WBC 15-Day Rule Cited After Stevenson Strip

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 at lightweight, a step 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 bypassing it defeats the purpose of including it at all.

Dubin described the dispute as procedural rather than personal. He said Team Stevenson communicated its plans in advance and did not seek to retain 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 allotted period.

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

An Unresolved Process Question

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

For Dubin, that unanswered point sits 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 applies and when it does not.