Former two-time super-middleweight world champion Carl Froch has admitted deliberately prolonging fights so members of his family could benefit from betting.
Froch claims he could have stopped Ruben Groenewald earlier than he did during a Commonwealth title defence in 2005.
The Nottingham fighter said he allowed the South African to survive in the fourth round because members of his family had bet on him winning in the fifth.
Froch told the BBC: "I've done it more than one occasion and it was round five but that's not illegal.
"Every time I fight, when good fighters fight, they often make predictions. It's all part of the media hype beforehand," he said. "On that particular occasion I made a prediction that I would win the fight in a certain round.
"But the comments made about prolonging the fight were a throwaway comment that, in hindsight, I shouldn't have said. I shouldn't have said that because I have never done that.
So Froch has "done it on more than one occasion", but he has also "never done that".
His first statement sounds a whole lot more truthful than his second one, on first inspection.
Pakistani cricketers have been incarcerated for things that are contextually similar to this, albeit in a different sport.
I'd be interested to know where Froch stands legally now. It looks as though he's been told to make the second statement, to cover his own ass.
Another question is: even if this isn't illegal, how does this admission (for that's what it sounds like, regardless of his withdrawal) make him look morally and ethically? Fighters aren't saints, and it would be silly to assume them to be so, but the image of a fighter as an honest guy who gives his all is looking a little shaky after recent developments and news stories.