Dan Im no longer in contact with rachael and dont feel I owe her a defence of anykind but can happilly point out that rachael is very diplomatic and her post was her being nice and suggesting that a rematch was/is the only credible solution.

My involvement to date on this thread is an interest in the corruption (i trust thats not too strong a word) that prevails in this sport to falsely elevate a fighter to prominance for marketing purposes.

At the recent clash of Rachael and Dauprasuk for the WMC World title of which the result and subsequent developments have been discussed i knew rachael had lost. i knew she was losing as the fight progressed. i knew because i knew what the judges wanted and what they were seeing. but upon returning to the changing rooms somebody (no names) uttered the words "rach should have won! home town decision! its her country for gods sake" Why? Rachael didnt win. A panel of judges scored what they saw not with their hearts (all of the judges I would consider friends and would refuse to ever speak to them ever again if they did me a favour)

My point is simply that promoters must assure themselves of the impatiality of the judges and stick by any decision. Save for the notable options dan offered....violation of rules etc.

On a personal note in all correspondance with Eric and Alex Boogers I have found them to be most reasonable. And that correspondance hasnt always been plain sailing as there was controversy over the (in Erics opinion) Ilonka/Jones decision. But throughout it all and subsequently it was good doing business with them. Can I suggest you have a drinking contest? and dont fall out.

I promised Alex a beer if Jones had fought soumia so I could join you. After all im impartial now that I have no women in the gym LOL