Chris Eubank Jr. vs. Conor Benn | PPV - 26 April 2025

[Frostieballs]

That’s the name of it when it’s prescribed. It’s a very strong fertility drug, that obviously woman take when they have trouble conceiving. It must be total nonsense to suggest that substance was the only drug he took. There will have been a lot of other substances in his system before that one.

Yeah we used to take chlomid and something we called tomoxophine at the end of a course. 1 was for getting your balls back in order and the other was for the gyno if i remember correctly. Yeah hes been unlucky and got his timing off. We'll never know the cocktail he was truly on ofcourse

From what I’ve read and heard though clomiphene stays in your system for months though. Would be pretty dumb to take a load of steroids (whilst signed up to VADA through being in the WBC rankings) and then take this after when you sign up to increased VADA for a specific fight.

If he was on a cycle of steroids then a hair follicle test would almost certainly show that. Surely if he wasn’t on a cycle then he’d do what Canelo did and do the hair follicle testing?!

Does it stay in the system if you are micro-dosing, which I understand is a speciality of his doctors.

[maverick23]

Yeah we used to take chlomid and something we called tomoxophine at the end of a course. 1 was for getting your balls back in order and the other was for the gyno if i remember correctly. Yeah hes been unlucky and got his timing off. We'll never know the cocktail he was truly on ofcourse

From what I’ve read and heard though clomiphene stays in your system for months though. Would be pretty dumb to take a load of steroids (whilst signed up to VADA through being in the WBC rankings) and then take this after when you sign up to increased VADA for a specific fight.

If he was on a cycle of steroids then a hair follicle test would almost certainly show that. Surely if he wasn’t on a cycle then he’d do what Canelo did and do the hair follicle testing?!

Does it stay in the system if you are micro-dosing, which I understand is a speciality of his doctors.

I’ve no idea - I’d assume so based on the limited amount I’ve read about it. I’m also not sure it’s even used for microdosing.

[Ruthless-RKO]

Q&A: Conor Benn

Sportsmail takes you through everything you need to know below.

-----------------------------------------------
What tests has Benn actually failed?

We start with the latest development. Until October 27, it was just the one failed test the public had been made aware of.

That failed test, of course, was the VADA test, taken in September, which found banned substance clomifene in his system - a finding both the Benn and Eubank camp were aware of as early as September 23.

However, Benn on Thursday revealed a new development - though it's important to note that this publication reported on October 11 that the Briton was being investigated over claims he had failed another drugs test.

This new failed test, which found the same substance in his system, was taken all the way back in July. 'The Destroyer' insists he would be have to be 'stupid' to willingly take the substance, though.

'I was informed (of the first fail) and I thought, "It’s probably a faulty test'," Benn told The Sun. 'I thought, "We’ll get to the bottom of it". We’re still trying to do that. We’re making progress. But the way it’s been blown up has affected me so much. My innocence will be proven, it has to be.

'I passed all my UKAD tests, which people aren’t talking about. I’ve passed all my tests in and out of camp. I’ve been a professional for seven years and never failed a test. I signed up to VADA in February, so it doesn’t make any sense. Why would I take something then? Trace amounts were found. The tiniest of traces. The only thing I can think of is contamination.

'I’ve not taken anything. I never have done, never would. It’s not what I stand for, it’s not what my team stands for. Why would I take the biggest fight of my life, sign up to VADA — voluntary anti-doping — and then take this substance? If you Google this substance, it stays in your system for months. Do I look like an idiot?'

-----------------------------------------------
Why did Benn relinquish his licence?

On October 17, Benn was instructed to attend a hearing 'to deal with allegations of misconduct' on October 21 - last Friday.

Benn, who didn't actually attend the hearing, leaving that job for his legal representation, voluntarily relinquished his British boxing licence before the hearing had even taken place.

Then, at the hearing, the allegations of misconduct against Benn were upheld. This was announced by the British Boxing Board of Control in a statement on Wednesday.

Benn's team - in a statement released shortly after the Board's on his social media platforms - insisted the allegation of misconduct is not in relation to his failed VADA drugs test. His promoter Eddie Hearn has echoed these sentiments.

They also explained his British boxing licence had already expired, with Benn simply opting not to renew it.

In accordance with the Board's rules and regulations, licences remain valid from the date of issue and continuing annually, but only upon the payment of the required renewal fee - which Benn has clearly now chosen not to do.

That decision was made due to the 'unfair and biased procedure' team Benn insist the British Boxing Board of Control have put in place.

Benn insists the Board were happy to keep the fight on despite knowing about the findings, only to change their minds just two days beforehand - without officially banning him - and then handing him misconduct charges and a £50,000 fine.

Benn's father, Nigel, also had issues with the Board, and the 26-year-old now insists he won't ever renew his licence with them again.

Benn said: 'I won’t be boxing under the British board ever again. Now I know why my dad ripped up his licence on TV. I will not box for them ever again. The way they have gone about this. The way they knew about this.

'They could have pulled the fight. I’ve given my licence back. I won’t be boxing for them ever again. As far as I’m concerned the board can do one. I’ve got nothing to hide but as far as I’m concerned they’ve got it in for me.'

-----------------------------------------------
So, what allegations have been upheld?

As stated, Benn's team insist the 'allegations of misconduct' are not related to his failed VADA test. Sportsmail have reached out to the British Boxing Board of Control on numerous occasions for comment but are yet to receive a response.

What the Board have made publicly clear is that the allegations refer to Rule 25.1.1 of their official Rules and Regulations.

This states: 'For the purposes of this Regulation misconduct shall mean conduct detrimental to the interests of boxing or the public interest and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing shall include:

(a) any breach of these Rules and Regulations;

(b) any failure to comply with an order made by the Board or an Area Council;

(c) any failure to honour any contractual obligation;

(d) any attempt, directly or indirectly, to induce the breaking of any contractual obligation;

(e) incompetence.

Benn and his team have repeatedly insisted that he is a clean athlete.

Again, it's key to point out that the Board trusts UKAD as it's official doping agency, not VADA. While Benn has failed a drugs test - and only his A sample to date - the Board have not officially suspended him as of yet. They do have the power to refuse to sanction his fights, however.

And what they have upheld is the claim that Benn has acted detrimentally to the interests of boxing or the public interest.

-----------------------------------------------
Didn't Billy Joe Saunders fail a VADA test and remain free to fight?

Yes, and it's a pertinent case to look at - particularly as it's one Hearn has brought up on numerous occasions in recent weeks.

'We went through this with Billy Joe when they didn’t suspend him and let him fight a few years back,' Hearn is quoted as saying in The Independent. 'There was correspondence from the board that said "we do not acknowledge VADA results". They didn’t ban him because they don’t acknowledge VADA.'

The incident occurred in 2018, when Saunders tested positive for oxilofrine in the build-up to his mandatory defence against Demetrius Andrade.

He was consequently denied a Massachusetts state licence to defend his belt, and therefore vacated it, with the fight against Andrade off.

Saunders was in November suspended by the WBO for six months, but before the year was up he was fighting on British soil, on the undercard of Josh Warrington's stunning win over Carl Frampton, an event licenced by the British Boxing Board of Control.

So, what's the difference? Well, it's pretty clear: Saunders tested positive for oxilofrine, which is banned out of competition by VADA, but not by UKAD. Saunders, while seemingly unknowingly breaching VADA terms, had not breached any British Boxing Board of Control rules.

The Board's General Secretary, Robert Smith, then came out in support of Saunders, while calling for more consistency between the doping agencies.

Benn, meanwhile, tested positive for clomiphene, which is banned both in and out of competition under UKAD - and that is why, where Saunders was allowed to fight, the Board prohibited Benn from doing so.

-----------------------------------------------
But can Benn still fight?

Again, yes. And again, this is another important factor to analyse in this rather complicated case.

As history has shown, not having a British licence doesn't necessarily mean a boxer can't fight - and on British soil. Just look at Heavyweights David Haye and Derek Chisora, who fought at Upton Park back in 2012 - despite neither fighter holding a British licence at the time.

The bout was officially given the green light after the Luxembourg Boxing Federation sanctioned it. They did so despite facing threats of expulsion from the European Boxing Union.

That kind of loophole could feasibly have been used to keep Benn vs Eubank Jr on, though Hearn then insisted it was not an option they explored.

Hearn now insists Benn must face a hearing into his failed drugs test before he can fight with Matchroom again - even if it means their contract is broken.

But Hearn also insists that Benn, if he chooses to do so, could look elsewhere to continue his boxing career which, for now, remains in limbo.

'I could have put [Benn-Eubank] on November 5 in Abu Dhabi, but that would have looked terrible. He has to go through a process to be cleared to fight,' Hearn said, as per Boxing Scene.

He continued: 'If he comes to us now and says "I'm fine to fight in Abu Dhabi, I'm fine to fight in Florida, or Texas, or Germany, or Australia", all those jurisdictions would clear him like that.

'So, at that point, we have to decide if we stage the fight or if we are not prepared to stage the fight. I'm telling you now, that I am not prepared to stage the fight until he has gone through some kind of hearing.'

Benn has insisted he won't fight anywhere until his name is cleared, however, stating: 'I won't fight until this is resolved, with a foreign licence or not.

'Whether people believe it or not is not down to me. But there comes a stage where you harden and think, "Eff you, then".'

-----------------------------------------------
Can Benn prove his innocence?

It's going to be hard, but it's not impossible. Benn has received backing from his father and coach, as you'd expect, as well as Chris Eubank Snr, while Hearn still insists the Briton is innocent.

But, as even Hearn admits, there is the public opinion to overturn. 'I don't think the public will be happy if he can't nail a specific contamination issue or whatever it is,' he said. 'The feeling will be "he has got off it". At the same time, I don't think he should face a lengthy ban.'

That contamination point is key. Fellow Briton Dillian Whyte was cleared of any wrongdoing after failing a drugs test prior to his July 2019 win over Oscar Rivas - which saw him provisionally removed from the WBC rankings.

UKAD launched a thorough investigation and determined Whyte was not at fault for the 'very low amounts of metabolites' in his sample. They concluded the positive test was 'consistent with an isolated contamination event'.

What's important to note is that we still have never seen Whyte's B-sample - a sample which can clear a fighter if it comes back negative. However, it's also important to note that a B-sample almost always produces the same result.

While UKAD are to launch a probe into the findings, it seems Benn's B-sample still hasn't been tested. And if he's found to be guilty, Benn could face a ban of up to four years.

But team Benn believe, like Whyte, contamination could be the reason for the failed test - and this, if proved, could be his saving grace.

The big question to those looking on, and one that has received no answer to date, is how on earth clomifene would have got in his system?

-----------------------------------------------
What comes next?

That's the big question. Benn has now finally provided at least some form of explanation, insisting he believes the failed test is a result of contamination.

But what could actually clear his name? Of course, there is the extremely slim possibility that Benn's B-sample could come back negative, but more likely is that UKAD's probe - however long it takes - will provide us with a more meaningful answer.

But ultimately, and this will depend on the findings from the investigation, we're waiting to find out whether Benn will receive a ban, and if so for how long.

For now, while Benn attempts to clear his name, the welterweight - who was just 23 days ago one of the hottest commodities in boxing - is now in total limbo.

[Controversial]

It would be a good excuse in America or Mexico as farmers can give that substance to their chickens. It's against regulations in the UK, so the defense falls down there. If it can't be in the chicken, it can't be in the egg

Ah right - thanks.

So the rules in the U.K. that I can’t be in chickens that are sold for chicken meat? Or it can’t be given to chickens for any reason?

"the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that clomiphene is not authorised for use in animals in the UK, including laying hens and chickens. The department also says that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is not aware of its use, or any evidence that the substance has been found in the British food chain."

Would be a surprise if the first evidence came from a boxer who was moving up in weight for a big fight.........

Interesting, he’s boxed himself into a corner isn’t he

[JimJim2009]

Vada and ukad need to double check what nasal sprays are used on our chickens though. For they money Eddie pays them, they should be covering all bases.

[margaret thatcher]

ya, and what if it was just trace amounts the chickens were using and those got into benn's system?

or what if team eubank secretely spiked the poor chicks with the drug?

[margaret thatcher]

lool this is a new one for me, a boxer f@cking blaming chickens for his drug failure

Not just any chickens ...

[Spud]

What I am going to write os going to be controversial but please read all of my post before you debate with me.

Weirdly I think Connor Benn could possibly be “legally innocent.”

I say “legally innocent” because there is now some contradictions concerning the use of clomiphene. Once in the body it stays there for sometime. Which is possibly why after the 1st failed test that small amounts of clomiphene were still in the body for the second test.

A contradiction comes to the fore … why was the 1st test swept under the carpet and deemed as a “faulty” test. What happened to the B Sample?

Why did Mr Hearn say nothing about the 1st test? Why did the event continue to be sold?

Then we have the 2nd test … again minimal traces were found again. The same question to Mr Hearn why wasnt the event pulled immediately on receipt of the second test. Same question to the BBBofC.

Now to what I consider to the key point to the whole saga …contamination is I believe the prime piece of the defence. Team Benn have yet to test sample b. The key point is can Team Benn prove beyond reasonable doubt how the sample was contaminated. If Team Benn cannot prove how the sample was contaminated then a token ban will be issued.

To get the waffle out of the way. Can you answer this …

Innocent … due to the minimal amounts found In both tests were not deemed to be performance enhancing

Guilty … despite the minimal amounts found … proof is not given how the offending drug got into the sample

[JimJim2009]

lool this is a new one for me, a boxer f@cking blaming chickens for his drug failure

Not just any chickens ...

That chicken belongs to dr usman sajjad and it's not had the B sample tested either

[maverick23]

What I am going to write os going to be controversial but please read all of my post before you debate with me.

Weirdly I think Connor Benn could possibly be “legally innocent.”

I say “legally innocent” because there is now some contradictions concerning the use of clomiphene. Once in the body it stays there for sometime. Which is possibly why after the 1st failed test that small amounts of clomiphene were still in the body for the second test.

A contradiction comes to the fore … why was the 1st test swept under the carpet and deemed as a “faulty” test. What happened to the B Sample?

Why did Mr Hearn say nothing about the 1st test? Why did the event continue to be sold?

Then we have the 2nd test … again minimal traces were found again. The same question to Mr Hearn why wasnt the event pulled immediately on receipt of the second test. Same question to the BBBofC.

Now to what I consider to the key point to the whole saga …contamination is I believe the prime piece of the defence. Team Benn have yet to test sample b. The key point is can Team Benn prove beyond reasonable doubt how the sample was contaminated. If Team Benn cannot prove how the sample was contaminated then a token ban will be issued.

To get the waffle out of the way. Can you answer this …

Innocent … due to the minimal amounts found In both tests were not deemed to be performance enhancing

Guilty … despite the minimal amounts found … proof is not given how the offending drug got into the sample

For me, the amount of clomiphene in his system doesn’t really matter. It’s either being used to illegally enhance his performance (likely) or he’s taken it accidentally in some way (highly unlikely). Unless he can reasonably demonstrate how that happened or the supposed other tests show something of note then he needs to be banned.

Re: Hearn cancelling the promotion. I actually think it’s a really tough one. It’s not a promoters job to police the sport. That’s for the BBBC to do. They apparently knew about the first failure 6 weeks or so before the fight and knew about the second failure a couple of weeks before the fight. I still don’t understand why they waited until a couple of days pre fight to cancel. They should have cancelled it when the found out about the first failure saving all involved a lot of money (including Eubank Jr and the undercard fighters).

Eddie’s saying that contractually he couldn’t cancel the fight. Whilst that sounds stupid it’s probably right as Benn wasn’t suspended. If he comes out, takes the moral high ground, then he’d be open to a legal claim from Benn and Eubank.

Eddie’s claiming the 2 people that could have cancelled the fight following the positive test(s) were Eubank JR’s team (Jr would always want to fight whilst Sauerland will always want the cash) or the board.

Ultimately the board should have acted sooner.

I understand why the promoters and fighters didn’t cancel the fight but their credibility was heavily reduced for me when they still wanted to try and force the fight after the board finally did the right thing.

[KiwiRider]

For me, the amount of clomiphene in his system doesn’t really matter. It’s either being used to illegally enhance his performance (likely) or he’s taken it accidentally in some way (highly unlikely).

I think you nailed right there.
Maybe taking just that part is oversimplifing it, but I feel that is really what it comes down to.

[tony1234]

If Benn decides to fight abroad he is a nobody, even if the fights are shown on DAZN it won't do numbers due to all this publicity.
When he goes on about Nigel ripping up his BBBoC licence he was soon looking for sellotape to stick it back together again. He just comes across as a brat and every day with these interviews comes across worse, should have kept his mouth shut and done his time

[daz74]

What I am going to write os going to be controversial but please read all of my post before you debate with me.

Weirdly I think Connor Benn could possibly be “legally innocent.”

I say “legally innocent” because there is now some contradictions concerning the use of clomiphene. Once in the body it stays there for sometime. Which is possibly why after the 1st failed test that small amounts of clomiphene were still in the body for the second test.

A contradiction comes to the fore … why was the 1st test swept under the carpet and deemed as a “faulty” test. What happened to the B Sample?

Why did Mr Hearn say nothing about the 1st test? Why did the event continue to be sold?

Then we have the 2nd test … again minimal traces were found again. The same question to Mr Hearn why wasnt the event pulled immediately on receipt of the second test. Same question to the BBBofC.

Now to what I consider to the key point to the whole saga …contamination is I believe the prime piece of the defence. Team Benn have yet to test sample b. The key point is can Team Benn prove beyond reasonable doubt how the sample was contaminated. If Team Benn cannot prove how the sample was contaminated then a token ban will be issued.

To get the waffle out of the way. Can you answer this …

Innocent … due to the minimal amounts found In both tests were not deemed to be performance enhancing

Guilty … despite the minimal amounts found … proof is not given how the offending drug got into the sample

For me, the amount of clomiphene in his system doesn’t really matter. It’s either being used to illegally enhance his performance (likely) or he’s taken it accidentally in some way (highly unlikely). Unless he can reasonably demonstrate how that happened or the supposed other tests show something of note then he needs to be banned.

Re: Hearn cancelling the promotion. I actually think it’s a really tough one. It’s not a promoters job to police the sport. That’s for the BBBC to do. They apparently knew about the first failure 6 weeks or so before the fight and knew about the second failure a couple of days before the fight. I still don’t understand why they waited until a couple of days pre fight to cancel. They should have cancelled it when the found out about the first failure saving all involved a lot of money (including Eubank Jr and the undercard fighters).

Eddie’s saying that contractually he couldn’t cancel the fight. Whilst that sounds stupid it’s probably right as Benn wasn’t suspended. If he comes out, takes the moral high ground, then he’d be open to a legal claim from Benn and Eubank.

Eddie’s claiming the 2 people that could have cancelled the fight following the positive test(s) were Eubank JR’s team (Jr would always want to fight whilst Sauerland will always want the cash) or the board.

Ultimately the board should have acted sooner.

I understand why the promoters and fighters didn’t cancel the fight but their credibility was heavily reduced for me when they still wanted to try and force the fight after the board finally did the right thing.

As usual, Maverick comes with his measured thoughtful and balanced approach.
Thanks Mav for all your posts, keep it up

[si7dog7]

So Conor Benn failed a VADA drugs test on the 25th of July and the 1st of September.

The board were still going ahead with the fight until it got leaked by the Daily Mail about the failed 1st of September failed test a few days before the fight

Then you have Eddie Hearn roasting people like Jarrell Miller. He must have known about both failed tests, but yet still tried everything he could to keep the fight on.

He's came across so poorly. He will never be able to wash the stink off!

But according to Hearn all parties involved are informed of the VADA results, including the BBBoC, at the same time. He said before the BBBoC had withdrawn their sanctioning of the fight prior to it appearing in the press (not sure I believe that but that’s what he says) so if that is true then why did the board not act when they heard of the first failed test? I wonder if Benn is trying to throw the board under the bus but getting it out there they were aware of the first failed test and didn’t act on it.

Neither did he, Kalle or anyone
Fugazi

A crock of SH 1 T

[Loynesy]

Spud

Congratulations on inventing a new term "legally innocent " in the thousand or so years of English common law. Will look forward to that being adopted by the High Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will be known as the "Spud defence"

I'd prefer to use established legal principles. The key one here is called "strict liability".

That means that it doesn't matter how or why you have committed an offence, you've simply committed it.

[garethhop]

What I am going to write os going to be controversial but please read all of my post before you debate with me.

Weirdly I think Connor Benn could possibly be “legally innocent.”

I say “legally innocent” because there is now some contradictions concerning the use of clomiphene. Once in the body it stays there for sometime. Which is possibly why after the 1st failed test that small amounts of clomiphene were still in the body for the second test.

A contradiction comes to the fore … why was the 1st test swept under the carpet and deemed as a “faulty” test. What happened to the B Sample?

Why did Mr Hearn say nothing about the 1st test? Why did the event continue to be sold?

Then we have the 2nd test … again minimal traces were found again. The same question to Mr Hearn why wasnt the event pulled immediately on receipt of the second test. Same question to the BBBofC.

Now to what I consider to the key point to the whole saga …contamination is I believe the prime piece of the defence. Team Benn have yet to test sample b. The key point is can Team Benn prove beyond reasonable doubt how the sample was contaminated. If Team Benn cannot prove how the sample was contaminated then a token ban will be issued.

To get the waffle out of the way. Can you answer this …

Innocent … due to the minimal amounts found In both tests were not deemed to be performance enhancing

Guilty … despite the minimal amounts found … proof is not given how the offending drug got into the sample

For me, the amount of clomiphene in his system doesn’t really matter. It’s either being used to illegally enhance his performance (likely) or he’s taken it accidentally in some way (highly unlikely). Unless he can reasonably demonstrate how that happened or the supposed other tests show something of note then he needs to be banned.

Re: Hearn cancelling the promotion. I actually think it’s a really tough one. It’s not a promoters job to police the sport. That’s for the BBBC to do. They apparently knew about the first failure 6 weeks or so before the fight and knew about the second failure a couple of weeks before the fight. I still don’t understand why they waited until a couple of days pre fight to cancel. They should have cancelled it when the found out about the first failure saving all involved a lot of money (including Eubank Jr and the undercard fighters).

Eddie’s saying that contractually he couldn’t cancel the fight. Whilst that sounds stupid it’s probably right as Benn wasn’t suspended. If he comes out, takes the moral high ground, then he’d be open to a legal claim from Benn and Eubank.

Eddie’s claiming the 2 people that could have cancelled the fight following the positive test(s) were Eubank JR’s team (Jr would always want to fight whilst Sauerland will always want the cash) or the board.

Ultimately the board should have acted sooner.

I understand why the promoters and fighters didn’t cancel the fight but their credibility was heavily reduced for me when they still wanted to try and force the fight after the board finally did the right thing.

Agree with everything in this.

All I would add at this point is that for whatever reason the BBOC have chosen not to comment. Everyone else has.

In short, Conor is going to get (not a massive) ban, his reputation is trashed and in 12 months time Matchroom start the rebuild.

[maverick23]

What I am going to write os going to be controversial but please read all of my post before you debate with me.

Weirdly I think Connor Benn could possibly be “legally innocent.”

I say “legally innocent” because there is now some contradictions concerning the use of clomiphene. Once in the body it stays there for sometime. Which is possibly why after the 1st failed test that small amounts of clomiphene were still in the body for the second test.

A contradiction comes to the fore … why was the 1st test swept under the carpet and deemed as a “faulty” test. What happened to the B Sample?

Why did Mr Hearn say nothing about the 1st test? Why did the event continue to be sold?

Then we have the 2nd test … again minimal traces were found again. The same question to Mr Hearn why wasnt the event pulled immediately on receipt of the second test. Same question to the BBBofC.

Now to what I consider to the key point to the whole saga …contamination is I believe the prime piece of the defence. Team Benn have yet to test sample b. The key point is can Team Benn prove beyond reasonable doubt how the sample was contaminated. If Team Benn cannot prove how the sample was contaminated then a token ban will be issued.

To get the waffle out of the way. Can you answer this …

Innocent … due to the minimal amounts found In both tests were not deemed to be performance enhancing

Guilty … despite the minimal amounts found … proof is not given how the offending drug got into the sample

For me, the amount of clomiphene in his system doesn’t really matter. It’s either being used to illegally enhance his performance (likely) or he’s taken it accidentally in some way (highly unlikely). Unless he can reasonably demonstrate how that happened or the supposed other tests show something of note then he needs to be banned.

Re: Hearn cancelling the promotion. I actually think it’s a really tough one. It’s not a promoters job to police the sport. That’s for the BBBC to do. They apparently knew about the first failure 6 weeks or so before the fight and knew about the second failure a couple of weeks before the fight. I still don’t understand why they waited until a couple of days pre fight to cancel. They should have cancelled it when the found out about the first failure saving all involved a lot of money (including Eubank Jr and the undercard fighters).

Eddie’s saying that contractually he couldn’t cancel the fight. Whilst that sounds stupid it’s probably right as Benn wasn’t suspended. If he comes out, takes the moral high ground, then he’d be open to a legal claim from Benn and Eubank.

Eddie’s claiming the 2 people that could have cancelled the fight following the positive test(s) were Eubank JR’s team (Jr would always want to fight whilst Sauerland will always want the cash) or the board.

Ultimately the board should have acted sooner.

I understand why the promoters and fighters didn’t cancel the fight but their credibility was heavily reduced for me when they still wanted to try and force the fight after the board finally did the right thing.

Agree with everything in this.

All I would add at this point is that for whatever reason the BBOC have chosen not to comment. Everyone else has.

In short, Conor is going to get (not a massive) ban, his reputation is trashed and in 12 months time Matchroom start the rebuild.

Unfortunately the BBBC comment on very little. I’d have more respect for them if they came out and explained their reasons for the decisions relating to what they knew and when. Frustratingly it won’t happen. Smith was on TalkSPORT and didn’t reveal much. He wouldn’t even properly answer when asked whether they leaked the news to the press.

I also think it was pointless having a hearing this week and trying to fine Benn £50k. Whilst the B-sample will almost certainly be the same as A-sample, they should have allowed more time for it to play out and let UKAD do their investigation before doing anything.

I think you’re right in what will happen.

[KiwiRider]

Spud

Congratulations on inventing a new term "legally innocent " in the thousand or so years of English common law. Will look forward to that being adopted by the High Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will be known as the "Spud defence"

I'd prefer to use established legal principles. The key one here is called "strict liability".

That means that it doesn't matter how or why you have committed an offence, you've simply committed it.

"Legally Innocent" is some of Spud's best work.
You should use it at every opportunity!

[Ruthless-RKO]

Chris Eubank Jr's Team Were Not Informed of Conor Benn's First Positive Test

Chris Eubank Jr’s team were not informed about Conor Benn’s first positive drugs test when he signed for their fight.

Benn has revealed that he tested positive for the banned substance clomifene, a female fertility drug that boosts testosterone, weeks before a positive test for the same substance that scuppered his fight with Eubank.

A member of Eubank’s team described news of a second positive test as “baffling”.

It was a sample taken from Benn on September 1 that led to the fight being called off. It was reported to Benn and Eubank’s teams, as well as the British Boxing Board of Control, on September 23.

After a consultation between the teams, Eubank said that he still wanted to go ahead with the fight, after being told by medical experts that the small amount of the drug could not have been performance enhancing.

Meanwhile, the BBBoC passed the matter on to their lawyers. It was not until October 4 – four days before the scheduled fight – that they decided to prohibit the fight as “not in the best interests of boxing”.

But Benn has since admitted that he also came up positive, in a test taken on July 25, for the same substance. The press conference to announce the fight took place on August 12, 18 days later, which is around the time the result of the positive test will have been reported to Benn.

Both positive tests were handled by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency, but Eubank’s team were only informed of the September test. The positive test from July is understood to have been undertaken as part of the WBC’s Clean Boxing Program. VADA handles the Clean Boxing Program's testing protocol for the sanctioning body.

Because Benn's July test was not within Eubank’s contractual period with VADA for the October fight, the drug testing agency did not inform Eubank’s team. It is not clear when Eubank and his handlers were made aware of the first positive test, but it is understood that they still have not been given the full details.

Last Friday, Benn decided not to renew his British license ahead of a misconduct hearing in front of the BBBoC. The misconduct charge is unrelated to the positive tests.

Benn believes the WBC should be the organization to hold a hearing into the positive tests, not the BBBoC, who would delegate the matter to UK Anti-Doping.

In interviews this week, Benn admits that when he was informed about the first failed test, he wrote it off as “a faulty test”.

[Ruthless-RKO]

[Deserter]

Spud

Congratulations on inventing a new term "legally innocent " in the thousand or so years of English common law. Will look forward to that being adopted by the High Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will be known as the "Spud defence"

I'd prefer to use established legal principles. The key one here is called "strict liability".

That means that it doesn't matter how or why you have committed an offence, you've simply committed it.

He doesn't post often, but when he does....
Mic drop. Thread closed.

[Spud]

Spud

Congratulations on inventing a new term "legally innocent " in the thousand or so years of English common law. Will look forward to that being adopted by the High Court and perhaps even the Supreme Court. Perhaps it will be known as the "Spud defence"

I'd prefer to use established legal principles. The key one here is called "strict liability".

That means that it doesn't matter how or why you have committed an offence, you've simply committed it.

"Legally Innocent" is some of Spud's best work.
You should use it at every opportunity!

[KiwiRider]

Go Beefy!
It stinks alright and Beefy isn't nut hugging Eddie, how refreshing!

[Dioufy]

Hearn might “not legally be allowed to pull the fight” but if he did the right thing… made it public then the BBBC would’ve had no option to pull it immediately.

No doubt he hoped it would stay forever silent or at least silent until after the fight.

He was prepared to allow a fighter who has tested positive to fight a fighter who was draining down in weight.

That’s insane.

[maverick23]

Hearn might “not legally be allowed to pull the fight” but if he did the right thing… made it public then the BBBC would’ve had no option to pull it immediately.

No doubt he hoped it would stay forever silent or at least silent until after the fight.

He was prepared to allow a fighter who has tested positive to fight a fighter who was draining down in weight.

That’s insane.

I think it’s easier said than done. If the BBBC had policies re: VADA, like they do for failed UKAD tests, then there would be a clear process to follow, there’d be a hearing and announcement would be made if he’s banned. That happened with Whyte pre Rivas and nothing was announced pre fight following the initial hearing.

With VADA there isn’t a defined process which makes it difficult. If he just comes out and makes it public then his relationship with Benn is over as there’s no way Benn would be happy with that.

He might have hoped it was kept quiet. I bet he also wishes there’s been a hearing to actually make a proper decision over things.

Whilst Eddie deserves stick for this, particularly for me given they pushed for the fight to continue for 24 hours following the board’s announcement, I think Kalle deserves more as he was still ok for a drained Eubank Jr fighting someone who’d failed a test. Eubank Jr would have fought Benn regardless of what he was doing. Whilst I think the board should have cancelled it a long time before I also think Eubank JR’s team should have pushed for the cancellation too.