Surrey’s Laurie Evans ‘shocked’ after testing positive for banned substance

Sign up to our free sport newsletter for all the latest news on everything from cycling to boxing

Sign up to our free sport email for all the latest news

Thanks for signing up to the
Sport email

Surrey’s Laurie Evans has revealed he tested positive for a banned substance this summer, but insists he has no idea what caused the result.

T20 specialist Evans, who did not feature in the Brown Caps’ LV= Insurance County Championship winning side, made the announcement via a statement carried by the Professional Cricketers’ Association.

The 35-year-old wrote: “I was shocked to be told that an anti-doping sample I provided in August 2022 tested positive for trace amounts of a banned substance.

“I believe passionately in clean sport and I have never taken any banned substances. I do not know what caused the positive test, but my team and I are investigating how this could have happened and I am doing everything possible to find out.

“Due to the confidentiality of the process, I cannot say any more at this stage, but I would like to thank my family for supporting me at this very distressing time.”

Recommended



Evans, who also represents Manchester Originals in The Hundred, has never played for England but has been on the fringes of selection in the past and featured in a 55-man training squad convened in 2021 during Covid regulations.

The England and Wales Cricket Board’s anti-doping code suggests a relatively hard line on positive tests, noting in section 2.1 that “it is each cricketer’s personal duty to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her body. A cricketer is responsible for any prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers found to be present in his/her sample”.

A further explanatory note in the code adds: “For the avoidance of doubt…lack of intent, fault, negligence or knowledge shall not be a defence”. The highest penalty for a doping violation, should the case be proven and no mitigation successfully argued, is a two-year ban.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

{{#verifyErrors}} {{message}} {{/verifyErrors}} {{^verifyErrors}} {{message}} {{/verifyErrors}}

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

{{#verifyErrors}} {{message}} {{/verifyErrors}} {{^verifyErrors}} {{message}} {{/verifyErrors}}

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Source: Read Full Article