A Rule That Outlived Its Reasoning

For nearly ninety years, a rule in British professional boxing stood unchallenged: a boxer living with Type 1 diabetes could not be granted a professional licence. Like many long-standing regulations, it was written in an era when medical understanding of the condition was limited and the tools to manage it barely existed. What began as a genuine safety measure slowly hardened into something else entirely — a blanket exclusion that no longer reflected the science, the medicine, or the athletes it governed.

I spent five years leading the campaign to change that rule, a journey that ended with the first professional boxing licence ever issued to a boxer with Type 1 diabetes in the UK. That experience taught me a lesson every governing body should take to heart: embracing change and protecting safety are not opposing forces. Done properly, they reinforce one another.

Safety Is a Standard, Not a Ban

The instinct of any governing body confronted with risk is to prohibit. Prohibition feels safe. It requires no monitoring, no protocols, and no difficult judgement calls. But a blanket ban is not a safety system — it is the absence of one. It simply moves the question of risk out of sight.

Throughout the campaign, our argument was never that the governing body should ignore risk. It was that risk should be assessed on evidence, individually, and against clear medical criteria. Modern diabetes management — continuous glucose monitoring, individualised care plans, specialist supervision — makes it entirely possible to define the conditions under which an athlete with Type 1 diabetes can compete safely. A rigorous licensing framework with real medical oversight protects athletes far better than a rule that pretends they do not exist.

Bring the Experts Into the Room

Nothing moved the campaign forward more than the involvement of medical professionals. Regulators are rightly cautious about overturning long-standing rules on the strength of advocacy alone. What changes minds is evidence presented by credible experts — endocrinologists, sports physicians, and clinicians who could speak with authority about what modern management of the condition actually looks like.

Governing bodies that want to modernise without compromising safety should institutionalise this practice. Build standing medical advisory panels. Commission independent reviews of rules that predate current science. Invite specialists to challenge assumptions rather than merely validate them. When the eventual decision came, it was defensible precisely because it rested on expert consensus rather than sentiment.

Patience Is Part of the Process

Five years is a long time to argue a single point. There were moments when the process felt immovable, when meetings ended without progress and the same objections resurfaced in new forms. But I came to understand that a governing body's caution, however frustrating, serves a purpose. Institutions that change too easily under pressure are as dangerous as those that never change at all.

The responsibility of the campaigner — and of any leader seeking reform — is to respect the institution's duty while refusing to accept inertia as an answer. We returned to the table again and again with better data, clearer protocols, and answers to every legitimate concern raised. Persistence, paired with evidence, is what separates reform from noise. It is a principle I have carried into every advisory role since, and one I explore further across my strategic advisory work.

What Changed Was Bigger Than One Licence

When the licence was finally granted, the immediate victory belonged to one athlete. But the deeper achievement was institutional: a major governing body demonstrated that it could revisit a rule almost as old as the organisation itself, subject it to modern scrutiny, and emerge stronger for it. No safety standard was lowered. If anything, the new framework introduced a level of medical rigour that had never existed under the old blanket ban.

That is the model I now advocate to boards and governing bodies across sport. Ask not “how do we defend this rule?” but “would we write this rule today, knowing what we now know?” If the answer is no, the work of reform has already begun. You can read more about the campaign and my background in sport and advocacy on my about page.

The Lesson for Every Governing Body

Sport is built on tradition, and tradition deserves respect. But tradition is a record of past decisions, not a substitute for present judgement. The governing bodies that will thrive in the coming decade are those that treat their rulebooks as living documents — reviewed against current evidence, informed by independent expertise, and always anchored to the genuine welfare of the athletes they exist to serve.

Change and safety were never enemies. The boxing campaign proved that the most responsible thing a governing body can do is have the courage to look again. For updates on my ongoing work in sports governance, visit the news section.