Re: The likelihood of a false positive in this case is substantial
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TEC Message Board ]
Re: The likelihood of a false positive in this case is substantial
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TEC Message Board ]
Posted by Why Not on July 02, 2009 at 19:18:44:
In Reply to: The likelihood of a false positive in this case is substantial posted by buckeye3 on July 02, 2009 at 19:09:59:
Two NFL players got one from a federal judge too only to lose their case in the end.
My problem is that every side acknowledges Mayfield failed 2 tests. Mayfield says the results are wrong based on several theories: 1) a lab mix up, 2) a combination of drugs. Well which is it? In other words they don't know how it happened.
I would rather the judge have ordered Mayfield to submit to his testing (hair, blood, urine) rather than what he did. Plus, why didn't Mayfield go out on May 9th and get another test (hair, urine and blood)? If he had done that he could PROVE he is clean. Saying the testing policy is bad because he doesn't look like a drug addict, never acted like a drug addict, and they didn't test the samples at different labs (hell the NFL doesn't even do that and I don't think the Olympics does either) doesn't prove to me he is clean.
I don't blame NASCAR for how they are handing this. Maybe the lab screwed up, but every side acknowledges they have a test that shows a lot of drugs. If you were NASCAR or an employer what would you do?