Yeah the statement is BS but the BBBC only withdrew sanctioning because the Daily Mail broke the story. @Dynamito has confirmed that the BBBC, like Matchroom Boxing and Wasserman, have known about this for weeks already, the cover up was well and truly on until the journalist let the cat out the bag.View attachment 22441
Have you ever read such garbage?
Hearn and Sauerland took the decision to postpone the fight because in the end they had no other option and they obviously pursued many.
They are also attempting to paint the BBBofC as the bad guys in this when the BBBofC are the only party who have acted appropriately.
As for 'the fighter's interests', the only interest Hearn and Sauerland had here was their bank balances.
OK so I cannot readily recall who said what now as I've watched so many interviews today with different people butYes, it does appear the BBBofC may have been somewhat complicit in the smokescreen but at least when things were made public they did act as the circuit breaker for the fight being cancelled. Or 'postponed' as the promotors are claiming. Sadly, their reward will probably be being sued.
As a result of the positive VADA test, someone has advised Benn to take a UK Anti Doping Agency test and it apparently came up clean. What I am really skeptical about is two things :
1/ Did the UK Anti Doping Agency actually test for fertility drug VADA found in Benn's system?
2/ Benn was tested by VADA in I think early August and the result for the test provided on I think August 23rd. When was the UK Anti Doping Agency test done? As the VADA test only detected a trace of the fertility drug, was there long enough between the two tests for that trace to be no longer detectable?
Yes that's true. Although even if they tested 48 hours after VADA and didn't find the drug it wouldn't make any difference. No one (Team Benn included surely) is disputing that the drug was in his system when VADA tested him but if he is then he should have demanded right away that the B sample was tested, he didn't do that and so he knows what he's done. Not calling for the B test to be tested means you expect that if it's tested it will return the same result, you don't lack confidence in the integrity of the testing because you know you were cheatingI think there was potentially weeks and weeks between the VADA test being conducted and the UKAD test. So even if the UKAD test did include testing for the fertility drug it may not have been detectable after weeks and weeks previously having only been present as a trace.
When I read the second bullet-point I thought wow that's harsh, imagine items not named on the banned list being banned and it being your fault still if you take them even though you can't see the name on the list. But then I read the last bullet point and that makes it all alright, it's crystal clear after you read that. In plain English it means the substance is not naturally-occuring, isn't used to treat any condition and will only be found in the body if wilfully ingested for the purpose of gaining an unfair sporting advantage.
- Below are a couple of relevant paragraphs from UKAD. ( there is no innocent explanation for having a female fertility drug in the system.)
- Not all substances are specifically named on the List. The List states that any other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s) are also prohibited even if not specifically named
- Non-specified substances are those where there is no non-doping explanation for having these substances in an athlete’s system
Sounds about right and I agree. For all we know the offending drug is not even on UKADs prohibition list so they wouldn't test for it anyway. And therefore if the promoters sued the BBBC (assuming that they are the reason the fight has had to be cancelled) I'd expect them to be successful. But that's a short term victory which imo will cause long term reputational and financial harm to the business.Yep from what I can tell from Eddie Hearns ramblings on Wednesday was that VADA is not the official testing agency of the British Board so there tests have no official relevance ..Because his UKAD tests were negative Conor Benn has not committed any violation. So essentially the Board should not have intervened.
Even Conor Benn when asked on Wednesday did not deny having the drug in his system. He stated he has not committing a violation. I presume from their legal teams perspective it cannot be a violation if it did not show up in the UKAD.
Do we know if UKAD were actually called in to test Benn as I'd been assuming that they just turned up routinely and at random?I think Benn will likely cling to the hope that the UKAD negative test can make the VADA positive test go away. It worked for Dillian Whyte. His situation for the Rivas fight was very similar to Benn's here and as we saw, he was never handed a penalty. Or if he was, it was never made public.
It makes me think it was Hearn's idea for Benn to take the test with another authority, as that's what Whyte did under him.
Would love to read and hear the communications that took place between Hearn, Sauerland and Benn.
True athough it's worth noting that once ranked in the WBC's top 15 you're required to enrol in the programme and failure to do so results in removal from the WBC rankings. Benn here was at no.5 in the WBC list of Welterweights and Eubank Jr at 3 in the Middleweight list, however, with the fight being at a catchweight and no WBC title on the line it's not clear whether this was a WBC ordered test or if the two parties just agreed on the tests between themselves.VADA is voluntary they carry out testing when fighters volunteer to be tested.