BoxRec

Don't forget he was 100% fighting back in June, and that didn't happen. I suspect he's such a no name outside of the UK that it's not cost effective to put him on anywhere else.

Very strange behaviour all round from Hearn, surely he’s smart enough to realise the damage this whole carry on has done to his reputation? Unless he actually believes Benns bullshit, but I wouldn’t have expected him to be that naive.

dookus wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 16:14 Presumably this appeal from what appears to be, legally speaking, an arbitration award by the NADP, will be subject to public High Court proceedings. if so, then good; we can finally have it confirmed whether or not this "exoneration" dealt with the issue of omelettes / faulty genetics / alleged problems with VADA's handling of the samples / whatever other story we've heard over the past year.

If it turns out he actually was acquitted on jurisdictional grounds and the appeal fails, then the government potentially have an almighty legislative headache to deal with, because this will have an effect on all UK sports that rely on drug results from external bodies, not only boxing.

Appeal isn't to the High Court - it's not a court process. See https://www.sportresolutions.com/servic ... ping-panel and https://www.sportresolutions.com/assets ... _Final.pdf at rules 12 to 14. And, if the parties have taken this route, rule 14.2 states that it won't be going to court separately (although the NADP process seems to allow for the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the ultimate recourse).

D4v3 wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 05:02 Very strange behaviour all round from Hearn, surely he’s smart enough to realise the damage this whole carry on has done to his reputation? Unless he actually believes Benns bullshit, but I wouldn’t have expected him to be that naive.

Benn has 700k in his company accounts, with the majority of that being fight purses. No way hearn walks away from that level of investment for Ben to serve a ban and then go and sign with Warren.

As long as Benn tells Hearn he is innocent, hearn will stand by him as there is still money to be made with Benn (as long as he doesn't get a 4 year ban)

olij999 wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 05:41

dookus wrote: ↑17 Aug 2023, 16:14 Presumably this appeal from what appears to be, legally speaking, an arbitration award by the NADP, will be subject to public High Court proceedings. if so, then good; we can finally have it confirmed whether or not this "exoneration" dealt with the issue of omelettes / faulty genetics / alleged problems with VADA's handling of the samples / whatever other story we've heard over the past year.

If it turns out he actually was acquitted on jurisdictional grounds and the appeal fails, then the government potentially have an almighty legislative headache to deal with, because this will have an effect on all UK sports that rely on drug results from external bodies, not only boxing.

Appeal isn't to the High Court - it's not a court process. See https://www.sportresolutions.com/servic ... ping-panel and https://www.sportresolutions.com/assets ... _Final.pdf at rules 12 to 14. And, if the parties have taken this route, rule 14.2 states that it won't be going to court separately (although the NADP process seems to allow for the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the ultimate recourse).

Thanks a lot for this, very helpful.

To be clear, it is not legally possible to completely exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts. Rule 14.2 has no legal effect as concerns an appeal under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 for "serious irregularity" (even though it claims to exclude it). See, e.g., https://www.wr.no/aktuelt/challenges-to ... regularity - "While it is possible to exclude the right to challenge an award on the basis of Section 69, which the rules of a number of arbitral institutions such as the LCIA and ICC do, Sections 67 and 68 are mandatory provisions and cannot be excluded by the parties."

That said, it is extremely hard to win an appeal in the High Court under s.68, so I expect they'll just go down the route set out in Rule 13. Which is a shame, as it will be another confidential hearing.

Had a laugh when I heard Hearn complaining that 'they left it to the last day to lodge their appeal' after Benn and Hearn had sat on their butts and done nothing for months when the positive results were originally notified. Hearn's feeling of entitlement is never far below the surface and Benn is not dissimilar..

I dont know why hearn and connor came out so strong this last month. I feel like if they had just being subtle BBBoC could of just dropped this. Connor needs licencing... BBBoC would have more than enough reason to refuse while this is in the courts/arbitration. so how long will this carry on? Doubt Connor fights this year now.

gregregegg wrote: ↑18 Aug 2023, 21:27 I dont know why hearn and connor came out so strong this last month. I feel like if they had just being subtle BBBoC could of just dropped this. Connor needs licencing... BBBoC would have more than enough reason to refuse while this is in the courts/arbitration. so how long will this carry on? Doubt Connor fights this year now.

We will never know for sure but I heavily suspect this as well. Too much Hubris, and then allowing the narrative to make out that UKAD had cleared him could t be allowed to stand. Was willing them to appeal even if it proves frivolous. Glad they left it late as well

So both Eddie and Frank Smith have said in the last 48 hours that the recent decision wasn’t based on jurisdiction.

Very brave to be saying that if it’s not true.

I’d imagine it’s based on a couple of things, including jurisdiction.

maverick23 wrote: ↑19 Aug 2023, 11:03 So both Eddie and Frank Smith have said in the last 48 hours that the recent decision wasn’t based on jurisdiction.

Very brave to be saying that if it’s not true.

I’d imagine it’s based on a couple of things, including jurisdiction.

They have dug a hole so deep for themselves already they may as well just keep digging.

A pow wow last night, will he fight in September

I really can’t see The Board wanting anything to do with him. And one of the actually true things we know is they REALLY want that British licence.

Conor always reminds me of a school kid desperately trying to look ‘hard’ when having his photo taken.

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 10:18 Conor always reminds me of a school kid desperately trying to look ‘hard’ when having his photo taken.

He is a school kid.

You can tell that rough school kid mentality.

Who would have believed thatso many people could look like proper ****s in this saga?

It goes on and on with people seemingly wanting to take the mantle of No1 ****.

Its so embarrassing

Spud wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 11:58 Who would have believed thatso many people could look like proper ****s in this saga?

It goes on and on with people seemingly wanting to take the mantle of No1 ****.

Its so embarrassing

Particularly when you take into account Benn tested positive not once, but twice and for the exact same thing. If he was a track and field athlete he would have been suspended straight away and everyone would have accepted it and moved on.

Redback Rasta wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 16:27

Spud wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 11:58 Who would have believed thatso many people could look like proper ****s in this saga?

It goes on and on with people seemingly wanting to take the mantle of No1 ****.

Its so embarrassing

Particularly when you take into account Benn tested positive not once, but twice and for the exact same thing. If he was a track and field athlete he would have been suspended straight away and everyone would have accepted it and moved on.

Exactly. And what’s the difference….

Athletes don’t have ‘promoters’ who stand to make money from them continuing their career.

They typically compete in events organised by governing bodies where the figureheads are employees.

Tete just got a backdated four year ban from UKAD.

Expired in 2026.

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑21 Aug 2023, 19:09 Tete just got a backdated four year ban from UKAD.

Expired in 2026.

Philip Bowes' 4 year ban from UKAD is due to end September next year but he very recently appealed.

The more you read about people with lenghty bans , getting bans for recreational stuff when there not fighting , then you read about this cheating fella getting popped not once but twice , and looking like he's gonna get away with it . the more you think

Rockytony67 wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 09:24

'Big Players' it's like he studied a textbook 'How to be a pudendum all the time' and really took it to heart

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 10:18 Conor always reminds me of a school kid desperately trying to look ‘hard’ when having his photo taken.

you mean someone so insecure that he has to caption his own photo 'Big Players'

yeah, bro, and Andrew Tate is like really, really confident too, you can tell because he calls himself 'Top G' and surely he'd only say that if he was like a really top, top 'g'.

Not interested if he ever fights again,don't rate him at all

Oiky wrote: ↑25 Aug 2023, 11:23 Not interested if he ever fights again,don't rate him at all

The public can be fooled easily.

Benn is going to make obscene money