Chris Eubank Jr. vs. Conor Benn | PPV - 26 April 2025

[Boxerbeetle]

Rumours of a significant announcement next week …. Ben Doughty suggesting on his fb

Spud I can't believe you are quoting that joker as a credible source.

I'm still amazed there are 1089 pages or 21,779 replies about Ben D on OTH forum

Is that the fella who got into a bit of trouble over tickets?

[Glass Joe]

Spud I can't believe you are quoting that joker as a credible source.

I'm still amazed there are 1089 pages or 21,779 replies about Ben D on OTH forum

Is that the fella who got into a bit of trouble over tickets?

yeah.

[TheLeprechaun]

what happened? I thought he had some beef with Apollo Jackson

[JamesPhilips]

Spud I can't believe you are quoting that joker as a credible source.

I'm still amazed there are 1089 pages or 21,779 replies about Ben D on OTH forum

Is that the fella who got into a bit of trouble over tickets?

What is this about? Who are these guys are they boxers?

[Ruthless-RKO]

What shit is this?

[MarkMcBurney]

Rumours of a significant announcement next week …. Ben Doughty suggesting on his fb

WTF does Doughty know, the plank. Absolute blaggard.

[Spud]

Conor Benn was due to fight Chris Eubank Jr on Sat 8 Oct.

It was alleged there was an adverse finding on 2 seperate drugs tests.

To date, the findings of the B samples of the 2 tests have not been declared, Why?

Conor Benn handed in/or did not renew his licence with the BBBofC Why?

Conor Benn, Eddie Hearn, Nigel Benn & Tony Simms have openly declared Benn’s innocence of any wrong doing Why?

The BBBofC have stated they cannot ban or demand a boxer attends a disciplinary hearing when he/she does not hold a licence Why? can’t the BBBofC hold a hearing in exceptional circumstances and bring closure to events such as adverse findings of a drug test regardless of whether a fighter holds a licence or not?

Due to the confidence displayed by Team Benn of Conor Benn’s innocence, What is the delay?

Do the BBBofC feel they have a duty to issue a statement detailing the latest information of such a high profile disciplinary case?

Do Team Benn feel they have a duty to issue an update detailing the latest information due to the serious nature of this case?

[maverick23]

Conor Benn was due to fight Chris Eubank Jr on Sat 8 Oct.

It was alleged there was an adverse finding on 2 seperate drugs tests.

To date, the findings of the B samples of the 2 tests have not been declared, Why not?

Conor Benn handed in/or did not renew his licence with the BBBofC Why?

Conor Benn, Eddie Hearn, Nigel Benn & Tony Simms have openly declared Benn’s innocence of any wrong doing Why?

The BBBofC have stated they cannot ban or demand a boxer attends a disciplinary hearing when he/she does not hold a licence Why? can’t the BBBofC hold a hearing in exceptional circumstances and bring closure to events such as adverse findings of a drug test regardless of whether a fighter holds a licence or not?

Due to the confidence displayed by Team Benn of Conor Benn’s innocence, What is the delay?

Do the BBBofC feel they have a duty to issue a statement detailing the latest information of such a high profile disciplinary case?

Do Team Benn feel they have a duty to issue an update detailing the latest information due to the serious nature of this case?

The WBC are in the process of hearing Benn’s case. It’ll continue to be quiet until there’s a result to that.

[Spud]

Conor Benn was due to fight Chris Eubank Jr on Sat 8 Oct.

It was alleged there was an adverse finding on 2 seperate drugs tests.

To date, the findings of the B samples of the 2 tests have not been declared, Why not?

Conor Benn handed in/or did not renew his licence with the BBBofC Why?

Conor Benn, Eddie Hearn, Nigel Benn & Tony Simms have openly declared Benn’s innocence of any wrong doing Why?

The BBBofC have stated they cannot ban or demand a boxer attends a disciplinary hearing when he/she does not hold a licence Why? can’t the BBBofC hold a hearing in exceptional circumstances and bring closure to events such as adverse findings of a drug test regardless of whether a fighter holds a licence or not?

Due to the confidence displayed by Team Benn of Conor Benn’s innocence, What is the delay?

Do the BBBofC feel they have a duty to issue a statement detailing the latest information of such a high profile disciplinary case?

Do Team Benn feel they have a duty to issue an update detailing the latest information due to the serious nature of this case?

The WBC are in the process of hearing Benn’s case. It’ll continue to be quiet until there’s a result to that.

The BBBofC, not the WBC are the governing body for British Boxing regardless of whether the WBC are holding a hearing or not. Issuing an up update on such serious matter would be in the interests of boxing and more importantly prevent unnecessary speculation.

[maverick23]

Conor Benn was due to fight Chris Eubank Jr on Sat 8 Oct.

It was alleged there was an adverse finding on 2 seperate drugs tests.

To date, the findings of the B samples of the 2 tests have not been declared, Why not?

Conor Benn handed in/or did not renew his licence with the BBBofC Why?

Conor Benn, Eddie Hearn, Nigel Benn & Tony Simms have openly declared Benn’s innocence of any wrong doing Why?

The BBBofC have stated they cannot ban or demand a boxer attends a disciplinary hearing when he/she does not hold a licence Why? can’t the BBBofC hold a hearing in exceptional circumstances and bring closure to events such as adverse findings of a drug test regardless of whether a fighter holds a licence or not?

Due to the confidence displayed by Team Benn of Conor Benn’s innocence, What is the delay?

Do the BBBofC feel they have a duty to issue a statement detailing the latest information of such a high profile disciplinary case?

Do Team Benn feel they have a duty to issue an update detailing the latest information due to the serious nature of this case?

The WBC are in the process of hearing Benn’s case. It’ll continue to be quiet until there’s a result to that.

The BBBofC, not the WBC are the governing body for British Boxing regardless of whether the WBC are holding a hearing or not. Issuing an up update on such serious matter would be in the interests of boxing and more importantly prevent unnecessary speculation.

There has been an update I.E. the case is currently being presented to the WBC and an announcement will come following that. There’s not much else they can say.

Benn doesn’t have a BBBC license as he was probably pissed off they only cancelled the fight in fight week and they tried to fine him even before a hearing took place.

Hopefully VADA are heavily involved in the Benn case and it’s not just Mauricio and his buddies. The BBBC/UKAD aren’t fit for purpose re: drugs as we’ve with the Tete situation.

[Controversial]

I’m terms of Benn not holding a licence, how come that was allowed to happen when a fight was so close and when did it expire, did he have a licence for the previous fight? He has a very experienced and knowledgeable team around him yet his licence had expired, don’t the BBBoC chase these things up?

[margaret thatcher]

i thought he ditched it in a huff as a response to the fight being called off

[Controversial]

i thought he ditched it in a huff as a response to the fight being called off

They said it had expired and he decided not to renew it when he was called in front of the board

[Frostieballs]

This is classic under the radar tactics.

Keeping their heads down until the furore and outrage drops off.

Then some announcement in the future that he is exonerated on a technicality.

No one can be bothered to really challenge it because it was so long ago.

It’s not like it hasn’t worked before.

[Deserter]

This is classic under the radar tactics.

Keeping their heads down until the furore and outrage drops off.

Then some announcement in the future that he is exonerated on a technicality.

No one can be bothered to really challenge it because it was so long ago.

It’s not like it hasn’t worked before.

Exactly this. Straight from the ‘tried and tested’ playbook.

[Coco]

This is classic under the radar tactics.

Keeping their heads down until the furore and outrage drops off.

Then some announcement in the future that he is exonerated on a technicality.

No one can be bothered to really challenge it because it was so long ago.

It’s not like it hasn’t worked before.

Exactly this. Straight from the ‘tried and tested’ playbook.

This

[Spud]

This is classic under the radar tactics.

Keeping their heads down until the furore and outrage drops off.

Then some announcement in the future that he is exonerated on a technicality.

No one can be bothered to really challenge it because it was so long ago.

It’s not like it hasn’t worked before.

Your post is a good one but it tells us that boxing is in a sad place.

[My T Sharp]

Benn's lawyer may have helped with this one:

Statement
UK Anti-Doping and the professional boxer, Dillian Whyte, can today jointly confirm that Mr Whyte was charged with an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) earlier this year, but that this charge has now been withdrawn.

The charge was brought after a sample provided by Mr Whyte on 20 June 2019 indicated the presence of two metabolites of a steroid. UKAD initiated an investigation with which Mr Whyte cooperated fully. UKAD has accepted the explanation provided by Mr Whyte and, in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules, the charge against Mr Whyte has been withdrawn.

This would ordinarily mean that UKAD would not make any public statement, in accordance with the applicable confidentiality rules to which UKAD is subject. However, since certain confidential information relating to this matter (including the fact of the initial charge) has unfortunately made its way into the public domain, UKAD and Mr Whyte have agreed to take the unusual step of releasing the following limited information to put an end to speculation concerning Mr Whyte’s status.

Case Details
In respect of Mr Whyte's drug testing results, the following points are relevant:

There is nothing in Mr Whyte's longitudinal urinary profile to suggest that he has used steroids.
The levels of the metabolites found in Mr Whyte's 20 June 2019 sample were extremely low.
Mr Whyte had provided a urine sample to VADA on 17 June 2019, i.e. 3 days before his 20 June 2019 sample, which was tested by a WADA-accredited laboratory and which returned a negative result, including for the metabolites in question.
Mr Whyte provided several other doping control samples to UKAD and VADA between 20 June and 20 July 2019 (i.e. the date of his fight with Oscar Rivas) – all of which also tested negative.
In light of the above points, the trace amounts of metabolites found in the 20 June 2019 sample are consistent with an isolated contamination event, and they are not suggestive of doping.
Having rigorously scrutinised and investigated the detailed factual and scientific evidence provided by Mr Whyte, UKAD is satisfied that the presence of the very low amounts of metabolites in his 20 June 2019 sample was not caused by any fault, negligence or wrongdoing on Mr Whyte’s part and, given the circumstances, could not have affected the fight between Mr Whyte and Mr Rivas on 20 July 2019. Indeed, prior to that fight, an independent tribunal considered a number of the above factors before deciding to permit Mr Whyte to participate. Following that preliminary ruling, UKAD continued its investigation and Mr Whyte provided further evidence in his defence, which has culminated in UKAD’s decision to withdraw the charge.

Mr Whyte acknowledges that, based on the test results reported to UKAD relating to his 20 June 2019 sample, UKAD acted in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules by issuing the initial charge and in the conduct of its investigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the UK National Anti-Doping Policy, UKAD must always act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining determinations adverse to athletes. In the present case, UKAD considers that means that the appropriate course of action is for the charge against Mr Whyte to be withdrawn and does so in accordance with the relevant anti-doping rules.

The British Boxing Board of Control, having delegated responsibility for anti-doping matters to UKAD, has been informed of the resolution of these proceedings against Mr Whyte.

Note: The UK Anti-Doping Rules place restrictions on reporting information relating to ongoing anti-doping proceedings including that UKAD will not comment publicly on the specific facts of a pending case (except in response to public comments attributed to a charged athlete or his/her representatives). For that reason, UKAD has not previously been able to comment publicly in respect of the charge brought against Mr Whyte. Since the charge against Mr Whyte has been withdrawn, neither UKAD nor Mr Whyte intend to make any further public comment in respect of this matter, in accordance with the confidentiality provisions of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. Any public comments made by anyone other than UKAD or Mr Whyte will not be made on the basis of an understanding of the full facts.

[olij999]

I’m terms of Benn not holding a licence, how come that was allowed to happen when a fight was so close and when did it expire, did he have a licence for the previous fight? He has a very experienced and knowledgeable team around him yet his licence had expired, don’t the BBBoC chase these things up?

On your last point, it's for the boxer to ensure they renew their licence in time, not for the Board to chase them. If he has a "very experience and knowledgeable team around him", they should be dealing with that in good time. It takes one phone call to head office and read out your card number, so it's not difficult. There may well be points that the Board can be criticised for in this matter, but that's not one of them.

[Controversial]

I’m terms of Benn not holding a licence, how come that was allowed to happen when a fight was so close and when did it expire, did he have a licence for the previous fight? He has a very experienced and knowledgeable team around him yet his licence had expired, don’t the BBBoC chase these things up?

On your last point, it's for the boxer to ensure they renew their licence in time, not for the Board to chase them. If he has a "very experience and knowledgeable team around him", they should be dealing with that in good time. It takes one phone call to head office and read out your card number, so it's not difficult. There may well be points that the Board can be criticised for in this matter, but that's not one of them.

Sure, my point was that I would have assumed the BBBoC would check you had a valid licence if you are on the verge of a fight. Otherwise in theory he could've boxed without one. Not sure what the implications are of that but seems odd if that could be allowed to happen. But yes I would also assume his team or Benn would've dealt with the renewal anyway.

[Spud]

The more points are discussed/debated on this matter the more people must think what a shambolic sport boxing is.

When people from outside boxing clearly see
The BBBofC are utterly powerless to deal with offenders. I disagree with the BBBofC stating they cannot deal with someone who has not got a licence.

Surely they can deal with someone who had a licence when the alleged offence took place.

Surely they can say we invite you to a hearing on xx date, whilst we understand you no longer hold a licence but because the alleged offence took place whilst you were a licence holder a hearing will take place with the evidence gathered.

Why is boxing different … in th high court they deal with debt casese regardless of whether both parties are present.

Am I f*cking thick (Dont answer ) whats the difference.

[Boxerbeetle]

Boxing is a complete shambles of a sport. None of the governing bodies are really in charge. Not even worth getting annoyed about anymore; I used to care a lot but have realised it’s pointless.

Boxing has always been corrupt and always will be. Just enjoy the good fights when they happen and forget about all the shenanigans (just don’t buy the PPVs or the sport will be even more dead than it is now).

[Ruthless-RKO]

Chris Eubank on Benn's Second Positive Drug Test: 'I Was, Like, Wow, So He Lied'

“They (media outlets) were trying to say he (Benn) called me that morning … and that’s not true,” Benn told iFL TV. “[We spoke] about 10 days before and when we spoke, it was like [Benn said], ‘alright, this has happened and we’re going to get to the bottom of this.’ I said, ‘You better. For your sake.’ I told him, ‘This is the worst thing that can ever happen to any fighters’ career. So, for your sake I hope you can figure it out. Because if not, that’s it.’

“He was kind of trying to say, ‘Oh, well, I don’t know how this happened. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.’ I didn’t really know what to say. And then obviously I found out about the second failed drug test and, you know, I was, like, wow, so, he lied.”

“When you fail two, which is apparently what he has done, it’s hard to believe anything that is not hands up, 'I’m sorry,'” Eubank said. “Even if that is the case, even if there is a non-guilty verdict, he’s still guilty. In the eyes of the people, the public, that asterisk, that stain is always next to his name, on his name. It doesn’t matter how much money you pay for your lawyers and for your defense team and your scientists. You got caught cheating. That’s the public opinion and that will never change.”

[Frostieballs]

The more points are discussed/debated on this matter the more people must think what a shambolic sport boxing is.

When people from outside boxing clearly see
The BBBofC are utterly powerless to deal with offenders. I disagree with the BBBofC stating they cannot deal with someone who has not got a licence.

Surely they can deal with someone who had a licence when the alleged offence took place.

Surely they can say we invite you to a hearing on xx date, whilst we understand you no longer hold a licence but because the alleged offence took place whilst you were a licence holder a hearing will take place with the evidence gathered.

Why is boxing different … in th high court they deal with debt casese regardless of whether both parties are present.

Am I f*cking thick (Dont answer ) whats the difference.

I think what the Board could do is conduct an investigation in his absence (assuming he wouldn’t attend a hearing).

Then state afterwards (if found guilty) that Benn is banned from reapplying/holding a licence.

Simply stating he is no longer eligible would tell its own story and doesn’t require his participation.

[Dioufy]

To me, Benn giving up his license is totally a PR motivated stunt. Hearn will push the content that Benn was never “actually suspended or stripped at any point” and when the WBC, or whoever else, give him a backdated ban of 12 months from the first test failure he will be back like nothing has happened.