Could be either, although I'd suspect 'A', from the information provided on the UKAD website:
[i
"If the A-sample Adverse Analytical Finding is for a prohibited substance, other than a specified substance, a mandatory provisional suspension will be imposed. If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a specified substance, the provisional suspension will be imposed at the discretion of UKAD.

A provisional suspension can only be imposed if the athlete is given either:
• an opportunity for a provisional hearing
• an opportunity for an expedited hearing."
_____________________________
Where the Notice of Charge is based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, the athlete has the right to request analysis of the B-Sample.
[/i

But whichever, you can absolutely guarantee that they've followed procedure to the letter.

WTF are you going on about?

Published by who exactly ie which vested interest - there is no evidence legalisation works - do people like you think that Americans get any less drunk now than they did during prohibition! Foolish nonsense.

Drugs are bad unless they are being used to cure an illness under medical supervision - a five year old could work that out. The real question that needs sorting is why do you want or need them.

You are so incredibly ignorant, that there's no response anyone could give to these inane, baseless ramblings of yours, that would ever help to open your mind even slightly. Go read some actual facts, reports, evidence & get back to us.

For the umpteenth time: WADA (whose assessment I'd take over yours any day of the week) classify cocaine as a [istimulant[/i for the purposes of in-competition testing (that is over the period from 12hrs before the start, to the end of an event). Recreational, legal, illegal doesn't come into it.

Absolutely correct sir, and I'm amazed that this still hasn't sunk in to some on here. We have gone through all this before with Hock, Barba, etc and their different punishments and still some are too dense to work it out.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/portugal-decriminalised-drugs-14-years-ago-and-now-hardly-anyone-dies-from-overdosing-10301780.htmlLiterally the first Google search result.[/url

[url=https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroinMore recent information[/url - Portugal's approach commended by the INCB.

I'm with you, I think it's best left in the hands of criminals and suitably militarized law enforcement, that seems to be working out well for everyone.

It is sad to see the pro legalisation brigade using this as a call for legalisation. As you say, WADA treats cocaine in pretty much the same way that they treat caffeine with the exeption that some caffeine is allowed. They do not think in moral or legal terms but in terms of influence on performance. They do not go down the route of arguing cause, and neither should they. An pro sportsman or woman is held responsible for what goes into their bodies. I would hate to see young players being told that there were ways around this and to be encouraged to experiment.

Typical response from a thoroughly nasty man like yourself

Regards

King James

I don't think anyone has done that; there are two discussions going on here - one about Hardaker, who seems to be universally regarded as an idiot for taking a substance that is on the WADA list - and another about the broader picture around drugs and our attitude and approach to them.

Whether Cocaine was legal or not, I wouldn't expect it to come off the WADA list; it would stay, along with the other legal substances that are on there, because they are considered to be PE.

Vasty is right in my opinion.

He has only himself to blame, if he wants to snort that crap then fine.

He knew what he was doing, knew the consequences and still threw his possible RL career away.

In a nutshell, what an idiot