This week’s panelists were asked if they’d like to see Chris Eubank Jnr and Conor Benn share a ring after Benn’s positive performance-enhancing drug trial
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. I’m sure the controversy that has occurred will draw more attention. Plus, what makes it even bigger next year is the fact that next year marks 30 years since the second Benn-Eubank war. However, things just need to be looked back before anything.
Michael Conlan (Featherweight Champion)
While I don’t agree with that, I think the interest and what-if factor has definitely increased. But, for me, that shouldn’t have happened. If you fail the drug test, you will be banned.
Dave Allen (Strong contender)
I have no interest in seeing them fight after what happened last week. Conor Benn just failed a drug test and so I would like to see him face a 4 year ban.
Ryan Walsh (Former British featherweight champion)
Zero. It was a fight from the start for Eubank Jnr. The interesting part for me was the family history and rehydration provisions. I would like to see the psychological and physical impact on both. In the end, however, for me, it’s a simple case of “a big good beats a small good”. Of course, the current PED has clearly changed this line of thinking.
