handsofstone wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 15:17
Can't help it, they're far from blameless in all this, they dithered when they found out about the initial test, they've dragged sh1t out far too long, no meetings or hearing, Robert Smith talking to talksport more than Benn',s team, I don't believe Benn but he has been cleared to fight ,WBC and UKAD believed him by all accounts, where's the transparency and urgency?
For clarity, UKAD didn’t believe him. They haven’t reviewed the evidence as it was ruled they didn’t have jurisdiction over the tests. It’s this point that UKAD/the board have appealed.
Fair enough, I thought the jurisdiction angle was wrong, still fck the BBBC innit
Eddie claimed it wasn’t solely based on jurisdiction but either way UKAD haven’t examined or ruled on Benn’s ‘evidence’.
I think the board have handled the whole thing poorly along with Benn.
I don’t particularly get why Robert Smith has openly discussed it as much as he has with TalkSport. Yet he rarely talks about other stuff. He was strangely quiet about why the board licensed the fights in Saudi. Including a main event with the WBC champ against a debutant with neither holding a British license.
SeanBrennan wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 15:54
Hearn managing to keep a straight face in his interview today deserves credit, he must know he's parroting absolute garbage.
I haven’t listened to any of the stuff from today yet. What garbage has he said?
in this case? you're really cheering for the ped cheat who basically wants us to knee down and lick his arse clean, and then say thank you for the privlege may i have some more?
Can't help it, they're far from blameless in all this, they dithered when they found out about the initial test, they've dragged sh1t out far too long, no meetings or hearing, Robert Smith talking to talksport more than Benn',s team, I don't believe Benn but he has been cleared to fight ,WBC and UKAD believed him by all accounts, where's the transparency and urgency?
ya, to me the biggest dickhead in this is still the ped user who spits on us, then wants us to suck his balls and thank him for the opportunity
you talk about transparency, but then get after the bbbc for talking about it. and it is benn's team that have constantly obfuscated and played the magic evidence incoming (but then never released) card
When I say transparency I mean, dates, plans, whens things getting straightened out, they appeal Benn's clearance then it's radio silence, I've not heard anything about Robert Smith's talksport interview so no idea what he's saying now, I assume he's still saying their investigation is going on....yawn
maverick23 wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 16:03
I don’t particularly get why Robert Smith has openly discussed it as much as he has with TalkSport. Yet he rarely talks about other stuff. He was strangely quiet about why the board licensed the fights in Saudi. Including a main event with the WBC champ against a debutant with neither holding a British license.
Indeed, talksport (Jordan) can talk about what they want, and they do. The continued enthusiasm of this topic with Benn while ignoring others such as the one you pointed out does start to give some ground to Hearn's comments about an 'agenda'
If it’s a High Court appeal it will likely take ages as they don’t hear many civil cases daily. Presumably a lot of the the previous delays were effectively adjournments in the process while Team Benn rounded up their European ‘expert’ witness evidence.
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 16:08
so are all uk ped cheats the lesser evil now, or is this just specific to conor benn for you?
It's not about Conor Benn for me, it's about the BBBC being the ones whose meant to govern the sport but can't seem to get their sh1t together, I know it's not a straightforward process but they've got history when it comes to their integrity when it comes to failed tests, not the most transparent to say the least, everythings cloak and dagger, just announce a ban or don't, either way get on with it
Boxing News is a reputable magazine and stated things as fact that were incorrect hence having to do 2 retractions of articles relating to Benn. If Benn/Matchroom then I’d imagine one or both wouldn’t have been happy so probably got a lawyer to send over what was incorrect.
How else should they have dealt with it? Just let it slide?
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but if you genuinely think legal action is the automatic first step then you don't understand how 99% of the media works.
I don’t think legal action is an automatic first step. I also don’t know whether lawyers were involved with it. I’d imagine though that someone like Matchroom has an in-house legal rep who’d deal with this kind of thing.
Ultimately if what Boxing News had said was factual then they’d have been able to push back so if it was a friendly call, their in-house lawyer sending an email or a 3rd party legal firm getting involved it would lead to the same result - a correction being published. I’ve seen Boxing News do several over the years with FWarren too.
It is very clearly a carefully worded statement drafted at the request of or by lawyers or a legal rep (though not sure why you're keen to make the distinction). You say it would ultimately lead to the same result irrespective of the differing approaches such as a friendly call and that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, if Matchroom hadn't been on such a war footing and combative tone vs the media over Benn and BN had made that error, the 'friendly call' could have led to an outcome that would ultimately have been far more beneficial for both parties, such as BN offering to run an exclusive interview with Hearn that allows for the mistake to be acknowledged and addressed within a conversational format. Matchroom thus gets the desired correction along with more real estate than a cursory legal statement, while BN gets the exclusive interview. The wrong is righted, everyone gets what they want out of it etc.
it's how it would frequently play out in other worlds, due to recognition of the greater shared benefit of preserving the long-term relationship, but.. boxing, eh?
BTW, pointing out the fact Warren used to do the same thing hardly acts as justification of Hearn's actions.
Deserter wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 11:17
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but if you genuinely think legal action is the automatic first step then you don't understand how 99% of the media works.
I don’t think legal action is an automatic first step. I also don’t know whether lawyers were involved with it. I’d imagine though that someone like Matchroom has an in-house legal rep who’d deal with this kind of thing.
Ultimately if what Boxing News had said was factual then they’d have been able to push back so if it was a friendly call, their in-house lawyer sending an email or a 3rd party legal firm getting involved it would lead to the same result - a correction being published. I’ve seen Boxing News do several over the years with FWarren too.
It is very clearly a carefully worded statement drafted at the request of or by lawyers or a legal rep (though not sure why you're keen to make the distinction). You say it would ultimately lead to the same result irrespective of the differing approaches such as a friendly call and that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, if Matchroom hadn't been on such a war footing and combative tone vs the media over Benn and BN had made that error, the 'friendly call' could have led to an outcome that would ultimately have been far more beneficial for both parties, such as BN offering to run an exclusive interview with Hearn that allows for the mistake to be acknowledged and addressed within a conversational format. Matchroom thus gets the desired correction along with more real estate than a cursory legal statement, while BN gets the exclusive interview. The wrong is righted, everyone gets what they want out of it etc.
it's how it would frequently play out in other worlds, due to recognition of the greater shared benefit of preserving the long-term relationship, but.. boxing, eh?
BTW, pointing out the fact Warren used to do the same thing hardly acts as justification of Hearn's actions.
Hearn/Benn don’t need to have their actions justified with this with Boxing News. They printed incorrect information about Benn. Twice. Both times they had to issue a correction.
I’d imagine Benn wouldn’t be interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with Boxing News given how he’s gone on the offensive with other entities that have been highly critical about him, let alone ones who’ve printed incorrect stuff.
Benn (and Eddie) deserve a lot of criticism for how the cancellation of the Eubank fight and subsequent handling but, in my opinion, this isn’t something that deserves criticism. Journalists should make sure they do as much as possible to verify what they’re saying is correct and BN didn’t do that here.
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2023, 03:56
Hearn/Benn don’t need to have their actions justified with this with Boxing News. They printed incorrect information about Benn. Twice. Both times they had to issue a correction.
I’d imagine Benn wouldn’t be interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with Boxing News given how he’s gone on the offensive with other entities that have been highly critical about him, let alone ones who’ve printed incorrect stuff.
Benn (and Eddie) deserve a lot of criticism for how the cancellation of the Eubank fight and subsequent handling but, in my opinion, this isn’t something that deserves criticism. Journalists should make sure they do as much as possible to verify what they’re saying is correct and BN didn’t do that here.
You're wasting your time mate, some people will hang themselves to dry in support of a boxing journalist.
Boxing news allowed an article to go live with a bunch of incorrect information (lies) and people think it's the fault of Hearn to ask for a retraction - Whether that was done legally or not is of no relevance.
Journalists with the prowess of those within boxing news should have contacted Matchroom with the option to comment before they ran with it. That's what stops having to print apologies and retractions.
I don’t think legal action is an automatic first step. I also don’t know whether lawyers were involved with it. I’d imagine though that someone like Matchroom has an in-house legal rep who’d deal with this kind of thing.
Ultimately if what Boxing News had said was factual then they’d have been able to push back so if it was a friendly call, their in-house lawyer sending an email or a 3rd party legal firm getting involved it would lead to the same result - a correction being published. I’ve seen Boxing News do several over the years with FWarren too.
It is very clearly a carefully worded statement drafted at the request of or by lawyers or a legal rep (though not sure why you're keen to make the distinction). You say it would ultimately lead to the same result irrespective of the differing approaches such as a friendly call and that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, if Matchroom hadn't been on such a war footing and combative tone vs the media over Benn and BN had made that error, the 'friendly call' could have led to an outcome that would ultimately have been far more beneficial for both parties, such as BN offering to run an exclusive interview with Hearn that allows for the mistake to be acknowledged and addressed within a conversational format. Matchroom thus gets the desired correction along with more real estate than a cursory legal statement, while BN gets the exclusive interview. The wrong is righted, everyone gets what they want out of it etc.
it's how it would frequently play out in other worlds, due to recognition of the greater shared benefit of preserving the long-term relationship, but.. boxing, eh?
BTW, pointing out the fact Warren used to do the same thing hardly acts as justification of Hearn's actions.
Hearn/Benn don’t need to have their actions justified with this with Boxing News. They printed incorrect information about Benn. Twice. Both times they had to issue a correction.
I’d imagine Benn wouldn’t be interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with Boxing News given how he’s gone on the offensive with other entities that have been highly critical about him, let alone ones who’ve printed incorrect stuff.
Benn (and Eddie) deserve a lot of criticism for how the cancellation of the Eubank fight and subsequent handling but, in my opinion, this isn’t something that deserves criticism. Journalists should make sure they do as much as possible to verify what they’re saying is correct and BN didn’t do that here.
If you'd said this originally in your response I'd have regarded it as completely fair comment, but instead you first implied they had no alternative route in their actions (they did) and then subsequently said regardless of the route, the outcome would be the same (it wouldn't).
We can agree to disagree on the approach, but to claim there was no viable alternative is disingenuous.
Deserter wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 20:02
It is very clearly a carefully worded statement drafted at the request of or by lawyers or a legal rep (though not sure why you're keen to make the distinction). You say it would ultimately lead to the same result irrespective of the differing approaches such as a friendly call and that's just where we'll have to agree to disagree. For example, if Matchroom hadn't been on such a war footing and combative tone vs the media over Benn and BN had made that error, the 'friendly call' could have led to an outcome that would ultimately have been far more beneficial for both parties, such as BN offering to run an exclusive interview with Hearn that allows for the mistake to be acknowledged and addressed within a conversational format. Matchroom thus gets the desired correction along with more real estate than a cursory legal statement, while BN gets the exclusive interview. The wrong is righted, everyone gets what they want out of it etc.
it's how it would frequently play out in other worlds, due to recognition of the greater shared benefit of preserving the long-term relationship, but.. boxing, eh?
BTW, pointing out the fact Warren used to do the same thing hardly acts as justification of Hearn's actions.
Hearn/Benn don’t need to have their actions justified with this with Boxing News. They printed incorrect information about Benn. Twice. Both times they had to issue a correction.
I’d imagine Benn wouldn’t be interested in maintaining any kind of relationship with Boxing News given how he’s gone on the offensive with other entities that have been highly critical about him, let alone ones who’ve printed incorrect stuff.
Benn (and Eddie) deserve a lot of criticism for how the cancellation of the Eubank fight and subsequent handling but, in my opinion, this isn’t something that deserves criticism. Journalists should make sure they do as much as possible to verify what they’re saying is correct and BN didn’t do that here.
If you'd said this originally in your response I'd have regarded it as completely fair comment, but instead you first implied they had no alternative route in their actions (they did) and then subsequently said regardless of the route, the outcome would be the same (it wouldn't).
We can agree to disagree on the approach, but to claim there was no viable alternative is disingenuous.
You said this in one of your opening comments about it: ‘symptomatic of the combative and aggressive stance that Matchroom has taken against any journalists brave enough to do their job properly’.
The journalists should have been brave enough to check their facts first.
Of course Eddie/Benn could have called up Boxing News, told them not to issue a retraction and they could do an interview instead going through the inaccuracies. That’s really unlikely though given the size of Boxing News (sadly relatively small), the fact it was the second time they’d written inaccuracies and the type of people Hearn (extremely busy and likely has an in-house lawyer) and Benn are.
My wife’s a lawyer and I deal with the legal team at the company I work for most days so perhaps I just don’t see getting a lawyer to deal with something best suited to them as combative or aggressive as you do.
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2023, 06:58
My wife’s a lawyer and I deal with the legal team at the company I work for most days so perhaps I just don’t see getting a lawyer to deal with something best suited to them as combative or aggressive as you do.
Fair enough and by the same token having been a journalist and editor in the past that's potentially influencing my PoV as well. At the heart of this is my concern about the power dynamics and the potential long-term implications. I hope we would all agree that these issues should be investigated and reported on, but when you have a level of secrecy and people deliberately obfuscating the story that can make that job incredibly challenging - akin to walking through a minefield - especially when your resources (legal or otherwise).pale in comparison.
There's a very real danger here that any attempts of independent investigative reporting are abandoned because the risk just isn't worth it, meaning the floor is left to glorfiied fanboys like IFL to just report the party line. Does anyone really want that?
Are there in fact any decent boxing journalists in the country who don’t work for Boxing News? I don’t like it being called ‘small.’ It is still a national print publication found in most WHSmiths in the country going back decades. It’s quite a legacy! It is of course vulnerable to changing times. That an urchin like Conor Benn would ever have a negative impact on the magazine’s future is pretty appalling! Go away, you’re really not wanted!
Last edited by polecateddy on 01 Dec 2023, 09:47, edited 1 time in total.
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2023, 06:58
My wife’s a lawyer and I deal with the legal team at the company I work for most days so perhaps I just don’t see getting a lawyer to deal with something best suited to them as combative or aggressive as you do.
Fair enough and by the same token having been a journalist and editor in the past that's potentially influencing my PoV as well. At the heart of this is my concern about the power dynamics and the potential long-term implications. I hope we would all agree that these issues should be investigated and reported on, but when you have a level of secrecy and people deliberately obfuscating the story that can make that job incredibly challenging - akin to walking through a minefield - especially when your resources (legal or otherwise).pale in comparison.
There's a very real danger here that any attempts of independent investigative reporting are abandoned because the risk just isn't worth it, meaning the floor is left to glorfiied fanboys like IFL to just report the party line. Does anyone really want that?
I agree with all of that.
Eddie and Benn have tried to spin things throughout with creative uses of words like ‘cleared’ and others. That’s why I’d have preferred someone like Boxing News to simply report on the facts and make things clear rather than confuse things further.
maverick23 wrote: ↑01 Dec 2023, 06:58
My wife’s a lawyer and I deal with the legal team at the company I work for most days so perhaps I just don’t see getting a lawyer to deal with something best suited to them as combative or aggressive as you do.
Fair enough and by the same token having been a journalist and editor in the past that's potentially influencing my PoV as well. At the heart of this is my concern about the power dynamics and the potential long-term implications. I hope we would all agree that these issues should be investigated and reported on, but when you have a level of secrecy and people deliberately obfuscating the story that can make that job incredibly challenging - akin to walking through a minefield - especially when your resources (legal or otherwise).pale in comparison.
There's a very real danger here that any attempts of independent investigative reporting are abandoned because the risk just isn't worth it, meaning the floor is left to glorfiied fanboys like IFL to just report the party line. Does anyone really want that?
I agree with all of that.
Eddie and Benn have tried to spin things throughout with creative uses of words like ‘cleared’ and others. That’s why I’d have preferred someone like Boxing News to simply report on the facts and make things clear rather than confuse things further.
Yeh ironically i think we're completely aligned and i have no doubt that was their intention, but when you're a small team trying to wade through the murky waters without legal or technical firepower, it undoubtedly becomes extremely difficult.
Anyway, really good to be able to have a debate about it all without descending into mud-slinging so just want to log my appreciation for that. Thanks
Deserter wrote: ↑01 Dec 2023, 08:56
Fair enough and by the same token having been a journalist and editor in the past that's potentially influencing my PoV as well. At the heart of this is my concern about the power dynamics and the potential long-term implications. I hope we would all agree that these issues should be investigated and reported on, but when you have a level of secrecy and people deliberately obfuscating the story that can make that job incredibly challenging - akin to walking through a minefield - especially when your resources (legal or otherwise).pale in comparison.
There's a very real danger here that any attempts of independent investigative reporting are abandoned because the risk just isn't worth it, meaning the floor is left to glorfiied fanboys like IFL to just report the party line. Does anyone really want that?
I agree with all of that.
Eddie and Benn have tried to spin things throughout with creative uses of words like ‘cleared’ and others. That’s why I’d have preferred someone like Boxing News to simply report on the facts and make things clear rather than confuse things further.
Yeh ironically i think we're completely aligned and i have no doubt that was their intention, but when you're a small team trying to wade through the murky waters without legal or technical firepower, it undoubtedly becomes extremely difficult.
Anyway, really good to be able to have a debate about it all without descending into mud-slinging so just want to log my appreciation for that. Thanks
Yeah - I’m sure it’s difficult for a weekly magazine (one that probably doesn’t have big readership or much financial clout) to have the bandwidth to properly corroborate every story - particularly things that are current. Before subbing to Boxing News, I was a long time subscriber of Boxing Monthly which didn’t get too involved in the current stuff and probably didn’t have to get too involved in legal back and forth.
Re: the debate - same to you. We all love boxing on here and it’s fine for people to have different opinions on things as otherwise what’s the point in being on a forum. The social media generation has turned a lot of people into believing that everyone is wrong who disagrees with them and that they deserve to be shot down.
SeanBrennan wrote: ↑30 Nov 2023, 15:54
Hearn managing to keep a straight face in his interview today deserves credit, he must know he's parroting absolute garbage.
I haven’t listened to any of the stuff from today yet. What garbage has he said?
Benn has been cleared by UKAD / VADA / rada/ Prada / Barack Obama / a Llama etc
