Adviser says Tyson wouldn't get fair shake in Nevada

He wouldn't elaborate and he wouldn't disclose how he reached his conclusion, but Shelly Finkel managed to draw the ire of the Nevada State Athletic Commission by saying he didn't feel Mike Tyson could get a fair shake in front of the five-member panel.

Finkel, Tyson's latest adviser, said he didn't believe his client would be re-licensed in Nevada if and when he applied. Tyson's license was revoked for at least one calendar year for biting Evander Holyfield, and that one year expired July 9.

But instead of applying in Nevada as expected, Finkel had Tyson apply in New Jersey last Friday. That state has scheduled a hearing on the subject for July 29.

"If I believed Mike Tyson would be licensed in Nevada, I wouldn't have gone to New Jersey first," Finkel told the Sun from his New York office Monday. The implication: Finkel believes NSAC members have prejudged Tyson and a majority would vote against reinstating him.

"How does he know how we'd vote?" said an indignant Dr. Elias Ghanem, chairman of the NSAC. "What he said doesn't make sense unless he has some other agenda.

"This angers me. I've had no contact whatsoever with Shelly Finkel and I know for a fact no one could have told him Mike Tyson has no chance to be re-licensed in Nevada."

Finkel declined to specify what led him to feel the NSAC would deny Tyson a license. When told the opposite -- that Tyson would be re-licensed by the NSAC for any number of reasons, including that body's fear of litigation if it refused -- he said "your information's not right."

"I can't discuss it for the record but (if you believe the NSAC would re-license Tyson) then they've been lying to you. You're not being told the truth."

Ghanem, vice chairman Dr. James Nave and NSAC executive director Marc Ratner each said they have intentionally avoided discussing the subject of Tyson's reinstatement. None of them could guess how or why Finkel said what he did.

"I can't tell you how anyone would vote because we've made it a point not to discuss it with anyone, including among ourselves," Ratner said. "But if three of the five would have voted for reinstating Tyson, he'd be reinstated. It's as simple as that.

"I certainly believe he would receive a fair hearing."

Yet Finkel was adamant the NSAC would block the former heavyweight champion's return to the ring.

"I wouldn't have had Tyson apply in New Jersey otherwise," he said. "I know this is causing a lot of hassle, but I have lawyers working on that.

"I'll tell you what, though. If you can get the commissioners to commit (to re-licensing Tyson), I'll come out there instead."

Tyson hasn't fought in New Jersey since defeating Alex Stewart in 1990.

"I haven't talked to any commissioner on how he would vote and Finkel has never asked me," Nave said. "He called me a couple months ago, and then a little later, and he talked about coming out to Las Vegas at some point and that he'd like to talk to me.

"But he never followed up and he never asked me my opinion."

It's Ghanem's opinion that Nevada should remain the state that decides whether Tyson is re-instated or not.

"I expect the State of New Jersey to honor our suspension," Ghanem said. "If Mike Tyson is to be licensed, the place for him to apply is in Nevada.

"We have a mutual respect between the states. We in Nevada expect them to honor our suspensions."

Semantics -- specifically, the differences between suspensions and revocation -- are being studied by lawyers from all sides. Prior to Tyson applying in New Jersey last week, it was felt the bylaws of the Association of Boxing Commissions or the McCain-Bryan Boxing Act of 1997 would cover the issue and keep Nevada's jurisdiction intact on the matter of Tyson's licensing.

"Now it's complicated," Ratner said. "What they've done presents a potentially grave problem for the ABC."

Like Ghanem, Ratner says the NSAC should be the ultimate authority on Tyson's re-licensing.

"My feeling is that they should come before the Nevada commission," he said. "Knowing the five commission members as I do, it's hard to believe they would prejudge anything of this importance."

While Finkel says "my reputation speaks for itself" and Ghanem claims "he's out of line on this," it was left for Nave to add a little perspective.

"Quite simply, nothing in boxing surprises me anymore," he said.

archive