Comments Thread For: Conor Benn: 'I?m tired of being angry'

[Coverdale]

I on the other hand cannot stand Conor Benn, but…

How didn’t he win his case(s)?

Because he largely refused to engage with the process which timed out when the BBBofC made the pragmatic decision to not pursue the matter further with UKAD. Benn announced he'd been cleared of any "wrongdoing" (not legal terminology) on social media, most of the media ran with it, and that's where the story ended.

Obviously I've massively oversimplified but that's the broad outline as I understand it.

[Smash]

hes not angry any more because hes rich

i wonder did the enforced marination actually benefit both of them i presume it did as turke became involved

[Smash]

hes angry because it too 2 years for his case to clear while other guys like recently munguia bumgardner matias francisco rodriguez jr who busted twice get cleared immediately

[IronDanHamza]

Because he largely refused to engage with the process which timed out when the BBBofC made the pragmatic decision to not pursue the matter further with UKAD. Benn announced he'd been cleared of any "wrongdoing" (not legal terminology) on social media, most of the media ran with it, and that's where the story ended.

Obviously I've massively oversimplified but that's the broad outline as I understand it.

That is totally and actually just wildly incorrect.

What actually happened;

Team Benn refused to engage initially, was cleared by the WBC (without a hearing) and considered alternative options outside of a BBBoC license.

After reconsideration, and realising the best way to move forward is with the BBBoC issue resolved, they decided to engage and underwent a hearing with the BBBoC/UKAD, to which Team Benn won and were “cleared of all wrong doing”. The BBBoC/UKAD appealed this decision, won the appeal, and the decision was overturned. To which then Team Benn appealed that decision, and another hearing was undergone, essentially a re-trial, to which Team Benn won (again) and was then again “cleared of all wrong doing”, to which the BBBoC/UKAD decided to not appeal and the decision stood. To which he was then granted his BBBoC license.

So, he had two hearings/cases (not including the WBC overturning) and he won both. And, thus in the end, cleared.

[Coverdale]

That is totally and actually just wildly incorrect.

What actually happened;

Team Benn refused to engage initially, was cleared by the WBC (without a hearing) and considered alternative options outside of a BBBoC license.

After reconsideration, and realising the best way to move forward is with the BBBoC issue resolved, they decided to engage and underwent a hearing with the BBBoC/UKAD, to which Team Benn won and were “cleared of all wrong doing”. The BBBoC/UKAD appealed this decision, won the appeal, and the decision was overturned. To which then Team Benn appealed that decision, and another hearing was undergone, essentially a re-trial, to which Team Benn won (again) and was then again “cleared of all wrong doing”, to which the BBBoC/UKAD decided to not appeal and the decision stood. To which he was then granted his BBBoC.

So, he had two hearings (not including the WBC overturning) and he won both. And, was thus cleared.

Do you have a link to a primary source about the wording of the outcome of his appeal because "cleared of all wrong doing" does not sound like legalese at all? Legal outcomes are much more conditional than that.

Do you actually know the explanation Benn gave for the presence of clomiphene in his system?

[Smash]

Do you have a link to a primary source about the wording of the outcome of his appeal because "cleared of all wrong doing" does not sound like legalese at all? Legal outcomes are much more conditional than that.

Do you actually know the explanation Benn gave for the presence of clomiphene in his system?

A UKAD spokesperson, said:

'The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene'

https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/stateme...ing-conor-benn

[Coverdale]

A UKAD spokesperson, said:

'The Panel concluded that it was ‘not comfortably satisfied’ that UKAD had proved that Mr Benn had committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for the Use of clomifene'

https://www.ukad.org.uk/news/stateme...ing-conor-benn

I actually have that page favourited, I was giving IronDanHamza the opportunity to answer. The "cleared of any wrong doing" statement came from Benn himself and not from official sources. The quote you have given above is the relevant one, and clearly qualified.

[Smash]

Do you actually know the explanation Benn gave for the presence of clomiphene in his system?

i think he went down the usual contaminated something route if i remember right, i think he got busted twice so he must have been extremely extremely unlucky, in july and september 2022

i dont think he produced any evidence of anything contaminated tho unlike for example ryan garcia who sent in 2 open containers of some fuels, that didnt work for him tho

he had some dosier made up which im sure should be read for his full case

[Smash]

. The quote you have given above is the relevant one, and clearly qualified.

Google AI agrees with you

"Not Comfortably Satisfied"

'This phrase implies that while you may be satisfied to some degree, you are not fully or completely so. There is a lingering unease or a desire for more'

[IronDanHamza]

Do you have a link to a primary source about the wording of the outcome of his appeal because "cleared of all wrong doing" does not sound like legalese at all? Legal outcomes are much more conditional than that.

Do you actually know the explanation Benn gave for the presence of clomiphene in his system?

I suppose “cleared” and “cleared of all wrong doing” aren’t necessarily the same thing, so he should have just said “cleared” or “cleared to fight” which would have been more appropriate. As should have I. So that’s fine.

It’s neither here nor there though, is it? What’s important is he underwent two seperate cases/hearings and he ultimately won the case and was cleared.

To say he never won a case is just patently false. He objectively did do that, and was thus cleared because of that.

Nobody knows the explanation Benn and his team gave in the hearings because these hearings are confidential. Team Benn’s solicitor however did say publicly that their leading evidence is tainted supplements. Which isn’t surprising.