Since Conor Benn claimed he had been cleared by the UKAD, the organization has debunked this notion. They further clarified that Benn was only cleared by an independent anti-doping organization; the National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP), and they confirmed that Benn was no longer suspended. Further statements seem to suggest that the UKAD is not in agreement with NADP’s decision and that they will be looking to appeal the decision made by the NADP.

The UKAD has released their own statement following Conor Benn’s (21-0, 14 KO’s) message of having been cleared by the UKAD and NADP (National Anti-Doping Panel), but their messaging seems to not conclusively paint Benn as innocent. Instead, they indicated that they could appeal the decision which is not regularly expressed in these sort of messages.

Furthermore, their post could best be described as “decisively vague” with only a thorough examination of their statement providing the truth behind their words.

“In April 2023 UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) took the exceptional step of publicly disclosing details of Mr Conor Benn’s provisional suspension and charge following reports from the media and comments made by Mr Benn himself. UKAD’s statement also confirmed that the case would follow the Results Management process in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules.” A spokesperson of UKAD said, referring to when Conor Benn revealed he was suspended by the UKAD.

“Following reports in the media and comments made by professional boxer Mr Conor Benn on Tuesday 18 April 2023, and in exceptional circumstances, UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) confirms that Mr Benn was notified and provisionally suspended by UKAD on 15 March 2023 in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules. Whilst provisionally suspended Mr Benn is prohibited from participating in any capacity (or assisting another Athlete in any capacity) in a Competition, Event or activity that is organised, convened, authorised or recognised by the British Boxing Board of Control or any other World Anti-Doping Code-compliant sport. 

“UKAD can also confirm that on 3 April 2023 it charged Mr Benn with an Article 2.2 violation for the alleged Use of a Prohibited Substance (clomifene). The charge against Mr Benn is pending and will now follow the Results Management process in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules. 

“UKAD issues this statement in accordance with its Policy on Public disclosure of provisional suspensions and charges and Articles 7.10.7 and 7.11.5 of the UK Anti-Doping Rules. UKAD will not be providing any further comment at this stage.” 

UKAD’s inability to freely express what they intend to say has wrought some confusion following Conor Benn’s own statement of having being cleared by them. What has now been revealed, however, is that Conor Benn has not been cleared by the UKAD itself. Though the NADP, who are independent and separate from the UKAD, have cleared Benn which has lifted his suspension, the UKAD was not involved in that decision and can appeal.

The UKAD also mentioned that they would follow the Results Management process in accordance with the UK Anti-Doping Rules (which are the general standard of rules set by the World Anti-Doping Agency). This essentially means that they will be looking to appeal the NADP’s decision after having charged Conor Benn with an ADRV (Anti-Doping Rule Violations) months before.

The Results Management process refers to how the UKAD handles failed drug tests by athletes:

1. Sample Collection: Athletes provide urine or blood samples for testing to check for prohibited substances in their bodies.
2. Testing: The collected samples are analyzed in a specialized laboratory to detect any banned substances or performance-enhancing drugs.
3. ADRV Identification: If the test reveals the presence of prohibited substances above the allowed limits, it’s called an “Adverse Analytical Finding” (AAF). This means the athlete has potentially committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV).
4. Notification: UKAD informs the athlete about the AAF, detailing the substances found and the potential consequences.
5. Athlete Response: The athlete can either accept or dispute the results. If they disagree, they can present evidence to support their case.
6. Hearing: If the athlete disputes the findings, an independent panel reviews the evidence from both sides and decides whether an ADRV occurred or not.
7. Sanctions: If the panel finds the athlete guilty of an ADRV, they may face consequences like a ban from competition or other penalties.
8. Appeal: The athlete has the right to appeal the decision if they believe there were errors or unfairness in the process.

Given Ben was already banned, the only step left for the UKAD to do is to appeal the decision by the NAPD. As the UKAD is the United Kingdom’s main organization for anti-doping, any decision made by other independent organizations like the NAPD can be disputed.

The UKAD admitting they would follow the “the Results Management process” is merely a vague way to explain their intent to appeal the NADP’s decision. Due to the UKAD’s refusal to be clear and concise with their messaging, it is still a matter of debate on whether they will actually appeal, or are merely considering it.

As it stands, Conor Benn has not yet been conclusively cleared of his anti-doping violation charges, at least by the UKAD. Contrary to what the fighter himself has claimed earlier, the UKAD was not involved in this decision. It is important to state that the UK Anti-Doping Rules under which Benn was suspended are not the same as the UKAD’s own rules.

The UK Anti-Doping Rules are a set of rules and regulations that govern anti-doping efforts in sports worldwide. These rules are established and maintained by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is an independent international organization and is separate from the UKAD which is a national organization. The UKAD falls under the jurisdiction of WADA, and therefore the decisions enforced by WADA can only be appealed, not overturned, by the UKAD.

In summary, the UKAD appears to be in disagreement with the NADP’s decision to lift Benn’s suspension and they will be looking to appeal. This makes Conor Benn’s own statement regarding UKAD’s involvement quite disingenuous, or it could be a matter of being misinformed. As it stands now, Benn is still cleared to fight but this may not be the case depending on whether the UKAD appeals. If their appeal is successful, the initial suspension preventing Benn from fighting can be reinstated, and he may face a definitive ban from the sport as a result.