After defeating Audley Harrison to retain his WBA World Heavyweight Title, David Haye was asked why he struggled to land a single punch on his overmatched opponent in the first two rounds. Instead of the usual talk of needing to feel out his opponent and avoid getting caught early, Haye matter of factly said that he had gone into the fight with the plan to finish Harrison in the third round because “I put a lot of money on the third round, a lot of my friends and family did, I didn’t want to let them down by doing him too early”. When asked for clarification by an incredulous interviewer Haye confirmed that he was indeed serious and could have finished the fight earlier.
In the general fallout of one of the most farical boxing pay per views in living memory, this shocking revelation was largely ignored by the press. This wasn’t surprising as Haye had made similar boasts in a radio interview as part of the media rounds to promote the fight, telling BBC DJ Chris Moyles that not only did he frequently bet on the round that he would finish an opponent but that he would share the tip with those close to him. Indeed after his successful defense of the Commonwealth Super-Middleweight Title on the Best of Enemies undercard, stablemate George Groves shared a joke with his corner that he was about to let slip the round that the main event would finish. In as much the comment was noted by a typical subservient press, it was in wry admiration of the cheeky champion and his ability to dictate the timing of the finish. Indeed his broadcast partner Sky Sports, proudly carries the headline “Haye Chose The Third Round”.
But as the reality of the situation dawned on Sunday, the penny slowly started to drop. What seemed a harmless boast on Saturday night seemed to take on more sinister overtones as the day progressed. Veteran promoter Frank Warren attacked Haye, saying that “”For a fighter promoting it who is in the ring I think it is unacceptable” while it eventually emerged (contray to earlier reports) that the British Boxing Board of Control DOES forbid fighters from betting on their own fights. And late Sunday night the story broke that the BBBofC would investigate the issue, with their General Secretary Robert Smith telling the Daily Mail that “We will examine the case and the sanctions available to us. We could be looking at a fine but if we find that David acted in ignorance of the laws, a warning might be appropriate”.
So basically Haye has broken the rules but he’ll only get a slap on the wrist. Pretty embarassing for British boxing’s golden boy but seemingly nothing too serious.
What is more interesting to me is the question of whether Haye actually broke the law with such actions. I’m no lawyer but after spending much of the summer following cricket’s various scandals here’s my understanding of the laws surrounding “conspiracy to defraud a bookmaker”; the manipulation of any element of a sporting fixture for maximising financial gain from gambling is against the law providing one can prove that somebody has been negatively effected by such manipulation. Crucially the accused doesn’t have had to been party to match-fixing or throwing the fight to be guilting of this offense – the scandal that first rocked the cricketing world this summer was over Pakistani players artificially bowling a predetermined number of foul balls at a set time.
Such a definition surely covers Haye’s actions. Firstly he did manipulate the result for financial gain – he clearly carried Harrison through the first two rounds, something that was exposed by his ability to pierce through Harrison’s ultra defensive tactics at will in the third. The financial gain was significant with the Daily Mail reporting that Haye’s bet may have been worth as much as $161,355. There are clearly British victims of such activity – firstly and most obviously the bookmakers who accepted bets from Haye and those close to him that were made only on the basis of a plot to artificially determine round the fight would finish in. There are also those gamblers who put money on Haye to finish Harrison within the first two rounds, bets that were based on a analysis of the matchup that would surely have been vindicated if Haye hadn’t been pulling his punches early on. Maybe I’m missing something but there certainly seems to be plenty of evidence that something highly dubious has taken place.
Indeed, it seems that David Haye has slowly realised that he made a major mistake with his ugly boasts on Saturday night. Talking to the BBC on Monday he flatly contradicted his boast that he bet on the timing of the finish, although he stood by his comments that he told friends that the fight would finish in the third and that he would have felt “guilty” if it hadn’t. This parcial volte face seemingly satisfied a craven BBBofC, whose General Secretary seem unconcered with a boxer manipulating the result of a fight for the benefit of his friends.
Even if you believe Haye’s revised version of events (which I don’t by the way) he has still brought the sport into disrepute and possibly broken the law. If this was a case of a cricket bowler admitting that he could have taken the last wicket in 44th over but as a syndicate had money on the game going 47 overs he and his colleagues purposely bowled rubbish for the next three overs then all hell would break lose. The media would be calling for blood, the police would be starting investigations and the sporting world would be strongly critical of the players’ actions. Going by Haye’s own words on Saturday night I can see no moral or legal difference betwene the fictional actions of such hypothetical cricket players and the very real actions of the WBA Heavyweight Champion. David Haye has some very serious questions to answer and I hope for once the authorities both within boxing and the legal system have the courage to ask them. But somehow I doubt it.
