BoxRec

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:27 Tris Dixon has a good article

A Ticking Timebomb Lurks in Boxing

Sadly, there are far more questions than answers. Tragically, for the integrity of the sport and its public image, they are likely to remain unanswered.

But here are some pertinent ones I’m thinking about:

1. Why were trace amounts of clomifene discovered in a VADA test and how did it get there?

2. Why did it take the Daily Mail to break the story for anyone to find out what had been happening when all parties had been informed of the positive test last month?

3. Who ‘leaked’ the story?

4. Why didn’t the British Boxing Board of Control act immediately?

5. Who is pressing for the B sample to be tested?

6. Who is Dr Usman Sajjad, the nutritionist and doctor who claims to have been working with Benn, and other high-profile fighters, and why has his social media presence been deactivated this week?

7. Why won’t Mauricio Sulaiman, always wanting to be considered a force for good in the sport, discuss anything about Benn’s role in the Clean Boxing Program?

8. Why won’t the British Boxing Board of Control release any kind of statement about the tests or what is going on, other than “prohibiting” the fight?

9. Why pay for VADA testing if you don’t want the results that the most thorough testing brings?

10. Where is the energy from the investigators and authorities trying to find guilt that matches the energy of Benn and his team trying to find innocence?

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:58 Chris Eubank Jr vs Conor Benn fight could be rescheduled for December

Chris Eubank Jr and Conor Benn want to fight before the end of the year — with December 17 being mooted as a potential date for their clash.

The pair’s original bout, scheduled for tonight, was postponed after Benn tested positive for the banned substance clomifene. But the fact the adverse finding was flagged in a test carried out by the Voluntary Anti-Drugs Association (VADA) rather than United Kingdom Anti-Doping (UKAD), which the fighters were signed up to and whose tests Benn passed, means the 26-year-old isn’t banned.

And that potentially paves the way for the two men to meet in the coming weeks, with all of the dates available to broadcaster DAZN being studied but the Saturday before Christmas Eve, for now at least, being seen as the most likely.

A meeting between the two promoters involved in the fight — Matchroom Boxing, which looks after Benn, and Wasserman Boxing, which looks after Eubank Jr — and the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) to try to resolve the situation is scheduled for this week. And given Matchroom and Benn’s team believe they have a strong legal, if not moral, position, there is hope that the money-spinning bout can be rekindled sooner rather than later.

Benn knows he faces a battle to clear his name either way and those in his inner-circle are said to have been devastated by what has happened in the last couple of weeks. They were made aware of the positive test in late September but it wasn’t until Thursday that the BBBofC said it would not sanction the contest after news of the failed test broke, throwing the event into disarray.

Benn, whose dad Nigel shared the ring for two epic fights with Chris Eubank Sr back in the Nineties, had spoken with Eubank Jr soon after learning of his positive test but both fighters were happy to proceed. And they were still keen to crack on last week when the whole furore became public knowledge.

Eubank Jr is understood to have been confident that, despite Benn returning a positive test for performance-enhancing drugs, his opponent had been so mentally affected by the situation that he wouldn’t pose much of a threat in a ring and it would therefore be an easy night’s work. The fight meant super-middleweight Eubank Jr dropping down to meet welterweight Benn at a catchweight of 157lb.

But Eubank Junior had been on weight — or at least no more than one pound over — since the beginning of fight week and was raring to go. The 33-year-old was due to pocket more than £3million for the fight plus his share of pay-per-views revenues, while Benn was set to earn around £2m plus his share of the TV money.

Last week, discussions took place over revisiting the purse split agreement to see Eubank Jr handed a greater share after Benn’s positive test but nothing had been agreed by the time the decision was taken on Thursday to postpone the fight. A source close to the fight said: “We have no idea how this is going to pan out but there will be more twists and turns to come, that’s for sure.”

liamlion wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:02

1103924 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 06:33

liamlion wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 06:28

That may be so, but something or someone needs to explain why UKAD didn’t pick up the fact that Benn had clomifenein his body when VADA did.

That's simple, they took samples on different days. He was clean on one day and dirty on the other.

You’re speculating. It would be good to hear official clarification.

If UKAD only conducted one test on Benn throughout camp then that is inadequate.

I’d like to know how many VADA tests versus UKAD tests.

Also, VADA wouldn’t be employed at huge expense if UKAD was sufficient or as effective. Why else use VADA when UKAD is involved?

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 11:49

stevec@france wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 11:48

Glass Joe wrote: ↑07 Oct 2022, 09:21

comments funny

what kind of clown gets a tattoo of a boxer on their torso - muppet

and it's Conor Benn of all boxers..

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:27 Tris Dixon has a good article

A Ticking Timebomb Lurks in Boxing

Sadly, there are far more questions than answers. Tragically, for the integrity of the sport and its public image, they are likely to remain unanswered.

But here are some pertinent ones I’m thinking about:

1. Why were trace amounts of clomifene discovered in a VADA test and how did it get there?

2. Why did it take the Daily Mail to break the story for anyone to find out what had been happening when all parties had been informed of the positive test last month?

3. Who ‘leaked’ the story?

4. Why didn’t the British Boxing Board of Control act immediately?

5. Who is pressing for the B sample to be tested?

6. Who is Dr Usman Sajjad, the nutritionist and doctor who claims to have been working with Benn, and other high-profile fighters, and why has his social media presence been deactivated this week?

7. Why won’t Mauricio Sulaiman, always wanting to be considered a force for good in the sport, discuss anything about Benn’s role in the Clean Boxing Program?

8. Why won’t the British Boxing Board of Control release any kind of statement about the tests or what is going on, other than “prohibiting” the fight?

9. Why pay for VADA testing if you don’t want the results that the most thorough testing brings?

10. Where is the energy from the investigators and authorities trying to find guilt that matches the energy of Benn and his team trying to find innocence?

liamlion wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:23

JamesPhilips wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:09

1103924 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 05:41

He won't just survive, he will thrive. Most of the big promoters have had one (or more) of their boxers fail a test.

I hate PEDs and someone is going to die in the ring as a consequence of them one day.

The BBBofC need to be shut down and replaced.

Lol EVERY top fighters is doing PEDs now. You actually believe testing works?

Ask Conor Benn and Eddie Hearn...

1103924 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 08:59

liamlion wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 07:02

1103924 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 06:33

That's simple, they took samples on different days. He was clean on one day and dirty on the other.

You’re speculating. It would be good to hear official clarification.

If UKAD only conducted one test on Benn throughout camp then that is inadequate.

I’d like to know how many VADA tests versus UKAD tests.

Also, VADA wouldn’t be employed at huge expense if UKAD was sufficient or as effective. Why else use VADA when UKAD is involved?

I'm not speculating. Different bodies don't test at the same time.

Glass Joe wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 11:11

JimJim2009 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 12:08 43 mins of avoiding the serious issue that thankfully everyone else grasps; after knowing Conor had failed a drug test, with the substance being linked to steroid use, why did Eddie want to let the fight happen ?

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 12:22

Glass Joe wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 12:52

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 13:08 Fair play to anyone who could listen to Camp Eddie on this, especially for anything longer than 2 minutes, you’ve got a stronger stomach than I have. Plenty enough in life to frustrate and annoy me, no need to go seeking that stuff out.

JimJim2009 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 12:08 43 mins of avoiding the serious issue that thankfully everyone else grasps; after knowing Conor had failed a drug test, with the substance being linked to steroid use, why did Eddie want to let the fight happen ?

big lennox wrote: ↑09 Oct 2022, 03:24 I was gobsmacked to hear how long they have known about it. Shocking.

It is disgraceful that people involved were poking charlie at Eubank Sr when a), he is grieving the loss of a son and, b), they knew that Benn had failed a drug test. I've always like Hearn, who is very clear, articulate and has a good sense of humour, but he has not done well hear. Ditto Sauerland.