Why!

Why does this selfish loser deserve any help at all - ffs when will people make other people take responsibility for their own actions - it's pathetic.

There are tons of players who navigate their way through RL life never needing a first chance let alone a forth.

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

I ageee- too many people in society don't /won't take responsibility for their actions or choices.
He knew the risks- he gambled and got caught. Just tough.

Hardaker is a victim, he needs our love and support.

Is Adam walker getting everyone's love and support, the victim that he is?

Oh wait, he's not as talented as hardaker.

You were saying the same thing the other day

“Leads to violence and aggression like nothing else”... LOAD OF RUBBISH!

You can use cocaine whilst chilling at home listening to music and gives you a nice mellow feeling if you let it. It’s suits the mood of the environment and takes the lead of the people using it, not leads the people.

A victim??? , are you for real.

An idiot who is old enough to know better.

No I didn't. I said he was an idiot. I did not in any way say he shouldn't get any support if he has a problem

Regards

King James

Correct - some sheer hypocrisy going on here for sure.

Is there support out there for people who are idiots?

An answer he should surely know?

I live in The Philippines and we still have a massive drug problem. Plus a lot of dead people, some of whom might have been involved in drugs. What the President has done is to give the green light to shooting anyone you don't like and then tossing a piece of cardboard with the words "drug addict" onto the body; there will be a minimum of investigation takes place.

So no, you wouldn't want it in the UK.

There would be loads of shot addicts in peoples back gardens/houses and sheds while they are in the process of financing their vile habit.

Would be less real "victims" of drug taking.

Just like the gun laws in Australia, there was a drop in gun related deaths due to other interventions aside from tightening the law regards automatic weapons that actually had by far the greatest difference.

From TRANSFORM one of the voices regards drug controls.
"However, such improvements are not solely the result of the decriminalisation policy; Portugal’s shift towards a more health-centred approach to drugs, as well as wider health and social policy changes, are equally, if not more, responsible for the positive changes observed."

"Portugal complemented its policy of decriminalisation by allocating greater resources across the drugs field, expanding and improving prevention, treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration programmes. The introduction of these measures coincided with an expansion of the Portuguese welfare state, which included a guaranteed minimum income. While decriminalisation played an important role, it is likely that the positive outcomes described below would not have been achieved without these wider health and social reforms"

The mentioned deaths of 3 per million is due to OVERDOSING in ADULTS ON THE STREET, not long term use, not those considered to be under adult age and yet comparisons are made to total deaths from all drug related deaths before decriminalisation, again, this is yet more statistical massaging. Sure for families of those that were drug users this is a good thing, however the supposed drop of 80 overdose deaths as per your link to 30 over a 15/16 year period is in my honest opinion NOT significant, you will also note that there has being a doubling of overdose deaths from 2012 to 2015 12 reported in 2012 to 3 per million in 2015 (Portugal pop circa 10M). what are the figures for all years, either overdose on the street or deaths from drug use overall? In a country that already had historically low deaths comparative to other EU states at the time of decriminalisation and comparing rates by country from 2001 to 2016/17 is just wrong/misrepresents the facts.

Also, aside from the stated change in how drug use was addressed from a health POV and access to health treatment changed massively, you also have the fact that the Portuguese economy had being in freefall for much of the last 25 years, of the last few years that has recovered quite a lot, employment rates are up, manufacturing and low grade employment wages are up, more people in work means fewer people taking drugs, this is a known fact.

So, yes, the headline figure from the latest results is a drop but drug deaths were already at/or below the EU average back in 2001 BEFORE decriminalisation and other interventions and economy has by far a greater effect than simply decriminalisation in itself. To believe that decriminalisation would work in any given country is patently not backed up by actual facts.
HTH