Benn fails drug test

How can Frank Warren be so bold in his statements about fighters from other promotional stables failing drug tests when most of his fights don't have VADA testing? It's important for there to be as much drug testing as possible in the sport. Dave Allen said he hasn't had any drug tests for his fight with Fraser Clarke. These promoters also need to answer questions about this on platforms like Talksport, just like Hearn had to answer questions regarding how he dealt with the drug tests Benn failed.

 

Because he dealt with it appallingly.

He had to answer them because he tried to get a fight on despite knowing his fighter had failed 2 tests. Just like when he went ahead with Whyte v Rivas despite knowing Whyte had failed.

 

And I agree with that. My point is that we should also be asking why there is only regular additional drug testing in the UK on Matchroom shows rather than the other 2 big promotional companies in the UK. How can a PPV main event have no drug testing apart from UKAD?

Why doesn't the interviewer ask Warren why he petitioned the commission to let BJS fight even though he failed a drugs test in 2018? Has he ever answered that question ?@ALN93

 

Damage limitation / reverse psychology from Matchroom. They’ve seen the flack they’ve received after trying to cover up the Benn failed test so started with the ‘but we’re the only company who have extra’ and trying to shift the narrative. Can read it a mile off.

 

If you make a system where you can just ensure the B isn't on gear then there is no point in testing.

They should all test more, but MR way to make sure the A side isn't on the end of one is morally worse.

 

Don’t know mate I can’t recall Warren interviews from 5 years ago. 2 wrongs don’t make a right though.

 

This content is protected

It’s a valid point. Frank Smith kept Benn’s failed drug test from his wife who is Eubank’s brother.

 

Just because one promoter decides to do more testing, is an irrelevance. Promoters should do as the commissions require, and if they feel more should be done, lobby other promoters to improve the commission.

The problem here, in my view, is Matchroom trying to behave more like a global promoter and treating the BBBoC as a small thorn in their boxing empire. Matchroom wants to look bigger and chooses to align with the NFL/NBA/MLB's preferred drug testing almost as a status symbol rather than a necessity. The "small hall promoter" chat this past week is evidence of this whole attitude and there's just no place for it.

Promoters got together after Michael Watson to make events a lot safer, and there's no reason they couldn't pressure the BBBoC to do more via UKAD and invest in it between them.

 

I never actually thought about that

That's a bit of a liberty really

 

Low blow from Warren to get personal there to be honest. I don’t get the hate for Frank Smith. He seems like a guy who has worked hard and content to be in the position he is in. It’s ironic as Dev Sahni is much worse than Frank Smith. Frank Warren may be a little envious that Frank Smith has been arranging fights and having meetings in the UK, US, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia.

 

Warren is a hall of fame promoter, he’s forgotten more than Little Frank knows.

It’s absolutely shite from Little Frank to try and send a roided fighter in with the brother of his wife, especially after she’d lost her other brother a few months before. It’s disgusting in fact and shows the morals of the man.

 

Warren is a crook who has robbed more people than Don King. If only Marsh had a better aim. Warren has been called utterly dishonest in court by a judge. He is a scumbag. He is as good a promoter as Shipman was a GP.

 

A bit? Zero morals from them.

 

Whilst I agree with your sentiment here and Smith is the typical nobody who has risen up through an organisation but would never manage anything on his own, I'm not sure Warren would win a battle of morals anytime soon.

 

The same reason all the other questions which should be asked of these guys never are? Boxing is deeply flawed and the relationship between the boxing media and the promoters is a perfect example.

I get your points about other organisations and they're valid, but no-one here with any nous holds any illusions about any of the other promoters. The issue in the Benn instance is that Eddie had previously positioned himself firmly on the side of integrity of competition and made massive mileage out of Matchroom's stance on out of competition testing and requiring VADA testing. He'd rightly been praised for it, which only served to make the difference between words and actions in the Benn case so stark and, frankly disgraceful.

As Bob says above, the willingness to sideline the BBBoC, which for all its many faults is the only thing resembling an organisation meant to defend and support UK boxing just to get one second rate boxer with an A list surname back without consequence from two failed tests made him look a bigger hypocrite than all the rest of the shysters promoting fights put together.

I've no wish to join in the chorus shouting you down, like your insights and RBR coverage etc. However, I find all the stuff about it not being MR's job to police boxing risible, no-one's asking them to. They do however share a moral duty of care that extends to anyone involved in a potentially lethal sport, even down to ourselves as fans. Part of that involves showing respect for the efforts of authorities to maintain the rules and oversight in place, inadequate as they may be.

Incidentally, I think all of the above should be obvious to the point of not needing to be said.