Comments Thread For: British Board Confirm Conor Benn is Being Investigated Over Failed Test

[Toffee]

31(iv) All such licensed persons as described above shall be deemed to have made him/herself familiar with, and agreed to be bound to, 60 comply with, and abide strictly by the Anti-Doping Rules and all other anti-doping rules applicable to him/her, and submit to the authority of the Board, any designee(s) of the Board, including UK Anti-Doping in the application and enforcement of the AntiDoping Rules.

31(v) All licence holders agree to cooperate fully with any World AntiDoping Code compliant anti-doping investigations or proceedings, whether conducted by UK Anti-Doping or any other competent body.

Great... but my point still stands.

BoxingScene are reporting that the BBBofC have formally launched an inquiry.

That's not what the release from the BBBofC says (quoted in the article). They say UKAD are investigating Benn and that they are in communication with them.

Words matter and the Board will have chosen theirs carefully.

[_Rexy_]

Isn’t this the same BBBoE who suspended Molina for 2 years for taking an anti inflammatory? Then tried to extend his suspension when they found out he was hired as a sparring partner?


glad to see they’ve always kept the same energy

[Boro]

Great... but my point still stands.

BoxingScene are reporting that the BBBofC have formally launched an inquiry.

That's not what the release from the BBBofC says (quoted in the article). They say UKAD are investigating Benn and that they are in communication with them.

Words matter and the Board will have chosen theirs carefully.

What I said to you was literally from their own rules and regulations from their contract(s) that applies to boxers, promoters and management and is signed by anyone who holds licensing of any kind with the board (shock horror your boxing license is included), so no your point doesn't stand at all.

If the board wasn't in contact with UKAD that would be disturbing.

They should be constantly in contact with them, they're after all putting on multiple shows throughout Scotland, England ,Wales and Northern Ireland...

[Toffee]

What I said to you was literally from their own rules and regulations from their contract(s) that applies to boxers, promoters and management and is signed by anyone who holds licensing of any kind with the board (shock horror your boxing license is included), so no your point doesn't stand at all.

If the board wasn't in contact with UKAD that would be disturbing.

They should be constantly in contact with them, they're after all putting on multiple shows throughout Scotland, England ,Wales and Northern Ireland...

I wasn't questioning BBBofC's rules.

I was stating that this Boxing Scene headline and report is incorrect.

BBBofC have not launched an inquiry into Connor Benn. UKAD are, at least according to the BBBofC.

[Boro]

I wasn't questioning BBBofC's rules.

I was stating that this Boxing Scene headline and report is incorrect.

BBBofC have not launched an inquiry into Connor Benn. UKAD are, at least according to the BBBofC.

I quoted nothing relating to the headline, I even went back and made the text large on the quote just in case, I was specifically responding to the Anti-doping part of your post...

The headline is still accurate UKAD is investigating Benn on the boards behalf, so it's not as if it's a lie or misinformation.

[Toffee]

I quoted nothing relating to the headline, I even went back and made the text large on the quote just in case, I was specifically responding to the Anti-doping part of your post...

The headline is still accurate UKAD is investigating Benn on the boards behalf, so it's not as if it's a lie or misinformation.

You know your post shows that you edited it a few hours ago right? You originally quoted the full post - which was 90% about this article being wrong.

And no, the headline and write up isn't accurate. The BBBofC have not launched an investigation. It's not even a matter of debate. They've told us in a written statement.

As for BBBofC's rules - I don't know where your quoted regulations came from but they clearly reference compliance with investigations. Not drug testing. It's feasible that the Board might ask another entity to conduct an investigation.

The Board don't follow VADA. VADA is a private entity who are not WAD accredited.

But UKAD may investigate if someone alleges doping against a sportsman... which is exactly what is happening here.

[Boro]

You know your post shows that you edited it a few hours ago right? You originally quoted the full post - which was 90% about this article being wrong.

And no, the headline and write up isn't accurate. The BBBofC have not launched an investigation. It's not even a matter of debate. They've told us in a written statement.

As for BBBofC's rules - I don't know where your quoted regulations came from but they clearly reference compliance with investigations. Not drug testing. It's feasible that the Board might ask another entity to conduct an investigation.

The Board don't follow VADA. VADA is a private entity who are not WAD accredited.

But UKAD may investigate if someone alleges doping against a sportsman... which is exactly what is happening here.

And I said in the the very quote from now I went back and made the text larger just in case you wanted to go back and look at it, literally minutes before I posted the very thing you're quoting me on.

And as for where I quoted the regulations from - the BBBofC, I thought that was pretty self evident... Rules & regulations - section 31 "Dope Testing".

Apparently you're incapable of reading - "All licence holders agree to cooperate fully with any WADA Code compliant anti-doping investigations or proceedings, whether conducted by UKAD or any other competent body." and again in the very same document "in the event of any conflict between the Anti-Doping Rules and any other Rule or Regulation of the board the provisions of the Anti-Doping Rules shall prevail."

And you're arguing semantics when it comes to UKAD and the BBBofC investigating Benn he's investigated on behalf of them... it's the same as investigating him themselves.

[Toffee]

Apparently you're incapable of reading - "All licence holders agree to cooperate fully with any WADA Code compliant anti-doping investigations or proceedings, whether conducted by UKAD or any other competent body." and again in the very same document "in the event of any conflict between the Anti-Doping Rules and any other Rule or Regulation of the board the provisions of the Anti-Doping Rules shall prevail."

And you're arguing semantics when it comes to UKAD and the BBBofC investigating Benn he's investigated on behalf of them... it's the same as investigating him themselves.

Read it again. That sentence doesn't say what you think it does... Comply with investigations or proceedings. The VADA test was neither - and wasn't even a World Anti Doping accredited test. So it doesn't show VADA counts - it actually shows the opposite.

And it's not semantics regarding who is investigating. It's a factual error in the report on this site and there's a huge difference. UKAD don't work for BBBofC.

UKAD operate a testing program in addition to acting on tip offs (ie external allegations). Benn passed the testing program, now UKAD will investigate him based on reports of PED use. That's pretty straightforward. Benn will comply with the investigation for lots of reasons, but it's also a condition of his BBBofC licence (which he still has, by the way).

And unless he's banned... the Board will licence him. They won't do anything based on a report from a private organisation that is not accepted by WADA - the code the Board is compliant to.

So right now the Board may well have communication with UKAD, but they're not investigating Benn. They don't have that kind of reach or expertise. They'll rely on whatever UKAD tells them. And they won't be listening to VADA given they're not WADA compliant.

[Boro]

Read it again. That sentence doesn't say what you think it does... Comply with investigations or proceedings. The VADA test was neither - and wasn't even a World Anti Doping accredited test. So it doesn't show VADA counts - it actually shows the opposite.

And it's not semantics regarding who is investigating. It's a factual error in the report on this site and there's a huge difference. UKAD don't work for BBBofC.

UKAD operate a testing program in addition to acting on tip offs (ie external allegations). Benn passed the testing program, now UKAD will investigate him based on reports of PED use. That's pretty straightforward. Benn will comply with the investigation for lots of reasons, but it's also a condition of his BBBofC licence (which he still has, by the way).

And unless he's banned... the Board will licence him. They won't do anything based on a report from a private organisation that is not accepted by WADA - the code the Board is compliant to.

So right now the Board may well have communication with UKAD, but they're not investigating Benn. They don't have that kind of reach or expertise. They'll rely on whatever UKAD tells them. And they won't be listening to VADA given they're not WADA compliant.

You do realise on their own site they specifically state under " Anti-Doping Process" -

• Selecting a collection vessel
• Providing the sample under supervision
• Selecting the sampling kit
• Dividing and sealing the sample
• Testing the suitability of the sample
• Recording and certifying the information

So now that we've established that the "process" include the collection and recording of the results of urine and blood tests.

It's safe to say the part I highlighted multiple times now about complying with "any competent body" should and does include VADA.

Or are so delusional you're denying the authenticity of VADA and it's process because it doesn't your narrative...

And again I'm not going to mention this ever again it's semantics to "argue" the point about UKAD investigating Benn on the boards behalf.

[Toffee]

You do realise on their own site they specifically state under " Anti-Doping Process" -

• Selecting a collection vessel
• Providing the sample under supervision
• Selecting the sampling kit
• Dividing and sealing the sample
• Testing the suitability of the sample
• Recording and certifying the information

So now that we've established that the "process" include the collection and recording of the results of urine and blood tests.

It's safe to say the part I highlighted multiple times now about complying with "any competent body" should and does include VADA.

Or are so delusional you're denying the authenticity of VADA and it's process because it doesn't your narrative...

And again I'm not going to mention this ever again it's semantics to "argue" the point about UKAD investigating Benn on the boards behalf.

Except you're wrong. So clearly wrong.

How could the Board insist on compliance with voluntary testing? Why would they clearly state on their website that VADA is not WAD compliant and then insist on compliance with them?

Process and Proceedings might have similar letters but they're completely different things!

It's not that difficult.