By Norm Frauenheim
The furor is familiar. So is the futility.
Nothing like a positive drug test to generate big headlines, especially in boxing at a time when big fights are more rumor than real.
It’s hard to know if Errol Spence Jr.-Terence Crawford is on, off or just more talk. Spence suggests on Twitter Wednesday that the fight will still happen.
But the biggest welterweight bout in years has been on and off more often than Tyson Fury has been in and out of retirement.
The state of the game? Let’s just say it’s in a state of disrepair, which brings us back to the game’s only real news — the positive drug test that forced Conor Benn-versus-Chris Eubank Jr. off its scheduled date Saturday in London.
The fight, an Eddie Hearn-promoted exercise in nostalgia between the sons of fathers from a memorable UK rivalry in the 1990s, is off. Benn, a welterweight preparing to fight at 157-pounds, tested positive for something called clomiphene, reported to be a women’s fertility drug. (Insert lousy joke here.) The substance also is reported to increase testosterone in men. (Insert confusion here.)
It’s the confusion that reigns, of course. The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBofC) “prohibited” the bout, saying it was “not in the interests of boxing” Wednesday following news of Benn’s positive test in the Daily Mail.
Injunctions were threatened. Contradictory statements delivered. Look for all of that to continue, ad nauseam.
For now, however, there’s no fight, although Hearn is reportedly shopping for a new date, new location and a commission known more for sports washing than regulation.
Hearn contends that Benn has not been suspended. Benn, he says, tested positive only in the so-called A-sample. It’s not clear when results from a B-sample will be disclosed. Then again, it’s not clear whether there was – or is –a B-sample.
From A-to-Z, it’s a mess.
Another one.
At one level, it’s reminiscent of what transpired in a PED flap surrounding former junior-lightweight champion Oscar Valdez Jr. in September of 2021. He tested positive for something called phentermine, reported to be a stimulant that helps in losing weight. Valdez was allowed to fight, beating Robson Conceicao at a casino on Native American land near Tucson
But he fought only because of confusion over what qualifies as a PED and what doesn’t. It depends on location, location, location and acronym, acronym, acronym.
Both Benn and Valdez tested positive for substances banned by VADA. Both were positive in random VADA tests conducted weeks before the scheduled opening bell.
But the Valdez-Conceicao happened because the fight was regulated by the Pascua Yaqui, which adhered to a PED list and rules used by WADA not VADA. Only one letter separates the acronyms. But there’s a huge difference between the W and the V.
Phentermine is not illegal if not found on the day of the fight, according to WADA.
It is prohibited at all times by VADA.
Call it a loophole. Call it a devil in the details. Whatever, Valdez fought, amid a social-media outcry of condemnation directed at him and anybody associated with the Top Rank bout.
Now, there’s Benn-Eubank. The difference is that it’s not happening, at least not now. But the same sort of loophole remains. According to a deal between the two fighters, they agreed to non-binding VADA testing. VADA prohibits clomiphene. But the UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD), which tests for the BBBofC, does not.
Only the BBBofC, however, has final say-so on whether to proceed with the fight. It said no, unlike the Pascua Yaqui
The mystery is why this loophole still exists at all. During contract negotiations, shouldn’t the promoters and representatives of each fighter get together and agree on one testing authority – WADA or VADA or UKAD? Pick the acronym and abide by what it bans.
Close the loophole before the sport itself gets banned.
 | ReplyForward |
