Ok...So on what grounds did the WPKL originally appoint their Jury?

===I dont know. But, I would assume that the three jurors were
presumed qualified and fair minded, by the wpkl. I am fairly certain
that Dan Green has worked wpkl fights before, and is well known to them.===



Also is this the first time thes 3 jurors have ever been used by the WPKL.?


===see above===

Bear in mind that some of us know the identity of all the jurors and their standing in the European fight community and therefore it may not be a fair question to ask members of this board to comment on but it is a fair question to ask the WPKL



====Yes, I totally agree. They also owe the three repudiated judges that much-a public explanation of the basis for their repudiation-since their repudiation was public, and their integrity was publicly called into question.

I too, would also like to know what actual *facts* led them to believe the Belgian and Ducth judges were suspect-and I don't believe they have been very forthcoming on that. If they have no facts, basically they are setting a precedent to accept any protest from any vanquished contestant on the tenuous and unprovable grounds that the judges objectivity were "suspect".

In this case, It would not be sufficient to justify the protest on the grounds of bias, simply because *any* one judge was a friend of Ms Hart

That would not be enough. Son that isnt even necessry to discuss- simply becasue if any one of the three judges votes were over ruled or discarded the scores would still be 2-0, or at worst, 2-1 in favor of Hart.

Therefore; the WPKL needs to tell us and the three repudiated judges why EACH judge was biased- and what facts came to light AFTER the fight that led the WPKL to agree that were suddenly suspect.

Suffice it to say, the WPKL really has a lot of explaining to do-regardless of the grounds proffered for sustaining Soumia's protest.