THE most bitter boxing battle of the year seems destined to be a dirty fight outside the ring after the Scottish Sports Council yesterday announced they are establishing an independent commission to look at the future of the sport.
In the red corner is Frank Hendry, executive director of the Scottish Amateur Boxing Associ-ation, Britain's most experienced amateur official, while in the blue corner is Jimmy Dunn, secretary of the breakaway Scottish Amateur Boxing Federation.
In the middle, as referee, is the SSC, which took the unprecedented move of setting up the commission, alleging failure by the SABA to address issues central to future development.
Whichever organisation is counted out could see their members denied the right to go to the Commonwealth Games.
World boxing's ruling body, AIBA, recognise only the SABA, and secretary Karl Heinz Wehr denies recent BBC reports that AIBA is prepared to meet rebel Scots officials. The Commonwealth Games Council recently voted 14-0 to reject a federation approach. A similar vote at Glasgow District Sports Council went 18-1 to Hendry.
The SSC commission are to report within six months, and while the federation's Dunn welcomed the move, Hendry confirmed last night that SABA may not co-operate. ''We will decide at our meeting on June 19. There should be an independent commission to look at the Scottish Sports Council, and their waste of public money.''
Given that the council have frozen support to SABA for three years, and that Hendry claims to have paid running costs of up to #4000 a year from his pocket, he has little reason to help.
SSC spokesman John Lindsay said: ''We just want to act as honest brokers, and resolve this.''
Yet, according to Rod Robertson, chairman of the ABA of England, and a leading European official, the dispute could end with a recommendation from the SSC that the world body de-recognise SABA.
''There is no prospect of SABA being de-recognised, unless the SSC makes a recommendation to the world body that this be done,'' said Robertson. ''There would have to be compelling reasons. If there were, the SSC might even end up as an interim responsible body. It would not necessarily mean the federation assuming control.''
Allegations regarding money were hurled back and forth yesterday. Hendry confirms he has an on-going legal battle with a Scottish newspaper. Lack of proper medical or insurance resources also feature in complaints.
Dunn insisted that issues regarding ''various monies would have to be taken into account by the commission.''
He hopes federation boxers may yet compete in Kuala Lumpur. ''Our boys deserve a chance, and we've approached MPs. We want resources put into the grass roots, and schools. Nothing is being done in these areas to promote boxing,''
Hendry said: ''We refute that utterly, and if we do go before the commission, we will submit data on increased membership.''
Given that Dundonian Hendry is vice president of the European Amateur Boxing Association, and the only Great Britain member on the AIBA executive board, SABA dismissal seems unlikely.
However, the sport is in total disarray. Four years ago, SABA were asked to tackle declining membership and poor finances. There was too much emphasis on elite development, the SSC claimed.
They failed to respond, and in 1995, the SSC thought they had SABA on the ropes, slashing funding from #25,000 to #19,000. A year later the SSC rang the bell and axed funds. Hendry pressed ahead by securing sponsorships of his own.
The battle has already been in the courts, but SABA, who lost a judicial revue brought by the rebel group, claim to have put their house in order.
Yet it seems inconsistent for the SSC to intervene and establish a commission, while failing to resolve a much more long-standing rift between the governing bodies of Olympic and traditional wrestling. Rebel wrestlers resent council attempts to drive them back into the arms of the original, and officially recognised body. That dispute could end in the European courts.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article