BoxRec

BBBoC May Change Anti-Doping Regulations in Response To Conor Benn Saga

The British Boxing Board of Control may change their anti-doping regulations in response to the Conor Benn saga, general secretary Robert Smith has confirmed.

Benn and the Board remain in dispute after they decided against sanctioning his October clash with Chris Eubank Jr because the 26-year-old tested positive for trace amounts of the banned substance Clomifine during a VADA test.

Benn, who vehemently protests his innocence despite failing two tests for the same substance, has since declared that he plans on suing the Board for a loss of earnings and the damage to his reputation.

This is partly because the welterweight passed all his tests with UK Anti-Doping, which is the agency that the BBBoC abide by.

However, Smith maintains that their decision to not sanction this fight based on a test by VADA was the correct decision and confirmed that it could set a new precedent for them going forward.

Speaking to the George Groves Boxing Club, he said: “There is a procedure for anti-doping. We are signed up like every other sport in Great Britain, to UKAD. So they deal with all our anti-doping testing and disciplinary matters etc. Once we get a positive then it’s down to UKAD and they can deal with it.

“We do what’s right. You can’t ignore positive tests.

“Maybe we have to [change]. Once this case is finished maybe we have to change our regulations with regard to that. I think our regulations currently cover it but maybe they need to be tweaked. You can argue against any regulation you want to but we are satisfied that what we’ve done is right.”

One main area of contention for Eddie Hearn, the promoter of the cancelled fight, was that the Board took too long to make their decision which meant it was deep into fight week when the show was pulled completely.

Smith said: “The argument that it took too long, I take that on the chin but this is not an easy situation to be in.

“I’ve got no problem. I spoke to Eddie the other day, went to a show, shook his hand, asked him how he’s getting on. I’ve got no issue with Eddie Hearn personally at all. He’s got his job to do, I’ve got my job to do, sometimes they clash.

“Eddie is a great promoter, Matchroom are a great organization and I’ve got no issue whatsoever. We’re just going through a problem that is unusual.”

Result!

Every test conducted and every detail of the test type and acuracy ect, what the tests were testing for and the result (exact levles) of the test should be posted on VADA, and UKADs website the day they are known...

those groups can then make there decisions on pass, fail, questionmark and debate why or what.

It would be usefull for the public to know how often a trace of this or a trace of that is found, even if its then not deemed cheating... or how often boxers testostrone hovers right at the maximum allowable amount... ect

For all i know traces get found every day but they just never get charged... this seemingly only came out from a press leak (oh i know it came out 2 hours befor the paper.... almost like they got tipped it was in the paper so came out with it themselves...)

I use to think it was ok to do the investigation befor it goes public (but with no interim fight)... but it turns out thats even messier. release it all, every detail of every fighter and just see how rare these "adverse findings are"... They whyte and benn cases have shown we are currently relyient on press leaks to find stuff out and thats not ok.

Dominic Ingle has a 36 minute interview on the topic. A good down to earth take;

Plenty of comment from Victor Conte on Twitter, as mentioned by Ingle; https://twitter.com/VictorConte?ref_src ... r%5Eauthor

Ruthless-RKO wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 12:28

All Eddie's mates believe him.

It makes no difference who believes him or not, the only thing that is factual is that he failed 2 tests and as of now hasn’t proven he is innocent.

Someone should show Carl this.

garethhop wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 13:37

Someone should show Carl this.

Similar doping regime to what powered Shane Mosley to outpoint De La Hoya in fight 1 of course. I think Lance said he denied cheating so many hundreds of times, it didn’t even feel like a lie anymore.

Joe McNally bang on as usual.

Time stamped for anyone who’s bothered.

A good follow up by the A-team on this;

what is conor even thinking with that stache

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:22 what is conor even thinking with that stache

He's dropped the MS 13 get up and gone for Sammy Davis Junior look.

Suggestion now more fibs are unravelling - the one where Conor gave up his licence for other reasons. Eddie pushed that probable fib. It would seem the licence loss was related to the behaviour around these failed drug tests. Keeping it secret basically!

smiling assassin wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 16:16

emallini wrote: ↑06 Mar 2023, 12:30 You keyboard warriors are pushing the lad to suicide. Give it a rest.

Here comes our resident ‘black Panther’ to fight the black man’s corner

Wakanda Forever

polecateddy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:38 Suggestion now more fibs are unravelling - the one where Conor gave up his licence for other reasons. Eddie pushed that probable fib. It would seem the licence loss was related to the behaviour around these failed drug tests. Keeping it secret basically!

I still don’t get why he was being charged for things like that and apparently being fined £50k.

If it’s true what Benn said then why would he be charged for not telling Eubank about the first failure? The board apparently knew about it. Why would he be charged/fines for wanting to go ahead with the fight? He’s a fighter and it’s a big pay day and he’s not banned so of course he’s going to want to fight.

I don’t think the board have helped themselves with this case. They should have pulled the plug far quicker and they shouldn’t have fined Benn/charged him with things until they’ve done an investigation. Benn may well have still given up his license but they gave him an easy excuse.

maverick23 wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:01

polecateddy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:38 Suggestion now more fibs are unravelling - the one where Conor gave up his licence for other reasons. Eddie pushed that probable fib. It would seem the licence loss was related to the behaviour around these failed drug tests. Keeping it secret basically!

I still don’t get why he was being charged for things like that and apparently being fined £50k.

If it’s true what Benn said then why would he be charged for not telling Eubank about the first failure? The board apparently knew about it. Why would he be charged/fines for wanting to go ahead with the fight? He’s a fighter and it’s a big pay day and he’s not banned so of course he’s going to want to fight.

I don’t think the board have helped themselves with this case. They should have pulled the plug far quicker and they shouldn’t have fined Benn/charged him with things until they’ve done an investigation. Benn may well have still given up his license but they gave him an easy excuse.

Hearn has also said that in October last year Benn’s licence had ‘expired.’ He can’t keep his story straight. When you think about it why an earth would Benn have had an ‘expired’ licence a few weeks before a big fight?! It was a dumb fib to tell.

maverick23 wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:01

I don’t think the board have helped themselves with this case.

well that certainly makes a change

polecateddy wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:15

maverick23 wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:01

polecateddy wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 16:38 Suggestion now more fibs are unravelling - the one where Conor gave up his licence for other reasons. Eddie pushed that probable fib. It would seem the licence loss was related to the behaviour around these failed drug tests. Keeping it secret basically!

I still don’t get why he was being charged for things like that and apparently being fined £50k.

If it’s true what Benn said then why would he be charged for not telling Eubank about the first failure? The board apparently knew about it. Why would he be charged/fines for wanting to go ahead with the fight? He’s a fighter and it’s a big pay day and he’s not banned so of course he’s going to want to fight.

I don’t think the board have helped themselves with this case. They should have pulled the plug far quicker and they shouldn’t have fined Benn/charged him with things until they’ve done an investigation. Benn may well have still given up his license but they gave him an easy excuse.

Hearn has also said that in October last year Benn’s licence had ‘expired.’ He can’t keep his story straight. When you think about it why an earth would Benn have had an ‘expired’ licence a few weeks before a big fight?! It was a dumb fib to tell.

Is that factually incorrect though? I haven’t seen the Morgan interview yet so don’t know if Benn addresses it there.

The fight was meant to be October 9th and the hearing where Benn was charged with these other things and fined was on the 26th so potentially the license could have expired post fight date but before the hearing.

Who knows though.

I’ve just watched that interview and Piers didn’t ask any pressing questions. Their argument makes no sense, the testing process is stringent so for two tests to be wrong is impossible. No clear answers, lots of smoke screens and blaming the legal team why they can’t say anything.

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:34 I’ve just watched that interview and Piers didn’t ask any pressing questions. Their argument makes no sense, the testing process is stringent so for two tests to be wrong is impossible. No clear answers, lots of smoke screens and blaming the legal team why they can’t say anything.

As Dominic Ingle said is it really worth paying a fortune to a legal team, who may mitigate the sentence a bit but certainly won’t stop him ultimately getting a ban and a large fine. A lot of people in boxing now seem to be suggesting he should really just take the punishment. The backlash against him and Hearn will be extreme I’m sure if he just tries to beat the system and fight abroad. I don’t think at the end of the day they’ll dare do it.

polecateddy wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 10:15

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:34 I’ve just watched that interview and Piers didn’t ask any pressing questions. Their argument makes no sense, the testing process is stringent so for two tests to be wrong is impossible. No clear answers, lots of smoke screens and blaming the legal team why they can’t say anything.

As Dominic Ingle said is it really worth paying a fortune to a legal team, who may mitigate the sentence a bit but certainly won’t stop him ultimately getting a ban and a large fine. A lot of people in boxing now seem to be suggesting he should really just take the punishment. The backlash against him and Hearn will be extreme I’m sure if he just tries to beat the system and fight abroad. I don’t think at the end of the day they’ll dare do it.

Yeah I agree. Benn wasn’t even making sense, he said he’s been cleared by the people who took the tests? No one has cleared him of anything but if you say it enough the casuals and general public will believe it

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 10:58

polecateddy wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 10:15

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 09:34 I’ve just watched that interview and Piers didn’t ask any pressing questions. Their argument makes no sense, the testing process is stringent so for two tests to be wrong is impossible. No clear answers, lots of smoke screens and blaming the legal team why they can’t say anything.

As Dominic Ingle said is it really worth paying a fortune to a legal team, who may mitigate the sentence a bit but certainly won’t stop him ultimately getting a ban and a large fine. A lot of people in boxing now seem to be suggesting he should really just take the punishment. The backlash against him and Hearn will be extreme I’m sure if he just tries to beat the system and fight abroad. I don’t think at the end of the day they’ll dare do it.

Yeah I agree. Benn wasn’t even making sense, he said he’s been cleared by the people who took the tests? No one has cleared him of anything but if you say it enough the casuals and general public will believe it

That's the collective narrative now, Frank Smith on Boxing Social said Ben has been cleared by the people who matter. He hasn't been cleared by anyone

Think the liscence bit is just a smart arse move can't ban a boxer if he's not part of your organization , so it runs out he does'nt renew or he gives it back , all the same , . Personaly i say let him box but with a caveat , he must fight Boots Ennis , Leave it to Boots to give him the hiding i want to see him get , But no this arrogant prick wants to fight Paccy another retired over the hill fighter , the guy has no shame , , if he does i hope Hearn loses bigtime on it

Controversial wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 10:58 but if you say it enough the casuals and general public will believe it

This casual fan isn't buying it! I was firmly on the Benn hype train with first class tickets but I hopped off as soon as he started treating the paying public as if we were imbeciles who can't see the wood for the trees