Antonio Margarito deserves a fair shake
On Thursday evening it was announced that boxing bad boy Antonio Margarito would be able to compete in a 13 November bout against seven-division titlist Manny Pacquiao. This made a lot of people happy. Surely Bob Arum, Margarito and Dallas Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones (who offered the stadium for the bout) were celebrating over the massive purses they could have lost had the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations rejected Margarito’s appeal.
But instead, without even having to appear before a group of commissioners, Margarito was ushered back into the boxing community. And all he had to do was mail in an application form and the mandatory twenty-dollar licensing fee. Got to love Texas.
Discussing whether Margarito should have been licensed by Texas is one thing. But still pawing and fixating over the question of whether Margarito cheated is another. Kevin Iole of Yahoo Sports wrote an article yesterday saying that Margarito’s return to boxing should make “fans nauseous.” He proceeded to suggest that Margo’s victory in Texas reflects poorly on the sport that nevertheless allows Iole to put food on the table. Shame, shame.
There’s only one known fact in the Margarito case, and it isn’t that he cheated. Before a 2009 bout with Shane Mosley, Mosley's trainer spotted a plaster-like substance in Margarito's hand wraps, forcing his hands to be rewrapped. Later tests indicated that Margarito's wraps contained sulphur and calcium, two ingredients that harden when mixed with oxygen. But even that isn't clear, because some say wraps, creams and salves contain those ingredients anyway.
What is certain is that old, hardened knuckle pads were found in his wraps, and that would have given him an unfair and dangerous advantage. But there's no direct proof he knew they were there, but boxing writers are almost universally condemning him for just such a thing.
That’s speculation and induction at best. The real fact of this case is that a fact hasn’t been established yet. That much is clear if you do your homework on the case. Nowhere has it been proven that Margarito knew about the illegal hand wraps. That’s been his story from the beginning, and an alternate account of events has yet to come to the fore.
So when then do journalists keep talking as if this is an established fact, and that Margarito is therefore morally culpable for attempting to commit the greatest sin of boxing?
It could be that some just want an excuse to knock boxing, and Margarito’s story offers it. But every time a reporter decides to decry Margarito and the alleged incident, there’s a disgusting amount of implicit moral high-riding going on. What do these guys really know about the sport? Were they in the locker room at the time of the incident? Did they see it as it unfolded? Did they take account of what a number of well-known boxing experts have said, that it would be completely possible to ‘load’ a fighters’ wraps without him knowing? (No less than Freddie Roach and Emmanuel Steward said as much.)
Iole says: “I believe with all my heart he [Margarito] knew.” But what does that amount to? Roy Jones Jr. may also believe with all his heart he’s still a relevant heavyweight, but that doesn’t make it true. It’s amazing that Iole would allow such an obvious admission of subjectivity and hence bias into something that is supposed to be entirely objective: Margarito cheating.
As for Margarito’s re-licensing being ‘bad’ for boxing, or putting the sport in a bad light. In a sport where super-fights are often delayed and may not ever occur at all, there’s nothing bad about this fight happening. If Margarito was really conscious of his act and is responsible, he’ll face the most primal punishment known to man: Pacquiao’s fists for twelve rounds.
As Bob Arum has predicted, this fight looks to draw as many as 70,000 people to the Cowboys Stadium to see the “Pac-man” defeat the heel Margarito. The marketability of this fight is massive. How can that be a bad thing for a sport that’s desperate to remain relevant today? Any proceedings and revenue forwarded to boxing that help the sport maintain itself, to keep giving fans quality bouts, has to be a good thing. No, what Iole can really only mean is that it may be a ‘morally dubious’ thing for boxing to put this fight on. Get wise man, this isn’t a church, and we don’t have time for ancient moral pondering. You might as well question the morality of boxing in general while you’re at it. But as it is it’s a business and a sport that people demand, and people are definitely demanding this.
Tags: