Dave Jackson writes:

The comment that the first judges were possibly biased is ridiculas.


===Yes it now seems the protest was aimed at the jury itself, and NOT just at the decision. They (Soumia's maaaanagement are saying the jury was corrupt from the beginning. To be fair Mr Green was NOT mentioned by name. It was the entire jury that Soumia's management felt was corrupt or biased.

Below in quotation marks, I pasted in from another board part of what Eric R wrote about his personal understanding of the WPKL statement. So yes, It seems they did actually make a statement on the Dutch BB's

And if Eric corectly iunterpreted the WPKL statement it seems that the WPKL statement seems to say clearly that Soumia's management was questioing the original jury because they felt the original jurors were either inherently biased against Soumia and in favor of Mary Hart, or they were unduly influenced by the bias of the WPKL Chairman.

If that is the basis of the protest, its a new wrinkle. I thought they were only protesting because they thought the jury did not judge the fight accurately -which provided absolutely no grounds whatsoever for a protest.

Heres part of what what Eric had to say about the WPKL statement:

"....the statement as I read it claims the protest was aimed at the jury, not the fight. And I can't read anything on that in the WPKL rules. (Don't even know if this has ever happened before)
So it's up to the WPKL how to interpreted that and judge if it's a legit claim or not. They could have indeed dismissed it. Statement says they examined it and considered it legit...."