While the dope test has come back positive, the report from the laboratory that tested the player's blood sample has yet to be confirmed by Pakistan's anti-doping department.
KARACHI: Pakistan opener Ahmad Shahzad has tested positive for a prohibited substance, Geo News reported on Wednesday.
Trump says will sign something 'pre-emptive' on immigration border policy
But some worry the lack of a clear resolution could exacerbate an already tough situation as his party heads toward the mid-terms. It is immoral to lock up children for an undetermined amount of time while families wait through a drawn-out legal process.
Controversial Pakistan opener Ahmed Shehzad is in the news again and this time he has reportedly failed a dope test and could face a minimum three-month suspension. What are the ICC rules? "A player has reportedly tested positive for a prohibited substance", the tweet said. Cricbuzz has learnt that the 26-year-old was tested during the Pakistan Cup, the country's domestic five-team one-day tournament, held from April 19 to May 1. The PCB is awaiting the results of that test, saying it would be available in the next day or so.
Without unveiling cricketer's name, PCB confirmed that a player could not clear the dope test. Shehzad played for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in the tournament, collecting 372 runs at an average of 74.40.
Carriers pledge to cease sale of location data, but questions remain
In an email to the AP, AT&T spokesman Jim Greer cited similar reasons for cutting off the intermediaries "as soon as practical". Sprint said account holders must "generally be notified" if the data is to be used so they can decide whether they consent.
Leg-spinner Yasir Shah was also banned for three months when he committed a similar offence in November 2015.
Meanwhile, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is yet to consider their action against Shehzad. Shehzad had scored 14 and 24 runs in his last matches against Scotland.
Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Statewide Gerrymandering Challenges
Supreme Court said a decision on the merits can not proceed without standing, and the plaintiff Democrats did not have it. The court's analysis provides a model for other state courts to use their state constitutions to better protect voters.