mosley_hoya_steroidsIn light of Oscar De La Hoya’s devastating loss to Manny Pacquiao on Dec. 6, the Golden Boy may have some luster back in his career should he decide to sue Sugar Shane Mosley over the latter’s unanimous victory over him back in September 2003.

Mosley is now on the headlines due to his testimony before a grand jury that took place nearly three months after his win over De La Hoya. Mosley testified under oath that he used anabolic steroids and EPO in the lead-up to his fight against De La Hoya. His testimony was part of the BALCO file which was under protective order before a US federal judge recently released them in connection with the Barry Bonds doping case.

The Daily News did an interview with the Golden Boy’s managers prior to the De La Hoya-Pacquiao fight and it was apparent that they were considering action against Mosley’s tainted victory.

Excerpts from the Daily News report:

Oscar De La Hoya’s managers will sit down with him after his fight Saturday night in Las Vegas and discuss whether he should appeal Sugar Shane Mosley’s unanimous decision over him in 2003.

“I think once we find out what the facts are it’s going to be up to Oscar to decide what he wanted to do. I wasn’t going to bring this up with Oscar this week with him trying to concentrate on the fight,” Richard Schaefer, the CEO of Golden Boy Boxing, told the Daily News. Golden Boy promotes both De La Hoya and Mosley and Schaefer said he will also discuss the transcripts with Mosley and his lawyer.

One way to settle the issue, Schaefer said, is if Mosley is willing to fight De La Hoya in the event that Mosley wins his fight against Antonio Margarito in L.A. on Jan. 24.

“We could probably work something out like that, possibly for next September,” Schaefer said. “That may be the best way to settle it.”

On Wednesday, Schaefer asked the head of the Nevada State Athletic Commission if there were any grounds to overturn the decision.

Keith Kizer, the commission’s executive director, told Schaefer that to his knowledge, there wasn’t a basis to do so because the commission has to go by what the law said in 2003 when the match took place. At that time, there were no laws forbidding the usage of EPO in Nevada and the commission wasn’t given the authority to issue a “no-decision” in such a case until 2005.

As the alleged aggrieved party, however, De La Hoya has the option to file a request to have the decision overturned, Kizer said.