Conor Benn - What Next?

[Controversial]

I look forward the Hearn's reaction to this!

[Nightmare Roy]

I look forward the Hearn's reaction to this!

I can't talk about it whilst it's still with the lawyers Koogan

[Nightmare Roy]

I imagine they will teach this whole episode to PR students at universities for years to come, absolute shambles from everyone involved.

[Counter-puncher]

But where is his due process? We need another Hearn video about this lol

[polecateddy]

UKAD are obviously well on their way to endorsing the VADA testing, which isn’t too unusual as they often share the same actual laboratories. I’d imagine any WADA affiliated boxing board around the globe won’t touch Benn with a barge poll. It will be interesting if he’s gets the 4 year ban at the tribunal stage. Never has there been a more deserving candidate!

[Ruthless-RKO]

Puello has just tested positive for Clomiphene..

He loses his world title.

[Controversial]

Benn officially charged by UKAD I’m reading, facing worldwide suspension

https://www.skysports.com/amp/boxing/ne ... heir-rules

The UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD) has formally charged Conor Benn over his failed drugs tests and confirmed his worldwide suspension under its rules.

Benn tested positive for a banned substance ahead of last October's proposed catchweight bout against Chris Eubank Jr.

A statement read: "UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) confirms that Mr Benn was notified and provisionally suspended by UKAD on 15 March 2023 in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules.

"Whilst provisionally suspended Mr Benn is prohibited from participating in any capacity (or assisting another athlete in any capacity) in a competition, event or activity that is organised, convened, authorised or recognised by the British Boxing Board of Control or any other World Anti-Doping Code-compliant sport.

"UKAD can also confirm that on 3 April 2023 it charged Mr Benn with an Article 2.2 violation for the alleged use of a prohibited substance (clomifene). The charge against Mr Benn is pending and will now follow the results management process in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules."

[Spud]

My wife has just said … “what happens if by some miracle Connor Benn is innocent, will you all be
apologetic?

It got me thinking about all the various boxing podcasts, boxing websites, journalists & fans .. what would they say?

Just bear with me for a short while …

I wouldn’t be apologetic because in my opinion he is definitely guilty and if that is the case he should face
A 4 year ban.

What would your reaction be, if he was innocent?

Now turning things to a likely guilty verdict, what would your punishment be?

One more question … Connor Benn has himself ruled out the “egg excuse” … so working on the strict liability is there anyway Benn could get out of this?

[Controversial]

From Benn on Twitter

Another day, another attempt to create a headline with my name…

I am involved in a confidential procedure and I have respected my confidentiality obligations. Yet each day brings a new leak and a misrepresentation of what’s actually happening. 1/2

There is no news. Being “charged” is a start of a process by which an athlete has to defend themselves. I have not been sanctioned by anyone & I’m not banned from boxing. I remain free to fight in events that are not sanctioned by the BBBoC. I don't even have a BBBoC licence. 2/2

[dookus]

My wife has just said … “what happens if by some miracle Connor Benn is innocent, will you all be
apologetic?

It got me thinking about all the various boxing podcasts, boxing websites, journalists & fans .. what would they say?

Just bear with me for a short while …

I wouldn’t be apologetic because in my opinion he is definitely guilty and if that is the case he should face
A 4 year ban.

What would your reaction be, if he was innocent?

Now turning things to a likely guilty verdict, what would your punishment be?

One more question … Connor Benn has himself ruled out the “egg excuse” … so working on the strict liability is there anyway Benn could get out of this?

Depends on what basis he is found innocent

[Nightmare Roy]

Just saw Eddie on IFL, said the first he knew of it was when boxing news phoned him for a comment, wasn't happy he wasn't informed by UKAD and the media knew before him. Understandable but he can't be expecting many favours from them. Still saying he is free to fight in other territories.

[MasterG]

My wife has just said … “what happens if by some miracle Connor Benn is innocent, will you all be
apologetic?

It got me thinking about all the various boxing podcasts, boxing websites, journalists & fans .. what would they say?

Just bear with me for a short while …

I wouldn’t be apologetic because in my opinion he is definitely guilty and if that is the case he should face
A 4 year ban.

What would your reaction be, if he was innocent?

Now turning things to a likely guilty verdict, what would your punishment be?

One more question … Connor Benn has himself ruled out the “egg excuse” … so working on the strict liability is there anyway Benn could get out of this?

I've never been a Benn fan. If he wasn't a Benn where would be be? Saying that if my aunt had balls,...........etc

I don't think anyone is 100% squeaky clean, it's not a crime until you get caught. If he has been detected to be using drugs, Peds or whatever that's good enough for me.

[Spud]

With Team Benn reliant on getting away with strict liability … I could possibly get my head round them
Coming up with reasonable doubt on one of the tests … but using the same excuse for 2 failed tests 6 months apart is stretching it to say the least.

Its been sometime since I have seen an interview with Eddie pronouncing Benns innocence.

Another point is …. If Benn is found guilty, taking into consideration the likely ban … how on earth is Eddie going to get away with promoting Benn… if he does … I am willing to bet Eddie will have his BBBofC licence reviewed and he will be charged with bringing his conduct into disrepute.

We knew it already but this whole saga has got an awful lot of twists to go.

Another one all BBBofC boxers fighting on the Benn show will also have their licences reviewed.

Theres another … if Eddie is banned, can boxers get out of their BBBofC promotional contract?

[polecateddy]

Eddie seems to be shooting his mouth off a lot. I think he should be put in his box by The Board. I think he’s earned a suspension for bringing the sport into disrepute. UKAD have their processes. Boxing isn’t the only sport in the UK. He’s coming off like an uninformed, entitled idiot!

[Spud]

Eddie seems to be shooting his mouth off a lot. I think he should be put in his box by The Board. I think he’s earned a suspension for bringing the sport into disrepute. UKAD have their processes. Boxing isn’t the only sport in the UK. He’s coming off like an uninformed, entitled idiot!

I definitely think Eddie has questions to answer.

If he was a football manager he would be banned for months.

[handsofstone]

Eddie seems to be shooting his mouth off a lot. I think he should be put in his box by The Board. I think he’s earned a suspension for bringing the sport into disrepute. UKAD have their processes. Boxing isn’t the only sport in the UK. He’s coming off like an uninformed, entitled idiot!

I definitely think Eddie has questions to answer.

If he was a football manager he would be banned for months.

Absolutely but the board have been that shambolic they give Eddie the ammo, the board are pandering to the publics outrage, they charlatans didn't even call for a hearing with Benn when he failed, the board failed to get their hands around all of this and because of that Benn and Hearn to have took the moral high ground

I want Benn banned severely but still not as much as I want Robert Smith and every judge/ref in the bin

[dookus]

Eddie seems to be shooting his mouth off a lot. I think he should be put in his box by The Board. I think he’s earned a suspension for bringing the sport into disrepute. UKAD have their processes. Boxing isn’t the only sport in the UK. He’s coming off like an uninformed, entitled idiot!

I definitely think Eddie has questions to answer.

If he was a football manager he would be banned for months.

Absolutely but the board have been that shambolic they give Eddie the ammo, the board are pandering to the publics outrage, they charlatans didn't even call for a hearing with Benn when he failed, the board failed to get their hands around all of this and because of that Benn and Hearn to have took the moral high ground

I want Benn banned severely but still not as much as I want Robert Smith and every judge/ref in the bin

In fairness, Benn gave up his license days before going to a board hearing in October to face a charge of misconduct. The BBBC's position after that was they no longer had jurisdiction over him. (They took a similar position at the start of the Kinahan debacle with Fury.)

What else could the Board have done? They're a private company, not a government body. If they tried to ban Benn anyway, their following of procedure for doing so could still have been challenged in court. Legally, that would actually be made a lot easier by Benn not turning up or being represented. Benn is/was big business, and Matchroom have deep pockets. So it was not worth the risk for them to make their own ruling - a lot easier to wash their hands of him and wait for the UKAD ruling.

[handsofstone]

I definitely think Eddie has questions to answer.

If he was a football manager he would be banned for months.

Absolutely but the board have been that shambolic they give Eddie the ammo, the board are pandering to the publics outrage, they charlatans didn't even call for a hearing with Benn when he failed, the board failed to get their hands around all of this and because of that Benn and Hearn to have took the moral high ground

I want Benn banned severely but still not as much as I want Robert Smith and every judge/ref in the bin

In fairness, Benn gave up his license days before going to a board hearing in October to face a charge of misconduct. The BBBC's position after that was they no longer had jurisdiction over him. (They took a similar position at the start of the Kinahan debacle with Fury.)

What else could the Board have done? They're a private company, not a government body. If they tried to ban Benn anyway, their following of procedure for doing so could still have been challenged in court. Legally, that would actually be made a lot easier by Benn not turning up or being represented. Benn is/was big business, and Matchroom have deep pockets. So it was not worth the risk for them to make their own ruling - a lot easier to wash their hands of him and wait for the UKAD ruling.

I was thinking more around the time when everyone was informed of the positive test 5 weeks before the Eubank Jr fight, they should've called a hearing as soon as that happened, get Benn in and see what he had to say, they sat on their hands then pulled it when it became public that day or the next, forget about Benn or Hearn's accountability, all those undercard fighters left standing like spares and all would've lost money because of the boards inability to pull the card sooner

[dookus]

Absolutely but the board have been that shambolic they give Eddie the ammo, the board are pandering to the publics outrage, they charlatans didn't even call for a hearing with Benn when he failed, the board failed to get their hands around all of this and because of that Benn and Hearn to have took the moral high ground

I want Benn banned severely but still not as much as I want Robert Smith and every judge/ref in the bin

In fairness, Benn gave up his license days before going to a board hearing in October to face a charge of misconduct. The BBBC's position after that was they no longer had jurisdiction over him. (They took a similar position at the start of the Kinahan debacle with Fury.)

What else could the Board have done? They're a private company, not a government body. If they tried to ban Benn anyway, their following of procedure for doing so could still have been challenged in court. Legally, that would actually be made a lot easier by Benn not turning up or being represented. Benn is/was big business, and Matchroom have deep pockets. So it was not worth the risk for them to make their own ruling - a lot easier to wash their hands of him and wait for the UKAD ruling.

I was thinking more around the time when everyone was informed of the positive test 5 weeks before the Eubank Jr fight, they should've called a hearing as soon as that happened, get Benn in and see what he had to say, they sat on their hands then pulled it when it became public that day or the next, forget about Benn or Hearn's accountability, all those undercard fighters left standing like spares and all would've lost money because of the boards inability to pull the card sooner

Well fair enough then, they should have started acting a lot sooner.

[handsofstone]

In fairness, Benn gave up his license days before going to a board hearing in October to face a charge of misconduct. The BBBC's position after that was they no longer had jurisdiction over him. (They took a similar position at the start of the Kinahan debacle with Fury.)

What else could the Board have done? They're a private company, not a government body. If they tried to ban Benn anyway, their following of procedure for doing so could still have been challenged in court. Legally, that would actually be made a lot easier by Benn not turning up or being represented. Benn is/was big business, and Matchroom have deep pockets. So it was not worth the risk for them to make their own ruling - a lot easier to wash their hands of him and wait for the UKAD ruling.

I was thinking more around the time when everyone was informed of the positive test 5 weeks before the Eubank Jr fight, they should've called a hearing as soon as that happened, get Benn in and see what he had to say, they sat on their hands then pulled it when it became public that day or the next, forget about Benn or Hearn's accountability, all those undercard fighters left standing like spares and all would've lost money because of the boards inability to pull the card sooner

Well fair enough then, they should have started acting a lot sooner.

I've no time for the Board, it's in desperate need of change, not just there handling of this or any of the previous doping scandals, it's the officials, it's inept referees needing to judge as well, it's inept judges needing to referee as well, sometimes at the same time, infact probably 80% of the fights have a scoring referee, I actually give the referee's a pass there, how you meant to concentrate on scoring a fight when your looking for infringements? Especially if it's a messy fight with loads of holding and spoiling, constantly trying to break fighters up and warning them etc all the while scoring it, baffling, in America, referee's are refs and judges are judges, that needs to happen here

Also I wished they'd change the Tech Draw rule to a No Contest after an accidental foul stops a fight before 4, shame for fighters to have that Draw on their record because their opponent got cut

[coneye]

Still dragging there arses , Ukad have done there bit , Bbbc said they will come down on anyone who assists Benn in anyway , Benn still saying he's free to fight elswhere , which makes me assume he's training .

So wheres there balls when they gonna get rid of him by simply putting a ban on his trainer , If the smug little pratt has no where to train he's finished ,or they gonna let Simms and by proxy Hearn just tell them to do one

[gregregegg]

Garath did an interview with a sports lawyer thats fairly interesting. nothing super new but good to hear from a lawyer.

-Seems like this case has been handed to an interdependent board now. (not boxing specific)

-Also seems like this normaly happens without us finding out... so whoever leaked it has really made things interesting. (the whyte one was leaked too,,,, someone dosent like eds boiz....)

-Strict liability isnt as locked in as simon jordan will have you belive, its there for if you just say "na i didnt take it"... but if you provide a reasonable reason its no necessarily 2 years....

Connor fighting for his carer is interesting, fvck him he is a cheat (probably), but, its a bit harsh that he is the only one copping it when we have no idea whos testing positive....

scary times for whoever leaked it cause holy fvck if people find out they will get verrrry sued i imagine.

[maverick23]

Garath did an interview with a sports lawyer thats fairly interesting. nothing super new but good to hear from a lawyer.

-Seems like this case has been handed to an interdependent board now. (not boxing specific)

-Also seems like this normaly happens without us finding out... so whoever leaked it has really made things interesting. (the whyte one was leaked too,,,, someone dosent like eds boiz....)

-Strict liability isnt as locked in as simon jordan will have you belive, its there for if you just say "na i didnt take it"... but if you provide a reasonable reason its no necessarily 2 years....

Connor fighting for his carer is interesting, fvck him he is a cheat (probably), but, its a bit harsh that he is the only one copping it when we have no idea whos testing positive....

scary times for whoever leaked it cause holy fvck if people find out they will get verrrry sued i imagine.

Yeah - the strict liability point is an interesting one. Whyte failed a UKAD test but, supposedly because all of his VADA tests were clean around when the UKAD test was taken, was let off with no ban.

I still find it amazing that the board allowed that fight to take place.

People talk about him getting a minimum of a 2 year ban yet we’ve had cases with no bans or much reduced bans like the Enzo Maccarinelli one.

[polecateddy]

Garath did an interview with a sports lawyer thats fairly interesting. nothing super new but good to hear from a lawyer.

-Seems like this case has been handed to an interdependent board now. (not boxing specific)

-Also seems like this normaly happens without us finding out... so whoever leaked it has really made things interesting. (the whyte one was leaked too,,,, someone dosent like eds boiz....)

-Strict liability isnt as locked in as simon jordan will have you belive, its there for if you just say "na i didnt take it"... but if you provide a reasonable reason its no necessarily 2 years....

Connor fighting for his carer is interesting, fvck him he is a cheat (probably), but, its a bit harsh that he is the only one copping it when we have no idea whos testing positive....

scary times for whoever leaked it cause holy fvck if people find out they will get verrrry sued i imagine.

Yeah - the strict liability point is an interesting one. Whyte failed a UKAD test but, supposedly because all of his VADA tests were clean around when the UKAD test was taken, was let off with no ban.

I still find it amazing that the board allowed that fight to take place.

People talk about him getting a minimum of a 2 year ban yet we’ve had cases with no bans or much reduced bans like the Enzo Maccarinelli one.

It appears Maccarinelli was a 6 month ban for methylhexaneamine, which is much more weighted towards accidental use as it does pop up in a lot of supplements. Im not sure exactly what the stuff does - possibly helps improve oxygen uptake slightly. I’m not sure if Clomifene is ever likely to just pop up in regular supplements. It’s much more associated with hard core PED use generally, and I don’t think male athletes ever really escape with short/non bans after being caught taking it.

[Controversial]

Benns just posted a photo of him training in America