of course there are two trains of thought here,

1 he thought he would fail so refused the test and made a good excuse about water being tampered with.

2 he is right to refuse a test due to the water provided not being sealed. which it should be.

obviously the governing body and ukad went with the available evidence and agreed with number 2. that combined with a clean test taken a couple of days later. so i am sure if ukad thought there was any funny business they still would have upheld a ban.

i suppose only the player knows which is the correct response.

this seems a bit simmiler to the Diane modahl case 20 years ago, where she sued the anti doping authority for failing to stop contamination of samples.

A slight issue over how they originally went about building their coaching team and squad - and an argument about 'morals and ethics' I believe!

You're welcome. Should make for a tasty opening Championship fixture! Thankfully, we hardly have any of our squad left from the Rowley era, so the fixture should be 'civilised'.

Here's hoping we can emulate what HKR did last season. Good luck this time around.