‘Innocent until proven guilty’ – Dean Whyte says Chris Eubank Jr vs Conor Benn should have gone ahead despite Benn’s positive drugs test

Most people believe it was the right decision to call off the Chris Eubank Jr vs Conor Benn fight, but there are a few who disagree.

It was revealed earlier this week that Benn had tested positive for the banned substance, clomifene, and his fight with Eubank Jr was subsequently called off.

Immediately after the news came out that Benn had failed a drugs test the BBBoC (British Boxing Board of Control) ruled that the fight was ‘prohibited’.

The events promoters attempted to battle the ruling, but they were unsuccessful.

With that being said, in Matchroom Boxing and Wasserman Boxing’s joint statement they said that the BBBoC had acted ‘without due process’ which remained a ‘legal issue’.

talkSPORT’s Simon Jordan, however, thinks that the BBBoC did the right thing, as he said, “They’ve done their job, they could have wilted, they could have backed down they could have looked at the economics of who has the biggest pockets and how this legal thing is going to play out, but they stood their ground.

“Now, I’m not suggesting they are perfect, but they stood their ground.”

Meanwhile, Dean Whyte is one of the few who thinks the event should have gone ahead despite the failed drugs test.

“It’s a shame that it’s come undone,” Whyte told Boxing Social.

“I think the guy should be innocent until proven guilty and they should be given the benefit of the doubt and the fight should have gone ahead.

“Some people talk about the interests of the sport, listen, these guys are fighting guys who are probably on drugs and they didn’t know, so hey listen, I don’t know.

“It is tricky because you want clean athletes, I get it, but at the same time, we don’t want to do this to guys without being proven guilty, the evidence needs to be there.

“Right now he’s being proven guilty before they’ve even heard the case, so it’s one of them.”