BoxRec

dookus wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 16:18 It sounds a lot like UKAD are strongly considering an appeal. Expensive though.

Fwank is probably starting a “gofundme” for it…:

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.

From memory, the BBBofC charged Benn with a number of different offences. There were something like 3 or 4 different charges and they were not just the BBBofC endorsing the 2 positive test results.

So the question to the BBBofC now is, what were the other charges they laid against Benn, have they been heard and what was the outcome of them?

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 18:12

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.

From memory, the BBBofC charged Benn with a number of different offences. There were something like 3 or 4 different charges and they were not just the BBBofC endorsing the 2 positive test results.

So the question to the BBBofC now is, what were the other charges they laid against Benn, have they been heard and what was the outcome of them?

They haven't charged him with anything

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 18:26

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 18:12

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.

From memory, the BBBofC charged Benn with a number of different offences. There were something like 3 or 4 different charges and they were not just the BBBofC endorsing the 2 positive test results.

So the question to the BBBofC now is, what were the other charges they laid against Benn, have they been heard and what was the outcome of them?

They haven't charged him with anything

In Benn's interview with Piers Morgan he said “They filed seven misconduct charges against me" and I'm pretty sure he was referring to the BBBofC.

Give him the crawford fight. that seems a fitting punishment.

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 18:12

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.

From memory, the BBBofC charged Benn with a number of different offences. There were something like 3 or 4 different charges and they were not just the BBBofC endorsing the 2 positive test results.

So the question to the BBBofC now is, what were the other charges they laid against Benn, have they been heard and what was the outcome of them?

I remember that they fined him for several things. It was never particularly clear what that was for as I don’t think they mentioned anything so the only thing we heard about it was from Eddie.

They may try and get him to pay the fines before re-licensing him which may cause issues for Benn as he probably won’t want to pay on principle but I think it’d be in the interest of the BBBC to just move forward with it. Whilst Benn handled the PR side really poorly, the board also made a mess of things letting it get as far as it did with the Eubank fight.

Why would it be "in the interest of the BBBC to just move forward with it." ??

Benn tested positive twice. Then in a tactical move, he handed back his licence and following that, he along with Hearn, bad mouthed and ignored the BBBofC and everybody else in authority in the matter.

The BBBofC owe Benn precisely nothing. F..ck Conor Benn!

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 04:09 Why would it be "in the interest of the BBBC to just move forward with it." ??

Benn tested positive twice. Then in a tactical move, he handed back his licence and following that, he along with Hearn, bad mouthed and ignored the BBBofC and everybody else in authority in the matter.

The BBBofC owe Benn precisely nothing. F..ck Conor Benn!

It would be in the interest of the BBbC to move forward I think because the drugs issue has dominated U.K. boxing for 10 months or so now.

Benn, at least based on how it appears, has been through the UKAD process and has come out without a ban so, in my opinion, should be allowed to fight which will bring money and attention to the sport.

What did Benn say about the board that should warrant him being dealt with differently to anyone else?

Of course the board don’t owe him something. However he should be treated the same way as anyone else.

Benn has been cleared in a jurisdictional loophole and the evidence hasn't been tested. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth and makes VADA testing redundant in the UK.

This case will have massive ramifications for how clean the sport of boxing is in the UK. We will now be reliant on an underfunded antidoping body and VADA tests will have no bearing in the UK. A dark, dark day for the safety of fighters in this country.

Boxingpat wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:03 Benn has been cleared in a jurisdictional loophole and the evidence hasn't been tested. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth and makes VADA testing redundant in the UK.

This case will have massive ramifications for how clean the sport of boxing is in the UK. We will now be reliant on an underfunded antidoping body and VADA tests will have no bearing in the UK. A dark, dark day for the safety of fighters in this country.

How do you know he’s got away with it due to a jurisdictional loop hole? Eddie, who may not be revealing all, claims that isn’t the case and I haven’t seen anything confirming it’s due to that.

the chocolate brownies thing is weird and old and not funny

leejonesjnr wrote: ↑29 Jul 2023, 16:44

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.

I’ve followed it closely mate - and consistently stated from the outset that Benn will fight again this year.

There are people even now questioning whether the Board should or will licence him.

That fact is that whatever they (or UKAD) want or plan to do is irrelevant in the face of someone with good lawyers and deep enough pockets.

maverick23 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:13

Boxingpat wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:03 Benn has been cleared in a jurisdictional loophole and the evidence hasn't been tested. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth and makes VADA testing redundant in the UK.

This case will have massive ramifications for how clean the sport of boxing is in the UK. We will now be reliant on an underfunded antidoping body and VADA tests will have no bearing in the UK. A dark, dark day for the safety of fighters in this country.

How do you know he’s got away with it due to a jurisdictional loop hole? Eddie, who may not be revealing all, claims that isn’t the case and I haven’t seen anything confirming it’s due to that.

The hearing the other week was in jurisdiction and his defence wasn't presented.

I don't believe a word eddie or benn say, they said UKAD cleared them but then UKAD come out and said they have 21 days to appeal.

If Benn and his team did an outside interview maybe they could be asked 'did you present your defence regarding the consumption of eggs and have you been cleared on that basis?'.

Boxingpat wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:47

maverick23 wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:13

Boxingpat wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 05:03 Benn has been cleared in a jurisdictional loophole and the evidence hasn't been tested. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth and makes VADA testing redundant in the UK.

This case will have massive ramifications for how clean the sport of boxing is in the UK. We will now be reliant on an underfunded antidoping body and VADA tests will have no bearing in the UK. A dark, dark day for the safety of fighters in this country.

How do you know he’s got away with it due to a jurisdictional loop hole? Eddie, who may not be revealing all, claims that isn’t the case and I haven’t seen anything confirming it’s due to that.

The hearing the other week was in jurisdiction and his defence wasn't presented.

I don't believe a word eddie or benn say, they said UKAD cleared them but then UKAD come out and said they have 21 days to appeal.

I read that that they presented a full defence and jurisdiction was one of the points.

I agree that if he got off based on jurisdiction then it’s a joke and makes a mockery of the process.

Watching the matchroom bootlicker squad talk about how his is done and dusted and all legit is pretty fornicating gross. at this point for the good of boxing the evidence that connor presented needs to be made public. If its a reasonable defence then thats fine, but you cant just bully a board into removing your suspension then claim your exonerated and move on with no public information.

Its important to note that "not being banned" and "being innocent" arnt necessarily the same thing.

Can anyone suggest a reason for the evedence to not be made public? other than its shit and really just another example of UKAD being toothless.

I see company man Bellew, despite previously stating anyone who fails a test should be banned for life, is falling over himself to congratulate benn for being "cleared". Hypocrisy at its absolute finest.

gregregegg wrote: ↑30 Jul 2023, 07:38 Watching the matchroom bootlicker squad talk about how his is done and dusted and all legit is pretty fornicating gross. at this point for the good of boxing the evidence that connor presented needs to be made public. If its a reasonable defence then thats fine, but you cant just bully a board into removing your suspension then claim your exonerated and move on with no public information.

Its important to note that "not being banned" and "being innocent" arnt necessarily the same thing.

Can anyone suggest a reason for the evedence to not be made public? other than its shit and really just another example of UKAD being toothless.

I can’t imagine Benn’s evidence that he put forward being made public. I’m not even that bothered about seeing it because ultimately, I’d certainly hope anyway, the National Anti-Doping Panel are far more qualified to make an assessment than any of us will.

What I do think needs to happen though is the rationale for clearing him needs to given. Is it based on a technicality (which Eddie’s claiming it isn’t)? Or is it because they believe what he’s recently been trying to demonstrate re: how clomiphene entered his system? Or is it something else?

I suppose it would be helpful for his evidence to be publicly released but unless we know whether the ‘experts’ agree with it then I’m not sure I’ll take much from it other than what’s already been released.

Have we heard anything thus far that categorically eliminates the possibility that Benn has served a backdated 12 month suspension?

Bellew doesn’t know how he sounds..

Lol