Kazakhstani WBO & IBF middleweight champion Janibek Alimkhanuly is facing backlash from the WBO after he neglected to defend his WBO title against Australian contender Andrei Mikhailovich this past Friday [October 4th]. While Alimkhanuly completed a successfull rout over his Australian opponent, only his IBF title was defended which has subsequently led to the WBO seeking clarification for their title not being put on the line.
The WBO has now issued a “show cause” notice towards Janibek Alimkhanuly (16-0, 11 KO’s) and his representatives to explain why his title had not been defended. If Alimkhanuly’s team does not respond or conjure up a plausible explanation for the title defense that did not ensue, Alimkhanuly faces the possibility of being stripped of his WBO title after only defending his IBF belt.
This “show cause” notice follows up the WBO’s previous decision to allow Alimkhanuly to defend his WBO title after specifically requesting the sanctioning body to do so. This request had been filed after boxing promotion No Limit, who Andrei Mikhailovich (21-1. 13 KO’s) is signed to, contractually appeared to have removed the possibility for Alimkhanuly to defend his WBO title―the reason for that having been their assumption that the IBF’s rule of a second-day weigh-in would be eliminated if Alimkhanuly attempted to defend his title.
WBO’s explanation on the IBF’s second-day rule was clarified this past Thursday where they stated that their rules did not conflict with the IBF’s own regulations. As a result, they allowed Alimkhanuly to defend his title against Mikhailovich on the grounds of a voluntary title defense, and stipulated.
The WBO’s decision to sanction the bout however not only comes paired with some questions surrounding No Limit who contractually sought to exclude the WBO title―despite this not being a possibility as only the WBO decides whether to make titles available or not, Alimkhanuly’s own team appears to have accused the WBO of interfering in their contractual agremeent:
“Furthermore, Team Zhanibek [Janibek Alimkhanuly] argues that they became aware of discussions between the World Boxing Organization, No Limit, and the IBF regarding sanction approval by the WBO without prejudicing the IBF’s second day weigh-in when another major title is also on the line,” The WBO’s letter to both fighter’s representatives reveals. “Therefore, based on the signed IBF bout agreement and addendum, Team Zhanibek asserts that the foregoing circumstances constitute tortious interference with the agreement and the choices made and relied upon by the parties thereto.“
The accusations by Janibek’s team against the WBO appear baseless, however, and might be a result of miscommunication between all involved parties. The WBO clarified in the same letter that they sought to enforce their own rules during their discussions with No Limit and the IBF, meaning they were attempting to ensure Janibek Alimkhanuly would defend his WBO title against Mikhailovich. They further substantiated their rules did not seek to or would interfere with the IBF’s own second-day weigh-in rules, and the Alimkhanuly-Mikhailovich bout was sanctioned as a result.
Apparently, Alimkhanuly’s team did not appear to understand that the WBO title was supposed to be defended on October 4th, which has now led to sanctioning body’s “show cause” order to demand an explanation.
The set of circumstances can be attributed to all the involved parties and their inability to clarify what should have happened. The WBO made it clear that the WBO title was to be defended, but the language of their letter was formal, complex and heavily-legalized, which could have resulted in the Alimkhanuly’s team misunderstanding what should have occurred. It is important to note that English is not Egis Klimas’, Alimkhanuly’s representative, first language and with the WBO’s letter full of technical jargon, the exact meaning of their ruling might have been missed.
However, this might not be a valid excuse given Klimas is considered an experienced manager, having managed the likes of Oleksandr Usyk (22-0, 14 KO’s) for years, and can always hire interpreters and/or lawyers to attain a full understanding of the WBO’s letter.
No Limit might also be held accountable, as it was their action to seek to exclude the WBO title that confused matters from the start. Contractually it is not possible for any promotion to include or exclude titles in fights as it falls to the sanctioning body of said title to decide this. Titles are ruled by sanctioning bodies who have their own rules on when and how titles are defended, and as such, No Limit is genuinely at fault for confusing proceedings.
The WBO substantiated on this in their letter, stressing that their sanctioning is required for a WBO title to be defended in a fight, and they retain the right to vacate a title if a champion participates in a fight without their approval. As such, promotions cannot exclude or include titles without following proper procedures set by the sanctioning bodies.
