Strasburg suspended from nhra competition (1 Viewer)

[Demon]

I have a CDL license and also am tested for any drug/alcohol use at any time.We are asked for ONE sample.If we can't produce,we drink until we can.I asked our testing folks about this situation and they all said one sample is more than enough for testing.

Mike got a bum deal on this IMHO.

 

[Paul]

Anyone who knows Mike, knows he doesn't have a lot of hair to spare..

Nobody said it had to come from the top-

 

[Dragracer]

Mike did not refuse to give a pee sample. He gave a sample but was told that it was not enough. There is nothing in the rules that specifies how much you have to give. Talking with my doctor on monday I asked him how much was needed and he said that lab techs can perform a drug test with a minimum amount of pee.

 

[Guppy]

Mike did not refuse to give a pee sample. He gave a sample but was told that it was not enough. There is nothing in the rules that specifies how much you have to give. Talking with my doctor on monday I asked him how much was needed and he said that lab techs can perform a drug test with a minimum amount of pee.

If you get right down to the core of this whole mess, THAT is THE PROBLEM. Demanding more than is needed, It needs to be about a positive or negative sample, Not a pissing contest. If they cant accept a minimum sample, this problem will happen again sometime, somewhere, to somebody else.

 

[.]

I disagree that this thread lives because of generalities. Jeff Arend's posts very early in this thread answer all of the questions above VERY SPECIFICALLY. The reason this thread lives is because there are 2 camps:

Camp 1: Rules are Rules, they are the same for everybody, tough luck Mr. Strasburg but you are out.

Camp 2: Given the extenuating circumstances of the several attempts by Mr. Strasburg to comply with the rules of this test, the punishment does not fit the crime and surely there is a compromise where all parties can be satisfied. (I belong to this camp)

I will stand by camp 1.

Why have rules if you refuse to enforce them, and the amend them due to the situation.

 

[my friends call me Zappy]

Camp # 2

 

[Huge]

The reason this thread is so popular is because everyone loves controversy, unless it is in there back yard of course. It is always easier to cast stones at someone elses misfortune. This rule and penalty needs to be revamped.

 

[TooTall999]

Whether the rule is right or wrong,it's the rule. I know if the fate of my season or career relied on my getting to the tent to piss in a cup, I'd be there ASAP and not take a chance of screwing up.

 

[.]

Camp # 2

For everyone, or just in this instance?

 

[Rooster]

The reason this thread is so popular is because everyone loves controversy, unless it is in there back yard of course. It is always easier to cast stones at someone elses misfortune. This rule and penalty needs to be revamped.

You are right on Eugene.... Good luck in Houston, maybe I will see you sometime this year.... take care, Ken

 

[Baron]

I'm told, but have never confirmed, that the law in a certain Central American country does not provide a penalty for the second offense of Driving Under the Influence.
The penalty for the first offense is death.
"Rules are rules" is simplistic. It is the reason we see kids kicked out of school for having a plastic knife in their lunchbox, even if the kid didn't know Mom put it in there. It's the argument of refuge for those who don't wish to consider circumstances.
In fairness to the NHRA here let me say that, in all likelihood, they received notice from their contractor that the test was "failed" and were not given the information which has since surfaced about the efforts that were made to comply.
I think both parties are in a tough spot here and am hopeful that "cooler heads prevail." Mike's penalty should be lessened.
Cheers,
Ed

 

[clwill]

I hope, as I've said earlier, that this is a case of the initial suspension having been one simply under the rules. That the NHRA initial action is much like the cop who makes the arrest: little discretion or research into mitigating factors, they leave that for the judge. I assume that upon appeal the NHRA will be given the mitigating factors (he was there, he did try to comply, he is someone who has never failed, is a known non-drinker, etc.) and will come to a more reasonable punishment.

 

[vegasnitro]

I hope, as I've said earlier, that this is a case of the initial suspension having been one simply under the rules. That the NHRA initial action is much like the cop who makes the arrest: little discretion or research into mitigating factors, they leave that for the judge. I assume that upon appeal the NHRA will be given the mitigating factors (he was there, he did try to comply, he is someone who has never failed, is a known non-drinker, etc.) and will come to a more reasonable punishment.

This is a fantastic analogy Chris.

Imagine if all judges ruled on the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law? Hopefully, there is someone at NHRA that can hear the appeal (if there is one) and decide on the spirit of the rule.

 

[Jake]

Why are some of you saying Mike had to give 2 samples of urine when Jeff Arend was tested at the same event and only had to give 1 sample, and only about an inch or so of sample?
When you don't take something seriously and wait until the last minute this is what happens. Defend Mike or not, Jeff Arend clearly stated what happens when they notify you that you have been selected to test. You had better make that test your number 1 priority for the next 24 hrs. It obviously wasn't for Mike.

 

[twostep]

Why are some of you saying Mike had to give 2 samples of urine when Jeff Arend was tested at the same event and only had to give 1 sample, and only about an inch or so of sample?

It's common knowledge, Jared...been talked about numerous times...

Quote from the CP article when the news first broke. See post #1 in this thread.

Strasburg said he was required to fill two vials of urine and he could only fill one. “They (NHRA) will not test just one (vial),” Strasburg said.

 

[Jake]

It's common knowledge, Jared...been talked about numerous times...

Quote from the CP article when the news first broke. See post #1 in this thread.

Strasburg said he was required to fill two vials of urine and he could only fill one. “They (NHRA) will not test just one (vial),” Strasburg said.

That is my point. Mike Strasburg says he had to fill 2 vials, Jeff Arend says he had to only fill 1 vial. Why? The rules surely don't change for drivers of different classes.

 

[Usual password less 1]

3) So, first they give you a breathalyzer to test for alcohol. Assuming you pass that they give you ONE (1) little plastic cup to pee in and you only have to fill it up about an inch or so. To give you an example if you would wait until you have to go normally, you could fill the whole cup up easily and then some. After you fill up the cup to the line that they have on there, then the Dr. transfers it into 2 (two) small vials that get labeled and initialed. And that's about it. Now, don't get me wrong, I have been there before after drinking lots of water and couldn't produce a proper sample, especially if you go after a run and are dehydrated. The difference is, I don't go at the last minute!

That is my point. Mike Strasburg says he had to fill 2 vials, Jeff Arend says he had to only fill 1 vial. Why? The rules surely don't change for drivers of different classes.

I guess reading isn't a strong point for some of you!

 

[PJ]

I hope, as I've said earlier, that this is a case of the initial suspension having been one simply under the rules. That the NHRA initial action is much like the cop who makes the arrest: little discretion or research into mitigating factors, they leave that for the judge. I assume that upon appeal the NHRA will be given the mitigating factors (he was there, he did try to comply, he is someone who has never failed, is a known non-drinker, etc.) and will come to a more reasonable punishment.

well said, I hope they make it right.



I still don't understand how blowing a test only gets you one race but failuer to pee properly gets a year. I could see if he never showed up at all then you assume guilt. But he was there, bust him for failuer to fully comply or something but this is too harsh.

 

[CrewGuy]

Failure to produce is non-compliance. It's that simple. Showing up and not leaving enough to test isn't their problem. Passing a drug test is like you are guilty until proven innocent.

 

[twostep]

That is my point. Mike Strasburg says he had to fill 2 vials, Jeff Arend says he had to only fill 1 vial. Why? The rules surely don't change for drivers of different classes.

Mike and Jeff are saying the same thing, in different ways. As simple as this is to understand - you pee once into ONE container and a doctor divides it among two vials - it's actually the center of this entire controversy. So the only remaining question is what was the actual volume of urine Mike produced. He is saying the amount he peed into the little plastic cup was only enough to fill one of the small vials once the doctor split it up.

Let's say each vial contains 20ml. The asked-for sample is 40ml in total, which when split fills each 20ml vial. If Mike was a vial short, could the lab have obtained an accurate result from 10ml X 2? If yes, this whole $hiteree needs to be tossed out. If no, then it's basically a fail as a result of an inadequate sample and a penalty is the fair thing. Notice I said A penalty, meaning the Vegas race only, and not THE penalty he actually received.