Before a promised statement this week in which Conor Benn will shed light on the banned substance found in his system, Eddie Hearn has said that the situation may point towards contamination.
Shock and disappointment rippled throughout the boxing world when the Daily Mail broke the news that Conor Benn had failed a Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency drug test in the lead up to his fight with Chris Eubank Jr. The event was pulled and Benn found himself in the undesirable position of having to clear his name.
With news that he’ll attempt to do so this week via media interviews, Eddie Hearn has given an insight into what the fighter might say. As captured by Boxing UK, Benn’s promoter has said the information they have may suggest contamination.
“The reason I say it [the B sample] doesn’t matter – of course it matters – but in terms of contamination which is… Everything in the results of this test – which you’ll hear from [Conor about], I have to be careful I want to tell you more – leads to a contamination.”
“When I talk about contamination, contamination can happen in a lab and contamination can happen via various different means during a process. The B sample will only necessarily come back negative if there’s been a contamination or a mistake in the laboratory. It’s the same sample, so 99.9% of the time the B sample will be exactly the same. It’s been requested. I don’t know the testing process with Conor, you’ll hear from him. I would expect it to come back positive as well, in all honesty. It generally always does. If it doesn’t, fantastic.
“But the levels in this amount, surrounded by the other testing that took place, would lead to suggestion of contamination of some kind in this test.”
It wouldn’t be the first time that a boxer has claimed contamination after an adverse test result, and it certainly won’t be the last. The issue for Benn here is how strong a case he can make for fans, fighters, and pundits to get back on his side. Not only that, an investigation by the UK Anti-Doping Agency and British Boxing Board of Control looms, and, given the profile of the case, it’s unlikely they’ll be lenient.