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

[IronDanHamza]

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.

His suspension has been lifted, that isn’t up for debate. That’s precisely what they’re appealing (the lifted suspension) he’s only not technically free to fight right now because they can refuse to license him due to the ongoing appeal of the decision.

It is UKAD that they follow, Robert Smith said as much on talk sport.

What did the BBBoC say in regards to the hearing? As far as I’m understanding aware it’s confidential and the contents of that hearing is not public knowledge outside of the fact that Benn won and his suspension was lifted.

What other hearing is he supposed to have? One with the BBBoC alone? They go through UKAD for these hearings or atleast did with the others that I recall.

[Boro]

His suspension has been lifted, that isn’t up for debate. That’s precisely what they’re appealing (the lifted suspension) he’s only not technically free to fight right now because they can refuse to license him due to the ongoing appeal of the decision.

It is UKAD that they follow, Robert Smith said as much on talk sport.

What did the BBBoC say in regards to the hearing? As far as I’m understanding aware it’s confidential and the contents of that hearing is not public knowledge outside of the fact that Benn won and his suspension was lifted.

What other hearing is he supposed to have? One with the BBBoC alone? They go through UKAD for these hearings or atleast did with the others that I recall.

His "provisional suspension" has been lifted (by NADP) which is just smoke and mirrors, it's actually quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things to his overall outcome.

The imperative word being "provisional", they're still yet to reach a real outcome when it comes to the furtherance of his career in the UK hence "smoke and mirrors".

He doesn't need to go to a meeting or hearing with the board, he needs to provide the aforementioned proof to UKAD and a decision will be made from there.

Don't forget the appeal was lodged by both UKAD and BBBofC, it's not just the board who thinks he's playing a funny game...

[IronDanHamza]

His "provisional suspension" has been lifted (by NADP) which is just smoke and mirrors, it's actually quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things to his overall outcome.

The imperative word being "provisional", they're still yet to reach a real outcome when it comes to the furtherance of his career in the UK hence "smoke and mirrors".

He doesn't need to go to a meeting or hearing with the board, he needs to provide the aforementioned proof to UKAD and a decision will be made from there.

Don't forget the appeal was lodged by both UKAD and BBBofC, it's not just the board who thinks he's playing a funny game...

That’s not true what you’re saying. He was suspended and that suspension has been lifted after the hearing. He is currently not suspended that’s just a fact of the matter.

He has. He’s had a hearing and the contents of that hearing are confidential but he won it and his suspension has been lifted.

There’s no more he can do at this point.

[Boro]

That’s not true what you’re saying. He was suspended and that suspension has been lifted after the hearing. He is currently not suspended that’s just a fact of the matter.

He has. He’s had a hearing and the contents of that hearing are confidential but he won it and his suspension has been lifted.

There’s no more he can do at this point.

No, it is true go on both UKADs and BBBofC website and look for yourself, Sky news wherever you want to look.

His provisional suspension has been lifted but regardless of that it's still subject to an outcome and the fact UKAD and the board jointly appealed said "lifting" implies no one who matters agrees with the NADP...

Despite their constant "interference", well considering they're only brought in to "disputes" they shouldn't of been able to make a decision of this magnitude.

Especially when the overarching governing body(ies) of the country disagrees with their assessment.

[IronDanHamza]

No, it is true go on both UKADs and BBBofC website and look for yourself, Sky news wherever you want to look.

His provisional suspension has been lifted but regardless of that it's still subject to an outcome and the fact UKAD and the board jointly appealed said "lifting" implies no one who matters agrees with the NADP...

Despite their constant "interference", well considering they're only brought in to "disputes" they shouldn't of been able to make a decision of this magnitude.

Especially when the overarching governing body(ies) of the country disagrees with their assessment.

Precisely so his suspension HAS been lifted.

It’s now in an appeal process.

Once that’s done, and very likely rejected, he will not be suspended and free to fight.

There’s no other process he can do.

[Boro]

Precisely so his suspension HAS been lifted.

It’s now in an appeal process.

Once that’s done, and very likely rejected, he will not be suspended and free to fight.

There’s no other process he can do.

Are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? provisional suspensions are automatically handed out as soon as you've been found to have substances that are banned "at all times" not just "in competition", it's just a formality, it's almost similar in nature to being banned after being KO'd...
No it's extremely likely he'll get banned IF he even tries to go through the appeal process just like when the Fury's brought in the NADP, they received a backdated ban for their efforts.

Deservedly so in Benns case as well I might add, he's been intentionally obtuse and obstructive about the whole situation hoping it'll just disappear.

And yes there is processes he can go through, provide the information that's requested rather than being obstructive but that would bring up the liability issue as I've said numerous times.

And then he'd have to explain how come he's used different excuses with the WBC and UKAD...

How he got CLOMID in EGGS in the UK as we have the 2nd strictest egg guidelines in the world after Japan... because of the "Salmonella crisis" of the late 80s that cost the government 10s of millions.

[IronDanHamza]

Are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? provisional suspensions are automatically handed out as soon as you've been found to have substances that are banned "at all times" not just "in competition", it's just a formality, it's almost similar in nature to being banned after being KO'd...
No it's extremely likely he'll get banned IF he even tries to go through the appeal process just like when the Fury's brought in the NADP, they received a backdated ban for their efforts.

Deservedly so in Benns case as well I might add, he's been intentionally obtuse and obstructive about the whole situation hoping it'll just disappear.

And yes there is processes he can go through, provide the information that's requested rather than being obstructive but that would bring up the liability issue as I've said numerous times.

And then he'd have to explain how come he's used different excuses with the WBC and UKAD...

How he got CLOMID in EGGS in the UK as we have the 2nd strictest egg guidelines in the world after Japan... because of the "Salmonella crisis" of the late 80s that cost the government 10s of millions.

Yes I’m aware that he he was suspended and that same suspension has now been lifted after his hearing….

He’s already provided it when he had a hearing and we don’t know the contents of it because it’s confidential. All we do know if he won and his suspension was lifted which is now under appeal.

There’s nothing more Benn can do.

[Boro]

Yes I’m aware that he he was suspended and that same suspension has now been lifted after his hearing….

He’s already provided it when he had a hearing and we don’t know the contents of it because it’s confidential. All we do know if he won and his suspension was lifted which is now under appeal.

There’s nothing more Benn can do.

Why do you keep insisting he's provided proof of anything to the board or UKAD, clearly they don't agree or they wouldn't of almost immediately filed an appeal.

I don't think you realise how often these people kowtow to NADP just for an easier life, charities can't afford to have long drawn out procedures with these people but that doesn't mean what they've done is right/wrong...

Life I said Fury and the BBBofC/UKAD were both in wrong, yet the NADP came in essentially brokered a deal stopping them (ukad/board) from going under and the Furys from having their respective wins overturned.

Even though Fury's were wrong from a strict liability standpoint and UKAD were wrong from the PoV of taking 16 months to bring to light their results, despite knowing said results much earlier.

And what makes the Fury case even worse is Tyson "cheated" in the Hammer fight which literally got him the shot at Wlad.

And if they overturned the Hammer result, potentially Wlad may have not had to fight him or had the result overturned himself, unlikely but still.

[Weebler I]

I remember when Conor Benn had no power, then he developed vicious power...

[IronDanHamza]

Why do you keep insisting he's provided proof of anything to the board or UKAD, clearly they don't agree or they wouldn't of almost immediately filed an appeal.

I don't think you realise how often these people kowtow to NADP just for an easier life, charities can't afford to have long drawn out procedures with these people but that doesn't mean what they've done is right/wrong...

Life I said Fury and the BBBofC/UKAD were both in wrong, yet the NADP came in essentially brokered a deal stopping them (ukad/board) from going under and the Furys from having their respective wins overturned.

Even though Fury's were wrong from a strict liability standpoint and UKAD were wrong from the PoV of taking 16 months to bring to light their results, despite knowing said results much earlier.

And what makes the Fury case even worse is Tyson "cheated" in the Hammer fight which literally got him the shot at Wlad.

And if they overturned the Hammer result, potentially Wlad may have not had to fight him or had the result overturned himself, unlikely but still.

Because none of know, it’s confidential.

Just because they appealed it doesn’t mean he didn’t provide evidence. It just means they didn’t like the decision which clearly they didn’t but that’s irrelevant.

It doesn’t change the fact he had a hearing and won and thus his suspension has been lifted (now under appeal)