Do you think Conor Benn was wrongly accused of cheating?

[keithmoonhangover]

It looks like clomifene being in his system isn't being contested, it's more that they can't prove it was in his system with the intention of cheating, maybe ingested unintentionally.

"The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene"

Where does that leave strict liability then?

Basically as long as no-one directly watches you ingesting / injecting the stuff, you're in the clear

The testers can tell if it was administered/injected.

[Controversial]

All of this is conjecture until we get statements from UKAD/Anti Doping Panel/Board confirming on what basis he has been cleared.

Could be anything from a complete exoneration to a technicality.

It looks like clomifene being in his system isn't being contested, it's more that they can't prove it was in his system with the intention of cheating, maybe ingested unintentionally.

"The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene"

Where does that leave strict liability then?

No idea, assume there must be some sort of loophole or technicality they won it on.

[magnus]

Not many are ever really guilty are they? Big Bad James and Big Baby come to mind, few others.

Always accidentally ingested something - uncastrated wild boar, dodgy cup of tea made by brother etc etc.

Maybe we're too cynical?

Maybe Benn just picked his punches really well against the previously sturdy Algieri and Van Heerden.

You know, like Cash did against Bentley. Or Cordina against Ogawa.

[Boxerbeetle]

The Victor Conte interview on the latest Boxing Life Stories with Tris was interesting, basically saying how easy it is to get away with...

[Controversial]

The Victor Conte interview on the latest Boxing Life Stories with Tris was interesting, basically saying how easy it is to get away with...

Yeah he’s said this for a long time, there’s a good Netflix show about this too. He reckons about 60% of fighters are cheating.

[keithmoonhangover]

Not many are ever really guilty are they? Big Bad James and Big Baby come to mind, few others.

Always accidentally ingested something - uncastrated wild boar, dodgy cup of tea made by brother etc etc.

Maybe we're too cynical?

Maybe Benn just picked his punches really well against the previously sturdy Algieri and Van Heerden.

You know, like Cash did against Bentley. Or Cordina against Ogawa.

Some are definitely caught with a lot more in their system. I read a lot about the Canelo failed test and it was interesting.

If we had strict liability and life bans for everyone, that would make a massive difference. But there is always the risk that someone could sabotage a boxer by adding something to a drink or shake.

[Boxerbeetle]

Not many are ever really guilty are they? Big Bad James and Big Baby come to mind, few others.

Always accidentally ingested something - uncastrated wild boar, dodgy cup of tea made by brother etc etc.

Maybe we're too cynical?

Maybe Benn just picked his punches really well against the previously sturdy Algieri and Van Heerden.

You know, like Cash did against Bentley. Or Cordina against Ogawa.

Some are definitely caught with a lot more in their system. I read a lot about the Canelo failed test and it was interesting.

If we had strict liability and life bans for everyone, that would make a massive difference. But there is always the risk that someone could sabotage a boxer by adding something to a drink or shake.

Kid Galahad's brother

[maverick23]

Not many are ever really guilty are they? Big Bad James and Big Baby come to mind, few others.

Always accidentally ingested something - uncastrated wild boar, dodgy cup of tea made by brother etc etc.

Maybe we're too cynical?

Maybe Benn just picked his punches really well against the previously sturdy Algieri and Van Heerden.

You know, like Cash did against Bentley. Or Cordina against Ogawa.

Some are definitely caught with a lot more in their system. I read a lot about the Canelo failed test and it was interesting.

If we had strict liability and life bans for everyone, that would make a massive difference. But there is always the risk that someone could sabotage a boxer by adding something to a drink or shake.

You also get examples of fighters with banned substances where it’s been seemingly been ingested through no/little fault of their own like Enzo Maccarinelli who took a supplement marketed as being safe for athletes yet contained a banned substance.

I don’t think someone like him should get a life ban.

Not all cases are the same with drugs so, I think, should always be dealt with on a case by case basis.

What does need a lot of improvement is how different commissions deal with drugs.

[olij999]

If we had strict liability and life bans for everyone, that would make a massive difference. But there is always the risk that someone could sabotage a boxer by adding something to a drink or shake.

Keith - just one point on that (although not sure if I am misunderstanding you). Strict liability doesn't mean guilty plus same punishment for everyone. It means you can't be found not guilty if there are banned substances in your system. However, mitigation is allowed - for example, the published judgment in the Maccarinelli case on the UKAD site indicated that he got a shorter ban because he had kept the packaging etc from the offending supplement so could prove how the drugs had got into his system, why it was an one-off error etc. Strict liability meant he was always going to be guilty, but the mitigation evidence affects what the punishment is.

So the question is what this latest judgment is actually saying. Is the panel saying it was not proved to the required standard that there was clomifene in his system, as a point of fact? Or that there was indeed clomifene in his system but no offence was committed (which would be odd if strict liability is the test)? And if the panel did indeed say that it was "not comfortably satisfied" (the quote within the italicised quote above), that is also odd wording as any judicial/quasi-judicial body would normally refer to the standard of proof (e.g. "on the balance of probabilities"). Definitely more info needed.

[keithmoonhangover]

If we had strict liability and life bans for everyone, that would make a massive difference. But there is always the risk that someone could sabotage a boxer by adding something to a drink or shake.

Keith - just one point on that (although not sure if I am misunderstanding you). Strict liability doesn't mean guilty plus same punishment for everyone. It means you can't be found not guilty if there are banned substances in your system. However, mitigation is allowed - for example, the published judgment in the Maccarinelli case on the UKAD site indicated that he got a shorter ban because he had kept the packaging etc from the offending supplement so could prove how the drugs had got into his system, why it was an one-off error etc. Strict liability meant he was always going to be guilty, but the mitigation evidence affects what the punishment is.

So the question is what this latest judgment is actually saying. Is the panel saying it was not proved to the required standard that there was clomifene in his system, as a point of fact? Or that there was indeed clomifene in his system but no offence was committed (which would be odd if strict liability is the test)? And if the panel did indeed say that it was "not comfortably satisfied" (the quote within the italicised quote above), that is also odd wording as any judicial/quasi-judicial body would normally refer to the standard of proof (e.g. "on the balance of probabilities"). Definitely more info needed.

Good post, I learned a little bit by reading it.

The only thing I know for definite about Benn's case is the Clomifene was ingested, not administered.

[Nightmare Roy]

You can't turn a Metro in to a Maserati without some serious modifications

[coneye]

How can he be accused wrongly , first of all you look at not just him but his gym mates , all become punchers overnight , when Benn is sprung they all lose there new powers , FAILED not one but two tests , promised to release proof it never came , the list goes on and on .

Even this bollocks they can't prove it the info is not released , its still cloak and dagger , seems to me its just they can't prove has to wether he injested or injected .

Does it matter wether or not a kid sticks an eccy in his mouth or up his arse , he's still high

[skanksta]

Well quite, would the person who voted "not guilty" like to come and explain their thoughts...?

[gregregegg]

To me this looks like one of those situations where the guys making the doping decision are terrified of getting sued so are trying to end the ban, put out a meaningless statement about it and hope to move on.

Benn has jumped at this and claims they have proclaimed his innocence (a blatant lie).

I hate these UKAD/bbboc/anti doping board or whatever can’t talk about it clauses and situations.

I think BBBOC need to put a clause in the licence sign up saying “testing agency’s and arbitration groups can publicly disclose findings and are not liable for doing so” or somthing, cause when they are gagged, and then the accused just twists the facts it confuses the public/fans.

Anyway, doubt BBBOC appeal (although I want them too for the drama…),

[TheLeprechaun]

The Sims gym... suspect

[Bigdogsnose]

Yes. But i also believed my dad when he said he was just popping to the shop.

[THEBUTCH]

Of all the boxers I can think of Benn's improved stamina surprised me the most. It was a stunning transformation from what I'd seen of him previously.

As soon the news broke of him testing positive for PEDS it felt like the penny had dropped !

[NazNaci1]

Used to be a light hitting boxer, then went into a phase of being his Dad 2.0, albeit for a couple of fights........and now, back to the light hitting mover, again.

He was cheating. Then again, he never was, was not and will not be the only one to do so. Just wish he would shut up and lose the gip, snarling and all that crap.

Eubanks will crush him, if they ever fight, and I am not a particular fan of his, either.

[CaptainSpacerod]

Yes. But i also believed my dad when he said he was just popping to the shop.

[KiwiRider]

Used to be a light hitting boxer, then went into a phase of being his Dad 2.0, albeit for a couple of fights........and now, back to the light hitting mover, again.

He was cheating. Then again, he never was, was not and will not be the only one to do so. Just wish he would shut up and lose the gip, snarling and all that crap.

Eubanks will crush him, if they ever fight, and I am not a particular fan of his, either.

Nice summation
His antics after the Algieri fight totally turn me off.