By Elliot Worsell
WHEN this time last year I found myself observing numerous potential referees sit before officials from the British Boxing Board of Control in the hope of becoming professionals, the one thing that stuck with me – and indeed the one thing that was stressed by those running the process – was how important it was for referees to understand and, ideally, shun social media.
While a blanket ban of all things social media was never suggested, it was evident that a referee’s approach to it said a lot about their approach to refereeing, at least in the minds of those from the Board. For example, an obsession with it – that is, a desire to tell the world every detail of their life – would, to the Board, suggest a carelessness and perhaps even an ego, neither of which are traits found in any decent referee. Moreover, if using such platforms to offer their opinions on the sport, either previously or presently, referees could also run the risk of being accused of bias when later making a decision in the ring deemed to be controversial.
“At the very minimum there is a potential for you to be criticised by the boxer you scored against or stopped,” said Dennis Gilmartin, the Southern Area Secretary. “Social media is the biggest change we’ve had in terms of refereeing in the last 15 years. It goes without saying, referees can’t be making comments on social media about boxers when they may be appointed to that same boxer in the next month, six months, or even five years. People will go and find something they said five years earlier, even if you just wrote, ‘I think he’s a good boxer.’ Five years ago you had no idea you would meet this boxer in the ring, but all it takes is one call people deem controversial and those old posts of yours will be brought up.
“Your social media conduct, as a result, needs to be beyond reproach. You need to be very wary of things that can be misconstrued and have an impact on your working career. It would be an awful way to have a career cut short or even impacted. It’s a minefield, social media, for any official working in boxing.”
Last weekend, Tony Weeks, an experienced official, found this out the hard way. Not content with prematurely stopping a fight between Vergil Ortiz and Fredrick Lawson, he then decided to take to social media (Facebook) in order to explain the decision and try to curry favour with those who may have called his actions into question. Worse than that, though, rather than an explanation in any traditional sense, this one shifted the blame from himself towards other people (notably the Nevada State Athletic Commission), leaving Weeks on very dodgy ground.
He wrote: “What the public didn’t know (was) that prior to the fight they did a brain scan on him (Lawson), and it came up that he had an aneurysm, and they did a test again, and the same aneurysm came up. Another doctor was brought in and gave him the same explanation and he tested negative for the aneurysm, so they cleared him to fight.”
If true, of course, this would explain why Weeks acted the way he did when seeing Lawson in trouble in the opening round against Ortiz. It would indicate he was a referee full of compassion and foresight, as opposed to one who had panicked and, by stopping the fight when he did, showed his incompetence and/or lack of understanding.
Lawson, after all, although he had been hurt, seemed to be protecting himself adequately at the time of the stoppage. His hands were up, he appeared okay defensively, and he was still seeing the shots of Ortiz coming. In fact, only an awareness of Lawson’s medical history would have someone, referee or otherwise, consider him to be at risk in round one of that particular fight. This, Weeks claims, is precisely what happened and therefore the reason he stopped the fight, yet Golden Boy Promotions, who promoted the fight, dispute this claim.
In a statement, they said, quite simply, “Fredrick Lawson was cleared by a Nevada State Athletic Commission sanctioned doctor to fight on Saturday night.”
This was then backed up by a statement from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which said: “On January 6, 2024, a contest was held between Vergil Ortiz and Fredrick Lawson in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Contest was under the jurisdiction of the Nevada State Athletic Commission. The health and safety of the unarmed combatants that compete in the State are paramount to the Commission. All contestants in the event were subject to full medical examinations and were cleared by medical experts to compete without restrictions. The Commission and its Executive Director will continue its ongoing practice of reviewing its official’s performance during and after an event.”
Essentially, had it not been for Weeks’ behaviour in the aftermath, there would be no reason for these statements, nor any reason to view his stoppage of Lawson as anything other than a referee panicking in the heat of battle. He is not the first referee to do so and he won’t be last, either.
Yet what separates Weeks’ situation from others is how he has since tried to rectify his mistake presumably because his ego was dented by the criticism and because, like us all, he has a platform to voice his opinion and offer his side of the story. This, in isolation, could be viewed as a positive thing (so often are referees criticised and sometimes unfairly), but there is a reason the British Boxing Board of Control do not allow active officials to be interviewed and try to protect them from intrusion at all costs. Many of them, after all, are not properly equipped to address an audience, be it on social media or elsewhere. Not just that, many of the ones operating today are as hungry for attention and validation as everyone else who combats boredom by conversing with strangers online.
“When I started it was easy,” said Marcus McDonnell, a Star-Class referee who retired last year. “The guys today have got it so tough. Reason being, social media is the worst thing ever – especially for our sport. When I started, if I did something wrong, I’d get told off by the Board but you wouldn’t hear about it after that. Next week there would be a report in Boxing News and they might have the odd letter in there complaining as well. But that was it. Now, as soon as you get out the ring, within two minutes it’s all over the world.
“When you go to a show and the TV people are there, they’re not your friends. They hope that something happens and it goes wrong. It’s great TV for them. They’re not interested in you getting in there and doing a great job.
“As soon as it goes wrong, people love it. They get on their podcasts and they get on social media and it becomes exciting for them. These people are not your friends. By all means be pleasant to them but keep to yourself.”
Whether due to the backlash, or a moment of clarity, Weeks did eventually remove his Facebook post and return to his silence; the preferred state of any referee. However, one could argue that in many ways the damage had already been done and that by posting so recklessly Weeks, rather than out the Nevada State Athletic Commission, had simply outed himself. He had outed himself as a referee claiming to be professional yet oblivious to what professionalism means, and he had outed himself as a man unable to take criticism or suffer in silence.
