Comments Thread For: Hearn Reacts To British Board Rejecting Benn's Application, Vows To Make Eubank Fight

[Clegg]

Could you elaborate on this and I'm extremely confused on this situation.

Conor Benn had a hearing with UKAD's representors and his suspension was lifted right? Or is that not correct?

You mention this loophole? What was that?

Hearn and Benn have continually lied to the media in order to create this kind of confusion.

Benn went to the NAPD to argue that UKAD didn't have jurisdiction. UKAD were at that hearing, to argue that Benn was wrong. So when Benn says 'I had a hearing with UKAD' he is trying to make the public/media think that UKAD were the ones hearing the case and making the decision. That's inaccurate. NAPD were hearing the case and making the decision, UKAD were there opposing Benn's case.

NAPD 'cleared' Benn, but UKAD appealed. At no time did UKAD clear or support Benn. BBBOC are supporting the UKAD appeal. UKAD's appeal has not been heard yet, so no license until at least that happens.

[sege64]

Dirty, disgusting, lying, cheat.

[IronDanHamza]

Hearn and Benn have continually lied to the media in order to create this kind of confusion.

Benn went to the NAPD to argue that UKAD didn't have jurisdiction. UKAD were at that hearing, to argue that Benn was wrong. So when Benn says 'I had a hearing with UKAD' he is trying to make the public/media think that UKAD were the ones hearing the case and making the decision. That's inaccurate. NAPD were hearing the case and making the decision, UKAD were there opposing Benn's case.

NAPD 'cleared' Benn, but UKAD appealed. At no time did UKAD clear or support Benn. BBBOC are supporting the UKAD appeal. UKAD's appeal has not been heard yet, so no license until at least that happens.

Is the NAPD not the authority on this then?

As in for example if it's Benn vs UKAD or whatever and then NAPD makes the decision?

As for the jurisdiction thing, is that confirmed that that is their defense? I was of the understanding the the hearing is confidential (Which I think is illogical)

[Clegg]

Is the NAPD not the authority on this then?

As in for example if it's Benn vs UKAD or whatever and then NAPD makes the decision?

As for the jurisdiction thing, is that confirmed that that is their defense? I was of the understanding the the hearing is confidential (Which I think is illogical)

NAPD is the authority but they allow an appeal to their decisions. Not sure how much longer that will take. Some are saying it could be taken to the CAS for further appeal but I don't know if that's true.

I don't think they've officially said that Benn used jurisdiction as his defence. Could turn out to be something else.

[IronDanHamza]

NAPD is the authority but they allow an appeal to their decisions. Not sure how much longer that will take. Some are saying it could be taken to the CAS for further appeal but I don't know if that's true.

I don't think they've officially said that Benn used jurisdiction as his defence. Could turn out to be something else.

Ok that's what I thought. Wasn't all the way sure it's hard to keep up with it.

Robert Smith said on Talksport the appeal hearing is supposed to be in January. I'd assume the appeal will be denied though, surely?

What I still don't really get is these people that say there hasn't been a hearing, but, there has been one, right? And they ruled that his suspension was to be lifted and he's clear to fight. To which now UKAD/Bbboc have appealed?

I think they should make all this stuff public. It shouldn't be up to us to guess.

[MastaBlasta]

Seems like the easy (and probably fastest) thing to do is Let the BBOBC and/or UKAD do their complete investigation. If he is clean it will verify it for everyone, end of story. Whatever else is learned will point the way back to "compliance" and going forward with his career, without doubts and clouds hanging over everything. It seems like an easy decision to make. Legit reason or not, he flunked a test, and the fight got canceled. Can't change any of that. I don't understand why Matchroom is looking for an alternative path forward.

[dan-b]

I think they should make all this stuff public. It shouldn't be up to us to guess.

If boxing had investigative journalists it could probably be pieced together fairly easily.

[Butt stuff]

Hearn and Benn have continually lied to the media in order to create this kind of confusion.

Benn went to the NAPD to argue that UKAD didn't have jurisdiction. UKAD were at that hearing, to argue that Benn was wrong. So when Benn says 'I had a hearing with UKAD' he is trying to make the public/media think that UKAD were the ones hearing the case and making the decision. That's inaccurate. NAPD were hearing the case and making the decision, UKAD were there opposing Benn's case.

NAPD 'cleared' Benn, but UKAD appealed. At no time did UKAD clear or support Benn. BBBOC are supporting the UKAD appeal. UKAD's appeal has not been heard yet, so no license until at least that happens.

Wow this is so messy. It’s good to see BBBOC / UKAD pushing this as far as they can go. It would be great to have a massive overhaul and more control over the industry. Promoters shouldn’t be so essential to the sport, at the top level it should just be managers, trainers and networks (with their own internal promoters for shows).

[IronDanHamza]

If boxing had investigative journalists it could probably be pieced together fairly easily.

Yeah I agree.

I think it’s wrong when something as serious as PED usage in a combat sport is confidential.

The fans should be privy to the contents of these hearings.