Comments Thread For: Conor Benn on Chris Eubank Jr: 'Will the Fight Happen In The Future? Definitely Not'

[Oldskoolg]

Both Jr and Hearn make it sound like it’s eubank’s fault that benn uses performance enhancing drugs and got caught. This is what narcissists do, gaslight and lie to manipulate minds

[SteveM]

Eubank is all about the money - by his own admittance. He won't fight Alimkhanuly, won't fight the unknown IBO champion - and it won't be because he is unknown but because such a fight won't generate the money he wants. His best bet is to hope either Kell Brook or BJS become active again.

[IronDanHamza]

No . The BBBOC , with who Benn is licensed (was , his license expired) work under a 'strict liability', where HE or anyone else caught with illegal drugs in their system must give evidence of why and how , he to date has refused to do this .Until he does that he will NOT fight in the UK. any other 'bodies' do not matter , they have to fight in the UK as no one else is that interested.

Isn’t that what happened when he had a hearing, won it and now has his suspension lifted?

[Boro]

Isn’t that what happened when he had a hearing, won it and now has his suspension lifted?

No that isn't what happened, NADP and UKAD decided to make comment publicly which is extremely unusual.

And especially without telling the BBBofC and they also basically announced he's free to fight but just like the WBC they aren't capable of licensing fighters.

So they had no business doing so, particularly when there was weeks left to appeal the decision at that point and Benn still refused to provide the relevant information to the BBBofC.

[IronDanHamza]

No that isn't what happened, NADP and UKAD decided to make comment publicly which is extremely unusual.

And especially without telling the BBBofC and they also basically announced he's free to fight but just like the WBC they aren't capable of licensing fighters.

So they had no business doing so, particularly when there was weeks left to appeal the decision at that point and Benn still refused to provide the relevant information to the BBBofC.

Ok could you elaborate on that?

They had a hearing, right? Or did they not? Because that’s what their side are saying (not saying that’s true) that they had a hearing and the independent party ruled that Benn’s suspension is lifted and is clear to fight.

Or is this supposed hearing they had where his suspension got lifted imaginary?

I’m under the impression that the BBBoC have appealed the decision of the said hearing.

[super-x]

Seems to me that since Eubanks chin has been cracked, much to his own and probably everyone elses suprise, hes become weary of that possibly happening again, therefore doesn't really want to risk his name being forever tarnished by getting ko'd by his fathers nemisis son, Picked his own rep over money. As he was still prepared to fight connor even after the failed drug tests had the board not withdrawn there sanction

[HandsofIron]

Alright then no dumb Eubank fight.

Dude needs to stop stalling and fight someone like Ennis or Thurman.

[Boro]

Ok could you elaborate on that?

They had a hearing, right? Or did they not? Because that’s what their side are saying (not saying that’s true) that they had a hearing and the independent party ruled that Benn’s suspension is lifted and is clear to fight.

Or is this supposed hearing they had where his suspension got lifted imaginary?

I’m under the impression that the BBBoC have appealed the decision of the said hearing.

UKAD and NADP had a hearing regarding his drug ban, they've "cleared him" but he's yet to provide evidence both in regards to the WBC situation and this situation to the BBBofC who licence him which is clearly an issue.

Neither body can lift a suspension as neither body has the authority to give one or take away licences for example they can only advise licensing bodies such as the board.

But of course the board refused to lift said suspension as I said because he refuses to provide clarity in either of the situations with WBC or UKAD, mainly because as Thack said it opens the door to the strict liability issue, at this point though he may as well, as he'll likely just get a backdated ban.

[IronDanHamza]

UKAD and NADP had a hearing regarding his drug ban, they've "cleared him" but he's yet to provide evidence both in regards to the WBC situation and this situation to the BBBofC who licence him which is clearly an issue.

Neither body can lift a suspension as neither body has the authority to give one or take away licences for example they can only advise licensing bodies such as the board.

But of course the board refused to lift said suspension as I said because he refuses to provide clarity in either of the situations with WBC or UKAD, mainly because as Thack said it opens the door to the strict liability issue, at this point though he may as well, as he'll likely just get a backdated ban.

Right so UKAD oversee the drug testing issues don’t they? And the BBBoC answer the them and follow their lead.

So he has had a hearing, and it was ruled in his favour and his suspension has been lifted.

So how has he not had a hearing, I don’t understand?

The board didn’t refuse to lift it, they just appealed it. Once their appeal is rejected then they’ll have to give him his license.

Also, how do you know he hasn’t provided evidence? The contents of the hearing are confidential. We don’t know what was said.

What we do know is he won and his suspension was lifted.

[Boro]

Right so UKAD oversee the drug testing issues don’t they? And the BBBoC answer the them and follow their lead.

So he has had a hearing, and it was ruled in his favour and his suspension has been lifted.

So how has he not had a hearing, I don’t understand?

The board didn’t refuse to lift it, they just appealed it. Once their appeal is rejected then they’ll have to give him his license.

Also, how do you know he hasn’t provided evidence? The contents of the hearing are confidential. We don’t know what was said.

What we do know is he won and his suspension was lifted.

No they (UKAD) answers to the board in this regard and advise them how to deal with cheaters, they can't lift suspensions like I said they have no authority to do so as they aren't they ones who have authority over fighters, to suspend or revoke their licenses ...

The board appealing it isn't really relevant to this TBH, Benns refusal to bring up any and all relevant information because he's afraid of the strict liability fallout.

It is THE BIG issue hence why the "appeals process" isn't really being addressed with in a satisfactory manner by Benns team.

"How do I know he hasn't provided evidence"? because the BBBofC has said so in multiple updates on their own site, across multiple months going back to February this year he hasn't done so...

If his suspension was lifted he'd be free to fight in Britain, under a British license he isn't.

And that's why Eddie is repeatedly mentioning how he's willing to stage fights in different countries or under different sanctioning bodies but he'd rather he was cleared of any/all wrong doing.

Let's be honest here Eddie doesn't want one of his biggest names fighting under the PBA or some other sanctioning body no one has heard of whilst fighting in the UK.

And neither does a rival promoter the BBBofC is literally the only one recognised by the British public because of its history (almost 100 years) and it's home of British boxing's most prestigious title: the Lonsdale Belt.