Hearn Wants Eubank-Benn In December, Warren Calls Benn To Have UKAD Hearing

Eddie Hearn is looking to make a fight between Conor Benn and Chris Eubank Jr. by the end of the year.

The two boxers were on course to face each other over a year ago, only for the fight to be pulled after Benn failed two VADA tests for Clomiphene. Thereafter, Benn was suspended by UKAD despite protesting his innocence. In response, the National Anti-Doping Agency removed the suspension, while UKAD and the British Boxing Board of Control appealed it. As of now, Benn will box in Orlando, Florida, on September 23rd, 2023, against Rodolfo Orozco. Thereafter, Hearn was targeting the Benn-Eubank fight.

“We want the Eubank fight. It’s the biggest fight in British boxing, outside AJ v Fury and right up there with it. We want to fight in the UK. Conor won his case. He was cleared, his suspension was lifted and I keep hearing this ‘he was not cleared’. If he wasn’t cleared he wouldn’t be allowed to fight on Saturday.

“So our plan, ideally, is to fight Chris Eubank Jr in the UK in December. We’ve already had offers from a number of international venues to stage that fight, but I would like to try and make that fight in the UK,” Hearn said

Nevertheless, Frank Warren has hit out at Benn’s upcoming fight. The Queensbury Promoter took issue with Benn’s supposed defence.

Warren stressed that the defense had nothing to do with the issue of whether Clomiphene was in his system, or if it was a case of contamination.

This was vital since the issue of strict liability will crop up, with fighters being responsible for what is in their system regardless of intention.

However, Warren revealed that the defense was based on jurisdictional grounds, that being, whether UKAD could enforce VADA testing. And on top of that, Warren urged Benn to have a hearing if he felt he was innocent. 

“There has been no hearing for him to explain why those prohibited substances he tested positive for where in his system. He has given no explanation to UKAD who do that on behalf of the board. He has not done that. They had a hearing where they argued quite successfully – his lawyer is a top guy – about jurisdiction. It shouldn’t be about jurisdiction. It should be ‘Why is that in your system? How did it get in there? Please give us a valid explanation and by the way, we want to look at the B sample as well…If he says he’s not been juicing then have the hearing with UKAD,” Warren

You might also like

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More