IN the end, boxing did the right thing but for a while there it looked like the money men would have their way and the Conor Benn v Chris Eubank jnr fight would go ahead.
That would have been a disgrace for boxing, a crime against sport in general and just plain wrong into the bargain but thankfully good sense prevailed and the bill was cancelled.
Vast sums of money have been lost, Saturday night plans have been ruined, undercard fighters including Derry’s Connor Coyle have missed out on a chance to shine, so no-one is happy about it but it had to be done.
After all, what’s the point of drug testing at all if, when someone fails, we look the other way?
I was one of the 17 million viewers who watched Benn and Eubank snr lock horns in their bitter blood feud 30 years ago and I’d been looking forward to the class of 2022 for weeks.
I was confident that Eubank jnr would have too much for Benn but we’ll never know now and the blame for that is solely down to Benn.
Of all sports, boxing cannot tolerate doping because you are literally talking about life and death in the ring. Doping doesn’t put on weight, it puts on power and that is very dangerous.
The sorry affair has thrown up many questions. Among them is the testing system of UKAD (UK AntiDoping).
Why didn’t their tests detect the clomiphene that showed up in the VADA test? Then there’s the whole morality-versus-money issue in boxing.
Despite Benn’s positive test coming to light, Eddie Hearn had argued that there was: “No reason, in terms of suspension, or violations, the fight should not take place.”
His point was that the British Boxing Board of Control – quite rightly in my opinion – withdrew their agreement to sanction the contest around 24 hours before it was officially cancelled.
But here is the sticking point.
The BBBofC doesn’t recognise VADA testing, they work solely on UKAD testing and Benn didn’t fail any UKAD tests.
It was only after extensive legal talks yesterday afternoon that the promoters pulled the plug and with millions lost in revenue there will be repercussions.
A statement from Hearn’s Matchroom fired a shot across the bows of ‘the Board’.
“It is undeniable that the British Boxing Board of Control’s decision to withdraw their sanctioning was procedurally flawed and without due process,” it read.
“That remains a legal issue between the promoters and the Board which we intend to pursue.”
If Hearn is searching for someone to blame, he should remember that it was his fighter’s positive test, not the BBBofC, that led to the fight being cancelled.
The BBBofC are innocent bystanders.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
WHEN our forefathers dreamt up the game of Gaelic Football, they could not have foreseen a match like the Down senior championship semi-final between Mayobridge and Kilcoo last Sunday night.
If the early games of Gaelic Football had been played in the manner of what was served up in Pairc Esler I doubt very much if it would have survived the winter of 1884.
I understand that semi-finals are all about winning but it was awful stuff. I don’t intend to be overly-critical of the players and management of the clubs and you have to admire both sides for their fitness levels and discipline.
You also have to acknowledge that Mayobridge were without their best scoring forward Corey Quinn and were up against the All-Ireland champions and so their management came up with a strategic, defensive gameplan to keep the ball and keep the score down in the hope of winning and it did seem like 1-0 would have done.
For their gameplan to work, everything they kicked had to go over the bar. If their handful of wides had been scores maybe the ’Bridge would have won and made the final and perhaps we’d now be talking about a tactical masterstroke?
But they didn’t and so Mayobridge – the club that produced attacking artists like Mickey Linden and Benny Coulter - were shackled by fear of losing the ball and they left the field having managed just four points. Only one game from play.
Kilcoo retreated behind the ball, hunting turnovers and so Mayobridge took no chances and the report of a drab affair could have been written at half-time because the final result was so predictable and inevitable.
I felt sorry for the players. They are given little or no chance to express themselves – there’s no licence to go on a solo run, to take a man on, to try a shot. Many of them come off the field having played no football at all.
Sunday’s match was played within the rules of the game so the rules of the game have to change. We have to encourage teams to kick the ball and to attack and at the same time discourage the every-man-behind-the-ball drudgery.
What’s my solution? Bring in a rule that makes teams keep a minimum of four players in the opposition half.
Can it be enforced? Of course it can and any forward worth their salt isn’t going to argue against it.
