The Nevada State Athletic Commission has denied Edwin De Los Santos’ appeal for a change of decision to his second-round knockout loss to Jose “Rayo” Valenzuela in the June 28 main event of a Zuffa Boxing card in Las Vegas.
De Los Santos, 17-3 (15 KOs), protested that former WBA 140lbs champion Valenzuela punched him while he was downed on the canvas, clinching his inability to rise before referee Thomas Taylor’s 10-count.
But in its response to the appeal from De Los Santos manager Adrian Clark, the commission’s Executive Director Jeff Mullen cited state rules emphasizing the referee’s latitude as sole arbiter in addressing such matters.
“In response to your requests for the commission to determine whether De Los Santos was down,,and/or whether there was an intentional foul, … the authority to make such determinations [lies] exclusively with the referee. Such is enumerated in [a regulation] which provides:
“‘A referee is responsible for enforcing the rules of the contest or exhibition. The referee shall not permit unfair practices that may cause injuries to an unarmed combatant. The referee is the sole arbiter of a bout, and the referee’s decisions in enforcing the rules of a contest or exhibition, declaring fouls or stopping a contest or exhibition may not be overturned, except as otherwise provided pursuant to [a state regulation] after a hearing before the commission.’”
Manager Clark previously requested De Los Santos be granted a hearing before the commission, but that did not happen.
De Los Santos previously knocked out Valenzuela in the third round of their 2022 first meeting.
Clark told BoxingScene in a Wednesday text message, “I mean, I get it. Thomas [Taylor] failed to protect the fighter and the NSAC has to stand behind its referee and his mistake. We have to move on. Edwin has to get a win and look to hunt down ‘Rayo’ for a rubber match in 2027. It is what it is.”
After being rocked by left hands to the head in the first round, former lightweight title challenger De Los Santos was dropped by a combination punctuated by a right hand to the head in the second.
As De Los Santos went to the canvas, Valenzuela struck him with a left that was deemed by Taylor as softer and not a foul or meaningful to keeping De Los Santos down.
“Concerning your inclusion in the protest of a request for a determination concerning the ‘determination [and] notification of deduction [of points],’ the procedures for such are enumerated in [state regulations discussing] when a referee may deduct points upon determining a foul or infraction has occurred, and states:
“‘If an unarmed combatant fouls his or her opponent during a contest or exhibition or commits any other infraction,,the referee may penalize the unarmed combatant by deducting points from his or her score. Except as otherwise provided in [a state regulation], the referee may determine the number of points to be deducted in each instance and shall base the determination on the severity of the foul or infraction and its effect upon the opponent.’”
Mullen then concluded his decision by writing, “The protest refers to [a regulation] which has been repealed and replaced by [a regulation supporting] referee’s discretion. Additionally, such a determination is irrelevant unless the referee has first used its discretion to determine that a foul in fact occurred..
“Based on the above, pursuant to [a regulation], as your protest currently fails to state a basis that would allow for a change in the decision, your protest will not come before the commission for hearing.”
