Update on Wilder Povetkin Appeal

February 12, 2019

A couple weeks ago, attorneys for Deontay Wilder filed a Reply Brief in its Appellate case with World of Boxing and Alexander Povetkin.

The long-winding legal case currently resides in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reply Brief by on Scribd

Specifically, Wilder appeals the U.S. District Court’s ruling which dismissed the boxer’s allegations that Povetkin breached their bout agreement to fight when he tested positive for Meldonium.  A jury ruled in Wilder’s favor that Povetkin ingested meldonium post January 1, 2016 but the court later sided with the World Boxing Council, the regulating body governing the Wilder-Povetkin bout.  In a November 2017 order, the WBC stated that it could not determine whether Povetkin ingested meldonium post-January 2016.  The WBC Rules and Regulations indicated that “any dispute or controversy” would be bound by its own rules.  Therefore, the Court seemingly adopted the WBC’s interpretation of the issues associated with this case and neglected to enforce the jury verdict.

Of course, WOB adopted the district court ruling.  They argued that the trial court was correct in deferring the discretion of a private organization in interpreting their own rules.  Notably, the Deflategate case is one of the central cases in this appeal.  As you recall, Tom Brady was accused of deflating footballs below regulation.  The New England Patriot quarterback requested arbitration to challenge his four-game suspension.  He participated in an arbitration in which the Commissioner affirmed the suspension.  Ultimately, the trial court set aside the arbitration decision.

But Wilder differentiates the Brady Deflategate case by citing that the WBC had not held an arbitration and allowed the Southern District of New York to hear the dispute.  Therefore, there was not an arbitration decision to set aside since the WBC, according to Wilder, had allowed the court to litigate the case.

In its Initial Brief it stated that the WBC “circumscribed any discretion it had with regard to the jury verdict when it issued its October 2016 ruling.”  Essentially, the WBC did not grant Povetkin a chance to challenge the jury’s actual verdict.

Most importantly, Wilder argues that the District Court should not vacate the jury verdict.

It also argued that WOB’s arguments do not escape it from the fact it violated the terms of the bout agreement.  Wilder asserts that even if the WBC had ordered Wilder to fight Povetkin in a postponement of their May 2016, he tested positive for another banned substance, ostarine.  This would have been another factor which would have prolonged the anticipated fight with Wilder.

The Reply Brief, which primarily addressed Povetkin and World of Boxing’s Answering Brief, responds to the arguments which ultimately supports the District Court ruling which found in favor of Povetkin and WOB.

The brief gets into a fairly detailed argument related to the testimony of an expert that testified as both an expert and fact witness and an allegation of attorney misconduct on the part of Wilder’s attorneys which the District Court referred to as a “kitchen sink” approach of throwing in every accusation in a court filing in demanding a new trial.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.