Allen Johnson DQd for Alcohol

[Speed1288]

I guess I scared myself the easy way, night before my first super comp race I got really loaded (those top sportsman guys put on a helluva party). I found racing with a hangover isn't much fun. Since then its been a no alcohol policy for me on race weekends.

 

[Wayne]

I guess I scared myself the easy way, night before my first super comp race I got really loaded (those top sportsman guys put on a helluva party). I found racing with a hangover isn't much fun. Since then its been a no alcohol policy for me on race weekends.

Good job Ken; you learned the easy way.



PS: pls don't get me wrong; I too enjoy the occasional beer or drink but I think that racing & booze don't mix.

 

[Bob]

Not to shift this to a political commentary but ... Bob, if its good enough for any law enforcement to put you behind bars (blood tests are not a required backup) ... its equally as good in this case. Same rules apply at alomost any company with a similar policy. Zero tolerance, 2 samples, 1 chance.

Unless you believe you have better insight than the entire legal and law enforcement arena. This should not become a liberal debate on the fairness of the test.

Fact: AJ admitted to having several drinks the night before. He made a conscious decision knowing full well his chances of being chosen on any given weekend were as good as the next guy.
Fact: AJ was randomly chosen to take the test. I have and I was scared ****less after having 3 beers the night before.
Fact: AJ failed the test and took full responsibility for his actions and has moved on to Dallas (hopefully).

Jim, I'm pointing out the inaccuracy of a field Breathalyzer test concerning low test results. When a false positive reading can occur at a low level number due to consumption or use of non-alcoholic commodities, the test method is flawed. Someone who has never consumed a drop of alcohol in their entire life can blow over zero, and that's why I believe the zero tolerance rule is wrong.

Law enforcement uses field Breathalyzer testing because it doesn't have to be administered by a medical professional and the device is easily transportable - it can be held in the palm or your hand. I know of no jurisdiction where one can be ticketed, detained or arrested for having blown less than a .05. That number is well above the known and provable range of low level false positives. But, driving while ability is impaired doesn't have to have anything to do with alcohol or drugs (or false positives). It is quite possible to get arrested for driving while being too tired. How about a zero tolerance policy in racing for that?

Where I live, you can refuse a Breathalyzer test and insist on a blood test during a traffic stop for suspected drunk driving. You can even refuse the stupid human tricks roadside test where you have to touch your nose and hop on one foot, but you better be ready to get the blood test with some animosity shown during the process because some police don't like it when people know their rights.

Allen may well have had enough to drink at dinner the night before to have had a legitimate .027 BAC in the morning, and he might not have. A blood test won't be thrown off by a Certs. When the stakes are this high, the tests should be the most accurate available.

 

[Speed1288]

Good job Ken; you learned the easy way.



PS: pls don't get me wrong; I too enjoy the occasional beer or drink but I think that racing & booze don't mix.

Well I mean it was obviously never during the actual day of a race, it was well after I was done for that given day.

 

[mikey]

I wonder what NHRA is going to do going forward. I know Guidara didn't take the test, but I believe NHRA suspended him a year because that was the same as a failure result. I wonder if the same fate awaits AJ.

 

[Jenn]

I wonder what NHRA is going to do going forward. I know Guidara didn't take the test, but I believe NHRA suspended him a year because that was the same as a failure result. I wonder if the same fate awaits AJ.

I really don't think the situation warrants a year suspension because in my book "Manning up" gives you more credit than not.

 

[mikey]

I really don't think the situation warrants a year suspension because in my book "Manning up" gives you more credit than not.

Totally agree..manning up should end this situation....but breaking the rule and the precedent set by the Guidara situation I think will warrant some kind of extra suspension...fair or not.

 

[d'kid]

Totally agree..manning up should end this situation....but breaking the rule and the precedent set by the Guidara situation I think will warrant some kind of extra suspension...fair or not.

he was suspended for Not taking the test within the 24 hour window... Results or lack of results had nothing to do with it.

and I think some missed my point... If a Fan has been drinking alcohol, even beer or wine coolers, THEY Should Not be Allowed Anywhere Near the Pits, as long as the toys are out of the boxes.

d'kid

 

[turbo ken]

The last time I got random tested (when I had a CDL), they tested the machine first by using the ambient air in the room, it read out 0.00, then I did the first test it read out 0.00, then I had to do a second one it read out 0.00, then they tested the machine with the ambient air in the room it read out 0.00. So it was good, I took the test at 8AM, they had a log sheet in the room so I took a glance at it, one guy at 7:15AM had a BAC of 1.6 .

 

[Bob]

Pop a Certs breath mint into your mouth and you will blow more than "your" legal limit by about what Allen blew. I know someone who used to conduct alcohol awareness classes for people convicted of DUI's. She and some other counselors decided to see what non-alcoholic things could trigger a positive Breathalyzer reading. A freaking Certs breath mint put her at .020!

A Breathalyzer test is not accurate enough to use in any zero tolerance circumstance.

I thought it was a pee test. You say it's a breathalyzer?

Edit:

I just read the Comp+ article again and it does say breathalyzer. I always thought it was a pee test. Guess that's what I get for trying to think.

 

[Sean D, shondoo]

When the stakes are this high, the tests should be the most accurate available.

Yeah, as should the responsibility of the racer(s) to not even consider putting themselves in jeopardy to start with.........

Sean D

 

[rollingthunder]

Let's just take him out back and shot him !!
The guys said I am wrong MOVE ON !
Who hasn't made a mistake.

 

[twostep]

I always thought it was a pee test. Guess that's what I get for trying to think.

When you get our age, Robert, peeing IS a test

Allen Johnson could NOT have consumed 'a cocktail or two' with dinner and blown a legitimate .027 11 hours later. It is flat not possible. Your body, on average, will metabolize .015 BAC per hour. He would have to have been double the legal DUI limit, which means roughly a 12 pack of beer or a pint of hard liquor, at the time, to register .027 on that test.

Johnson either pounded it down in a matter of a couple of hours, getting crazy drunk in the process, or drank steadily (not necessarily to excess) until the wee hours of the morning, a scene that would explain the residual BAC present during the test. If he knows for a fact he did indeed drink two cocktails only the night before, and he can remember using mouthwash, a Certs, etc. prior to the test, then he should have appealed the findings on the spot.

Myself, I would have demanded a blood test if there had been any mitigating circumstances whatsoever. Booting a Pro racer from a countdown event isn't a minor deal, and one Allen Johnson wouldn't (or shouldn't) take lying down if there's a legitimate defense.

My opinion, and that's all it is, is that the man drank to excess Friday night and got nailed for it the next morning. As many have mentioned, he owned right up to it and took his lumps. He paid a big, big price. If Allen has a problem with alcohol, he needs rehab. If he simply went on a 1-night bender figuring the next day would be business as usual, well, he found out the hard way that it ain't necessarily so. This will pass; he'll be fine; so will we.

 

[Bob]

Yeah, as should the responsibility of the racer(s) to not even consider putting themselves in jeopardy to start with.........

Sean D

Given the possible inaccuracy of the testing results, the only way a racer could positively make sure they aren't putting themselves in jeopardy would be to not race at all. You don't have to actually drink alcohol to test positive for it.

 

[Jenn]

I thought it was a pee test. You say it's a breathalyzer?

Edit:

I just read the Comp+ article again and it does say breathalyzer. I always thought it was a pee test. Guess that's what I get for trying to think.

The drug test is a pee test and then a breathalyzer is the alcohol test.

 

[clwill]

If a Fan has been drinking alcohol, even beer or wine coolers, THEY Should Not be Allowed Anywhere Near the Pits, as long as the toys are out of the boxes.

The pits would be empty

 

[The Counterfeiter]

The drug test is a pee test and then a breathalyzer is the alcohol test.

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Does NHRA have the capability of running a drug screen on urine samples on-site? If not, what happens if a driver goes rounds or wins the race and then tests positive?

And yes, Allen should have demanded a blood alcohol test (and again, could this be processed on-site?), unless something was going on that we will never know about.

 

[Jenn]

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Does NHRA have the capability of running a drug screen on urine samples on-site? If not, what happens if a driver goes rounds or wins the race and then tests positive?

And yes, Allen should have demanded a blood alcohol test (and again, could this be processed on-site?), unless something was going on that we will never know about.

I'm not sure if they screen the samples on-site but I imagine they do because it's a just pee dip stick. You can even buy them at Walgreen's to test yourself, children, employees etc.

 

[Bob]

The drug test is a pee test and then a breathalyzer is the alcohol test.

I'm not sure if they screen the samples on-site but I imagine they do because it's a just pee dip stick. You can even buy them at Walgreen's to test yourself, children, employees etc.

Did you just call him a dipstick? LOL

Thanks Jenn for the clarification on the tests. If the NHRA has 0 tolerance then I think they have to do a blood test to verify the breathalyzer because something like mouth wash can give a positive reading with the breathalyzer.

I think the rules specify a blood alcohol content which a breathalyzer cannot provide.

 

[Crew Chief Pro]

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Does NHRA have the capability of running a drug screen on urine samples on-site? If not, what happens if a driver goes rounds or wins the race and then tests positive?

And yes, Allen should have demanded a blood alcohol test (and again, could this be processed on-site?), unless something was going on that we will never know about.

They have the entire lab at Z-Max. Everything is high tech at the on site medical building inside the nascar track. This is a first rate operation ( I know I was tested earlier ). There were no mistakes, several safeguards are in place to make sure of it.

He will have to take his lumps for making a king size mistake. He will man up, he is not a man who blames others for his mistakes. The sport will move on with a very important lesson for all competitors.