Live or die by ZT

Jeff, regarding the NHRA's (or any organization's for that matter) alcohol and drug policy: It's only as good as the foundation underneath it and the enforcement behind it.  If it is the policy of an organization to perform random checks, then do so!  This needs to be done without notice during 'working hours'. In the case of an NHRA event, if you are participating in the event in any way; driver, crew, media, safety, promotion, sponsor, whatever, and you are on the property hosting the event, you are 'working' and thus fair game.

The NHRA should randomly select a couple of dozen individuals at every event and test them. Pick some on Thursday morning, some on Friday morning, some on Saturday morning and a few more on Sunday morning.   If all participants knew this was standard operating procedure, there should be no surprises. 

After all, isn't the goal prevention, rather than 'let’s see who we can catch and ridicule today'?  Catch one, and "Hey, look what a damn good job our A & D policies are doing for us!"  What a bunch of crap. How many more were out there that they didn't catch because of a weak policy.

The consequences of a positive result (or failure to perform the test on demand) need to be clearly spelled out and adhered to without regard to the individual in question. And the consequences need to be severe enough to give thought to showing up for work as anything less than pollution free. Otherwise, the policy and all the grandstanding within the present system is pointless and worthless.

When it comes to actual individual test results, as far as I'm concerned, this is a 'health test' procedure, the results of which should remain private between those requesting the test, the lab, and the individual.

If I know that on any given day I show up at the workplace that there's a chance the A&D police will be there, and my name might get called, guess what?  I don't show up to work all #$%&ed up! Ever. And probably not many others do either. If I do show up and raise suspicion as to my condition, then I should expect to be asked to be tested. Oh, and if I'm involved in an 'incident' (hitting the wall as a driver, a wheel flying off of the TF dragster that I just crewed, etc), I should be automatically subjected to testing. I know this all sounds harsh, but this is reality in many businesses today.

In no way am I implying or even think that Mr. Johnson was intoxicated or under the influence of anything. In fact, the number given is quite the contrary. But he violated the policy, and the reasons and results are no one else's business. The number, .027 or .227, it makes no difference. If you're going to stand on a 'zero-tolerance' policy, then stand on it. Enforce the rules and apply the consequences as the participants know them to be written, then move on. Do it consistently and without fanfare. There's never a good time to celebrate 'catching' someone.

John Michaels
Las Vegas, Nevada