Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WoO news with Attica/Fremont tie-in

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by GTigers55 View Post
    Brian Liskai was saying on twitter that Brian Lay did attempt to provide a sample but wasn't able to provide enough when requested. So according to that he didn't refuse the drug test but couldn't produce enough urine before the event began. Why they wouldn't have just done the test later is a wonder to me if that is what really happened.
    Again who says they didn't? Maybe they gave him a certain amount of time, but couldn't / wouldn't?

    When we had a random on the job site one time ... many years ago. I just went right before break time and then they said after break that several of us was going to take a random. Well I told them it would have been nice to know this before break so I wouldn't have went. They basically gave me 1 hour to produce a sample ... which meant me taking a lot of water and within 30-45 minutes I was able to give them the necessary amount.

    Comment


    • #17
      I think there should at least be probable cause, as defined by law, before testing anyone. Otherwise it is a violation of our Constitutional right of privacy and to be left alone. The “right to be left alone” is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. Random drug testing does not test the level of impairment either. Despite what a previous poster stated, marijuana can stay in your system for 14-30 days and in some cases even longer. Random drug tests are often not accurate either. Drugs are bad and a plague in our country right now. People in my family have died from drug use and don't think that many of us can say we don't know someone who has. However, we should not have to give up our Constitutional rights to combat it. Otherwise, why not just serve search warrants on random houses at will and eliminate crime and drugs that way. That's not the American way and random drug testing shouldn't be either. Before I get called out for being this or that I would like to note that I m a non-user.

      Comment


      • #18
        "RaceMak actually ASSuMEd by saying he doesn't have a drug problem" says eroc.

        Where did he do that? I must have reading comprehension problems because I could have swore he said. "I doubt he has a drug problem".

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Blaniac1 View Post
          I think there should at least be probable cause, as defined by law, before testing anyone. Otherwise it is a violation of our Constitutional right of privacy and to be left alone. The “right to be left alone” is, in the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. Random drug testing does not test the level of impairment either. Despite what a previous poster stated, marijuana can stay in your system for 14-30 days and in some cases even longer. Random drug tests are often not accurate either. Drugs are bad and a plague in our country right now. People in my family have died from drug use and don't think that many of us can say we don't know someone who has. However, we should not have to give up our Constitutional rights to combat it. Otherwise, why not just serve search warrants on random houses at will and eliminate crime and drugs that way. That's not the American way and random drug testing shouldn't be either. Before I get called out for being this or that I would like to note that I m a non-user.
          Yes, drugs like weed can stay in your system up to 30 days ... had a lot of drug classes for work that we had to go through all this stuff. Actually learned how to hide it, carry it, and learned a lot more things about it being a non-user myself.

          The issue isn't if it is in your system, but the allowable numbers or being able to pass it. They do allow a certain amount similar to what alcohol is if your driving, but each testing/company is different and their numbers allowed.

          Must be nice to have a job where your not tested? Where do you find that nowadays?

          So your saying you shouldn't be tested for alcohol unless probable cause even if your way over the legal limit?

          So your in favor of allowing drivers being drunk, be high, etc... what happens if they get into a wreck and kill somebody ... don't you think that family is going to not only sue that driver, his family, but also the track or series as well because they allowed them on the track ... I am sure the insurance companies wouldn't be to happy about it either for the tracks or series.

          If your job can hurt somebody else your fine with a person to be high, drunk, or whatever else especially knowing in a racecar that can go 140mph, very light weight, and could do a lot of damage not only to themselves, but other competitors or even fans in the stands.

          I for one am glad especially in my line of work I rely on others and knowing that they could be on a drug and operate a machine when I am 50-60 feet in the air would bother me knowing they have my life in their hands.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Blaniac1 View Post
            "RaceMak actually ASSuMEd by saying he doesn't have a drug problem" says eroc.

            Where did he do that? I must have reading comprehension problems because I could have swore he said. "I doubt he has a drug problem".
            Obviously you do ... When he says "I doubt he has a drug problem"... that is assuming he doesn't ... race fans don't know ... I hope he doesn't have an issue and was a deal where he couldn't give the amount necessary.

            Comment


            • #21
              Can anyone name one incident where someone was driving a race car drunk or high and injured someone? I know ward had marijuana in his system after the fact of his deal with Stewart. My point is someone driving and causing a wreck from being under the influence. Me personally I'm more worried when I'm starting on the inside row in the middle of the feature and there's two guys with a grudge starting out front. I see more ego/anger issues then I do drug problems.

              Comment


              • #22
                Doubting that someone has a drug problem is an opinion not an assumption. How many of you qualified to say Brian Lay has or doesn't have a drug problem? Zero. On the subject of anger issues....Few pot smokers have them. I haven't smoked marijuana since the early 1980's. Back then drug use and drug abuse were not synonymous. The biggest problem with driving while stoned is concentration. Its either heightened or non existant. When its heightened, there's nothing better than a motorcycle ride. When its nonextistant you get off the bike thinking "I don't know who rode those last 50 miles, but it wasn't me.
                Last edited by racemak; June 10th, 2017, 10:51 AM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  As far as needing probable cause to drug test... When you sign up to race with a particular organization or apply for many jobs, you're making an agreement that you consent to allowing a randomized drug test performed on you. All the drivers were made well aware of this before the beginning of the year and they knew that they were agreeing to potentially have a random drug test performed on them without probable cause. I like the rule as it makes it less likely that a driver will show up if they are inebriated, and also the WoO also does still have probable cause drug testing as well where if it looks like someone is drunk/high/etc they can test them.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    When jobs are scarce, employers reqiure drug testing. I drove a tandem axle dump truck one summer. The company badly needed drivers. I wasn't drug tested.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      [QUOTE=ErocWolverine;n20679]


                      "Must be nice to have a job where your not tested? Where do you find that nowadays?"

                      I own businesses. I only have people tested if I feel there is enough probable cause to test them. What they do in their private time is none of my business. When it affects their job performance or other people then it is. And you are right, it is nice to have a job like me. Thanks

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Interesting
                        Last edited by outlawdan; June 10th, 2017, 08:46 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Brian Lay won at Fremont! Good for him after this week.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Congrats to Brian Lay on winning at Fremont Saturday night, I could care less whether or not he pissed in a cup

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jason Curlis View Post
                              Congrats to Brian Lay on winning at Fremont Saturday night, I could care less whether or not he pissed in a cup
                              I agree 100%.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jason Curlis View Post
                                Congrats to Brian Lay on winning at Fremont Saturday night, I could care less whether or not he pissed in a cup
                                The only thing I was surprised or not surprised about what no comment/response from either Attica or Fremont about the deal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X