---

Medical rules should
protect prizefighters

THE ISSUE Flyweight boxer Ruben Contreras is recovering from head surgery following his defeat by Waipahu's Brian Viloria.

BRIAN Viloria's prayers appear to have been answered. Ruben Contreras, the 32-year-old club fighter from Mexico who conceded defeat by Waipahu's rising star of the ring on May 28, began breathing and wakening from his medically induced coma in the past week. The incident is a reminder of the need to prevent health risks from escalating in the boxing arena.

In the sixth round of their flyweight bout in Los Angeles' Staples Center, Contreras turned his back on Viloria and said he could fight no more. Perceiving his opponent's vulnerability, Viloria instinctively backed away. Contreras went to his corner, complained of a headache, then collapsed. He was taken to a hospital and underwent surgery to remove a blood clot surrounding his brain. Viloria's family prayed for his recovery.

Viloria had been undefeated after 16 fights. Con- treras, brought in after Viloria's scheduled opponent could not make the weight limit, was seeking his 10th victory after 28 fights. The California State Athletic Commission expected the fight to be fair, considering how Contreras had performed beyond his record.

Minimum health and safety standards of the Professional Boxing Safety Act in 1996 appear to have been followed in the bout. Both fighters underwent neurological testing prior to the fight, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The California commission calls for monitoring injuries sustained during training, but that would have been virtually impossible in this case. After Contreras moved across the border from Juarez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas, six years ago so he could moonlight as a carpenter, he continued to train in Juarez.

Boxing is the only professional sport in the United States that has no central regulatory authority. A 2003 study by the congressional Government Accountability Office pointed out that the nonprofit Association of Boxing Commissions promotes uniform health and safety provisions but has no enforcement authority. As the Viloria-Contreras fight showed, federal laws need to be not only enforced, but broadened.

Contreras' medical expenses are covered by insurance, as required by the federal law. The extent of his recovery remains uncertain. Donations for his family can be sent to the Contreras Family Fund, c/o California Hospital Center Foundation, 1401 S. Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90015.

---

BACK TO TOP
|

Patriot Act deserves
congressional scrutiny

THE ISSUE Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31.

PRESIDENT Bush is asking Congress to extend 16 provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of this year. Enacted swiftly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, some of the provisions have been effective in combating terrorism, while others have posed threats to civil liberties for no good reason. A bipartisan review is needed.

The most important of the provisions has allowed intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to share information. If that had been allowed prior to 9/11, the plot to attack the East Coast might have been revealed.

Other provisions are less defensible. The Patriot Act gave federal agencies the authority to subpoena Internet service providers to turn over customers' names, addresses, credit card dates and details of Internet use, without a judge's approval. Similarly, a provision allows authorities to use "roving wiretaps" for surveillance of terrorism suspects using cell phones, again without judicial oversight.

In a report to be released this week by the Century Foundation, law professor Stephen Schulhoffer says much of the Patriot Act was essential or at least defensible in the war against terrorism. Other parts are too broad, offering no assurance of accountability.

"Whatever its defects, the Patriot Act is more complex and more protective of basic liberty than many of its detractors acknowledge," Schulhoffer asserts. "The flaws, however, are basic. They threaten fundamental liberties, needlessly expand dangerous powers and, in practice, interfere with effective measures to thwart terrorism. We can and must do better."

---

---

---