The attorneys in the Deontay Wilder-Alexander Povetkin/World of Boxing case are at it again with letters to the court sent late last month. The parties await a pending Motion for New Trial and/or Motion for JNOV but the attorneys for Povetking and WOB are lobbying the Court to consider newfound information.
As you may recall, at trial in February, a jury took little time in siding with Wilder. The jury decided that Povetkin had ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016, the sole issue at trial, and Wilder won as a result. Povetkin filed a Motion for New Trial, or in the alternative, Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
In a letter to the Court dated, June 21, 2017, the attorneys for Povetkin and WOB note that a WADA Technical Document dated May 17, 2017 stated that WADA advised that “urinary concentrations of Meldonium below 100 ng/mL “should not be reported” “as an Adverse Analytical Finding.” The attorneys argue that this was in direct contrast to the opinion of Wilder’s expert which noted that he follows the WADA technical documents.
Povetkin WOB letter to Court 06.21.17 by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
They also note that the WADA laboratory that examined Povetkin’s specimen has had its accreditation partial suspended. The suspension was announced via WADA press release on June 20, 2017 and Povetkin and WOB argue that this “goes to the heart of this litigation.” The argument is that the reliance on the accreditation by Wilder’s attorneys and his expert place the verdict into question since these issues have arisen after the verdict.
In response, Wilder’s attorney states that the two issues raised are irrelevant and are a ploy for another “bite at the apple.” Wilder’s attorney notes that the WADA technical document does not go into effect until September 1, 2017. Thus, the document does not go into effect until a year and a half after Povetkin’s positive test for Meldonium took place on April 27, 2016.
They also bring back the original question that was posed before the jury at trial earlier this year: “Did Alexander Povetkin ingest meldonium after January 1, 2016?” This negates the argument of whether or not Povetkin would have tested positive for Meldonium under WADA guidelines.
WOB Letter 06.30.17 by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
With respect to the allegations that the UCLA Lab has had its accreditation partially suspended by WADA, Wilder’s attorney argues that the partial suspension does not mean that it cannot continue its regular anti-doping activities and is only for three months. It stresses that the notice does not even apply to UCLA’s testing for Meldonium, which is central to the issue at trial. It suggests that this fact would have likely been excluded at trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403(b) due to the fact that its “probative value” is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. It also suggests that this new information allows Povetkin/WOB to engage in wild speculation about the case based on assumptions. For instance, it argues that Povetkin and WOB claim that Wilder’s expert at trial knew about the “impending suspension” which would imply that he was lying under oath.
Payout Perspective:
It has been several months since the attorneys for Povetkin and the World of Boxing have filed its motion for a new trial or trial notwithstanding the verdict without a ruling from the Court. The latest wrangling are valid if you represent the defendants but the threshold for a motion for new trial would bet that there were significant legal errors. The issues brought up by Povetkin and WOB seem to be more factual in nature. Regardless, the bar to have such a motion granted (new trial or overturning a judgment) is high and somewhat difficult because you are asking the Court to overturn its own decision. Rather, these arguments seem more appropriate for an appeal. Moreover, the Court does not really have a time limit to decide on this motion whereas an appeal would have had more stringent guidelines.
MMA Payout will keep you posted.
Leave a Reply