BoxRec

In light of Benn being cleared by the anti doping panel have you changed your mind on it all or still think there’s more to it?

where can we read the decision?

There’s no doubt in my mind he was/is on gear.


(Allegedly.)

I think he probably cheated. The link to the doctor who promoted microdosing was hard for me to think past.

The doctor.
The swift change in physique.
The over the top aggression.
The failed tests.
The huge folder of 'evidence' no one got to see.

Do you need more?

the panel website has a list of its decisions made with more detail on each case, benn doesnt have either of his cases up there, wonder why? would be helpful with regards to the question to know more about each decision

there are a lot of red flags. working with known ped artist dr uzzy, massive changes in performance before and after, and of course he actually failed the test.

what is the threshold the panel uses for being convinced someone cheated? it isnt clear that they are actually saying they dont think he did, vs something more like 'ya he probably did but just cant be sure'

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Nov 2024, 13:21 where can we read the decision?

Statements released by UK Anti-Doping regarding Conor Benn
Last updated: 6 November 2024

6 November 2024

A UKAD spokesperson, said:

“UKAD notes that professional boxer Mr Conor Benn has made public comments today regarding the outcome of proceedings before the independent National Anti-Doping Panel. UKAD can confirm that it received the decision of the independent National Anti-Doping Panel this afternoon. The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene. The Provisional Suspension previously in place has been lifted and the charge against him has been consequently dismissed.

“UKAD will now carefully review the Panel’s decision in accordance with its appeal rights under the UK Anti-Doping Rules.”

Notes 

Technical terms and more information 

In accordance with Article 8.5.2 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, UKAD is unable to publicly disclose the decision of the independent National Anti-Doping Panel at this time without Mr Benn’s consent.

In accordance with Article 13.7.1 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules, UKAD has 21 days from the date of today’s decision to file an appeal. All other Interested Parties (as that term is defined within the Rules) have a separate right of appeal.

ya that's affirming that a decision was made. in other cases the panel goes into more detail about the decisions though, they have nothing about benn on their website despite now having made 2 decisions on him

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑06 Nov 2024, 14:04 ya that's affirming that a decision was made. in other cases the panel goes into more detail about the decisions though, they have nothing about benn on their website despite now having made 2 decisions on him

The bit above says they can't publish anything without Benn's consent.

Time to move on now. The people piling on are just sheep.

Blatantly guilty

A few things , phrases spring to mind , Guilty has sin , Money at play ,, Big Wig, Big Influence , , Anyway don;t care because the only thing i am 150% certain off is i WILL NOT PAY for any PPV he is on , i will definetly stream or not watch , feeling good that i've not contributed one red cent to keep this jumped up little prick in a nice lifestyle .

Anyway who's he gonna fight , a give me fight against some lack lustre opponent 25 years older and shop worn , a british level opponent his own size and age , where he will get beat , or is he gonna fight a boots enniss and get clobbered , , personaly i'd like to see a Boots type opponent who would give him a real hiding . Think has soon has Hearn has his investment back , he'll throw him in the deep end anyway , so doubt he'll be around too long

well endowed poll

There are other boxes clearly cheating and they're on steroids you only have to look at their backs, f****** huge spots all over the place. I have personally seen steroid abuse in my family so I clearly understand the signs.

yes, sudden massive bacne is a big red flag. juan manuel marquez not only sprouted that, but a mini ped gut

turned pro and didnt seem a puncher, suddenly appeared a monster, pissed hot, went back to old lever of power. guilty.

Thing is UKAD could appeal this and it goes back to square 1 again

Steveh583 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2024, 17:12 turned pro and didnt seem a puncher, suddenly appeared a monster, pissed hot, went back to old lever of power. guilty.

I’m not sure he turned into a puncher, a lot of people say this but his record doesn’t really back that up, prior to fighting Algieri and van Heerdon he was 18-0 (11 KOS) which considering he was fighting a lot of poor/average fighters isn't a great KO ratio. Algieri and van Heerdon were decent looking stoppages at the time but both guys were getting on in age (37 and 34) and both were having the final fight in their careers so not the fighters they used to be. Just “names” to pad his record out.

after what he has been through, if innocent..

he would sue the drug agency, the wbc, the BBB of C..... et al

think about it. No sue = guilty

rhino222 wrote: ↑06 Nov 2024, 18:41 after what he has been through, if innocent..

he would sue the drug agency, the wbc, the BBB of C..... et al

think about it. No sue = guilty

Not sure it’s that easy even if he’s innocent, it could end up being a costly and lengthy process, presumably the test results were accurate so I’m assuming he’s been cleared on some other technicality. Doubt it’s worth the hassle, time and expense, he will just want to get on with fighting rather than going through that all.

All of this is conjecture until we get statements from UKAD/Anti Doping Panel/Board confirming on what basis he has been cleared.

Could be anything from a complete exoneration to a technicality.

Frostieballs wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 07:16 All of this is conjecture until we get statements from UKAD/Anti Doping Panel/Board confirming on what basis he has been cleared.

Could be anything from a complete exoneration to a technicality.

It looks like clomifene being in his system isn't being contested, it's more that they can't prove it was in his system with the intention of cheating, maybe ingested unintentionally.

"The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene"

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 08:01

Frostieballs wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 07:16 All of this is conjecture until we get statements from UKAD/Anti Doping Panel/Board confirming on what basis he has been cleared.

Could be anything from a complete exoneration to a technicality.

It looks like clomifene being in his system isn't being contested, it's more that they can't prove it was in his system with the intention of cheating, maybe ingested unintentionally.

"The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene"

Where does that leave strict liability then?

Not guilty your honor.

Frostieballs wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 08:42

Controversial wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 08:01

Frostieballs wrote: ↑07 Nov 2024, 07:16 All of this is conjecture until we get statements from UKAD/Anti Doping Panel/Board confirming on what basis he has been cleared.

Could be anything from a complete exoneration to a technicality.

It looks like clomifene being in his system isn't being contested, it's more that they can't prove it was in his system with the intention of cheating, maybe ingested unintentionally.

"The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene"

Where does that leave strict liability then?

Basically as long as no-one directly watches you ingesting / injecting the stuff, you're in the clear