My view is if I was a professional RL player and someone knocked on my door and said he wanted to give me a drug test I would have asked for his credentials and if they looked in order I would have complied.

Course I don't know all the facts but I am sure the judge will before he decides what to do.

So the court are not sentencing him until they find out the outcome of his hearing at UKAD on June 6th. Hopefully not but it is beginning to sound like he won't be back this season and possibly several to come

Now he has pleaded guilty I assume this is classed as deliberately avoiding a drug test? If so isn't that ruled the same as failing a drug test meaning he will face a 3 or 4 year ban from RL?

We have been paying him a (presumably pretty good) wage to do nothing for the last 12 months. If he is pleading guilty then I am guessing he wont be back any time soon. Championship clubs are at enough of a disadvantage already without wasting a decent chunk of salary cap on a loose cannon who is being charged with criminal offences.

Time to cut him loose IMO. A very talented lad but clearly as thick as a plank. If he had a brain in his head he would have been playing in SL years ago, he obviously has the ability.

either road up would seem to be in breach and only one outcome

is Beswick at the same hearing

No think he is buying an apartment somewhere in Canada.

5 year ban,150 hours community service..Can we look for a new winger now? Please.

How is the Leigh propaganda and bullshine department spinning this one?

Something along the lines of "Sam's not guilty, he only plead guilty to get those nasty (Yorkshire) authorities off his back. They really were hiding in his garden and he certainly wasn't trying to avoid peeing in the tube. It definitely would have come out wee coloured and with not a hint of anything more stimulating than a cup of green tea. Sam remains a contracted Leigh player"

You have a great imagination Homer,and a way with words, see ya Sunday we are in the Fev end.

Who cares how we 'spin it'?

I am sure we will just continue to crack on with things as we have all season. We have done ok so far despite Rowley leaving, Brierley leaving, Chase going missing then leaving, despite having to play all season without McNally, Beswick and Barlow. Despite Tonga and Dixon missing huge chunks of the season, despite Moimoi ending up in intensive care and being out for the forseeable, despite losing 2 out of our 4 man coaching team to Canada and supposedly losing a few players to them too, despite Jukes being thrown into the head job days before the season started.

Despite all that we are on a 13 match unbeaten run and 3pts clear at the top of the league.

Everything that this season has thrown at us we have taken on the chin and kept moving forward. I doubt this latest development will be any different.

Chill old bean , I've only got a small keepnet.

Oh bugger, that must mean I'm in with you lot on Saturday then, assuming you're in the same end.

I'd better be on my best behaviour. I'll be the slightly (OK, fairly) overweight bloke in a Fev shirt. I guess you'll have huge shoes and a big nose.

Hoping for a cracking game on Saturday. If you could do us a massive favour and give the dulls a pasting, that'd be great.

We will look out for you Homer.

No idea, imagine it's also very hard to falsely imprison someone without touching them. Imagine that's why the paper says he's pleaded guilty to the assault charge & the false imprisonment isn't mentioned again suggesting it's been dropped.

Saw the video myself admittedly back when it all happened a while ago but it looked dark to me. The video where he's, admittedly quite angrily & aggressively, demanding to do the test while the tester refuses.

Piecing it together from the reports of the court hearing, reports of when it happened & the video of the event. Sounds like Sam has gone out to confront someone loitering outside his house in the dark. Turned out he's a UKAD tester who's claimed he's intimidated (probably was, I wouldn't like to have Sam Barlow come arguing about why I'm loitering outside his house)and refused to do the test (a very serious offence & understandable why an already annoyed Sam would react badly to the prospect of a long ban because the tester hasn't been doing his job properly). At the time it was reported that it was Sam who phoned the police so likely he's told him he's not going anywhere until the police arrive hence the false imprisonment.

If that's the case in a world with common sense Sam would get a hefty fine & told that's not how you behave & the UKAD tester would get a written warning & re-trained on how to do his job properly and the whole thing would be forgotten. However as we get yet another story in the news about the institutional drug cheating in athletics it seems UKAD's lawyers have nothing better to do than to trump up legal charges over seemingly something of nothing.

Marje did tell us that.

You should get a job in PR for Leigh.

In all seriousness though if the above were the case you would have to ask why it ended up at the high court.

Thought it was in a Crown Court for initial plea?

Whatever court it is I agree with Greg.

It was in the crown court. The rest of GFB's post makes sense though. Wouldn't get to crown court if Sam hadn't committed a crime - and Sam certainly wouldn't have pleaded guilty if he'd done nothing wrong

Have you ever heard of plea bargaining? Sometimes taking a Guilty plea to a lesser charge is more beneficial to all parties.

so someone who has done nothing pleads guilty to something because it's not the worst offence he's been charged with? You've been watching too much telly!

I work in the criminal justice system- that's not how it works

So did I from `87 and what`s on the telly ?

Well I'm glad you never represented me. What's the benefit to Sam in pleading guilty to something he didn't do? His solicitor would've advised him to plead having reviewed the evidence.

Where's OJ's brief when you need him

Very well said.

Spot on.