The Gabriel Montoya-as-consultant thing -- despite my dialing back on the scope and frequency of my boxing media criticism over the years -- has to be commented upon under my "if lots of people are talking about it, I must, too," rule, and my rule about "where conflicts of interest have an impact on the quality of information received from the boxing media, it is valid grounds for discussion."

I have no inherent problem with Montoya consulting on the testing procedures for the bout in Canada*.

The asterisk comes in under two different scenarios. That both he and Interbox have stated he was not paid means that the burden of proof is on those who claim he was. If he was paid, the ethical quandary becomes quite profound. The reason is because Montoya has publicly praised the testing protocol in question. If he was paid, then he is hopelessly compromised -- it would be hard for anyone to not equate his praise for that protocol with him being paid to help create that protocol, especially since he opted against disclosing it.

If he was not paid, it is still problematic because of that lack of disclosure. Since consulting on the protocol, he's said nice things about that same protocol, which means he's been praising himself and the people for whom he has consulted without explaining that he is doing so. He has said he could not have disclosed his role without jeopardizing the testing regime itself (although one wonders if he could've subsequently without harm). But here, I second the remarks of Brent Brookhouse, who wrote http://www.badlefthook.com/2013/7/17/4466364/exclusive-gabriel-montoya-speaks-about-previously-undisclosed-role-as: "I have issues with not disclosing it while reporting on it. That’s a major issue… I don’t really think it’s possible to work with a promoter as media and be completely transparent to the public. Not to mention the difficulties when the promoter starts expecting things in return. Even the fact that he is a journalist who is aware of aspects of testing that he won’t disclose to the public. Now, he’s not disclosing them to make the testing better. But a journalist withholding information from the public is a journalist not acting in accordance with the basic duties of his position. Similarly, having written a testing protocol himself, can he give open and honest critiques of other protocols? Even if he only benefits reputationally and not monetarily, is he able to be unbiased about other protocols?"

The issue, based on available evidence, is disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. It's whether we can trust the information he has been giving us as untainted by his associations, since he has chosen not to disclose those associations in at least one case.

Now, you might be saying: Tim, didn't you write for Ring Magazine, owned by Golden Boy? I did. And I addressed directly the conflict of interest posed by that at the time. And I understood that my views on Golden Boy could forever after be questioned as a result of that. I've since regretted having done it, and stopped pitching any items to Ring as a result, and disagree with those who have hitched my opinions of Golden Boy activities to having been paid indirectly by them thrice more than two years ago; I think my record of criticizing GBP speaks for itself.

I've also written before that almost everyone in boxing journalism has a conflict of interest -- it's how you manage it that counts. ESPN has a boxing program and a boxing journalism staff. HBO has a boxing program and a boxing writing team. Ring is owned by a promoter. Maxboxing is owned by a promoter. Many boxing journalists work for the networks as broadcasters. Some boxing writers have served as PR officials for boxers while simultaneously writing news stories about them. The conflicts are nearly endless. But if you have them, you should disclose them so people can question what you're saying about the origins of the conflict. (Interestingly, as Matthew Paras has pointed out here, Montoya has used nearly identical words to describe what testing outfits should be doing in the name of transparency, which is quite a contradiction from how he's handled his own dabbling in testing. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rle58p [Montoya's notion that "in a way, I was disclosing throughout" by tweeting things like "don't ask me how I know" is laughable.])

In the case of Montoya, we couldn't question it because he did NOT disclose it. Advocacy journalism can work so long as everyone understands the perspective of the advocate and the journalist, and here, Montoya did not tell us that he was wearing a dual hat. Therefore, we not only have to question whether his publicly stated opinions are related to his consultancy role, but we have to wonder whether he has other undisclosed associations.

Here, again, I second Brookhouse about the best way to resolve this: "Honestly? I think what he should do is get out of the writing game and pursue some sort of position trying to work on anti-doping measures. I don’t know what jobs are out there, but I truly think that’s where his heart and head lie." Brookhouse also said he could do some good there; people with more access to the Interbox protocol and expertise on drug testing than I have could probably assess that better.

Reply · Report Post