Allen Johnson DQ'd?

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by CycloneFE

"I wonder if they ever tested Compton in the morning?????"

Why test Tom, he doesn't have a 200mph car on the track, and I don't give a rats about his social life, that will catch up to him anyway.

Point is, DON'T DRINK AND RACE.

Ever seen what damage an intoxicated person can do when in charge of a business?

[Ed Carpenter]

Originally Posted by Jared Jordan

Alcohol in your mouth, that is not in your bloodstream, can result in the machines showing that there is alcohol in the test subject's system when there may not be. This is known as mouth alcohol. The forensic alcohol analysts that I've worked with seem to agree that within 5-6 minutes of ingesting an alcoholic substance the mouth alcohol is gone and any breath alcohol level will correspond to a blood alcohol level.

So yes, the machines CAN be fooled. However, proper testing procedure involves a minimum 15 minute observation period prior to the first blow to make sure that the test subject has not eaten or drank anything, burped, regurgitated, or vomited. The observation/waiting period serves to eliminate any tainted results.

If the proper testing procedures are followed, the machines are accurate. No doubt in my mind.

This is correct.

Ed Carpenter
Texas Highway Patrol

[Ed Carpenter]

Originally Posted by BobOrme

Not trying to be disrespectful, but how does a tester know if a testee has burped in the last 15 minutes? And, is each randomly chosen driver for these tests observed for 15 minutes prior to testing to make sure they didn't burp?

If you have access to what ever type of Breathalyzer is being used (hand held or tabletop) to test drivers, please access one. Suck on a Certs and then test yourself. I think you might be surprised.

Bob I have been a State Trooper in Texas for 8 1/2 years. During the 15 minute waiting period the subject has to be observed by you the entire time. If the subject were to burp, belch, vomit, etc the time starts over. Ed

[Tom Goldman]

After the hours long wait that racers undergoing the drug tests had to endure, I understand why Allen went right away,probably more concerned with getting it over with early , and possibly not having a senerio like Matt Guidera had last year. ....Thursdays waits for testing were up to 3 or more hours, only one technician to test what seemed like about half the racers there !......More than a few racers missed runs on Thursday due to the long wait !!.............I got my invitation Friday ,5 min. before 1st round!....I went right after the run ,and still waited well over an hour and a half.......I left Roy Johnson go ahead of me ,so he could make it back in time for the first qualifying session of Pro Stock !.........They seemed to be testing every one , Random my A**, Roy Hill was there too , which at least provided for a little entertaining conversation about the previous days events!.............Tom

[Bruce Noland]

The most important point from this episode is that Johnson has a drinking problem. There is no other explanation for him to take such an unprofessional risk.

The rule does include race officials. I'm not sure Tom is considered an official. Maybe the testers could go up in the tower and ask old good times Tommy blow into one of their little machines.

[blkjack]

An average attorney could beat this . I just feel sorry for the Johnson family and Mopar.

[FINESPLINE]

[QUOTE=Tom Goldman;211604]After the hours long wait that racers undergoing the drug tests had to endure, I understand why Allen went right away,probably more concerned with getting it over with early , and possibly not having a senerio like Matt Guidera had last year. ....Thursdays waits for testing were up to 3 or more hours, only one technician to test what seemed like about half the racers there !......More than a few racers missed runs on Thursday due to the long wait !!.............I got my invitation Friday ,5 min. before 1st round!....I went right after the run ,and still waited well over an hour and a half.......I left Roy Johnson go ahead of me ,so he could make it back in time for the first qualifying session of Pro Stock !.........They seemed to be testing every one , Random my A**, Roy Hill was there too , which at least provided for a little entertaining conversation about the previous days events!.............Tom[/QUOTE You have to be kidding me that at the biggest meet of the year, they (NHRA) have ONE person administering these tests knowing (maybe) that the whole test takes 15 minutes. The way I figure if the the guy is a damn robot he can test 3 people per hour @ 20 minutes per person. Boy , NHRA sure is giving its members its moneys worth.------- OR NOT ! Don't misunderstand me as I am totally against alcohol and driving but again it seems that the NHRA chooses to go the cheap way out . ------Just my thoughts !

[sc371f]

Originally Posted by Bruce Noland

The most important point from this episode is that Johnson has a drinking problem. There is no other explanation for him to take such an unprofessional risk.

The rule does include race officials. I'm not sure Tom is considered an official. Maybe the testers could go up in the tower and ask old good times Tommy blow into one of their little machines.

You know that he has a drinking problem? I really don't see how that can be a fair statement.

[Superfan1]

Originally Posted by blkjack

An average attorney could beat this . I just feel sorry for the Johnson family and Mopar.

I completely disagree; a zero tolerance policy means exactly that - ZERO TOLERANCE. Any detectable alcohol or drugs is a violation of this policy; case closed.

[blkjack]

Originally Posted by Superfan1

I completely disagree; a zero tolerance policy means exactly that - ZERO TOLERANCE. Any detectable alcohol or drugs is a violation of this policy; case closed.

This attorney says:
A number of scientists who have conducted studies of breath-alcohol analysis have concurred with Dr. Hlastala in concluding that breathalyzer accuracy is inherently unreliable. Thus, for example, a recent study determined that breath readings vary at least 15 percent from actual blood alcohol levels. (Simpson, Accuracy and Precision of Breath-Alcohol Measurements for a Random Subject in the Postabsorptive State, 33(2) Clinical Chemistry 261 (1987)). Furthermore, at least 23 percent of all individuals tested will have breath results in excess of true blood-alcohol levels. The author concluded that, "[g]iven the choice, it would seem that if a conclusion is to be made about the BAC of a random subject, especially when the conclusion can have serious consequences, it would be far preferable to make it on the basis of a direct [blood] measurement...." CASE NOT CLOSED!