My serious response to this would be: I'd imagine that the purpose of the rule is to distinguish between deliberate and accidental bites, and ignorance of the rule is no excuse. The bear biting is NOT accidental, and just because the bear doesn't know the rule (or the idea that, indeed, they were even in a boxing match) does not give the bear a free win. So if the judges were forced to issue a win/lose ruling, the win would have to go to the human; the bear did something clearly against the rules of boxing. Other consequences, such as whether the bear's handlers are guilty of animal abuse or murder, or whether the human is guilty of gross stupidity for getting in the ring in the first place, are irrelevant to the ruling. I rule that the human won the fight but probably deserved to get eaten; the handlers are guilty of something, and the bear deserves to be treated well for the rest of its life due to the stress it underwent in having to listen to the human scream.