Derek, I can't really disagree with either you or Michelle. It's a promising career wasted, however you look at it.

As a point of interest, I don't think players have to notify UKAD of where they will be in their 'leisure time' and I think that is mentioned somewhere in the lengthy judgement. It's impossible to inform anyone of where you will be all the time, outside 'normal working hours'

OK Alan. I always thought that they had to provide at least an hour where they could be found. If Sam gave that as his hour then I assume they can call whatever time is given. As you say he has thrown away his career.

I find the whole thing inexplicable and there are comments in the documents that give the impression his solicitor didn't help his cause much.

He couldn't help him,it was a tribunal,not a court of law. Burgler/Intruder fiction..Neighbours CCTV fact.The rest of it is irrelevant.Question needs to be asked why it took so long.

So why was he there. Oh yes at the appeal he asked for new information to be considered. ...and what are you blathering on about CCTV. Not seen that in official documents. When this thread has been based around stated facts and people's opinion on said facts it looks like you have decided to add a 'rumour'.

The documents mention CCTV footage from his next door neighbour which apparently didn't paint a very good picture for Barlow.

Might help you to do some reading Derek..And drop your challenge also..

What challenge is that then? I missed it. Just to help you ...sadly I agree with UKAD.

Folk are more obsessed with Sam Barlow than they are about Ryan Brierley they are 2 ex Leigh player's who have gone now,the same as Paul Rowley,I'm interested in tomorrow and getting to SL, as go UKAD?I'm more interested in UKIP and I hate Politics.Bring on the Giants.

When did Barlow become an EX player Charlie?

In my view , yesterday , with a 4 year ban I can't see him playing for Leigh again , can you?

His 4 year ban started from last year.Not yesterday.I would say he's been an ex player for quite a while.

The neighbours CCTV forms a huge part of the UKAD's case and is mentioned many times in the documents.

After reading the adjudication I can think of only one word: pigheadedness.

One or two things were, however, not dealt with to the satisfaction of my curiosity

i) The preamble to the release mentioned the need to establish whether UKAD had given sufficient warning of the test, though I can't recall mention of the establishment of that being mentioned thereafter (or indeed any definition of what "sufficient warning" amounts to)

ii) No thought was, at least reported, to have been given to the question of whether Barlow was already aware that the test had been aborted before he gave his Doolittlesque profession to be willing, waiting and wanting to be tested. If UKAD had already decided that "tampering" had occurred and that that was sufficient to warrant the mandatory ban (and to be the sole accusation at the trial) why was this even reported?

iii) I wasn't impressed by the flippancy with which the black-capped QC used the phrase "shining like a ship's beacon" in an official adjudication. Yes, I know I stand correctly accused of all too often being flippant, but it did jar.