Ben Stokes quits alcohol to help hamstring injury rehabilitation
Ben Stokes has stopped drinking alcohol during his latest injury rehabilitation in an effort to be firing on all cylinders for England this summer. The Test captain is set to make his comeback on Thursday in the one-off Test against Zimbabwe at Trent Bridge, having been sidelined since December after tearing his left hamstring in New Zealand.
He rushed back from a similar injury last year but his recovery this time after an operation has been painstakingly managed and Stokes has left no stone unturned to fulfil his vow to return in peak physical condition. Speaking to the Untapped podcast, the 33-year-old said: 'After my first major injury, I remember the shock of it, after the initial adrenaline had stopped, thinking: 'How has this happened? We did have a bit of a drink four or five nights ago, could that have played a part? It wouldn't have helped.'
'Then I was like: 'OK, I need to start changing what I do.' I don't think I'll ever be completely sober but I've not had a drink since 2 January. I said to myself: 'Not until I finish my injury rehab and get back on the field.' I think the day I wake up and can't be bothered to do the training programme is getting towards that time you don't really want it any more. But I haven't got any interest in stopping.
'It's just getting harder to do everything. Hence why now I feel like I have to work so much harder away from the field, in the gym and all that kind of stuff to just give me the best chance of being out there to perform. But I'll keep going as long as I possibly can.'
Stokes, who is hoping to play a full role as an all-rounder against Zimbabwe, revealed his relationship with alcohol is much changed compared with when he was younger. A talking point in Stokes's much-publicised court case, where he was found not guilty of affray, was on how much he had consumed during a night out in Bristol that ended in a street brawl in 2017.
Cricket and alcohol have been – occasionally uncomfortable – bedfellows at every level historically but Stokes said he and many others have had to adapt to the increasing standards in the professional game. Stokes said: 'I can have a social drink now. It used to drive my wife, Clare, mad that I would just be all or nothing. If we'd go for a nice dinner, I never really understood why it was so frustrating to her but all she wanted to do is share a glass of wine with her husband. Now I get it. I can appreciate it for what it is, not just to get me pissed.
Sign up to The Spin
Subscribe to our cricket newsletter for our writers' thoughts on the biggest stories and a review of the week's action
after newsletter promotion
'In the 90s and 00s there were unbelievable stories [about drinking]. It's definitely settled down a lot over the years. The game is more demanding on the body than it was. There's so much more cricket, there's so much more in the schedule that it's just impossible for the body to be able to withstand all of that anyway without the downsides of what a couple of beers at the end of the day can do to you for the next day.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘A loan to fund my divorce left me homeless and £300k in debt'
Shelley Kavanagh knew getting divorced would be expensive. But she never imagined it would leave her homeless and saddled with a six-figure debt. The 55-year-old mother-of-three went from living in a seven-bedroom house to struggling to rent a flat after taking out a loan to fund her legal costs. She said: 'By the time everything unravelled, the combined loan and legal costs had far exceeded my assets, leaving me financially ruined.' The Telegraph has spoken to several women who were advised by their solicitors to fund their divorces using huge loans that devastated their finances. The loans – provided by litigation funders – were borrowed against the marital home so they could only be repaid following the sale of the property. Until then interest piled up at a rate of 18pc. This eye-watering level of interest meant that by the time the women came to sell up, the debt had eroded the equity in their homes. Campaigners are now calling for tighter regulation of lenders trying to cash in on divorce. 'It had a direct impact on my children' Ms Kavanagh's ordeal began when she was introduced to Novitas, one of the best-known divorce lenders, in 2015 by her solicitors. A housewife at the time, she agreed to borrow £150,000 to finance her divorce. The initial interest rate was 18pc – adding £27,000 in the first year, not including other charges. By the time the divorce was over, the debt had ballooned to over £300,000. She said: 'My credit rating was destroyed, and I became homeless. This had a direct impact on my children, as my unstable housing situation meant overnight stays with me were nearly impossible. Even finding a rental property became a challenge, as landlords were reluctant to accept tenants with poor credit histories.' Ms Kavanagh, who now lives in Oxfordshire, had to move in with her father while she got back on her feet. She was only able to find accommodation after he lent her money to pay the rent in advance. She said: 'Without that support, the outcome would have been significantly different.' The Novitas loan was paid using the proceeds of the house sale, leaving Ms Kavanagh 'with very little remaining'. The lender agreed to a £50,000 reduction after she complained. But she still believes the company should not have lent to her in the first place. 'Targeted at the height of vulnerability' Launched in 2011, Novitas at one point described itself as the leading provider of loans for people going through divorce. It claimed to work with 900 law firms, according to a post on the platform Twitter, now X, from 2019. Documents show Novitas would carry out a credit check as part of an individual's application. It said it was 'unlikely' to lend if the applicant had a County Court Judgement (CCJ). Ms Kavanagh had a CCJ – yet she was lent the money anyway. She said: 'A CCJ is a clear warning sign of financial vulnerability, yet Novitas proceeded with the loan regardless. This suggests that they either failed to conduct proper credit checks or deliberately ignored red flags.' She said women like her had been presented with the loans while they were at 'the height of their vulnerability'. She added: 'We want justice for what we've been through.' 'My divorce debt snowballed to £700,000' The litigation funding industry has grown dramatically over the past decade, filling a vacuum left behind by cuts to legal aid. Lenders argue they give important financial backing to individuals pursuing fair divorce settlements. However, in recent years a number of borrowers have lodged complaints about litigation loans with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), some of which have been upheld. Another mother introduced to Novitas by her solicitor was Rosie Heys. In 2014, Ms Heys, 59, from Oxfordshire, agreed to borrow £100,000 to cover her divorce costs. Again, this loan, which carried an 18pc interest rate, was secured against her property. At the time, she only earned about £1,000 a month working as a freelance personal assistant – although the stress of the divorce meant she eventually lost the job. As the case dragged on, Ms Heys agreed to take out additional borrowing, taking her total debt to £230,000. She instructed a different solicitor and took out a personal loan with a lower interest rate from another provider. This was used to pay the new fees and the Novitas loan. She said: 'I couldn't see a way out. I was stuck in a house I couldn't sell, with a debt that was accruing at £600 a day. I just didn't know what to do.' It took Ms Heys a decade to sell the property, with £700,000 of the proceeds used to pay off the loan. Ms Heys complained to Novitas who agreed to refund her £7,000 in interest because it had failed to provide her with regular statements about her debt. However, it did not accept her other complaints and so Ms Heys approached the FOS, which concluded in 2023 that the loan was unaffordable and that Novitas had not carried out adequate affordability checks. It ordered Novitas to refund the interest and charges, which added up to £50,000 in total, but not the capital, as this had been used to cover the solicitors' fees. In a separate case, involving a woman who borrowed £45,000, the FOS went further and instructed Novitas to refund almost her entire debt. The lender was told to cap her liability at £1,745 as this was the amount the FOS decided she might reasonably have spent on mediation. 'I wish I'd walked away and let my husband take everything' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh have spoken to dozens of women who also took out litigation loans that significantly impacted their finances and mental health. One mother, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph she wished she had just walked away and left her ex-husband everything rather than get divorced because at least then she would not be in debt. Ms Heys said: 'Some people are so traumatised that they just can't handle it.' She said the debt had also had a profound impact on the children of the women affected, as many were now living in rental accommodation. 'Renting in this country is very precarious because people can give you notice and get you out in two months. And that's the situation most of these children have found themselves in.' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh want those affected to know they may be able to seek redress through the FOS. But they also want greater awareness of the risks of litigation loans for those going through a divorce. Former MP Seema Kennedy, of campaign group Fair Civil Justice, said: 'These appalling cases highlight the urgent need for reform. Vulnerable individuals going through divorce should not be exploited by litigation funders with clear conflicts of interest, racking up excessive fees that can reach hundreds of thousands of pounds. Without proper regulation, consumers are left dangerously exposed.' Litigation loans are regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But they are also part of the broader third-party litigation funding industry, which is largely self-regulated. Other agreements are 'non-recourse', meaning the litigation funder only gets paid if the case is successful. The Civil Justice Council this week called for 'light-touch regulation' of litigation funding following a consultation. In a report, it said complaints about litigation loans with the FOS reinforced the need 'for effective financial services and legal services regulation' and highlighted the need for consumers to be 'fully informed' about the nature of this funding. Novitas was bought by Close Brothers in 2017 in a £31m deal. However, it ceased lending to new customers in 2021 and is now in the process of being wound down. The banking group had to set aside over £100m to cover its bad loans. In its 2022 accounts, Novitas earmarked £5.3m in redress for customers who took out loans to fund divorce and probate cases.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Mystery as man dies in car after being found ‘unresponsive' outside Asda car park
A MAN has been found dead in a car outside Asda. Cops rushed to the supermarket in Leicester at 7.10am on Saturday. A man in his 70s was found unresponsive and then declared dead - though police have not released further details about the circumstances. A witness told LeicestershireLive there were multiple police cars at the scene, as well as a private ambulance and two truck. A Leicestershire Police spokesperson said: "Shortly after 7.10am on Saturday police were called after a man was found unresponsive in his car in Exploration Drive, Leicester. "Officers attended, along with the ambulance service, and the man, who is in his 70s, was declared deceased at the scene. "There are not believed to be any suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and a file will be prepared for HM Coroner." 1
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Louis van Gaal makes brutal claim that Man United are 'a commercial club and NOT a football club' - as former boss insists Red Devils need to 'pay attention' to Premier League rivals
Former Manchester United boss Louis van Gaal has launched into a scathing attack on the recruitment practices at the club. Van Gaal arrived at Old Trafford in the summer of 2014, and was tasked with restoring the club after David Moyes lasted just ten months in the unenviable position of being Sir Alex Ferguson 's successor. The Dutchman went on to spend two years at United before being sacked just days after his side defeated Crystal Palace to win the FA Cup. As United prepare for yet another summer of change following a their worst-ever Premier League campaign, Van Gaal insisted a lack of cohesion in the club's recruitment is to blame for their ongoing struggles on the pitch. 'They are a commercial club, not a football club.' Van Gaal told Sky Sports. 'I have said that before and that's always difficult. When the manager is not deciding which players have to come in, it is very difficult.' Ruben Amorim is gearing up for a busy summer in the transfer window after a dismal maiden campaign at Old Trafford Asked whether he believes that managers should be more in control of their transfer business, Van Gaal insisted it is the only way for them to be judged on their own merits. 'I think that it is is the way that it should be,' he said. 'Because then you can fire a manager because he doesn't give any results. But when other people buy the players, then you have a problem. 'You need to have the knowledge of the manager, the orientation of the manager, because he has to train them.' The former Netherlands boss added that United would be wise to emulate the approach of their fiercest rivals in the transfer market going forward. He added: 'Arne Slot is the man who says to his technical manager that he has to buy this player, pay attention to it.' Van Gaal has previously expressed his frustration with United's transfer activity during his own time in the Old Trafford dugout. Despite splashing out upwards of £150million on Ander Herrera, Luke Shaw, Marcos Rojo, Radamel Falcao, Daley Blind, and Angel Di Maria in his first summer at the club the 73-year-old later bemoaned the failure to secure his primary targets. 'Manchester United did not have the qualities to become champions and had an outdated selection with 10 players over 30, five over 35.' He told Voetbal International in 2020. 'So I told them I was going to rejuvenate and which players should come. I didn't get one of those. 'Then you end up in a different segment and as a coach you have to push your boundaries. You don't expect that at the richest club in the world. 'A turnover of £600m and can't buy the players you need. You should buy number one and not number seven. 'Of course, the selling club also thinks: "If you are so rich, you also have to pay the highest amount imaginable for a player." That was what happened with transfers. 'Then you have to do with the numbers seven or eight on your wish list. For which you actually pay way too much money, on which the coach is judged and convicted.'
