Conor Benn vs Chris Eubank Jr: Here We Go Again, But Are We Any Closer To The Truth?

Conor Benn vs Chris Eubank Jr: Here We Go Again, But Are We Any Closer To The Truth?

Conor Benn hasn’t been convicted of any doping offence and is legally allowed to fight again anytime he wants. But not quite anywhere he wants. And there lies the problem. In boxing, legally and morally carry very different meanings. A sport where the truth and outright lies are incredibly hard to distinguish.

The announcement of his ring return is imminent, it will be outside of the UK and is heavily rumoured that it will be against Chris Eubank Jr and a return to where it all started. And where it all came crashing down so spectacularly last October. The original fight always had an air of the uncomfortable about it. The second incarnation even more so. It will undoubtedly make an obscene amount of money for all involved. Obscene the keyword. The dollar is the true governing body in boxing.

Benn isn’t currently banned by any sanctioning or governing body and can carry on regardless despite the weight of public opinion almost certianly against him doing so, and says the WBC has cleared him of any deliberate intent of a doping offence. The much-anticipated WBC statement read:

‘There was no conclusive evidence that Mr Benn engaged in intentional or knowing ingestion of clomiphene.’

But even Benn disputes how they reached that conclusion, citing irregularities in the testing procedures as his main line of defence. Something that the WBC dispute:

‘There were no failures in the procedures related to sample collection, sample analysis, or violations of Mr Benn’s B Sample rights that would justify questioning or invalidating the adverse finding.’ 

The only thing everyone can agree on is that nobody is happy or satisfied with that long-awaited WBC statement. It took an age to arrive, and when it did it left us with even more questions and very few answers. If any.

Benn says he has been cleared, but there is nothing clear in this sorry shameful mess that is still rumbling on all these months on. It has been nothing but a PR disaster, and I still can’t work out if Benn is paying an awful lot of money for incredibly bad advice or ignoring very good advice. It could and should have been handled better.

When the story first broke last October, I said we shouldn’t presume Benn is guilty, but equally, we shouldn’t presume he isn’t. Many will argue we are still at that very same point all these months on. Benn is fully entitled to due process and a fair hearing, but equally, I don’t believe he should be allowed anywhere near a boxing ring until he has had that hearing with the British Boxing Board of Control.

The stubbornness, or worse, not to put his 270-page expensively prepared dossier in front of the British Boxing Board of Control, can’t seriously be defended or excused despite attempts to do exactly that. At some point, he has to. Even Benn must accept that. Innocent or not, it looks like he is avoiding or running from the truth. I’m not saying he is, Benn has his reasons for not handing over the document to the Board, but perception is everything in the eye of public opinion.

The initial attempt to clear his name by the WBC route does at least carry some validity, but it is by far the easiest option to take. Without the shackles of strict liability to contend with, certainly not to the degree he would have elsewhere, Benn was offered somewhat of a free pass by the WBC. The British Boxing Board of Control are highly unlikely to be as generous to Benn. There can’t be much doubt that Benn will have a much harder time proving his innocence on British soil. Benn still vigorously protests his innocence and I have every sympathy with Benn if everything he is saying surrounding his claims that he is a clean athlete is true, but he needs to prove his innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. The public view is that Benn hasn’t reached that point just yet.

Failed drug tests are not treated seriously enough, and in truth, never have been in boxing and the sport needs to seriously tighten up all the various loopholes that exist that still allow boxers to hide behind procedural flaws and expensive lawyers. A unified stance on the basics would be a start. The sport badly needs to clean up its act and those that reside in it and make money from it even more so. The worrying thing in the Benn case is that he is now a far more marketable fighter than he was before this all started. And while controversy undoubtedly sells and always will, there is still nothing about that fact that should be celebrated.

But regardless of any moral issues, the Conor Benn boxing career will start up again in June, and if the old rivalry is reignited then at least Eubank is a better option than the likes of Kell Brook or Manny Pacquiao, although both of those fighters are still possible for the big relaunch, if the Eubank fight doesn’t get over the line which is a distinct possibility if the British Boxing Board of Control do not give Eubank permission to box Benn. The Board has already indicated that they are unlikely to do so. Another little problem to overcome, and one that will involve even more litigation. If only there was another more clear cut way forward. Oh wait. There is.

The hope is the ‘comeback’ fight is followed by Benn and the British Boxing Board of Contol finally resolving their many differences, which admittedly does seem highly unlikely at the time of writing with bitter legal arguments already in play, but the current stand-off can not continue. At some point, Benn will have to face the music in his native land, and the whole saga that started last October when the Daily Mail published that infamous article needs a definitive conclusion and not one that is still clouded in deep suspicion.

I am reminded of that famous line that Jack Nicholson uttered in A Few Good Men: “You can’t handle the truth,” maybe some people can’t, but we still need to find it. And soon.

Photo Credit: Mark Robinson/Matchroom Boxing