Conor Benn cleared to return to WBC rankings following his ‘eggs’ explanation for failed drugs test

Conor Benn has been allowed to reclaim his place in the World Boxing Council rankings after the sanctioning body controversially ruled on Wednesday that his positive drug tests may have been caused by eating too many eggs.

In a verdict that has drawn attention in the sport, the WBC accepted that the first of its failed clomiphene tests, compiled by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association in July, could have been the result of a diet Benn was apparently eating on. to 34 eggs a week.

The WBC found that “there was no conclusive evidence that Mr. Benn intentionally or knowingly ingested clomiphene,” but in a surprising development revealed that contamination had not actually been the primary goal of his defense, which favored attacking the processes. VADA test.

Indeed, having pushed back against such criticism from Benn’s VADA legal team, the WBC claimed in a statement on Wednesday that it was only earlier this month that the fighter’s lawyers provided a detailed breakdown of the fighter’s nutritional intake, i.e. , the gap between the delivery of key evidence and the verdict of a complex case was just three weeks. Leading boxing figures have privately questioned the soundness of the WBC investigation.

‘People think YouTube boxers are a joke. The WBC is the real joke,’ Carl Frampton said.

WBC believes Conor Benn provided a ‘reasonable explanation’ for his failed drug tests

The WBC also concluded that Benn did not intentionally ingest the banned substance clomiphene.

The WBC ruling made no reference to Benn’s second positive for the same substance in September, which was first disclosed by Sportsmail and led to the postponement of Benn’s October fight with Chris Eubank Jr.

Despite the WBC using its term-limit to clear Benn to return to his welterweight ranking, the 26-year-old, who has vociferously protested his innocence, is still not free to fight on a Board show. of British Boxing Control in this country due to the ongoing UK Anti-Doping parallel investigation.

In a forceful statement on Wednesday evening, Board Secretary General Robert Smith said: ‘The BBBoC has adopted the UK’s anti-doping rules, and those were part of the rules to which Mr Benn was bound. . As such, the WBC’s decision does not affect the ongoing implementation of the BBBoC rules.

‘The UK anti-doping rules clarify what conduct constitutes an anti-doping rule violation as defined in those rules (and the World Anti-Doping Code) and specifically set out the circumstances in which such violations may be committed through strict control. responsibility.’

UKAD defines the principle of strict liability as meaning that an athlete is solely responsible for what appears in their system, regardless of how it got there. By contrast, the WBC was satisfied that Benn had no intention of doping. UKAD has not commented.

Smith added: “The BBBoC has not been a party to the review conducted by the WBC and has not been provided with any evidence submitted on behalf of Mr. Benn.”

In its statement, the WBC said: “On August 23, 2022, Mr. Benn and the World Boxing Council were notified by the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association that the A urine sample collected from him on July 25, 2022, in connection with his participation in the WBC/VADA anti-doping testing program resulted in an adverse analytical finding for clomiphene and its hydroxymetabolites MI and M2.

Clomiphene is a metabolic modulator that promotes testosterone production and increases testosterone levels while burning fat.

On August 30, 2022, the WBC notified Mr. Benn of the adverse finding and requested the necessary information and materials to investigate the circumstances of the adverse finding. The WBC did not receive a substantive response until December 2022.

Mr. Benn denied at all times the intentional or knowing ingestion of any prohibited substance. His defense against the Adverse Finding focused on allegations of possible laboratory testing failures and irregularities in connection with the analysis of his samples and sample test results.

The WBC consulted several experts in anti-doping laboratory analysis, including an expert consultant with more than 30 years of experience in WADA and IOC accredited laboratories.

The WBC concluded that there was absolutely no fault attributable to the laboratory that analyzed Mr. Benn’s samples. In addition, the WBC reaffirms the unquestioned integrity of VADA and the sample collection agencies and laboratories that provide services to VADA.

Benn’s fight with Chris Eubank Jr was called off after the former failed two drug tests

“It was not until early January 2023 that the WBC Results Management Unit was able to conduct the full and substantive analysis of Mr. Benn’s arguments and defenses. On January 26, 2023, members of the WBC Results Management Unit held a consultation session with Mr. Benn and members of his legal team. In early February 2023, Mr. Benn’s team provided for the first time a detailed breakdown of Mr. Benn’s diet and supplement intake that could have directly affected the adverse outcome.

‘The WBC availed itself of the services of an expert nutritionist. WBC experts provided information on the characteristics of the substance in question in this case and examples of similar adverse findings in various sports, under a diverse number of anti-doping programs.

‘The decision of the WBC Board of Governors was based on: (1) the facts known to the WBC at the time of the decision; (2) any mitigating circumstances applicable to the specific case at hand; (3) WBC rulings in prior anti-doping violation cases; (4) the unbiased, common sense and fair analysis and recommendations of the WBC Results Management Unit; and (5) credible and reliable scientific and health-related literature.

‘The WBC found that: (1) there was no conclusive evidence that Mr. Benn engaged in the intentional or knowing ingestion of clomiphene; (2) there were no procedural failures related to sample collection, sample analysis, or violations of Mr. Benn’s B Sample rights that would justify challenging or invalidating the Adverse Finding; and (3) Mr. Benn’s documented very high consumption of eggs during the periods relevant to sample collection provided a reasonable explanation for the adverse finding.’