Boxing has a problem, a big one. Think of it as a monster that’s hiding under the bed. Eventually, the monster is going to come out and take a big chunk out of the sport. Fighters, trainers, managers, promoters, even government regulators, can legally bet on fights. They can also bet on fights they’re involved with.

Earlier this month, Tim Lueckenhoff, president of the Association of Boxing Commissions, said he knows of no prohibition in any state regarding people in boxing betting on fights that they’re involved with other than the laws with regard to gambling that apply to everyone.

Keith Kizer, Nevada’s chief deputy attorney general and soonto-be executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, says there is no prohibi tion in Nevada against someone in boxing – a fighter, a trainer, a referee – walking into a sports book and betting on a fight.

As a general rule, Las Vegas sports books take boxing bets only on major fights.The same is true of most Internet gaming sites. Within that framework, not only does boxing allow participants to bet on their own bouts, it sometimes encourages them to do so. This year’s fight between Shane Mosley and Fernando Vargas and the 2003 bout between Bernard Hopkins and William Joppy are two high-profile fights where the combatants were encouraged to place side bets as a promotional tool to market the event.

Most major sports benefit from the fact that betting by the general public fuels fan interest and boosts television ratings. The Super Bowl and “March Madness” are prime examples. But sports other than boxing draw a clear line where betting by participants is concerned.

Would the NFL tolerate Tom Brady betting on the New England Patriots to cover the point spread? Of course not. Imagine turning on ESPN and hearing Barry Bonds say,”I’ve just bet $100,000 that the San Francisco Giants will beat the St. Louis Cardinals tonight and an additional $50,000 that I’ll hit a home run in my second at bat.”

Boxing allows conduct like that and more.

There are many propositions that can be bet on a big fight. It’s not just who wins.A dominant fighter can carry an opponent past the “over-under,” which is like shaving points in basketball. He can bet on a knockout in a given round, carry his opponent until the appointed time, and then … whack! Not possible? Early in his career, Muhammad Ali (then Cassius Clay) openly carried lesser boxers until his predicted knockout round.

And keep in mind, it’s not just fighters that we’re talking about. Referees, trainers, and ring doctors can stop a fight at any time. Someone placing a bet seeks an edge, not a sure thing. Even if they’re not always successful, betting on a specific round will give a crooked insider a huge edge.

Would basketball fans tolerate the notion of a coach or referee calling a game a certain way so that one of the teams could cover the point spread? Certainly not. But some people believe that a referee, a ring doctor, and Joppy’s own corner allowed Joppy to take a horrible beating so that he wouldn’t lose a $50,000 side bet with Hopkins that he would finish their December 13, 2003 bout on his feet.

“After the fight,” I wrote at the time, “Joppy’s face was hideous. No part of his features looked right. Everything was lumpy, bruised, discolored, and swollen.” Who knows what long-term damage he suffered as a consequence of the punishment he endured those last few rounds?

Suppose a fighter is being brutally beaten, but his trainer (or the ring doctor assigned to his corner or the referee) has bet the “over” on an “over-under” wager and needs one more round to cover the bet?

We know unequivocally that, in this day and age, fighters still take dives. Richie Melito’s August 12, 2000, knockout of Thomas Williams (which resulted in several criminal convictions) taught us that. We also know that referees sometimes favor one fighter over another and that judges are capable of marking their cards with some very strange scores.When the conduct of an official raises eyebrows, the prevailing view is usually that it has been influenced by hometown loyalty or the wishes of a promoter. But a wager could just as easily be the motivating factor.

What’s the solution?

Ron Scott Stevens is chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission. Since his appointment three years ago, he has transformed the NYSAC from a troubled body into a nationally respected institution, but he knows there is more to accomplish.

“Boxing licensees should be held to the same standards as participants in other sports,” Stevens said last week. “That means there should be a prohibition against their wagering on boxing. New York already has an ethical fitness requirement on the books that can be construed as prohibiting our officials from betting on any fight. Extending that prohibition to other licensees such as fighters, managers, and trainers might require an act of the state legislature. The commission has a lot of discretion when it comes to acting in the public interest. In the future, we will advise our licensees that we don’t think their betting on fights is in the best interests of boxing or the overall public interest.”

The Association of Boxing Commissions will hold its annual convention this year in Philadelphia from July 5 through July 8. The ABC should address this issue, as should every individual commission in the country.

It’s a crime for a fighter to throw a fight, so for a boxer to bet against himself, although not in and of itself against the criminal law, would certainly raise a red flag. It’s also self-evident that officials shouldn’t be allowed to bet on fights in which they’re involved. No one else involved with a fight, including the fighters, should either. In fact, no one who is licensed in any jurisdiction in conjunction with boxing should be allowed to bet on any fight, period.

How can a ban be policed? The same way it is in Major League Baseball: Get caught once and you’re gone for life. If you don’t believe that, ask Pete Rose. A rule of this nature won’t completely eliminate betting on boxing by participants, but it will certainly decrease the number of wagers by making the consequences of getting caught too steep to justify the rewards.

Betting by insiders has a corrosive effect. It breeds suspicion, adds to the appearance of corruption, invites more corruption, and, in a sport like boxing, puts lives at risk.

Will the powers that be act? Probably not. There’s so much else wrong with the sport that this issue is hardly noticed. The integrity of boxing is at risk, but some people are of the view that the sweet science is so tarnished already that a gambling scandal won’t hurt it.

They’re wrong.

thauser@rcn.com