There's not just a problem with whether UKAD can stop the fight because the failed drug test was carried out by VADA - which is not affiliated to WADA like UKAD.
It may be the case that Benn isn't liable to the usual WADA/UKAD punishments which is a 4 year suspension - or 2 years if the athlete can prove they didn't deliberately ingest the drug.
If both of these problems are true then the BBBofC will need to tighten their rules.
Hearn's lawyers will probably argue that Benn hasn't actually failed a drug test yet because the B-sample hasn't confirmed the A-sample. Unfortunately, it seems a pretty strong case.
However the BBBofC lawyers could argue that boxing isn't like other sports, such as running or cycling, and that the very real possibility that Benn has used a drug to gain muscle mass will increase the danger to the opponent - so this is why they don't want to sanction the bout. It might work.
Hearn has shown his true colours with regard to drugs in boxing and it seems DAZN have the same attitude. This isn't unusual as everyone involved in running boxing in some way couldn't give a stuff about drugs in boxing. It's easy to tell this is the case as there are no proper drug testing protocols, except the year round VADA contracts paid for by only 4 fighters (Donaire, Joshua, Whyte & Katie Taylor), and then even if a fighter is caught by one of the lousy testing protocols that exist in boxing they only get a pathetic 6 month suspension. At least the BBBofC/UKAD issue 4 year suspensions which might actually make fighters think that using PEDs isn't worth the risk.
[Incidentally before anyone claims that this case is just like the Dillian Whyte case before the Rivas fight - it isn't - Whyte had enough evidence to prove his innocence without needing to open the B-sample. This is allowed by the WADA protocol]
I'm afraid Warren is showing his ignorance of the testing process with that comment.
UKAD test every single sportsman in the UK, amateur and pro, and so they tend not to carry out as much testing on a boxer during a camp as VADA do.
Using VADA and UKAD together is very common for UK fights, although not with Warren, as it increases the number of tests that the fighters have to take and pass.
This has been shown to be important in many cases and has been yet again with this one because Benn failed the VADA test and then later in the camp, when the PED was out of his system, passed the UKAD test - if only UKAD had been used then he wouldn't have been caught.
The problem arises with the BBBofC rules - if they can't apply the results from the VADA tests then what was the point in them? If this is true, it may not be, then the BBBofC will have to tighten up their rules. I only hope that the BBBofC don't get forced to allow the fight to go ahead.
Do you have more actual hands-on experience in boxing matters than Warren et al?
The BBBoC could easily change its rules to recognise UKAD or VADA. Big Dan said during an interview that the Nevada Boxing Commission when it wanted "enhanced" testing, it used VADA. As we have seen for ourselves, VADA's tests are more thorough and independent.
How is it common to have both tests if Warren does not routinely use them?
btw, someone mentioned that Hearn years ago, when he was not involved, asked the obvious question that Warren asked
It is obvious that both parties did not trust UKAD. Why incurred the extra dollars and risk if they trusted UKAD? They have been proven right.
The BBBoC has the "in best interests of boxing" clause which makes it very hard for any court to reverse its decisions. Of course, its decisions must be rational. What is more rational than relying on the test results that both parties voluntarily undertook?
That Nevada BC also uses?
AND WHY DID HEARN et al keep quiet over this matter? Without the leaks, they would have carried on merrily.
Suggestions:
1. BBBoC must publicised all testing results - UKAD, VADA, and any one else - 48 hours after the parties were involved. Or the govt - which is fond of mandates - can impose it.
1a.BBBoC also recognises the results from VADA.
2. If #1 does not occur, then all journalists and those involved with boxing coverage need to remember this episode and ask the promoters constantly if they are withholding positive results, right up until they walk into the ring.
Firstly, I would put my knowledge of drug testing up against Frank Warren's any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'm more than just a bit confident because of the various drivel and total bullshit he's come out with in the past - the guy doesn't understand any of the complexities of the drug testing protocols.
I've already explained why using VADA in addition to UKAD is a good idea if a promoter is serious about catching the dopers - it's nothing to do with trust.
I even gave you an example where using both VADA and UKAD helped a fighter, Dillian Whyte, to prove his innocence when UKAD returned an AAF.
Also in this very case with Benn, UKAD alone wouldn't have caught him because his system was clean when they chose to do the random sample but it was "dirty", at least the A-sample was, when VADA took their random sample earlier in the training camp.
Frank Warren, does not use VADA unless a sample is needed under the WBC CBP, he usually only uses UKAD which is cheaper but you probably aren't going to catch any doper who actually knows his stuff - or his team knows their stuff.
From Warren's various comments in the past, he seems to think that VADA send over a sampler from the US who goes about things completely differently from the UKAD sampler - and that they then use different labs or something.
Nothing of the sort - there are sampling companies in Europe and the UK (as well as the US of course), and VADA contract out the sampling job to one of these companies, it may even be the same one that does the work for UKAD - maybe the same person - no I've gone too far there!
Once the sampler gets the sample from the athlete they have to escort the sample - they can't leave it unguarded - until they deposit the sample at the WADA accredited lab chosen to do the analysis - in the UK that's UKAD's labs at King's College in London (BTW VADA don't have their own labs they usually use the WADA affiliated labs at UCLA in LA or SMRTL in Salt Lake City). The lab then informs whoever (VADA or UKAD) of the results.
This means that the cost of using VADA in addition to UKAD is higher but it isn't ridiculously higher and there are various advantages of using both.
Finally, you'll be pleased to know that there's no real need for the BBBofC to change their rules after the recent comment from UKAD. According to UKAD they are allowed to get information about a person's doping from any source and VADA is regarded as a very reliable source.
Therefore if a UK fighter is popped by VADA for a drug that is on the WADA banned list (VADA's banned list is slightly different) they will be charged with doping by UKAD. Therefore the BBBofC would suspend them on that basis.
You are an anonymous person and you can make any assertion you want. Do you know I am a billionaire? See?
You admitted that UKAD , as we have seen, is not totally reliable. Perhaps "trust" was not the apt word; "reliable" was more accurate.
Re Whyte
Are you suggesting that Eddie et al will use conflicting UKAD and VADA results against BBBoC? You implied that VADA's tests are more sensitive and accurate. Have you seen Eddie's own words on drugs? This is why in any legal matter one's words are vulnerable and hence they are advised to be remain silent, until advised otherwise.
Someone mentioned that Clomifene stays in a system for 4-5 days. Thus we need to know UKAD's tests - timing and nature - on Benn. A proper investigation will address that question, and others.
According to you, UKAD does NOT test as extensively as VADA and hence it is el cheapo. Warren is canny with a pound or two. Fair enough - he goes by the rules.
Based on what you said, it appears that the VADA's result is legit - that Hearn et al did not contest it immediately was revealing. Again, we are discussing issues and jabbing Hearn; I say nothing about Benn.
Thanks for the info re BBBoC - which is sensible. None of the pundits, certainly not Fast Eddie, mentioned it. From what I read and watched, BBBoC can whack a fight using that very broad clause, provided it is sensible, of course. However, it cannot nix a fighter unless UKAD caught him/her.
As an side, since the fight is off, can we presume Eubank has resumed to his bedroom "training"? :) That was a classic line from him. Imagine him and Fury in a fantasy fight - their banters would win Olympic gold!
UKAD are not unreliable - contamination or false positives can happen to any drug testing agency.
UKAD doesn't only use drug tests to catch athletes they now use investigators and they will also investigate information from those who claim that they're aware that someone is doping.
This is why they say that they can use VADA data in an investigation about a fighter's doping.
Once they've done that and declared that the fighter is guilty of doping they are entitled to inform the BBBofC and then the BBBofC can punish the fighter by suspending them.
UKAD have refused to say whether they're investigating Benn or not - but that's just their general policy of saying nothing until they make a decision - I think we can safely assume that they'll be looking into this case.
UKAD tests everyone in amateur and professional sport in the UK - that is far more testing than the likes of VADA. They take private contracts from professional bodies such as the BBBofC but personally I don't think they understand the boxing business.
UKAD has caught many boxers doping but almost all of them are not the top names and many are amateurs - the only top pro names I can remember them catching is Kid Galahad and Ryan Martin (after the Taylor fight).
I think there's an advantage having a drug testing agency like VADA, that knows the boxing business. That said, I don't regard VADA as the shining light that some fans regard them - but that's another story.
Didn't Boxing just loose a fighter in the ring about 8 days ago (?), nothing to do with failed drug tests but it did happen and it is always a risk a very real risk in the ring...... So to give any one fighter an unfair advantage is insane to say the least, but greed is everywhere as are other personality traits we dont have to go into. And they wonder why boxing don't get coverage ? Why listen to lies, why hear out greedy promoters or stupid organizations that make rules and regulations to skip past them as the break them. Boxing anseres to no one but Boxing. Not boxing fans not dedicated Doctor's who know the risks not to anyone but promoters and platforms that bring the money in
As John McEnroe would scream "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!" that they cannot agree that a phone call took place!
I just wonder how real were all the boxing results - and I am not talking about score cards - since people tell bold-faced lies over something as factually trivial as whether two people had spoken over the phone!
From a distance, boxing is the sport equivalent of politics: it is so corrupt! People are mugs to pay good money to enable such corruption.
There's not just a problem with whether UKAD can stop the fight because the failed drug test was carried out by VADA - which is not affiliated to WADA like UKAD.
It may be the case that Benn isn't liable to the usual WADA/UKAD punishments which is a 4 year suspension - or 2 years if the athlete can prove they didn't deliberately ingest the drug.
If both of these problems are true then the BBBofC will need to tighten their rules.
Hearn's lawyers will probably argue that Benn hasn't actually failed a drug test yet because the B-sample hasn't confirmed the A-sample. Unfortunately, it seems a pretty strong case.
However the BBBofC lawyers could argue that boxing isn't like other sports, such as running or cycling, and that the very real possibility that Benn has used a drug to gain muscle mass will increase the danger to the opponent - so this is why they don't want to sanction the bout. It might work.
Hearn has shown his true colours with regard to drugs in boxing and it seems DAZN have the same attitude. This isn't unusual as everyone involved in running boxing in some way couldn't give a stuff about drugs in boxing. It's easy to tell this is the case as there are no proper drug testing protocols, except the year round VADA contracts paid for by only 4 fighters (Donaire, Joshua, Whyte & Katie Taylor), and then even if a fighter is caught by one of the lousy testing protocols that exist in boxing they only get a pathetic 6 month suspension. At least the BBBofC/UKAD issue 4 year suspensions which might actually make fighters think that using PEDs isn't worth the risk.
[Incidentally before anyone claims that this case is just like the Dillian Whyte case before the Rivas fight - it isn't - Whyte had enough evidence to prove his innocence without needing to open the B-sample. This is allowed by the WADA protocol]
I would like to hear Hearn et al do a rope-a-dope (geddit?) around Warren's question:
Michael Benson
@MichaelBensonn
·
4h
Frank Warren on Chris Eubank Jr vs Conor Benn: “Why have you signed up for VADA if you didn’t need to and were relying on UKAD tests?”
You vada answer, Ozzy?
I'm afraid Warren is showing his ignorance of the testing process with that comment.
UKAD test every single sportsman in the UK, amateur and pro, and so they tend not to carry out as much testing on a boxer during a camp as VADA do.
Using VADA and UKAD together is very common for UK fights, although not with Warren, as it increases the number of tests that the fighters have to take and pass.
This has been shown to be important in many cases and has been yet again with this one because Benn failed the VADA test and then later in the camp, when the PED was out of his system, passed the UKAD test - if only UKAD had been used then he wouldn't have been caught.
The problem arises with the BBBofC rules - if they can't apply the results from the VADA tests then what was the point in them? If this is true, it may not be, then the BBBofC will have to tighten up their rules. I only hope that the BBBofC don't get forced to allow the fight to go ahead.
https://twitter.com/Gilganjun1/status/1578291689126793216
https://web.archive.org/web/20221004160919/https://doctoruzmedical.com/
Do you have more actual hands-on experience in boxing matters than Warren et al?
The BBBoC could easily change its rules to recognise UKAD or VADA. Big Dan said during an interview that the Nevada Boxing Commission when it wanted "enhanced" testing, it used VADA. As we have seen for ourselves, VADA's tests are more thorough and independent.
How is it common to have both tests if Warren does not routinely use them?
btw, someone mentioned that Hearn years ago, when he was not involved, asked the obvious question that Warren asked
It is obvious that both parties did not trust UKAD. Why incurred the extra dollars and risk if they trusted UKAD? They have been proven right.
The BBBoC has the "in best interests of boxing" clause which makes it very hard for any court to reverse its decisions. Of course, its decisions must be rational. What is more rational than relying on the test results that both parties voluntarily undertook?
That Nevada BC also uses?
AND WHY DID HEARN et al keep quiet over this matter? Without the leaks, they would have carried on merrily.
Suggestions:
1. BBBoC must publicised all testing results - UKAD, VADA, and any one else - 48 hours after the parties were involved. Or the govt - which is fond of mandates - can impose it.
1a.BBBoC also recognises the results from VADA.
2. If #1 does not occur, then all journalists and those involved with boxing coverage need to remember this episode and ask the promoters constantly if they are withholding positive results, right up until they walk into the ring.
3.Fans should also ask the Benn question.
Firstly, I would put my knowledge of drug testing up against Frank Warren's any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I'm more than just a bit confident because of the various drivel and total bullshit he's come out with in the past - the guy doesn't understand any of the complexities of the drug testing protocols.
I've already explained why using VADA in addition to UKAD is a good idea if a promoter is serious about catching the dopers - it's nothing to do with trust.
I even gave you an example where using both VADA and UKAD helped a fighter, Dillian Whyte, to prove his innocence when UKAD returned an AAF.
Also in this very case with Benn, UKAD alone wouldn't have caught him because his system was clean when they chose to do the random sample but it was "dirty", at least the A-sample was, when VADA took their random sample earlier in the training camp.
Frank Warren, does not use VADA unless a sample is needed under the WBC CBP, he usually only uses UKAD which is cheaper but you probably aren't going to catch any doper who actually knows his stuff - or his team knows their stuff.
From Warren's various comments in the past, he seems to think that VADA send over a sampler from the US who goes about things completely differently from the UKAD sampler - and that they then use different labs or something.
Nothing of the sort - there are sampling companies in Europe and the UK (as well as the US of course), and VADA contract out the sampling job to one of these companies, it may even be the same one that does the work for UKAD - maybe the same person - no I've gone too far there!
Once the sampler gets the sample from the athlete they have to escort the sample - they can't leave it unguarded - until they deposit the sample at the WADA accredited lab chosen to do the analysis - in the UK that's UKAD's labs at King's College in London (BTW VADA don't have their own labs they usually use the WADA affiliated labs at UCLA in LA or SMRTL in Salt Lake City). The lab then informs whoever (VADA or UKAD) of the results.
This means that the cost of using VADA in addition to UKAD is higher but it isn't ridiculously higher and there are various advantages of using both.
Finally, you'll be pleased to know that there's no real need for the BBBofC to change their rules after the recent comment from UKAD. According to UKAD they are allowed to get information about a person's doping from any source and VADA is regarded as a very reliable source.
Therefore if a UK fighter is popped by VADA for a drug that is on the WADA banned list (VADA's banned list is slightly different) they will be charged with doping by UKAD. Therefore the BBBofC would suspend them on that basis.
?
You are an anonymous person and you can make any assertion you want. Do you know I am a billionaire? See?
You admitted that UKAD , as we have seen, is not totally reliable. Perhaps "trust" was not the apt word; "reliable" was more accurate.
Re Whyte
Are you suggesting that Eddie et al will use conflicting UKAD and VADA results against BBBoC? You implied that VADA's tests are more sensitive and accurate. Have you seen Eddie's own words on drugs? This is why in any legal matter one's words are vulnerable and hence they are advised to be remain silent, until advised otherwise.
Someone mentioned that Clomifene stays in a system for 4-5 days. Thus we need to know UKAD's tests - timing and nature - on Benn. A proper investigation will address that question, and others.
According to you, UKAD does NOT test as extensively as VADA and hence it is el cheapo. Warren is canny with a pound or two. Fair enough - he goes by the rules.
Based on what you said, it appears that the VADA's result is legit - that Hearn et al did not contest it immediately was revealing. Again, we are discussing issues and jabbing Hearn; I say nothing about Benn.
Thanks for the info re BBBoC - which is sensible. None of the pundits, certainly not Fast Eddie, mentioned it. From what I read and watched, BBBoC can whack a fight using that very broad clause, provided it is sensible, of course. However, it cannot nix a fighter unless UKAD caught him/her.
As an side, since the fight is off, can we presume Eubank has resumed to his bedroom "training"? :) That was a classic line from him. Imagine him and Fury in a fantasy fight - their banters would win Olympic gold!
UKAD are not unreliable - contamination or false positives can happen to any drug testing agency.
UKAD doesn't only use drug tests to catch athletes they now use investigators and they will also investigate information from those who claim that they're aware that someone is doping.
This is why they say that they can use VADA data in an investigation about a fighter's doping.
Once they've done that and declared that the fighter is guilty of doping they are entitled to inform the BBBofC and then the BBBofC can punish the fighter by suspending them.
UKAD have refused to say whether they're investigating Benn or not - but that's just their general policy of saying nothing until they make a decision - I think we can safely assume that they'll be looking into this case.
UKAD tests everyone in amateur and professional sport in the UK - that is far more testing than the likes of VADA. They take private contracts from professional bodies such as the BBBofC but personally I don't think they understand the boxing business.
UKAD has caught many boxers doping but almost all of them are not the top names and many are amateurs - the only top pro names I can remember them catching is Kid Galahad and Ryan Martin (after the Taylor fight).
I think there's an advantage having a drug testing agency like VADA, that knows the boxing business. That said, I don't regard VADA as the shining light that some fans regard them - but that's another story.
https://twitter.com/Gilganjun1/status/1578291689126793216
https://web.archive.org/web/20221004160919/https://doctoruzmedical.com/
Didn't Boxing just loose a fighter in the ring about 8 days ago (?), nothing to do with failed drug tests but it did happen and it is always a risk a very real risk in the ring...... So to give any one fighter an unfair advantage is insane to say the least, but greed is everywhere as are other personality traits we dont have to go into. And they wonder why boxing don't get coverage ? Why listen to lies, why hear out greedy promoters or stupid organizations that make rules and regulations to skip past them as the break them. Boxing anseres to no one but Boxing. Not boxing fans not dedicated Doctor's who know the risks not to anyone but promoters and platforms that bring the money in
As John McEnroe would scream "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!" that they cannot agree that a phone call took place!
I just wonder how real were all the boxing results - and I am not talking about score cards - since people tell bold-faced lies over something as factually trivial as whether two people had spoken over the phone!
From a distance, boxing is the sport equivalent of politics: it is so corrupt! People are mugs to pay good money to enable such corruption.
Absolute disgrace. It smacks of Whyte/Rivas. Hearn is a huge stain on boxing. Matchroom is a disaster. It's all coming out in the wash.