By Gabriel Princewill-
The International Boxing Federation’s decision to strip Kazakhstan’s unbeaten middleweight champion Zhanibek “Qazaq Style” Alimkhanuly(pictured) of its world title is under scrutiny and is the latest episode to test the credibility of boxing’s regulatory ecosystem.
The ruling came after Alimkhanuly tested positive for the banned substance meldonium in December 2025, a violation confirmed by both A and B samples and discovered in the lead-up to a potential unification bout with Erislandy Lara. The IBF say they ultimately vacated the title because the resulting suspension made it impossible for the champion to meet his mandatory defence scheduled for July 4, 2026.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Yet the matter is not as simple as a champion failing a drug test. The Kazakhstan Professional Boxing Federation (KPBF), which licenses Alimkhanuly, conducted its own disciplinary hearing on January 19, 2026. The national federation concluded that the substance entered his system during an emergency medical treatment, and that there was no intent to obtain a competitive advantage, and that the degree of fault was minimal. The KPBF imposed a suspension running through May 31, 2026, retroactive to December 2, 2025.
This divergence—between a national regulatory body that judged the violation to be accidental, and an international sanctioning body that stripped the champion anyway, exposes the indefensibility of the IBF’s decision, if it is not disputing the credibility of the KPBF’s disciplinary hearing process. It more or less makes the IBF’s ruling to be premise don erroneous grounds.
The IBF’s ruling, on its face, appears grounded in procedural logic rather than moral judgment. According to the federation’s championship regulations, a titleholder must defend the belt against mandatory challengers within specific time frames. If a champion cannot do so, regardless of the reason, the title may be vacated. In Alimkhanuly’s case, the organization concluded that the imposed suspension made him unable to meet his mandatory obligation in early July.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The IBF’s argument from a strict regulation standpoint is simply that a champion who cannot fight cannot remain champion. The belt, consistent with this logic, belongs not merely to the fighter but to the division. The sanctioning body’s role is to ensure the championship remains active and contested rather than locked in bureaucratic limbo. However, the patently flawed reasoning of the organisation fails to take account of the fundamental purpose of suspensions associated with the consumption of banned substances. This being to prevent cheating, and establish an effective deterrence against cheats in the sports.
Boxing’s governance should never operate in a vacuum. If Alimkhanuly ingesed meldonium inadvertently during emergency medical treatment months earlier, and the federation determined there was no intent to cheat and categorized the fault as none existent, this means there is no culpability for the offence.
Such determinations matter because anti-doping regimes, including those overseen by organizations like the World Anti-Doping Agency, typically weigh both intent and degree of negligence when determining sanctions. Athletes who knowingly enhance performance face harsher penalties than those who unknowingly ingest banned substances through contaminated supplements or medical treatment.
If the KPBF’s disciplinary hearing was conducted with integrity—meaning evidence was examined transparently and medical documentation was verified—the IBF’s decision raises questions about proportionality. A suspension lasting roughly six months had already been imposed, retroactively covering the period from early December to late May.
In effect, Alimkhanuly would have been eligible to compete again barely a month before the mandatory defence deadline. That timing suggests that the stripping of the belt may have been less about the anti-doping violation itself and more about administrative convenience.
The IBF’s Institutional Logic
Unlike national commissions, organizations such as the IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO are not government regulators. They are private governing bodies that sanction championship fights, collect sanctioning fees and maintain rankings. Within this structure, mandatory defences serve two purposes. They protect contenders from being indefinitely avoided by champions, and they ensure title activity.
The IBF, in particular, has historically been known for strictly enforcing mandatory challenges—sometimes more rigidly than its counterparts. This rigidity has occasionally earned the organization praise for maintaining competitive integrity. Yet it has also produced decisions that critics describe as bureaucratic or unnecessarily punitive.
A famous example occurred in 2015 when Tyson Fury defeated Wladimir Klitschko to become unified heavyweight champion. Within days, however, Fury was stripped of the IBF belt because he chose to pursue a rematch with Klitschko rather than face mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov. This was despite the fact the IBF was aware that the rematch clause was incorporated in the contract of the fight from the outset.
At the time, the decision shocked fans and observers who had just witnessed one of boxing’s most significant upsets in decades. Critics at the time argued that stripping Fury so quickly undermined the legitimacy of the championship itself. Supporters countered that Fury and his promoters were aware of the IBF’s mandatory obligations when they agreed to the rematch clause.
The Fury case illustrates the IBF’s long-standing institutional philosophy that rules must be applied consistently, even if doing so produces unpopular outcomes. Notwithstanding this philosophy, the sanctioning body appears to contradict its underpinning principle of fairness by undermining the very essence of its principles.
Another example emerged in 2018 when middleweight star Gennady Golovkin was stripped of the IBF title after failing to finalize a mandatory defence against Sergiy Derevyanchenko while pursuing other fights.
Golovkin’s team argued that the timing of negotiations made compliance difficult. The IBF, however, maintained that mandatory challengers cannot be indefinitely bypassed. The result was a vacant championship and a fight between Derevyanchenko and Daniel Jacobs to determine the new titleholder.
These precedents suggest that the IBF’s decision in the Alimkhanuly case may be less about the specifics of the doping violation and more about maintaining procedural consistency.
Patterns of Controversy
Even if the IBF’s rule enforcement is consistent, consistency alone does not necessarily guarantee fairness. Critics of sanctioning bodies often argue that boxing’s fragmented governance structure allows organizations to prioritize administrative rules or financial considerations over sporting context.
The IBF itself has faced scrutiny in recent years over decisions involving active champions. In March 2026, for example, controversy erupted when the federation withdrew sanctioning for a cruiserweight title defence involving champion Jai Opetaia and challenger Brandon Glanton.
According to reports, the decision was made only days before the fight, after disagreements over how another promotional belt would be presented during the event. UFC and Zuffa Boxing boss, Dana White at the time launched a scathing criticism against the IBF
The late reversal drew criticism from promoters and fighters, with some describing the situation as bureaucratic overreach.
Earlier historical examples also illustrate how strict enforcement of rules can collide with practical realities. Cruiserweight champion O’Neil Bell was stripped of his IBF title in 2006 after withdrawing from a mandatory bout due to a tooth problem.
Similarly, flyweight champion Moruti Mthalane lost his IBF belt in 2014 after failing to reach terms with mandatory challenger Amnat Ruenroeng.
In each case, the sanctioning body justified the decision on procedural grounds. Yet to observers, the rulings sometimes appeared disproportionate when measured against the circumstances surrounding the champion’s inability to defend the title.
Such controversies highlight a recurring tension in boxing governance: should championships be governed strictly by rulebooks, or should contextual fairness influence decisions?
Evaluating the KPBF’s Role
If the KPBF’s disciplinary process was thorough and credible, it fundamentally reframes the ethical dimension of the Alimkhanuly case. The federation’s findings effectively cleared the boxer of intentional doping while still imposing a sanction for the violation.
This approach aligns with many modern anti-doping frameworks, which differentiate between deliberate cheating and inadvertent ingestion. Athletes remain responsible for substances found in their bodies, but sanctions can be reduced if evidence shows a lack of intent.
In such situations, the role of international governing bodies becomes delicate. They must decide whether to respect the conclusions of national authorities or apply their own independent standards.
The IBF appears to have chosen the latter path. Rather than focusing on intent, it treated the suspension as a simple barrier to fulfilling mandatory obligations. In doing so, the federation avoided weighing the fairness of the underlying disciplinary ruling.
It may be that from a legal perspective, this approach shields the organization from accusations of inconsistent doping enforcement. But from a sporting perspective, it may appear indifferent to context.
If Alimkhanuly’s ingestion of meldonium truly occurred during medically justified emergency treatment—as the KPBF concluded—then the stripping of his title might appear less like a punishment for wrongdoing and more like collateral damage from rigid scheduling.
A Question of Integrity
Ultimately, the integrity of the IBF’s decision depends on how one defines fairness in boxing governance.
If fairness means applying written rules without exception, then the ruling is defensible. The champion could not defend his title within the mandated timeframe, and therefore the belt was vacated. In this sense, the IBF treated Alimkhanuly no differently to Fury, Golovkin, or any other champion who failed to meet mandatory obligations.
But if fairness means evaluating circumstances and ensuring punishments align with actual wrongdoing, the decision becomes more contentious. The KPBF’s findings suggest that Alimkhanuly’s violation was accidental and medically related, with minimal fault assigned to the athlete.
Stripping a champion under those conditions risks appearing disproportionate—particularly when the suspension itself already served as a disciplinary measure.
The broader issue is structural. because boxing’s fragmented governance system allows different authorities to reach different conclusions about the same event. National commissions, sanctioning bodies and anti-doping organizations each operate with their own mandate, and when their decisions intersect, as in the Alimkhanuly case, contradictions can emerge.
The Eye Of Media contacted the IBF to question them about Alimkhanuly’s stripping. They declined to comment.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar