BoxRec

Steveh583 wrote: ↑28 Jul 2023, 13:08 i read a post from one of these online boxing tweeter journo types that said

Evidence of innocence in September 2022- 0

Evidence of innocence in July 2023- 0

Am I missing something other than “I’m now vindicated but you don’t know why”???

*taps nose*

yeah I haven't been following this circus at all but that's my impression

Meh.
I won’t be watching Benn again.

I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 05:44 I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

The BBBoC don’t have to explain themselves if they don’t want to license Benn, a boxing license is a privilege not a right.

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 05:44 I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

The BBBoC have UKAD to deal with drug related issues. If Benn goes through the UKAD process and is cleared, which seems to be the case, the board won’t have a leg to stand on if they try and challenge it.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:00

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 05:44 I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

The BBBoC don’t have to explain themselves if they don’t want to license Benn, a boxing license is a privilege not a right.

Yes that's true, be interested to see what they do then

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:00

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 05:44 I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

The BBBoC don’t have to explain themselves if they don’t want to license Benn, a boxing license is a privilege not a right.

There would have to be sound basis not to license him. He, eventually, followed their required process so to not license him would open themselves up for restraint of trade.

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:39

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:00

Controversial wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 05:44 I'm not sure how it works but would the BBBoC have to disprove the 'evidence' provided to them that is said to clear Benn? If so I can only guess they don't have the resources to challenge it.

The BBBoC don’t have to explain themselves if they don’t want to license Benn, a boxing license is a privilege not a right.

There would have to be sound basis not to license him. He, eventually, followed their required process so to not license him would open themselves up for restraint of trade.

Nah that’s just something that people like to say.
I expect the Board will license him but if Robert Smith is in the mood for a bit of drama then they can certainly deny a new license and make it stick.
Benns comments alone are enough to fulfill the vague criteria of it not being in the interests of boxing to grant a license.

What next?
Probably call out an old retired champion.
Thurman
Malignaggi

Then onto Kell Brook/Eubank and make as much money as poss in a short space of time.

Then…. Nothing coz he ain’t got a prayer against the top 5 or 6.

Mind you. This story can’t be done and just swept under the carpet can it? Might as well say “take what you want guys. It don’t matter anymore”

Until CB comes up against a “juiced” player and gets obliterated.

I don’t want to see that.

Drugs in boxing is bad news all round. To say “everyone does it”, means you/we/me are part of the problem.

The authorities are also to blame. Something stinks and it isn’t last night’s curry.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 08:15

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:39

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:00

The BBBoC don’t have to explain themselves if they don’t want to license Benn, a boxing license is a privilege not a right.

There would have to be sound basis not to license him. He, eventually, followed their required process so to not license him would open themselves up for restraint of trade.

Nah that’s just something that people like to say.
I expect the Board will license him but if Robert Smith is in the mood for a bit of drama then they can certainly deny a new license and make it stick.
Benns comments alone are enough to fulfill the vague criteria of it not being in the interests of boxing to grant a license.

People say it because there’s truth to it.

Not sure why Smith would fancy the drama. There’s been enough to last a long while over this. Perhaps I’ve missed it but what comments has he made that would give the board a strong case not to license him and make it stick?

gold star if anyone on here watches all the way through

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 09:23

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 08:15

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 06:39

There would have to be sound basis not to license him. He, eventually, followed their required process so to not license him would open themselves up for restraint of trade.

Nah that’s just something that people like to say.
I expect the Board will license him but if Robert Smith is in the mood for a bit of drama then they can certainly deny a new license and make it stick.
Benns comments alone are enough to fulfill the vague criteria of it not being in the interests of boxing to grant a license.

People say it because there’s truth to it.

Oh. In that case that’s my mistake.
Have there been a lot of successful restraint of trade actions from boxers against the BBBoC?
Who was the last one?

I’m going to take Red Bull to court for ruining my F1 career.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:13

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 09:23

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 08:15

Nah that’s just something that people like to say.
I expect the Board will license him but if Robert Smith is in the mood for a bit of drama then they can certainly deny a new license and make it stick.
Benns comments alone are enough to fulfill the vague criteria of it not being in the interests of boxing to grant a license.

People say it because there’s truth to it.

Oh. In that case that’s my mistake.
Have there been a lot of successful restraint of trade actions from boxers against the BBBoC?
Who was the last one?

I’m going to take Red Bull to court for ruining my F1 career.

I’m not aware of any successful restraint of trade actions against the board. I’m also not aware of them not allowing someone to have a license following a successful UKAD case because of what may happen if they don’t.

I’m also not aware of them refusing to license someone because of some vague criteria. Especially someone who will probably be headlining shows and creating money and interest into the sport.

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:20

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:13

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 09:23

People say it because there’s truth to it.

Oh. In that case that’s my mistake.
Have there been a lot of successful restraint of trade actions from boxers against the BBBoC?
Who was the last one?

I’m going to take Red Bull to court for ruining my F1 career.

I’m not aware of any successful restraint of trade actions against the board. I’m also not aware of them not allowing someone to have a license following a successful UKAD case because of what may happen if they don’t.

I’m also not aware of them refusing to license someone because of some vague criteria. Especially someone who will probably be headlining shows and creating money and interest into the sport.

Not really in a position to make much comment then?

If Benn has been using PEDS as a crutch since that first Cedrick Peynaud fight, that’s 5 and a half years. If the testers are homing in on him now - and he’s certainly going to be tested more - there might be some ‘melting’ and deterioration evident. A lot of people are going to be looking at his next performance carefully. He might well look a fair bit less dynamic.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:45

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:20

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:13

Oh. In that case that’s my mistake.
Have there been a lot of successful restraint of trade actions from boxers against the BBBoC?
Who was the last one?

I’m going to take Red Bull to court for ruining my F1 career.

I’m not aware of any successful restraint of trade actions against the board. I’m also not aware of them not allowing someone to have a license following a successful UKAD case because of what may happen if they don’t.

I’m also not aware of them refusing to license someone because of some vague criteria. Especially someone who will probably be headlining shows and creating money and interest into the sport.

Not really in a position to make much comment then?

I’ve given evidence at 2 different restraint of trade tribunals at my previous company. It wasn’t me making the claim but I have a reasonable understanding of how it would work.

If the board don’t license him and don’t have valid reason then I’d be amazed if team Benn don’t go down the legal route. Has Benn said anything that would constitute a valid reason for him not being licensed?

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 11:48

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:45

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:20

I’m not aware of any successful restraint of trade actions against the board. I’m also not aware of them not allowing someone to have a license following a successful UKAD case because of what may happen if they don’t.

I’m also not aware of them refusing to license someone because of some vague criteria. Especially someone who will probably be headlining shows and creating money and interest into the sport.

Not really in a position to make much comment then?

I’ve given evidence at 2 different restraint of trade tribunals at my previous company. It wasn’t me making the claim but I have a reasonable understanding of how it would work.

If the board don’t license him and don’t have valid reason then I’d be amazed if team Benn don’t go down the legal route. Has Benn said anything that would constitute a valid reason for him not being licensed?

There is no human right to be a licensed professional boxer and no law is being broken by not granting Benn a license. As (I think?) I said earlier, I imagine that the BBBoC will probably license him but were they to decide not too, well, tough luck Benn. He could still box anywhere that will give him a license. He can't go to the Groucho if they don't grant him a membership, he can't play for Manchester United if they don't want him to and he can't box own a BBBoC show if they don't want to have him there.

He handed his licence back, they don't have any obligations to him.

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 12:36

maverick23 wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 11:48

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 10:45

Not really in a position to make much comment then?

I’ve given evidence at 2 different restraint of trade tribunals at my previous company. It wasn’t me making the claim but I have a reasonable understanding of how it would work.

If the board don’t license him and don’t have valid reason then I’d be amazed if team Benn don’t go down the legal route. Has Benn said anything that would constitute a valid reason for him not being licensed?

There is no human right to be a licensed professional boxer and no law is being broken by not granting Benn a license. As (I think?) I said earlier, I imagine that the BBBoC will probably license him but were they to decide not too, well, tough luck Benn. He could still box anywhere that will give him a license. He can't go to the Groucho if they don't grant him a membership, he can't play for Manchester United if they don't want him to and he can't box own a BBBoC show if they don't want to have him there.

Yeah - I get there isn’t a right to be licensed by the board. They will have to justify their decision though if they aren’t going to grant him a license. That may prove tricky given the indiscretions of other licence holders/previous license holders.

Whilst I think he handled the whole situation really poorly from a PR perspective I genuinely can’t remember him saying anything that would make me think the board won’t license him.

Anyway, I think we both agree it’s probably a moot point.

It sounds a lot like UKAD are strongly considering an appeal. Expensive though.

Listen, O.J. Simpson and Conor Benn are innocent

So you all thought UKAD would uphold his ban… now you all think the Board won’t licence him?

Come on guys, stop being naive. He will fight this year.

Frostieballs wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 16:43 So you all thought UKAD would uphold his ban… now you all think the Board won’t licence him?

Come on guys, stop being naive. He will fight this year.

Have you not read the thread? I don't think anyone has said that the Board won't license him?
I certainly don't think they should, but I expect that they will.

Facts are facts , If eddie did'nt have so much invested in him he would off been banned for a long time , but has it stands its incredibly stupid to think that this nitwit done it all himself , he had to be told what to buy when to take it ect ect , it goes deeper than him , backing this cheat was also backing his handlers and the gym in general ,

what remains is simple UKAD will sit on it for a while and do NOTHING they don't have the funds and the recourses to do anything , the BBBC will do NOTHING they will state he's been declared innocent move on we cannot ruin the young mans life .
Its shwn to the world EXCATLY where british boxing lies , and how unfair they are , how the bbbc will strongarm and bully the weaker more vunerable but let off the more powerful look at Liam Cameron coming back after 4 years of his best days gone for using a recreational drug , then look at the big money operaters , FURY - WHYTE - BENN .. its a disgrace sooner the bbbc are kicked into touch , and got rid of the better , sooner UKAD are took over by a govt department with deep pockets the better , until then British boxing will remain what it is CORRUPT and stinking too high heaven