This week’s panellists were asked if they still want to see Chris Eubank Jnr and Conor Benn share a ring following Benn’s positive performance-enhancing drug test
Denzel Bentley (British middleweight champion)
If it’s going to be rescheduled, I don’t think it’s fair to put the (weight) restrictions on. But whatever they do, they do. The controversy that has happened will bring more eyes to it, I’m sure. Plus, what makes it even bigger next year is the fact that next year marks 30 years since the second Benn-Eubank fight. Everything just needs to be looked over before anything, though.
Michael Conlan (Featherweight contender)
Although I disagree with it, I think the interest and the what-if factor has definitely gone up. But, for me, it should not happen. If you fail a drug test, you should be banned.
Dave Allen (Heavyweight contender)
I have zero interest in seeing them fight each other after what happened last week. Conor Benn has just failed a drug test and for that I want to see him face a four-year ban.
Ryan Walsh (Former British featherweight champion)
Zero. It was a make-do fight in the first place for Eubank Jnr. The interesting parts to me were the family history and rehydration clauses. I’d have liked to see the psychological and physical impact on both. Ultimately, though, for me it was a simple case of “a good big one will beat a good little one”. PEDs, of course, now clearly alter this line of thought.
_1663895186.jpg)
_1680274618.jpg)
