well,what you stated in that last sentence just 'could' have been enough to actually contaminate that swab. if there seriously is no way she could have realistically even had any alcohol in her system then, this would be the only logical reason for this to have occured, ya know what i mean? there IS a big difference tho between regular rubbing alcohol and etheyl alcohol that is what is in alcoholic beverages. depending upon how that read actually is and if this actually defines one from another she would have some possible wiggle room here and be able to at least request another type of test, you know whnat i mean?
she just really needs to find out exactly what type of alcohol that swab test picks up on and whether or not it defines rubbing alcohol from ETOH. like i said,there just IS a big difference between the two. the fact that the testing people even allowed any alcohol at all even near a testing area was pretty stupid if they are actually loking for it in that test, ya know? there is just that very real risk of contamination there when its that close in proximity. she or you also need to look up ANY info and print it off for these people about 'false positives with swab drug tests". there are just sooo many possible reasons for all kinds of drug testing to bring up false positives and false negatives that it IS and would be worth the time and effort to really seriously look into this for her. only she really knows for certain what was or was not present in her system at the time of that test. if she KNOWS she is being falsely accused, unfortunetly it would be up to her to show the real solid researched/well documented reasons as how false positives just really can occur with any type of real drug testing. trust me, she is not the first person or will be the last that this type of thing has happened to. the real research on this IS out there for anyone to read and print off and how the people who did this test just what CAN occur with any drug tests out there. espescially when they have one of the 'looked for' chemicals sitting way too close to the test area and subject. that was "their' error so may be just based upon that alone they would actually allow her another chance? but DO back this up with some research done too, it just helps back up the problem as to why it just 'could' even have shown up at all. it was just a really stupid way of even doing a test by not assuring that anything that could contaminate and show a false positive was not removed and cleaned BEFORE that test was even done. it just really sounds like whoever did this testing did it in a really shabby way. espescially leaving that testing swab even IN the same area as the test subject? not really a good testing protocal at all to assure a quality test.
i do wish her luck with this and hope she can prove her case to these stupid people. please keep me posted. FB
