Connor benn vs Peter Dobson 3rd feb
Posted: 22 Dec 2023, 16:10
Confirmed Las Vegas 3rd of February
It’s the headline fight, will be an afternoon show in Vegas for U.K. timings.CaptainSpacerod wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 19:25 Why would boxing fans in Vegas be interested in this fight ?
I’m assuming it’s buried deep in the undercard somewhere. Is he even getting paid ?
It’s 6 weeks out so I kind of get it. They were also looking to be stepping up 2 weight divisions so may have been already trying to bulk up.
They haven’t really avoided the consequences. They went through the WBC process and it was ruled that UKAD didn’t have jurisdiction on it. He’s not suspended so should be allowed to fight until it’s ruled differently in my opinion.WestEndRiot wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 06:17 We can all name 100 things we don't like about this promoter or that promoter.
But when all is said and done, taking a drug cheat out of the country to avoid the consequences of his failed tests will be a huge stain on Hearn's legacy
I reckon the Cosmo will be paying a fee for boxing to be hosted there and this is what can be afforded to keep Benn ticking over.CaptainSpacerod wrote: ↑22 Dec 2023, 19:25 Why would boxing fans in Vegas be interested in this fight ?
I’m assuming it’s buried deep in the undercard somewhere. Is he even getting paid ?
Benn decided to not renew his British licence. Had no intention of ever going through due process.maverick23 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 07:25They haven’t really avoided the consequences. They went through the WBC process and it was ruled that UKAD didn’t have jurisdiction on it. He’s not suspended so should be allowed to fight until it’s ruled differently in my opinion.WestEndRiot wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 06:17 We can all name 100 things we don't like about this promoter or that promoter.
But when all is said and done, taking a drug cheat out of the country to avoid the consequences of his failed tests will be a huge stain on Hearn's legacy
I get that it would help his image if he presented his evidence to UKAD and got off that way but if I’d been accused of something, was innocent, and had the choice to get off on a technicality or risk a decision being made on the evidence then I’d take the technicality.
I’m not saying Benn is innocent but whilst we continue to wait to see what’s happening with UKAD and the board’s appeal, he should be able to fight I think.
Indeed, he also went on record with the following:Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:04
Benn decided to not renew his British licence. Had no intention of ever going through due process.
If he’d had a license then would it have changed things?Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:04Benn decided to not renew his British licence. Had no intention of ever going through due process.maverick23 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 07:25They haven’t really avoided the consequences. They went through the WBC process and it was ruled that UKAD didn’t have jurisdiction on it. He’s not suspended so should be allowed to fight until it’s ruled differently in my opinion.WestEndRiot wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 06:17 We can all name 100 things we don't like about this promoter or that promoter.
But when all is said and done, taking a drug cheat out of the country to avoid the consequences of his failed tests will be a huge stain on Hearn's legacy
I get that it would help his image if he presented his evidence to UKAD and got off that way but if I’d been accused of something, was innocent, and had the choice to get off on a technicality or risk a decision being made on the evidence then I’d take the technicality.
I’m not saying Benn is innocent but whilst we continue to wait to see what’s happening with UKAD and the board’s appeal, he should be able to fight I think.
I think if he was banned by the British he would also be banned by their affiliated commissions.maverick23 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:36If he’d had a license then would it have changed things?Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:04Benn decided to not renew his British licence. Had no intention of ever going through due process.maverick23 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 07:25
They haven’t really avoided the consequences. They went through the WBC process and it was ruled that UKAD didn’t have jurisdiction on it. He’s not suspended so should be allowed to fight until it’s ruled differently in my opinion.
I get that it would help his image if he presented his evidence to UKAD and got off that way but if I’d been accused of something, was innocent, and had the choice to get off on a technicality or risk a decision being made on the evidence then I’d take the technicality.
I’m not saying Benn is innocent but whilst we continue to wait to see what’s happening with UKAD and the board’s appeal, he should be able to fight I think.
Why would he be banned by the board though? UKAD issue the bans and they are, yet, to rule on it.Coco wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 10:39I think if he was banned by the British he would also be banned by their affiliated commissions.maverick23 wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:36If he’d had a license then would it have changed things?Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 08:04
Benn decided to not renew his British licence. Had no intention of ever going through due process.
But they can't ban him as he hasn't got a license!
Obviously the Saudi commission is the obvious place to get a license, but then as he he isn't banned, as long as he jumps through each commissions hoops he can get licensed wherever.
Under normal circumstances the BBBoC would take a very dim view of being circumvented in this way.
It's quite possible that Benn will never fight in The UK or Europe again.
Indeed.
Fury failed a UKAD test though so had to agree a deal or go through the process. He went on his long term bender and they eventually agreed a deal.Coco wrote: ↑23 Dec 2023, 14:05 Benn should be banned, but like what happened with Fury, the UKAD can't afford the court case, so things are left in limbo.
Fury had time out Benn is boxing under other commissions, and they will prob serve their ban retrospectively.
Benn will accept his 2 year ban starting 2 years ago!