The CEO of Matchroom Boxing says it would behoove the British Boxing Board of Control to tighten up the language concerning some of its protocols, especially as it relates to drug testing, in order to avoid confusing situations such as the Chris Eubank Jr. vs. Conor Benn debacle that recently transpired.
Matchroom and the BBBofC, the commission that oversees prizefights in the UK, came under fire recently after a report by the Daily Mail revealed that one of its fighters, Conor Benn, tested positive for the banned substance clomifene three days out from Benn’s 157-pound catchweight fight with Chris Eubank Jr. The BBBofC issued a statement refusing to sanction the fight. Ultimately, it was cancelled but only after much drama.
Clomifene is a fertility drug that boosts testosterone levels in men and can also be used as a masking agent.
Initially, it appeared that Matchroom and Eubank’s promoter, Wasserman Boxing, were going to move forward with the fight either by challenging the Board’s decision via court injunction or by using an outside commission.
The legal path that Matchroom was exploring centered on a technicality that has to do with the fact that the the testing agency responsible for producing Benn’s positive result was VADA, a well-known third party service that does not have an official relationship with the BBBofC, which has long worked in tandem with UK Anti-Doping. Eddie Hearn, the head of Matchroom, insisted that because the BBBofC does not "recognize" VADA and Benn was not suspended, they had a legitimate claim to go ahead and stage the event. Eubank Jr., moreover, was “comfortable” moving forward with the fight after speaking to Benn and getting medical advice, according to Hearn.
In a recent interview, Frank Smith, the CEO of Matchroom, seemed to suggest the confusion and rigamarole in the immediate aftermath of the Daily Mail report could have been prevented if there was absolute clarification about the BBBofC’s stance toward VADA.
“I think now is the time for the British Boxing Board of Control to look at their regulations and make it clearer,” Smith told iFL TV. “If they decide that any VADA testing moving forward will be accepted by the British Boxing Board of Control and that’s a rule as of this day forward, then everyone understands that. It’s just that the normal or standard process was not followed in this instance.”
Although all relevant parties were made aware by VADA of Benn’s test results on Sept. 23, the details were not made public until the Daily Mail article, thus casting Hearn and Co. in a negative light. Asked why it took so long for the organizers to respond to the findings, Smith pinned the onus on the BBBofC.
"Ultimately that’s a decision the Board made, a call they made,” Smith said. “I can’t say why it took that period of time. Look, being completely open to you, if they would have cancelled it 15 days before it would have been much easier for us as a business. We lost a lot of money in the whole situation. If we heard 15 days before, we would have been able to mitigate those losses as well."
“I would much rather [get a determination] 15 days before,” Smith continued. “If that was always going to be the outcome, then come out with it then, then it saves us a lot of money."
The BBBofC recently put out a statement that it is investigating Benn's drug results. The Daily Mail reported that Benn may have tested positive for clomifene on a separate occasion.
“I think what’s important to say is that if the Board today said moving forward all VADA tests are fully under our remit and we will accept them and same with UKAD tests and any positive tests, the steps are here, whether that it’s you can’t box until you’ve had the hearing and gone through the process, etc. Ultimately now is the time for them to look at their own rules.”