Comments Thread For: Eddie Hearn Extended $15,000 VADA Drug-Testing Offer by Victor Conte

[IronDanHamza]

We do know that contaminated eggs were used as an excuse. From the Daily Mail and also from the WBC.

But clomiphene isn’t allowed in egg production in the UK. While clenbuterol is widely used in the cattle industry in Mexico.

Why you are pretending like Conor Benn's lawyer didn't say that they are using contaminated supplements as their source of evidence?

In regards to eggs, you don't know where Conor Benn got his eggs from or where he ate the eggs.

[IronDanHamza]

Canelo failed a PED test. But was it because he intentionally cheated or because he ate tainted meat? There is enough believability to his story to leave room for doubt. And no matter if he intended to or not I’ve always said he needed to be responsible for what he put in his body and be punished regardless.

How are you not grasping that exactly what you're saying here can be said for Conor Benn?

We don't know if Conor Benn intentionally cheated either. There's more than enough room for doubt there also. Especially considering he won his hearing.

I asked if Beterbiev was a Russian cheat when a poster first made a thread about it, before getting to read the full article on it. But even your good buddy IronDanHamza says his atypical findings are suspicious and an indicator of PED use.

No you did not ask. Don't lie now. You called him a Russian cheat. You then edited it and added a question mark when you got called out

What I say is irrelevant because I'm consistent, whereas you are wildly inconsistent.

That's what you're being called out on by that poster.

[ShoulderRoll]

How can you say that? You don't know what story/evidence was presented at the hearing.

#1 you don't know what evidence they presented at the hearing (that he won)

#2 His Lawyer stated categorically that they are going down the contaminated supplement route as evidence they believe will prove Benn's innocence (In which they did win the hearing)

Conor Benn's positive test for Clomid being due to a contaminated supplement is no less believable than Canelo's positive test for Clen being due to contaminated meat.

The Daily Mail and the WBC both mentioned Benn’s contaminated eggs excuse. That we know for sure.

And obviously this excuse is far less believable than Canelo’s because the UK does not allow clomiphene to be used in egg production.

[IronDanHamza]

The Daily Mail and the WBC both mentioned Benn’s contaminated eggs excuse. That we know for sure.

And? Do you have a point? His lawyer mentioned Benn's contaminted supplment excuse publicly. We know that for sure as well.

Egg consumption was one part of their evidence. He had a whole dossier of evidence that they presented at the hearing (that he won)

One of which, that his Lawyer said publicly, that he believed would exonerate Conor, was contaminated supplements.

Why are you tap dancing around that and pretending that isn't the case?

And obviously this excuse is far less believable than Canelo’s because the UK does not allow clomiphene to be used in egg production.

Well, like I just said, you don't know where Conor got his eggs from and you don't know where he was when he ate these eggs. So that doesn't really matter.

But it's irrelevant regardless because they have stated that contaminated supplements were part of their evidence and actually the main part, to which, is no less than believable than Canelo's excuse at all.

In fact, you could argue it's more believable than Canelo's excuse.

[ShoulderRoll]

How are you not grasping that exactly what you're saying here can be said for Conor Benn?

We don't know if Conor Benn intentionally cheated either. There's more than enough room for doubt there also. Especially considering he won his hearing.



No you did not ask. Don't lie now. You called him a Russian cheat. You then edited it and added a question mark when you got called out

What I say is irrelevant because I'm consistent, whereas you are wildly inconsistent.

That's what you're being called out on by that poster.

I literally edited and added the question mark as I was reading the news story about it. What you can accuse me of is being too quick to jump the gun and that’s fine, it’s a fair criticism in that particular case. But you yourself acknowledged that for a man of Beterbiev's age the atypical findings are an indicator of PED use.

[ShoulderRoll]

And? Do you have a point? His lawyer mentioned Benn's contaminted supplment excuse publicly. We know that for sure as well.

Egg consumption was one part of their evidence. He had a whole dossier of evidence that they presented at the hearing (that he won)

One of which, that his Lawyer said publicly, that he believed would exonerate Conor, was contaminated supplements.

Why are you tap dancing around that and pretending that isn't the case?



Well, like I just said, you don't know where Conor got his eggs from and you don't know where he was when he ate these eggs. So that doesn't really matter.

But it's irrelevant regardless because they have stated that contaminated supplements were part of their evidence and actually the main part, to which, is no less than believable than Canelo's excuse at all.

In fact, you could argue it's more believable than Canelo's excuse.

A whole dossier of evidence? How many different excuses did Benn feel the need to throw out there?

And did his lawyer at least mention which specific brand of supplements were contaminated and where they were purchased? Canelo had receipts for several restaurants he ate at in Mexico, including the Sonora Grill steakhouse.

[IronDanHamza]

I literally edited and added the question mark as I was reading the news story about it. What you can accuse me of is being too quick to jump the gun and that’s fine, it’s a fair criticism in that particular case. But you yourself acknowledged that for a man of Beterbiev's age the atypical findings are an indicator of PED use.

You accused him of being a "Russian cheat" then when called out on it edited the post. It is what it is.

Did you not read what I just said? My opinion is irrelevant. I'm consistent with all PED cases.

You are the total opposite. You deem proven drug cheats "likely clean" then accuse others who has never failed a drug test as "suspicious" or "assuredly on PEDs"

You then deem one fighters story "believable" and then say the opposite for someone else who's story is just as believable.

That's why you get called out on it.

[IronDanHamza]

A whole dossier of evidence? How many different excuses did Benn feel the need to throw out there?

Yes. You know what a dossier is, don't you?

The more evidence presented at trial, the stronger your case is. And clearly their evidence was strong enough to win the trial.

And did his lawyer at least mention which specific brand of supplements were contaminated and where they were purchased? Canelo had receipts for several restaurants he ate at in Mexico, including the Sonora Grill steakhouse.

No, because it's confidential. They would have presented that at the hearing (which they won)

There are no receipts provided that prove Canelo ate anything at all, let alone meat. So there's that.

It's a moot point any way because contaminated supplements are just as believable as contaminated meat. So your argument is totally misinformed.

[ShoulderRoll]

You accused him of being a "Russian cheat" then when called out on it edited the post. It is what it is.

Did you not read what I just said? My opinion is irrelevant. I'm consistent with all PED cases.

You are the total opposite. You deem proven drug cheats "likely clean" then accuse others who has never failed a drug test as "suspicious" or "assuredly on PEDs"

You then deem one fighters story "believable" and then say the opposite for someone else who's story is just as believable.

That's why you get called out on it.

After seeing the thread and commenting on it I went to read the actual story and that’s when I went back and added the question mark. I had no idea I had even been called out on it yet.

[ShoulderRoll]

Yes. You know what a dossier is, don't you?

The more evidence presented at trial, the stronger your case is. And clearly their evidence was strong enough to win the trial.




No, because it's confidential. They would have presented that at the hearing (which they won)

There are no receipts provided that prove Canelo ate anything at all, let alone meat. So there's that.

It's a moot point any way because contaminated supplements are just as believable as contaminated meat. So your argument is totally misinformed.

Presenting a bunch of different excuses doesn’t mean that one has a strong case. That would depend on what evidence there is to support any of the excuses. And because of the lack of transparency in the Conor Benn situation you have no idea what excuse swayed the people at the hearing, why they awarded him a “win,” and what the basis is for there to be an appeal of that “win.”

Canelo’s lawyer said receipts were provided to the Nevada commission. How do you know what they contained and what they proved or didn’t prove? Were you there?