Testing It Up

He was named the greatest cyclist in the world for winning the Tour de France for seven consecutive times. He battled and survived testicular cancer and later founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation which gives support to cancer-stricken patients. He got the fame and admiration that any athlete would ever dream of having. But the sad and ugly truth is even all those accomplishments didn’t seem enough to save him from the disgrace brought by his doping allegations.

This summer, Armstrong decided to give up his fight with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which maintained that the American cyclist had used banned substances since 1996. Though the agency claimed that his decision is an admission of guilt, he pointed that he just couldn’t enter USADA’s unfair arbitration process.

These days, Armstrong remains in the headlines following the release of USADA’s report that details the seasoned cyclist’s participation and role in what the agency calls a “sophisticated doping program.” The report gave reasons behind USADA’s decision to strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and hand him a lifetime ban.

According to a NYTimes.com feature, USADA’s report cited witness testimony, financial records, and laboratory results of Armstrong’s blood samples taken between February 2009 and at the end of April this year. The report says that Armstrong, in the early 2000s, started to personally enforce the team doping program and supplied testosterone to teammates. And the most basic technique, outlined in the report, that Armstrong and his teammates used to elude positive drug tests was simply running away or hiding.

So, how are Americans taking Armstrong’s doping scandal? What were the Americans’ reactions for his refusal to contest the charges hurled against him?

TestCountry finds out in a survey conducted from over 800 participants. To view the results, please visit TestCountry Survey: How People Felt about Lance Armstrong Quitting His Fight Against Doping Allegations.

A private investigator in Florida claims to have found a device that is capable of testing for drug  use with little contact, in fact he claims that it can even test places where the person you want to test has touched removing the need for confrontation. How accurate are these claims and can this truly be a valid way to test?

Victor Ortino, a former candidate for Collier sheriff, has been marketing a tool that he says allows parents and employers to secretly test their child or employee for drugs for the last year. DrugWipe, a handheld drug-detection device about the size of a candy bar, tests for drug residue in saliva and sweat. According to Ortino it can even pick up detection materials from locations and devices the person being tested have come in close contact with, perhaps even keyboards, cell phones and common objects like toothbrushes and light switches.

“That’s the beauty of it. The child doesn’t have to be there,” said David Rich, a private investigator who works with Ortino. “They would never know.”

While Ortino and his coworkers are convinced others aren’t so sure of the device. Even if the device is accurate just how invasive and damaging might it be in the relationships of parents and children?

“I think when you have to run into your child’s room and sneak around to see if they’re doing drugs or not, I think the approach is wrong,” said Maria Delgado, executive director of Drug Free Collier, who does not endorse products. “If you have a suspicion, then you need to confront that child or that person in a delicate way.”

A negative result means never having to discuss the subject with the person tested but a positive test will need to be brought up and well before it gets to a point when school officials and jobsites could become involved along with law enforcement. DrugWipe (which is already being used in some European countries to test for drugged drivers) tests for cannabis, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines, Ecstasy, and benzodiazepines. The results are reported in a window on the device in about 10 minutes.

Florida Drug Screening

Two police officers were killed while their four female companions were injured after their vehicle figured in an accident on the Bronx River Parkway.

Police identified the officers as 25-year-old Edwin Paulino and 32-year-old Kim Hoyoung. They were pinned inside the wreckage the 2009 Nissan Altima that they were riding in and were pronounced dead at the scene. Their female passengers were reportedly thrown from the vehicle.

The accident happened at 6:30 in the morning on Sunday. An article on the New York Post indicated that the cops were driving home from a birthday party for another police officer. Their vehicle hit a guardrail near the 233rd Street exit and flipped over.

Police investigators have, at this time, attributed the accident to “driver inattentiveness”; no other vehicles were involved in the accident, and speed was ruled out as a contributory factor to the accident. Blood tests are reportedly being conducted on the two officers to verify whether drugs or alcohol may have anything to do with the accident.

It was indicated in the New York Post article that the cops may have been intoxicated while driving. The sister of one of the injured women, Melina Ramirez, revealed that her sister shared with her that the cops had indicated that they were “a little tipsy” but were able to drive.

The women passengers had only met Paulino and Hoyoung at the party and were getting a ride home from them.

New York Health Screening

A pilot for US Airways Express pleaded guilty on Thursday in Federal Court to selling a powdered drink mix online that helps drug users to pass federal drug tests, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Forty-one-year-old Stephen Sharp of Port Orange, Florida pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States before U.S. District Judge David Cercone, who allowed him to continue to fly out of Charlotte, North Carolina until his sentencing on September 3. Sharp may face up to five years in prison.

Sharp is a pilot for PSA Airlines, which flies under the U.S. Airways Express banner and is owned by U.S. Airways Express. From November 2006 until May 2008, Sharp ran the website YouRInTheClear.com, in addition to flying for PSA.

The website sold a product that is advertised as a hundred percent effective in beating drug testing standards set forth by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). The website claims: “You simply mix the powder with a large glass of cranberry juice 1-5 hours before your test and then just relax!”; and federal prosecutors confirm that the product, indeed, works.

It was not revealed as to whether Sharp himself used drugs and then used his own product, as pilots are screened for drug used using SAMSHA tests. The number of customers in Sharp’s client base and how many of these customers may have worked in industries regulated by the government were also not revealed.

U.S. Airways did not comment yet on Sharp’s case.

Florida Drug Screening

Various news reports reveal that a national warrant of arrest was issued in France against U.S. cyclist Floyd Landis. He is being accused of trying to change the results of a failed drug test.

A report on the Los Angeles Times shared that Landis is being linked to a case involving the theft of computer data from an anti-drug laboratory. A warrant was also issued for Landis’ coach and adviser, Arnie Baker.

The warrants were issued by French judge Thomas Cassuto, who would like to question the cyclist about his “connection” to the hacking of computers in an anti-doping laboratory in France. The judge summoned Landis in November 2009, but the latter did not respond; this reportedly prompted the issuance of a warrant, which Cassuto issued on January 28.

The post reiterated, though, that the warrant issued against Landis was a national as opposed to an international warrant, which French anti-doping president Pierre Bordry incorrectly revealed to reporters on Monday.

Floyd Landis was stripped of his victory during the 2006 Tour de France due to test results that indicated that he was positive for high levels of testosterone. He appealed the decision, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected his appeal.

It is said that Landis used the data hacked from the French computers for his defense when he appealed the decision that stripped him of his Tour de France feat, something that Bordry also talked about in the post: “Landis used the hacked files for his defense. He wanted to show the lab made mistakes in handling the tests.”

Los Angeles Health Screening

A feature on the New York Times hails the advantage of using hair samples as opposed to urine samples during drug testing.

The title says it all: the hair cannot lie — at least as far as drug testing is concerned.

Since the 1980s, a drug test has been a standard part of the job application process, as well as the process of staying employed. More than just that, it has crept into many other standard practices not just in the United States but the rest of the world; there are countries that incorporate drug testing into several application processes, such as that of applying for a driver’s license.

According to the New York Times article, the practice of drug testing has reportedly led to a decline in the number of people who test positive for drug use over the years. But then again, that may be due to the fact that people can generally prepare for such tests. What that basically means is that a decline in positive results may not necessarily mean a decline in drug use among employees in general.

The usual method that is employed in testing for drug use is the submission of urine samples. Although this method has already led to the identification of drug use, the testing involved in urine specimens only have the ability to “detect a single instance of drug use in the prior one to three days”. This limitation of the procedure provides a window of opportunity for drug users to cheat the system by physically preparing themselves for a test; they can simply temporarily lay off the habit for a moment – just enough to be able to test negative – and then go on their old merry way, at least until the next wave of tests.

Hair samples, on the other hand, hold much more information. Hair testing can “detect a pattern of repetitive use over a period of up to 90 days”, which means a spur-of-the-moment resolution is out of the question and will not be able to yield favorable results.

New York Drug Screening

Golf is one sport that performance enhancing drugs don’t seem to play a part in and with the PGA’s new drug policy (instated last year) they’re out to make sure it stays that way. However Doug Baron has failed to pass a drug test and subsequently has been banned for the next year of play. It’s a surprising result seeing as Barron hasn’t been playing a consistent PGA tour schedule since 2006 and only managed to compete in four of the games in this year’s Nationwide tour.

While the tour declined further comment the 40 year old golfer apologized for his actions through them saying that he’d never intended to gain an unfair advantage over other players. As is standard the PGA only announced the positive result and the length of time Barron would undergo suspension as a result. The finer details of the incident and the exact drugs abused are details the PGA chooses to withhold. The announcement came November 2^nd after the drug test results came in.

Many employers are reluctant to put substance abuse testing as part of their workplace policies because they are confident of their own means of spotting users among their employees. However, being able to spot a user is usually difficult unless the employee in question has already sunk to the deep lows of his or her substance abuse.

How can employers detect if their employees are abusing drugs or alcohol? At the start, this will manifest in increased tardiness and absence from work, in missed deadlines, and in various errors in doing work due to lack of attention or better judgment. Later on, these problems will escalate to lack of dependability, repeated disappearance from work, decreased level of impulse control, or legal and financial problems. It may also come to a point when work becomes a hindrance in the mind of the user, and he or she will accede to taking a drug test just so he or she can get out of work and continue using without any disturbance.

For full version of this article, please visit “Most Common Effects of Substance Abuse on Job Performance at the Workplace“.

The Philippines has been thrust into the international spotlight over the past few days, its capital city of Manila having been ravaged by Typhoon Ketsana. Some of the Metro’s residents, the rich and powerful and the poor and ordinary alike, were faced with what is being called one of the heaviest rainfall in recent history. Some of them found themselves swimming in what used to be streets or hanging on to dear life on rooftops – whether these roofs protected humble shanties or grand homes.

While the country is at the moment trying to pick up the pieces and brace itself for more typhoons that are reportedly coming its way, there is another historically significant event that is set to take over the Philippines by spring of 2010: national elections.

A priest for the Society of Jesus, a Catholic order that has been in the Philippines since the time when the country was still a colony of Spain, wrote a commentary on one of the country’s broadsheets, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, regarding the question of drug testing for candidates who are set to bid for offices in the country’s local government units. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. talks about the vagueness of the ruling of the Philippine Supreme Court regarding the whether drug testing for local candidates was unconstitutional or not. This was compared to the definite justification of the constitutionality of random drug testing for students and employees, as well as the definite declaration that drug testing hopefuls seeking national office was a violation of the Philippine Constitution.

At this point, though, does whether it is unconstitutional matter? Even in the United States, arguments are staged over how random drug testing affects norms of propriety and violates a person’s privacy. Exactly what is the possibility that a political figure is actually a drug junkie anyway? With everything that is going on in the world, is it really worth anyone’s time to argue over which people need to be randomly tested for drug abuse? There is concern, and then there is simply going over the line. What do you think?

The NFL’s drug testing program may no longer be enforceable; thanks to a federal court ruling and they might not be the only U.S. sport that will be facing the backlash. The NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA have all begun programs in an effort to discipline players who’ve been found to be using illegal steroids. Now thanks to the ruling these players will be able to use state courts to challenge suspensions made based on doping charges from their sports leagues.

The ruling made in the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals of Minneapolis upheld the ruling of a lower court prohibiting the NFL from suspending two Minnesota Vikings who were being punished for violating the anti-doping policy. Stating that state level courts could be used to contest suspensions of this type, the court made the ruling on the basis of laws barring employers from suspending or firing an employee on the basis of an initial positive drug test.

The NFL like most sports leagues had been making suspension policies that penalized players for positive tests not considering these laws that exist in Minnesota and several other states. The ruling is viewed as a major change in the overall bargaining process for players, potentially opening new doors for players who hadn’t previously been able to lay claim to rights that regular employees experienced every day.