Redback Rasta wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 15:53
Have we heard anything thus far that categorically eliminates the possibility that Benn has served a backdated 12 month suspension?
This was a statement from UKAD in April…
UKAD's 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.
From the sound of what’s out there I think it’s very unlikely he’s served 12 months. Otherwise why would UKAD have the option to appeal if they’ve already issued a sentence?
Redback Rasta wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 15:53
Have we heard anything thus far that categorically eliminates the possibility that Benn has served a backdated 12 month suspension?
This was a statement from UKAD in April…
UKAD's 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.
From the sound of what’s out there I think it’s very unlikely he’s served 12 months. Otherwise why would UKAD have the option to appeal if they’ve already issued a sentence?
Perhaps UKAD provisionally suspended Benn in April, have since sentenced him to a 2 years suspension and on appeal to the National Anti-Doping Panel, the 2 years has been reduced to 1 year. It would make sense under that scenario that UKAD would then have the right of appeal.
Redback Rasta wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 15:53
Have we heard anything thus far that categorically eliminates the possibility that Benn has served a backdated 12 month suspension?
This was a statement from UKAD in April…
UKAD's 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.
From the sound of what’s out there I think it’s very unlikely he’s served 12 months. Otherwise why would UKAD have the option to appeal if they’ve already issued a sentence?
Perhaps UKAD provisionally suspended Benn in April, have since sentenced him to a 2 years suspension and on appeal to the National Anti-Doping Panel, the 2 years has been reduced to 1 year. It would make sense under that scenario that UKAD would then have the right of appeal.
Does the NADP set the term of the ban? I don’t know whether they do or whether UKAD do based on the findings/conclusions of the NADP.
UKAD's 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.
From the sound of what’s out there I think it’s very unlikely he’s served 12 months. Otherwise why would UKAD have the option to appeal if they’ve already issued a sentence?
Perhaps UKAD provisionally suspended Benn in April, have since sentenced him to a 2 years suspension and on appeal to the National Anti-Doping Panel, the 2 years has been reduced to 1 year. It would make sense under that scenario that UKAD would then have the right of appeal.
Does the NADP set the term of the ban? I don’t know whether they do or whether UKAD do based on the findings/conclusions of the NADP.
Would have thought UKAD set the penalty and the National Anti-Doping Panel are there for those who want to protest their penalty.
Sounds a bit like either the panel or the defence have got criminal law experience and they’ve sold the idea of the penalty being ‘time served.’ Hilarious that Benn is characterising this as ‘being cleared.’ And Hearn loves the word ‘exonerated.’ It might just be he’s served his sentence and now he’s fairly keen to get back with The Board. But I suspect it’s not going to happen particularly quickly as clearly there’s a lot of anger.
polecateddy wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 04:48
Sounds a bit like either the panel or the defence have got criminal law experience and they’ve sold the idea of the penalty being ‘time served.’ Hilarious that Benn is characterising this as ‘being cleared.’ And Hearn loves the word ‘exonerated.’ It might just be he’s served his sentence and now he’s fairly keen to get back with The Board. But I suspect it’s not going to happen particularly quickly as clearly there’s a lot of anger.
Seeing things similarly to you.
Until such time as these drug agencies become transparent, spin doctors like Hearn are going to cleverly twist the truth and con the public, and that is exactly what is transpiring at the moment.
"The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) is aware that Mr Benn and UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) have provided public comment in relation to confidential proceedings before the independent National Anti-Doping Panel," said the British Boxing Board of Control in a statement.
"The BBBofC is not able to comment on the proceedings between UKAD and Mr Benn due to confidentiality restrictions. We refer to the statement issued by UK Anti-Doping [located on their website]
"As set out therein, we wish to reconfirm that the UK Anti-Doping Rules which apply to those proceedings provide all relevant parties, including the BBBofC, with a right of appeal. The BBBofC takes all anti-doping matters extremely seriously and is considering the exercise of its rights pursuant to the Rules.
"Further comment will not be provided pending conclusion of the UKAD process in full due to the confidentiality restrictions in place. All enquiries should be directed to UKAD, as the body responsible for the enforcement of the Rules."
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
maverick23 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 14:00
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
We're all just speculating.
The only thing I find strange is the Benn PR machine that has clearly kicked into gear based on a lie that the process is over, when it clearly is not, albeit may be very shortly.
maverick23 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 14:00
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
Whilst the liam Cameron ban was harsh, he was proven to have taken a banned substance, cocaine. Why would the appeal the decision? He admitted taking it, didn't he? There wasn't much, if any, scope to appeal.
maverick23 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 14:00
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
We're all just speculating.
The only thing I find strange is the Benn PR machine that has clearly kicked into gear based on a lie that the process is over, when it clearly is not, albeit may be very shortly.
I’m not surprised they’ve come out with it. Otherwise it’d be another 3 weeks before something comes and Eddie had been saying ‘we should find out soon’ for weeks.
I guess most legal cases are subject to appeal. I’d just be surprised if it’s the board that appeals against it.
maverick23 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 14:00
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
Whilst the liam Cameron ban was harsh, he was proven to have taken a banned substance, cocaine. Why would the appeal the decision? He admitted taking it, didn't he? There wasn't much, if any, scope to appeal.
The length of ban seemed to be disproportionate to the failure.
Larry Olubamiwo got 4 years (the same length of ban) for taking every PED going.
maverick23 wrote: ↑31 Jul 2023, 14:00
I find that really strange by the board. Robert Smith has said in the past that it’s solely up to UKAD.
They’ve gone/going through that process and UKAD may appeal the decision which is fine. Why would the board appeal the decision when the ‘experts’ are happy with the decision?
Why didn’t the board appeal the 4 year ban Cameron received for cocaine?
We're all just speculating.
The only thing I find strange is the Benn PR machine that has clearly kicked into gear based on a lie that the process is over, when it clearly is not, albeit may be very shortly.
:TU:
The thing is, we shouldn't need to be speculating. The process is horrid. If the authorities are not allowed to disclose information neither should the offending party be allowed to.
