Boxing chairman replies to recess threat

Press, 16 June 1979, Page 56

Boxing chairman replies to recess threat

Mr J. B. Kent, the chairman of the New Zealand Boxing Council, said yesterday that he “would like to put the record straight about various misunderstandings” he considers were apparent from remarks made by Mr M. V. Drury, the chairman of the Canterbury association, in Thursday’s issue of “The Press.” “Firstly, I must express great surprise at his issuing of a press ultimatum alleging unsuccessful attempts by Canterbury officials to resolve by letters and telephone calls a dispute concerning official Oceania Boxing Association selections,” said Mr Kent in a prepared statement. “I am not aware of any I

communication on this matter prior to the time of the statement appearing. “In his statement Mr Drury refers to the selection of Mr Lex Ashton ‘as the New Zealand trainer to travel with the Australia-New Zealand contingent to the World Cup in New York.’ Surely Mr Drury knows enough of administration of sport to understand that New Zealand has no right as such to have a trainer appointed to the Oceania representative team. “The trainer of this team is chosen by the Oceania Boxing Association or its executive, not by the New Zealand council, this country beUng only one of many member'

associations from the South Pacific area. “This, of course, makes our success doubly pleasing because of the keen competition from this widespread area. The New Zealand association is obviously pleased with the performances of its team in gaining four Oceania gold medals and of Mr Ron Mitchell as trainer and Mr Ashton as manager and assistant or co-trainer. “Both are well known as successful trainers, but it does not follow from this that either of those gentlemen would automatically be nominated by the N.Z.B.A. had nominations been called for by the Oceania executive. What about, for instance, the credentials of Mr Alan Scaife, whose son, trained by him,

won the medal for the most scientific boxer at the Oceania tournament, of Mr Les Rackley, of Nelson, or other successful trainers?

"Furthermore, Mr Drury makes reference to 'allegations about one of our members and trainers.’ I have no idea what he is referring to in this context and would suggest that insinuations of this sort Should be backed with facts or left unsaid. “Another misunderstanding is revealed in the press release and comment in so far that it virtually contains an ultimatum by the C.B.A. to go into recess if Mr B. F. O’Brien and myself do not travel to Christchurch 'for direct negotiations.’ “However, no such ultimatum has been received and I

certainly have no intention of travelling to Christchurch at this time to negotiate about I know not what or answer grievances of which I have not been officially informed. “The C.B.A. apparently deires to conduct its correspondence with the council through the columns of the press before it forwards communication to the council. Regrettably, this can only lead to further misunderstanding and could in fact give the impression that publicity is being sought at the expense of courteous communication. “The New Zealand council is always open to consider grievances from its affiliates and will be glad to receive representations from Canterbury at its next meeting,

with some advance notice of the grievances and suggestions how these can be rectified by the national body after proper thought and consideration has been given,” the statement concluded.

Mr Drury 7 made three points in reply: a letter from the C.B.A. should have been received by the council on Wednesday (before his comments were published); the names of Messrs Kent and O’Brien were mentioned only because it was felt they would give “a just and fair” hearing to Canterbury; and any decision to send representatives to a council meeting in Wellington would have to be made by the C.B.A. executive.