Testing It Up

Current UFC Lightweight Champion Benson “Smooth” Henderson is all for keeping the sport free from drug-using fighters, even if it means increasing testing for performance-enhancing drugs.

“I’d be for increased testing,” Henderson told MMAFighting.com. “It keeps the playing field even. It makes it so guys have to do a better job of either hiding it, or just not taking it. I think a lot of guys would actually just do a better job of hiding.

The 29-year-old lightweight fighter is proud to be one of the few “clean” athletes competing professionally in the sport of mixed martial arts. So it’s not surprising that he advocates extensive blood testing and random testing to foil fighters who try to gain an edge by taking steroids, testosterone and similar banned substances.

During a conference at the UFC Fight Club last month, Henson described fighters who use PEDs as “mentally weak,” saying they lack “that fortitude to push through and say, ‘Yeah, I didn’t do this, but I’m still going to beat your butt.’”

Since October, there have been more than ten documented failed drug tests or Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) exemptions handed out by the UFC. Dana White, UFC president, recently sent a warning to those fighters abusing testosterone to watch out because they’re going after them.

“That being said, I’d be for more rigorous testing,” Henderson said. “They want the blood doping testing? We can do that, too. I’m cool with that. Random testing? I’d be for that.”

When it comes to the discussion of banned substances, one can always expect the mention of marijuana, whether in the beginning, middle or end of every conversation. It is, after all, one of the most widely abused drugs by teenagers and adults worldwide.

In the United States, there are over a million people who use marijuana as a natural medical treatment for the symptoms of illnesses, such as cancer and multiple sclerosis. But despite the so-called benefits of the drug, less than 20 states have medical marijuana laws. And three months ago, Colorado and the State of Washington were the first two U.S. states to legalize recreational use of marijuana for people aged 21 and older. This historical event, though, was met with a bulk of criticism from opposing groups that expressed fears of increased marijuana use, particularly among youth.

For Dr. Robert Martin, co-founder of CW Analytical laboratories (a testing facility that ensure the potency and safety of medical cannabis and marijuana products), marijuana legalization has a few good things about it.

“..It is my opinion that a nationwide legalization is just what America needs. It would stop a great deal of injustice in our legal system and perhaps assist law enforcement…,” Dr. Martin explained in an exclusive interview with TestCountry. “It would enable millions of patients in need of self-medication to treat themselves with no fear of contraindications, especially the liver. Finally, it would begin to stop the black market trade of cannabis currently alive and well in the U.S.”

Dr. Martin also tells TestCountry the types of regulations currently in place to ensure the quality and safety of medical marijuana. He said that while medical marijuana dispensary operators continue to grow, the majority “do not follow any quality control protocols to ensure patient safety.”

“…With widespread use of pesticides and the evolving knowledge of microbiological implications, I recommend safety testing for all recreational products, as well,” Dr. Martin added.

To read the full text of the interview, visit Exclusive Interview With Dr. Robert Martin.

A local high school has announced that it will be implementing mandatory random drug testing among students beginning SY 2013-2014. But while the intentions are good, the announcement didn’t come without causing a buzz.

KSHB reports that Rockhurst High School in Kansas City will be collecting approximately 60 strands of hair from randomly selected students to test for the use of banned substances, such as cocaine, PCP, opiates, methamphetamine, marijuana. The hair follicle drug test will also detect evidence of binge drinking.

“Our point is, if we do encounter a student who has made some bad decisions with drugs or alcohol, we will be able to intervene, get the parents involved, get him help if necessary, and then help him get back on a path of better decision making, healthier choices for his life,” Rockhurst Principal Greg Harkness said.

Early this month, Fox4KC reported that the Rockhurst High School Board of Trustees unanimously decided to begin the drug testing program to address permissiveness and misinformation about substance abuse among students.

The board said its decision is a result of a two-year consultation with trustees, administrators, faculty, parents, alumni and students about drug and alcohol use among teenagers.

According to Rockhurst’s drug test policy, if a student tests positive for any illegal substances, the student’s guidance counselor will request a meeting with the student and at least one parent. A student with a first positive result will be re-tested in 90 calendar days.

If a student fails the drug test for the second time, the Dean of Students will be consulted to determine if the student may continue in the school’s rehabilitation program. At this time, a full examination of the student’s disciplinary record will be reviewed. For the third positive result, a student will be dismissed from Rockhurst High School.

Although some students do not take any issue with the school’s drug test policy, there are others who consider the initiative an invasion of privacy. Matthew Brocato, the junior class president at Rockhurst, said “Some parents think that they’re the role of parenting away from them. There’s different issues that come up, but for the most part, the majority are okay with it.”

KSHB revealed that Rockhurst principal Harkness fielded calls from around the country following its report about the Jesuit school’s drug testing policy. In addition, Harkness reportedly accommodated a CNN interview for its own story on the school’s drug testing program.

State Republicans want people who apply for welfare assistance to undergo a drug test and return a clean result before they can continue receiving benefits. But the question is: will the proposal pass the House?

In the bill submitted by Reps. Donald LeBrun (R-Nashua) and Jeanine Notter (R-Merrimack), welfare applicants are required to pass a drug test before receiving assistance under the federally funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Applicants cover the screening cost upfront, but they will get reimbursement in their first TANF allotment if they pass the test. However, those who fail the drug test would have their benefits cut for a year but would be allowed to re-apply once they successfully completed a substance abuse program, the Huffington Post reports.

“I’m going to present the bill as a common-sense housekeeping or stewardship kind of thing,” LeBrun told the New Hampshire Union Leader in an interview. “I hope to convince people that there is a problem and we have to do something about it.”

LeBrun is no stranger in passing legislation that mandate drug testing for welfare recipients. In 2011, he co-sponsored a bill that requires random drug testing of food stamp recipient — only that, it didn’t pass the House. But the lawmaker remains unfazed, saying he just wanted “to identify people who have problems and have them treated.”

Nearly four months after the arrest of Annie Dookhan, the chemist involved in the Boston crime lab scandal, another chemist was nabbed and is facing charges of drug tampering, according to The Boston Globe.

Sonja Farak, 35, allegedly replaced with counterfeit substances the two samples, believed to be cocaine and heroin, she tested on Jan. 2 and Jan. 8.

Attorney General Martha Coakley told reporters at a conference that Farak’s wrongdoings were discovered when her supervisors were conducting a routine check of certifications and could not locate the two samples she tested. The supervisors went to Farak’s work area and found “certain substances . . . that appeared to be drugs and on further examination appeared to be counterfeit drugs.”

Coakley also noted that Farak’s case is different from Dookhan’s and that officials are still working to find out when Farak’s alleged theft of drugs began.

Farak was arrested on the evening of Jan. 19 and was held on $75,000 bail.

On Jan. 22, the accused chemist was arraigned at the Eastern Hampshire District Court and pleaded not guilty. Farak was released on $5,000 bail and is scheduled to appear on a Feb. 22 hearing.

The two-part interview of Oprah Winfrey with Lance Armstrong sparked a lot of different reactions. Some were angered, others were sympathetic. There were people saying the interview would cost him all his remaining fortune; there were those who were dissatisfied as the cyclist refused to mention names and evade some questions by giving a generic answer.

As expected, one of the highlights of the interview is when Armstrong finally admitted to doping. He admitted taking banned substances to enhance his cycling performance — among those drugs include EPO, testosterone, cortisone, and human growth hormone. Worst, he didn’t feel that doing so was wrong or bad, as he aptly puts it. These confessions are easy to believe, but what about his claim that he didn’t fail a drug test?

In the interview, Oprah asked: “You said dozens of times in interviews you never failed a test. Do you have a different answer today?” To which, Armstrong replied by saying “No I didn’t fail a test. Retroactively, I failed one. The hundreds of tests I took, I passed them. There was retroactive stuff later on.”

Oprah pressed on the issue and referred to the 2001 Tour de Suisse, but Armstrong held his stand and said, “That story isn’t true. There was no positive test. No paying off of the lab. The UCI did not make that go away. I’m no fan of the UCI.”

Another statement of Armstrong that is probably unbelievable for many of those who watched the interview is when he said he stopped using banned substances after 2005. That his winning in 2009 happened without the help of performance enhancing drugs, not even blood transfusions.

Armstrong also denied USADA claims that he threatened to kick a former team mate who refused to conform to the doping program. Finally, he contradicted the claim (of Travis Tygart) that he tried to pay off USADA.

So, is Lance Armstrong telling the truth this time?  Did he truthfully clue us in to his sports doping story?

Employment drug testing may not be the only solution in ending substance abuse in the U.S workforce, but many organizations believe it is vital in reducing problems that could hinder a business from growing and succeeding. Nowadays, employers have several options to consider should they decide to implement or overhaul their workplace drug testing policy, and TestCountry CEO Serhat Pala discusses these options in detail in an exclusive interview with the United States Staffing Association.

“The TestCountry mission is to provide end users with as many options for testing as possible,” Mr. Pala said. “Our goal is to bring cutting edge testing technologies to the end users directly. There are amazing technologies out there for testing pretty much anything you want to. But most of the time that technology is not available to the average end user. At TestCountry we make that happen.”

The CEO shared his insights on the challenges the staffing industry faces and how to effectively deal with those challenges. He also talked about the substances commonly abused by employees, and provided an outline for companies to follow in implementing a comprehensive yet affordable drug testing policy.

“Any company wanting to initiate drug testing should have a policy that addresses it with as much detail as possible,” Mr. Pala noted. “Your policy will then dictate how testing is done. No two companies are going to be the same and therefore there are no screening practices that every company should have in place. We emphasize that drug testing should not be thought of as one thing (urine testing, for example). There are so many options that the best thing to do for any company is to define your drug testing goal and go from there.”

Mr. Pala also mentioned in the interview how important it is for employers to do their research and have a goal in mind when they want to start drug testing employees. Doing so, not only helps employers avoid wasting time and resources but also avoid dealing with legal problems in the event an employee complains.

To read the web content version of the interview, please visit US Staffing Association Podcast Interview with Serhat Pala on Drug Testing

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have made their stand clear on recreational marijuana initiatives that were approved in Washington and Colorado.

In a statement, SAMHSA said “there have been no changes to the panel of drugs being tested under the federal Drug-Free Workplace Program (DFWP).” That means, federal employees will continue to undergo marijuana test at the established cut off levels in the Mandatory Guidelines.

DOT, in its Dec. 3 notice, states the ballot initiatives “will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s regulated drug testing program.” The agency will continue to require drug testing applicants and employees in safety-sensitive positions, such as pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire‐armed security personnel, ship captains, and pipeline emergency response personnel, among others.

“We also firmly reiterate that an MRO will not verify a drug test negative based upon information that a physician recommended that the employee use “medical marijuana” when states have passed “medical marijuana” initiatives,” DOT said in its recreational marijuana notice. “It is important to note that marijuana remains a drug listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. It remains unacceptable for any safety‐sensitive employee subject to drug testing under the Department of Transportation’s drug testing regulations to use marijuana.”

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments on Wednesday about whether or not police needs a search warrant   before subjecting a motorist to a blood test. But as Missouri prosecutors and a Justice Department lawyer try to convince the high court to set aside the requirement for a search warrant in DUI cases, the justices have expressed reluctance in issuing a favorable rule over the appeal, the Los Angeles Times reports.

“It’s a pretty scary image of somebody restrained, and a representative of the state approaching them with a needle,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, worries about the effects of a court decision in favor of blood tests. She pointed out that blood test is more intrusive than breath tests, which is what most jurisdictions rely on. She told the Missouri prosecutor that a ruling “by us in your favor is going to change that” and encourage routine use of blood tests.

The case before the court, Missouri vs. McNeely, started when a state patrolman stopped Tyler McNeely for speeding about 2 a.m. on Oct. 3, 2010. The motorist failed the roadside sobriety tests and refused to take a breath test. The officer then decided to take McNeely to a hospital for a blood alcohol test despite the absence of a warrant.

In every state, including Missouri, refusing to take a breath alcohol test can result in the suspension or revocation of a driver’s license. Typically, an officer instructs a driver who appears to be drunk to get out of the vehicle, walk a straight line and recite the alphabet. If the motorist fails those tests, s/he is asked to blow air into a device that measures alcohol in the blood. A blood test is an option for when a driver refuses to take a breath test and an officer must obtain a search warrant before forcing a motorist to undergo the procedure.

The ruling for Missouri vs. McNeely is expected to be out by spring.

A couple of high-profile court cases in Canada may determine if drug testing will become more prevalent in that country.

Irving Pulp and Paper in the province of New Brunswick wants employees at its mill to undergo random alcohol tests, as reported by CBC News, but the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union (CEP) is opposed to this.

This case reached the Supreme Court of Canada on Dec. 7 and a ruling has yet to be handed down.

The other case involves Suncor Energy, which is trying to implement random drug and alcohol testing for both employees and contractors at its oil plant near Fort McMurray, Alberta. The CEP is also opposed to Suncor’s proposed drug testing plans, citing invasion of privacy as its main reason for opposition.

An arbitration hearing between the company and the union is scheduled for Jan. 2 (postponed from Dec. 10).

Both Irving Pulp and Paper and Suncor have stated that workplace safety is the main goal for wanting to implement drug testing at their respective facilities.

Birch Miller, a lawyer in Calgary, Alberta who specializes in this area of law, has said that these two cases will determine “whether random alcohol and drug testing policies have a future in Canada.”

While a few industries in Canada do have regular drug testing, it is not nearly as prevalent as in the United States.