Greg Florimos Boots wrote:
How do you falsely imprison someone outside? From the video am posted it did not look like the middle of the night. Sam has been very, very stupid and will likely at least cop a ban for failure to provide.
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.
