WBC 15-day rule quoted after Stevenson streak

The 15 day election rule

According to Dubin, that election period never happened. Stevenson briefly held titles in two divisions before the WBC moved to strip him down to lightweight, a move Dubin said came without the decision time described in the rule. He acknowledged that the language gives the WBC discretion, but argued that writing a 15-day provision and then circumventing it defeats the purpose of including it at all.

Dubin described the dispute as procedural rather than personal. He said Team Stevenson had communicated its plans in advance and was not trying to keep both belts indefinitely. The expectation, he said, was that the WBC would follow its written process and allow Stevenson to make a formal election within the allowed period.

The timing was a central point in Dubin’s criticism. He described Stevenson’s achievement in four divisions as a career milestone that was immediately clouded by administrative action. Dubin said the situation should have been handled calmly and according to the rulebook, rather than turning into a public dispute over authority and discretion.

An unresolved process question

The WBC maintained that it acted within its rights under the rules, which allow flexibility in how stipulations are applied. The organization has not publicly addressed the specific allegation that the 15-day election window was skipped in Stevenson’s case.

For Dubin, that unanswered point is at the heart of the disagreement. If the election window exists but is optional in practice, he argued, fighters are left without clear guidance on when it does and does not apply.