Carl- I just wanted make sure the WPKL's reasoning was actually understood by everyone on this board; since I made the first post, and inaccurately assumed that Soumia's management were simply unhappy with the judgment calls of the three jurors-which made them appear to be nothing more than vanquished soreheads.

But, in fact, their complaint goes much deeper than that, and strikes at the very heart of the entire fight process. Because they are alleging corruption by, (or of) the three original fight judges-and thus the whole judging process.

And therefore this goes far beyond the issue of just the rule about UD's not being subject to re-examination.

I believe strongly that The wpkl owes each of the three repudiated judges a *public* explanation as to why each of them, as an individual, was publicy discredited.

I would also like very much to be told *exactly* what *facts* came to light AFTER the fight which were not known to the wpkl BEFORE the fight, which led the wpkl to disclaim these three judges, after they originally were satisified with them.

This is the only information which would tell us if the wpkl was justified in throwing out these three jurors, and rejudging the fight with a second panel-or not.

But, to date I don't believe the wpkl has been very open or forthcoming on that.

And to now, simply dismiss these serious allegations with a general statement that there *may* have been some vague reason to believe that one or more of the judges *may* have possibly been slightly biased, is totally unacceptable.

By the way, It would also not be sufficient to justify the protest on the grounds of bias, if only ONE judge was found to be biased-because if the one biased judge's scorecard was discarded, the verdict would still be 2-0, in favor of Ms Hart. So we need to have facts which show why each *individual* judge was found after the fight to be unfit to judge.


dan