require a negotiation of sorts before they will buy into the pitch. And boxing has a history replete with a long list of unsavory characters for who “negotiating” a deal took on a very dark meaning. There is likely a completely logical explanation for any unanswered questions in my game of connect-the-dots. All intrigue may likely be dispelled with an easy inquiry to folks I was unable to get to respond or unable to reach.

If I’m wrong in expecting easy explanations and easily dispelled speculation, then I call upon the Attorney General of the State of Texas to take note of this connect-the-dots puzzle. Due to the interstate commerce nature of boxing, I call upon the US Attorney’s Office to take note as well. We can only connect the dots in pencil with little more than idle speculation and great imagination as our lead. Attorneys General have the tools of hard investigation and compulsory cooperation that is well out of the reach of any curious fan.

So I do not and cannot conclude that anything unsavory took place here. I do however conclude a few things.

First, should this story encourage others to push harder for the ABC to gain greater authority over boxing in North America, it would be a good thing. Second, Texas has done little to change its reputation for granting questionable boxing licenses.

There are no accusations of wrongdoing made against any specific individual or institution in my story of intrigue. Any conjecture of wrongdoing is entirely based on a reader’s ability to speculate and an ability to allow one’s mind to imagine the possibilities. In this sport of boxing that I love, there are shadows aplenty for all to hide in.

Follow us on Twitter@boxing_com to continue the discussion

Bob Arum says Margarito did not know wraps were loaded!

Miguel Cotto on Margarito's hand wraps

Greg Sirb on Morrison

Rashad Holloway: "Margarito's Loaded Gloves Nearly Ended My Career In Sparring!"


HBO Boxing: Antonio Margarito - Greatest Hits

Boxing Classics: Miguel Cotto vs. Antonio Margarito (HBO)

Discuss this in our forums

Related Articles


This is a place to express and/or debate your boxing views. It is not a place to offend anyone. If we feel comments are offensive, the post will be deleted and continuing offenders will be blocked from the site. Please keep it clean and civil! We want to have fun. We want some salty language and good-natured exchanges. But let's keep our punches above the belt...
  1. Austtin 08:34pm, 05/17/2012

    Yank, I think I’ve hit on a strong reason as to why I find your blog so tendetious and just don’t like it. Your whole slant is heavily condemnatory. You use the term “gloves loaded”  which connotes lead knuckles, or heavy solid brick like inserts. In fact a fashion arose to refer to the illegal items as “bricks”. There was even a supposedly authentic account of the discovery by Richardon where the brick thudded on the floor at Richardson’s feet. Imagination, in this case, knew no bounds. You are obviously prejudiced against Margarito from the beginning.

    I read every legal document relating to this matter, the witnesses, and decisions handed down.. I do not see the condemnation that you proclaim. I’ve already noted that the commissioner who first handled th used gauze pads (that’s all they were) said “they were a little stiff in spots as if they’d been in water”. I’ve read that they took 5 hours to reach a decision, during which there were some who didn’t want a penalty levied on Margarito at all. The adjudicator said that they were finding that Margarito did not know of the illegal pads, but he was being penalised because “you are the head of your team’.  The laboratories reported that there were trace items of 2 components of plaster-of-paris. The most vital plaster-making ingredient was absent. So in actual fact, the used gauze pads were harmless, just on the same ;level as new gauze pads would have been.  You may know that Bob Arum, a very astute man, who is a masterly judge of character, and was loyal to Margarito right through, actually instituted a suit against the California Commission to show proof that these pads could harm a human being in any way.

    As I’ve said many times, the trace ingredients found in the used gauze pads, were also the ingredients for absorbent powders and are used extensively in cosmetics.  In fact 2 laboratories whose names I don’t recall just now, actually said that it was talcum powder. Another said that the trace elements are so common that almost every kitchen around the world will contain some.

    In conclusion, I must say that I think that the attiude of the California Commission in banning margarito for 12 months, but when he re-applies after 16 months, they turn him down again. I think that was malice, and showing their “muscle” . This lets’ down justice.

    I could say more, but what’s the point. You write like a man whose mind is made up. The difference between us is that your opinions reach a wide public and mine don’t.

  2. austin 09:46pm, 04/06/2012

    I read the compete legal documentation, the banscript. In it was written that illegal items had been found in Margarito’s Bandages. They were 2 used gauze pads. They were illegal because thry should have been new. Laboratories found that they contained “traces” of 2 components which, when combined with other items, made plaster of paris.

    The traces in themselves, not having been combines with anything were harmless. Other Laboratories decided that they were components of absorbent powder, much used by athletes, and also used in making cosmetics of all kinds. Basically common household items.

    The first Commissioner who handled them testified that they were “slightly stiffer in spots, as if they’d been in water”.
    The Judgement and ruling were that The trainer, who had acknowledged that he was completely to blame, would be banned for life. and that Margarito, who was found not guilty of knowing that there were illegal items in his bandages, would be suspended for a year. The reason given was “because you are the head of the team and should have known”.  There were disputes amongst the Commission members, some of whom wanted no penalty.  it was reallt only a storm in a teacup.

    Arum of Top Rank actually filed a suit against the California Commission to show proof that anything was in the bandages, to wit, the gauze pads, could harm any human being even a little.  (I’m paraphrasing a little.)  The suit wasn’t defended.  Arum explained that he was loyal to Margarito because he saw that Margarito was being railroaded, and was innocent. Clear enough reason.

    Now, about Texas. My understanding of that second letter from the ABC is that since Margarito has properly waited out his suspension, and properly applied as instructed to the California Commission, the ABCs see no reason why he cannot apply for a licence in the normal way to any Commission.

    I don’t see in it what you see, and alhtough I don’t understand the Byzantine machinations of whither Promoters or Commissions who seem to be in a lock-step dance with each other most of the time, The ABC letter seems to be quite clear. Margarito can apply and the ABC see no hindrance to a licence being issued.

    Where am I wrong? I’d appreciate an impartial comment, if you can. I added the rider because in your report above, you seemed to me to show extreme antagonism to Margarito, and particularly to the idea that he should have been permanently banned, like the trainer. To me it’s merely a matter of fairness and how the laws are interpreted in the USA. I am a former solicitor from Ireland and unfamiliar with the procedures here but the matter, from both the transcript and the ABC second letter, seems clear enough. Their first letter I though unneccessary harsh, much harsher than the California SAC documented decision itself. Which it should not have been.

  3. "Old Yank" Schneider 04:50am, 11/29/2011

    del g—Great to have you drop by.  We need more fans like you posting here.  And thanks for the positive feedback.

  4. del g 03:36am, 11/29/2011

    Great work again Yank!!! Just read your article….....agree 100%.....You know my feelings on Mr Margarito….....Keep up the good work bud, and lets hope Cotto and Boxing gets Justice in this fight…...which shouldnt really be happening for obv. reasons…...Cotto UD for me guys!!

  5. "Old Yank" Schneider 04:27am, 11/28/2011

    Sr. Bill—Once a man can take the will of another something gets wired into the psyche of a man.  My fear is that Cotto is now wired to lose to Margarito.

  6. SR.BILL-HARDPORN XXX 10:14am, 11/27/2011

    2011 has been a dud year in many ways…. Boxing has slumped without doubt…. Hell, even Jose Felicano can see that…. Too much hype with little fire behind the events…. My top-3 favorite fights of ‘11 are: “Cotto-Mayo, Hopkins-Pascal and V.K.-Adamek.” That’s not enough by late Nov. to impress me… Peace….

  7. SR.BILL-HARDPORN XXX 10:08am, 11/27/2011

    Back in ‘08, I felt Margo was too strong and big for Cotto, but here in 2011, I now feel Cotto has more gas in the tank and will decision a slower and more so faded Tony Margo up in New York…. I doubt the rematch equates to fight # 1… I really doubt that, nor do I expect it to…. WORD!

  8. "Old Yank" Schneider 06:29am, 11/27/2011

    TEX—I agree 100%!

  9. TEX HASSLER 06:56pm, 11/26/2011

    I thought Margarito should have been banned for life from boxing in the U. S. If he wants to continue fighting let him fight in Mexico.

  10. "Old Yank" Schneider 05:07pm, 11/26/2011

    You guys must come from the Rick Perry School of Debating.  After all, when Perry lobbied for English to be the official language of Texas he said, “If English was good enough for Jesus then it’s good enough for Texas!”

  11. "Old Yank" Schneider 05:03pm, 11/26/2011

    Hum…must be long on horns and short on reading comprehension down there in Texas.  Keep ‘em comin’ so there is no doubt left.

  12. big boss man 09:55am, 11/26/2011

    Cruncher, from one Long Horn to another, I kind of like what you say here. if you are going to accuse some entity or some person of wrongdoing, identify them. Otherwise, this is National Enquirer stuff.

  13. "Old Yank" Schneider 11:08am, 11/25/2011

    Cruncher—With all due respect, you need to get a grip!  I attempted to get this stuff published at several different places—all of them have a history of publishing my work.  ALL of them refused to publish it.  I brought the article to this site in a somewhat softer version because I wanted the story out. had the courage to publish it where no one else would.  The gutless wonders were the publishers, not me.  There are plenty of names in my article.  We all know the single person who made the licensing decision on his own.  Calm down and take a chill pill.  Sometimes backing off a notch can get something published is more important than showing off how big your balls are.

  14. Cruncher 08:45am, 11/25/2011

    I don’t know where you are from, but I’d bet it’s NY. The arrogance drips from you. You need to learn respect. You need to show both sides of this “story.’

    Texas has had a decent history in boxing. No state is flawless, but Texas is better than most.

    By the way, dumbo, the fight will take place between Margo and Cotto and it will take place in New York City. Texas has no play in this.

    Seems to me you are way too late with this “expose” which only exposed you as an attention-getting muckraker who like to stir up things for reasons only you probably know. Next time you do it, leave the great state of Texas out of it.

  15. Cruncher 08:37am, 11/25/2011

    Man, you are a gutless dolt. If you think the Texas Commission stinks, name names. Who was it who “misplaced” the key document?  Quit pissing three feet from the fire hydrant and have the courage to name names and point fingers.  Implying wrong doing makes you no better than the suspected wrongdoers. Mayby the document was misplaced inadvertenly. Maybe it was an honest mistake. Get your head out of the—- of the NYSC which is no better than Texas. If you doubt that, ask Joey Gamache what he thinks. You can’t ask Bea Scottand because he is dead—killed in the ring. Ask Willie Classen.

    Do some real reserach here. Any imbecile can make accusations. I want proof and I want names. Otherwise, you are the one who STINKS like 3-day old fish.

    And yes, I am from Texas.

  16. "Old Yank" Schneider 08:16am, 11/25/2011

    Cruncher—Please send $10 grand so I can increase my investigating resources.  And you are on the right track—the Texas commission stinks!  Thanx for reading.

  17. Cruncher 08:07am, 11/25/2011

    NY once made a mistake that allowed Edwin Valero to fight in Texas, but he died before that could happen. This writer hates Texas. Always has. I’m sick of it.

  18. Cruncher 08:01am, 11/25/2011

    This is a very stupid article. The writer says it’s an investigative article but he then offers a disclaimer at the end. No balls, eh?

  19. "Old Yank" Schneider 07:04am, 11/25/2011

    If dozens of people die from the collapse of an observation bridge inside the lobby of a hotel, who is at fault?  Some would argue that you must go to the source of the problem in order to determine fault.  The architect was licensed as was the contractor.  If the design was faulty.  No matter how much after-the-design-fact fault one tries to place at the feet of the contractor or the hotel, it all comes back to the faulty architectural design as the source of the accident.  If the contractor used sub-standard materials and deviated from the architectural design, then he is the source of the problem.  Faulting the hotel (the NYSAC) for a faulty architectural design or a fault of the contractor seems to stray away from the source of the problem in my opinion.  The NYSAC would have nothing before them had Texas done the right thing in the light of day!

  20. "Old Yank" Schneider 06:50am, 11/25/2011

    Ted—The NYSAC conducted an OPEN, PUBLIC HEARING in front of the commission.  I disagree with their licensing of Margarito.  Perhaps my disagreement with the NYSAC’s handling of this could be the subject of a different piece.  But surely even YOU can appreciate the difference between a public hearing (NYSAC) and a decision that oddly dropped a requirement for a Disciplinary Action Questionnaire that allowed a Texas license to be granted to Margarito by ONE MAN behind closed doors.  If you missed the point, you missed the point.  I can’t help you here.

  21. "Old Yank" Schneider 06:44am, 11/25/2011

    The Thresher—Vodka is not to be used on your breakfast cereal—it makes you a grumpy man!

  22. The Thresher 06:38am, 11/25/2011

    I think you have given the NYSAC a bit of a pass on this. Does this mean that if Texas said it was ok for Mesi or Morrison or Bowe to fight, NYC could do it? Puleeeeezzaze. If NY wanted to stop this fight, it could.

    And oh by the way, save your condesending and “righteous” sarcasm for who someone who gives a crap.

  23. "Old Yank" Schneider 05:31am, 11/25/2011

    Iron Beach—RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

  24. "Old Yank" Schneider 05:30am, 11/25/2011

    The Thresher—I’m not sure exactly how to answer your questions.  First, glove-loading is perhaps the most loathsome act in all of boxing.  We do not speculate that Margarito attempted to load his gloves and commit a crime in the ring—it is now settled and proven fact.  Many fans feel that this alone is sufficient to ban a fighter from the ring for life—count me among them.  How Margarito came to be licensed opened a door for this loathsome character to climb back in the ring.  How easily he walked through that door in Texas stinks like three-day old fish.  In my opinion, the appropriate place for anger is with the body that opened the door.  Second, this investigative piece is intended to shed a bit of light on how dark this sport can be.

  25. Iron Beach 05:16am, 11/25/2011

    Looks like NYSC has to approve Margarito’s right to box since he has a valid license, which in my opinion was issued under questionable circumstances by the state of Texas. Certainly the ommission of the DAQ has to raise some serious questions regarding a procedural violation by Texas’ own protocol for granting a license. The glove loading, glove tampering incidents are to me the most despicible action imaginable in the sport and I loathe the relicensing of anyone involved for LIFE!!

  26. The Thresher 02:17pm, 11/24/2011

    It appears that everything that can be done to make this fight come off safely has been done. If so, then whatever happens comes out of the culture of boxing and we should be able to live with it.

    If something “hinky” was/is done and that results in a tragedy, all bets are off. It’s like a boxing fatality. If all medical precautions were in place and still the tragedy occured, then I can live with it because it derived from the culture of boxing. Doo Koo Kim or Leavander Johnson are`good examples of that. The injuries to Greg Page and Michael Watson reflect the flip side of this issue.

    Now that the NYSC has sanctioned this fight and Texas is not involved, why all the venonm directed at Texas? Why not at NYSC if you feel so strongly about this.?

Leave a comment