IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
7 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Keith Kizer throws Floyd under the bus! "Floyd was AGAINST petitioning the NSAC for better testing"
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 10:30 AM
Post #1


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



Boxinginsider.com: That being said, when people say “the commission needs to step up, the commission needs to do something here”…what is your response to that?

Keith Kizer: “Yeah, you know we try to be as helpful as we can within our limited role. At the end of the day the fighters both have to agree to the fight or it’s not going to happen. They got very, very close to doing it about 18 months ago or so. I think everybody thought it was going to happen…I think in May of 2010, and then all the sudden this drug testing demand came aboard even though Mr. Mayweather had just fought Mr. Marquez without any sort of additional drug testing. So that kind of threw a monkey wrench in everything. It just seems to be a sticking point. I can see both side’s point of view on that. It’s not uncommon in negotiations for one fighter to make demands on another fighter to play mind games or to get an upper hand. It’s also not uncommon for the other fighter to push back on that. I was surprised that a lot of that stuff was done by the Mayweather camp publicly instead of making the negotiations as you normally would. You rarely hear about negotiations being done publicly for a fight, so it was kind of strange. I think it kind of backfired on everybody involved. But then of course the fight didn’t happen and here we are 18 months later and the fight still hasn’t happened. So that’s a private negotiation situation between the two camps and their promoters, and there’s nothing for us to step to one way or the other. We already made it quite clear that if they want to do additional drug testing as Mr. Mayweather has with Mr. Mosley and Mr. Ortiz, they’re free to do that as long as they don’t get in our way. Our drug testing is the primary drug testing. It’s the principal drug testing for the fight, but if they want to do additional drug testing they can. I’ll give you an analogy. We do the weigh-in’s of course. The weigh-in, whatever we weigh the fighters at the day before, that’s the weight for the fight. As long as they make the weight they’re free to fight. If they’re a little over there may be a fine involved of course, but the fight can continue. In some situations, there’s a second day weigh-in. The IBF always does a second day weigh-in for title fights. But there’s also been other fights where the camps will contractually say “look, in addition to this, neither fighter can weigh more than a certain amount of weight the next day.” That’s completely a private situation either between the camps, or between the camps and the sanctioning body and we don’t get involved. If you make the weight 24 hours or so before the fight when we weigh them…they make the weight, they’re good to go the next day. If they have some kind of side agreement that “hey, one guy weighs too much more the next day,” or the IBF says “look you weigh too much more Saturday morning, so now it’s no longer a title fight, it’s just a 12 round special event,”—that’s fine. That’s between the camps and the sanctioning bodies involved, or just between the camps. So I see this as no different than that. I know that Richard Shaefer and Bob Arum back in early 2010 had said “look, can we just petition the commission and see if they’ll be willing to do additional testing on our dime? I want to present that to them because we want everything auspicious of the athletic commission.” I said “definitely.” Any promoter can petition the commission for anything. It doesn’t mean they’ll say yes or they’ll say no. So they both had agreed to that. I guess Mr. Pacquiao had agreed to that but Mr. Mayweather said no, he wasn’t going to do that. And that’s fine, I take no offense at that. I don’t think anyone should. So if they had done that—of course it would have to have been a joint-petition—if they had done a joint-petition to the commission for additional drug testing where they’d cover the cost so we wouldn’t have any budget issues, we would have been happy to do that. We’re still happy to do that. Again, my understanding is Golden Boy, Top Rank, and Pacquiao were in agreement to do that, but Mr. Mayweather decided not to do that, and that’s his right.”

Boxinginsider.com: Now why would Mayweather have not wanted that? Is it because he wanted strict USADA testing?

Keith Kizer: “I don’t know if he wanted USADA involved or he wanted to spearhead it himself and not be a joint situation, a joint spearhead. Again, neither of those things are necessarily a bad thing.”



Read more: http://www.boxinginsider.com/headlines/may.../#ixzz1alQ2IGqk

This post has been edited by Deevel79: Oct 14 2011, 10:31 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 10:56 AM
Post #2


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



Thoughts???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Extant
post Oct 14 2011, 11:07 AM
Post #3


Strawweight


Group: Members
Posts: 65
Joined: 23-March 10
Member No.: 10,810



QUOTE (Deevel79 @ Oct 14 2011, 08:30 AM) *
Boxinginsider.com: That being said, when people say “the commission needs to step up, the commission needs to do something here”…what is your response to that?

Keith Kizer: “Yeah, you know we try to be as helpful as we can within our limited role. At the end of the day the fighters both have to agree to the fight or it’s not going to happen. They got very, very close to doing it about 18 months ago or so. I think everybody thought it was going to happen…I think in May of 2010, and then all the sudden this drug testing demand came aboard even though Mr. Mayweather had just fought Mr. Marquez without any sort of additional drug testing. So that kind of threw a monkey wrench in everything. It just seems to be a sticking point. I can see both side’s point of view on that. It’s not uncommon in negotiations for one fighter to make demands on another fighter to play mind games or to get an upper hand. It’s also not uncommon for the other fighter to push back on that. I was surprised that a lot of that stuff was done by the Mayweather camp publicly instead of making the negotiations as you normally would. You rarely hear about negotiations being done publicly for a fight, so it was kind of strange. I think it kind of backfired on everybody involved. But then of course the fight didn’t happen and here we are 18 months later and the fight still hasn’t happened. So that’s a private negotiation situation between the two camps and their promoters, and there’s nothing for us to step to one way or the other. We already made it quite clear that if they want to do additional drug testing as Mr. Mayweather has with Mr. Mosley and Mr. Ortiz, they’re free to do that as long as they don’t get in our way. Our drug testing is the primary drug testing. It’s the principal drug testing for the fight, but if they want to do additional drug testing they can. I’ll give you an analogy. We do the weigh-in’s of course. The weigh-in, whatever we weigh the fighters at the day before, that’s the weight for the fight. As long as they make the weight they’re free to fight. If they’re a little over there may be a fine involved of course, but the fight can continue. In some situations, there’s a second day weigh-in. The IBF always does a second day weigh-in for title fights. But there’s also been other fights where the camps will contractually say “look, in addition to this, neither fighter can weigh more than a certain amount of weight the next day.” That’s completely a private situation either between the camps, or between the camps and the sanctioning body and we don’t get involved. If you make the weight 24 hours or so before the fight when we weigh them…they make the weight, they’re good to go the next day. If they have some kind of side agreement that “hey, one guy weighs too much more the next day,” or the IBF says “look you weigh too much more Saturday morning, so now it’s no longer a title fight, it’s just a 12 round special event,”—that’s fine. That’s between the camps and the sanctioning bodies involved, or just between the camps. So I see this as no different than that. I know that Richard Shaefer and Bob Arum back in early 2010 had said “look, can we just petition the commission and see if they’ll be willing to do additional testing on our dime? I want to present that to them because we want everything auspicious of the athletic commission.” I said “definitely.” Any promoter can petition the commission for anything. It doesn’t mean they’ll say yes or they’ll say no. So they both had agreed to that. I guess Mr. Pacquiao had agreed to that but Mr. Mayweather said no, he wasn’t going to do that. And that’s fine, I take no offense at that. I don’t think anyone should. So if they had done that—of course it would have to have been a joint-petition—if they had done a joint-petition to the commission for additional drug testing where they’d cover the cost so we wouldn’t have any budget issues, we would have been happy to do that. We’re still happy to do that. Again, my understanding is Golden Boy, Top Rank, and Pacquiao were in agreement to do that, but Mr. Mayweather decided not to do that, and that’s his right.”

Boxinginsider.com: Now why would Mayweather have not wanted that? Is it because he wanted strict USADA testing?

Keith Kizer: “I don’t know if he wanted USADA involved or he wanted to spearhead it himself and not be a joint situation, a joint spearhead. Again, neither of those things are necessarily a bad thing.”



Read more: http://www.boxinginsider.com/headlines/may.../#ixzz1alQ2IGqk



Folks seem conveniently mum on this issue... huh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #4


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



QUOTE (Extant @ Oct 14 2011, 12:07 PM) *
Folks seem conveniently mum on this issue... huh?


EXTREMELY mum. LOL.

I wont be surprised if we see an immediate thread closure on this topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bnoles4life
post Oct 14 2011, 11:20 AM
Post #5


Welterweight


Group: Members
Posts: 1,575
Joined: 5-October 11
From: Dayton, OH
Member No.: 13,299



QUOTE (Deevel79 @ Oct 14 2011, 11:10 AM) *
EXTREMELY mum. LOL.

I wont be surprised if we see an immediate thread closure on this topic.


If what Mr. Kizer says is true, then Floyd needs to explain himself. However, a pancake, no matter how flat, has two sides to it. Let's see what Floyd has to say about this, when Ben talks w/ him (assuming Ben asks him, straight up, about this).

S/N: The prospect of this fight has been going on the better part of 2- 2.5 years and this is the first we're hearing of this? I would think if Bob, in fact agreed to this in the manner in which Kizer states, he would've been EVERYWHERE pointing this out. I"m not saying it's NOT true, but this would be inconsistent w/ how he's behaved in the past, as it pertains to ANYTHING Floyd vs. Manny.

This post has been edited by bnoles4life: Oct 14 2011, 11:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheSURGEONMDMPH
post Oct 14 2011, 11:24 AM
Post #6


Amateur


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 17-May 11
Member No.: 12,263



So testing is either not an issue or we will only do what the commission requires? You trying to divert attention away from this fraud ducking OSTs makes u look like a typical stan. did pacq petition the commission to impose catchweights or weight penalties? Exactly! Now STFU stooge and beg your idol to step up and quit ducking pbf and USADA!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 11:25 AM
Post #7


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



QUOTE (bnoles4life @ Oct 14 2011, 12:20 PM) *
If what Mr. Kizer says is true, then Floyd needs to explain himself. However, a pancake, no matter how flat, has two sides to it. Let's see what Floyd has to say about this, when Ben talks w/ him (assuming Ben asks him, straight up, about this).

S/N: The prospect of this fight has been going on the better part of 2- 2.5 years and this is the first we're hearing of this? I would think if Bob, in fact agreed to this in the manner in which Kizer states, he would've been EVERYWHERE pointing this out. I"m not saying it's NOT true, but this would be inconsistent w/ how he's behaved in the past, as it pertains to ANYTHING Floyd vs. Manny.


I see Kizer as a neutral being and has no party to side with on this issue. He as everyone else is only interested in trying to make the fight happen. I dont see why he would say this if it werent true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 11:29 AM
Post #8


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



QUOTE (TheSURGEONMDMPH @ Oct 14 2011, 12:24 PM) *
So testing is either not an issue or we will only do what the commission requires? You trying to divert attention away from this fraud ducking OSTs makes u look like a typical stan. did pacq petition the commission to impose catchweights or weight penalties? Exactly! Now STFU stooge and beg your idol to step up and quit ducking pbf and USADA!


What I take from this interview is, Arum, Pac, and GBP want the NSAC to implement this as a policy for all fights and not just for certain fighters. If this were to happen, then there would be no problems in the future as far as testing is involved. Pac and Arum want to obey what the commision has in place, and if that means that ALL fighters must undergo more intrusive testing, then so be it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Allmenjoi8
post Oct 14 2011, 11:35 AM
Post #9


Lightweight


Group: Members
Posts: 987
Joined: 15-May 11
Member No.: 12,125



QUOTE (Deevel79 @ Oct 14 2011, 11:25 AM) *
I see Kizer as a neutral being and has no party to side with on this issue. He as everyone else is only interested in trying to make the fight happen. I dont see why he would say this if it werent true.


He is not a neutral being in this. He is with the Nevada Athletic Commission... so if Pac (who happens to be fighting in Nevada instead of Dallas) decides to take his talents to another state, gets who loses out on major money... wait for it...Nevada! It is a little odd that he would be saying this when guess who is fighting next month??? Pacquiao. How come he was not asked about this when Floyd was fighting just a month ago? I am little curious? He could of said this two years ago or six months ago. But he waits to say it now.... There is always a reason to everything... I don't think he has an axe to grind by the way but what I do think he is doing is trying to make the person who is currently making him money look like as always the innocent being.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Deevel79
post Oct 14 2011, 11:45 AM
Post #10


Strawweight


Group: Banned
Posts: 59
Joined: 1-October 10
Member No.: 11,028



QUOTE (Allmenjoi8 @ Oct 14 2011, 12:35 PM) *
He is not a neutral being in this. He is with the Nevada Athletic Commission... so if Pac (who happens to be fighting in Nevada instead of Dallas) decides to take his talents to another state, gets who loses out on major money... wait for it...Nevada! It is a little odd that he would be saying this when guess who is fighting next month??? Pacquiao. How come he was not asked about this when Floyd was fighting just a month ago? I am little curious? He could of said this two years ago or six months ago. But he waits to say it now.... There is always a reason to everything... I don't think he has an axe to grind by the way but what I do think he is doing is trying to make the person who is currently making him money look like as always the innocent being.


And here come the conspiracies! LOL.

Cant it also be said that if Kizer was lying, Floyd could just as easily take his business to another state or country for that matter? Floyd makes the state of Nevada just as much money. Why would Kizer risk losing Floyd by posting lies?

This post has been edited by Deevel79: Oct 14 2011, 11:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd July 2014 - 03:24 AM