The majority of people feel that stopping the Chris Eubank Jr. vs. Conor Benn bout was the proper move, however a few people don’t.
Benn’s bout with Eubank Jr. was cancelled when it was discovered earlier this week that he had tested positive for the drug clomifene, which is prohibited.
The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBoC) declared the fight to be “prohibited” as soon as it was revealed that Benn had failed a drugs test.
The event organisers made an effort to appeal the decision, but they were unsuccessful.
Having said that, it was said in the joint statement from Matchroom Boxing and Wasserman Boxing that the BBBoC had acted “without due process,” which remained a “legal matter.”
Simon Jordan of talkSPORT, however, believes that the BBBoC made the correct decision. He stated, They’ve done their job; they could have faltered, backed down, looked at who has the biggest finances, and considered how this legal matter will play out, but they stood their ground.
I’m not saying they were faultless, but they did stand their ground.
Dean Whyte is one of the minority who believes that the event should have gone on regardless of the negative results from the drug test.
Most read in Boxing
It’s unfortunate that it has unravelled, Whyte said to Boxing Social.
“In my opinion, the defendant should have the presumption of innocence, the prosecution should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the altercation should have taken place.
“Some people talk about the interests of the sport, but listen, these men are fighting guys who are likely using drugs while they were unaware of it, so hey listen, I don’t know.
“I understand that you want clean athletes, but at the same time, we don’t want to punish somebody before they have been proven guilty; the proof must be there.
It’s one of them since he has already been found guilty before they have even heard the case.
OFFER OF THE DAY
Choose your winner at BetVictor, Arsenal OR Liverpool, at an improved 50/1!
* -PURCHASE HERE
