Printable View
1ST (AND LAST TIME SUBBING FOR ME)....EVERYTHING WENT GREAT...TEMP WAS 96...AND I FAILED??? I AM GOING TO CALL TOMORROW AND FIND OUT JUST WHAT MADE THIS TEST "FAIL" FOR ME....IM AT A LOSS FOR WORDS...AS OTHER FRIENDS ONLY USE THIS BRAND AND PASS NO PROBLEMS....MY WORST NITEMARE HAS COME TRUE! I DONT KNOW WHAT THE HELL COULDA WENT WRONG....
Wow! Sorry to hear this! Just about to order this... and luckily i found your post. I know not lucky for you, i really feel for you because i have been going over and over what i am going to do. I have a Pre employment test on the 4th of Feb and last I smoked was the 17th of this month. That will give me about 17 days clean. SHIT i thought i had it all figured out! I think I might just call the employer and tell him that my current employer needs me longer to train someone new. I think that will be better than failing, then start next month if the position is still available rather than BURN a bridge...
What type of test was it? Pre employment? Probation? I would like to hear what happened tomorrow. Again, sorry about your misfortune. Chin up, dont give up buddy.
it was a Pre-Employment test...and as im typing this...i still havent heard anything as to the results! im just hoping someone somewhere dropped the ball...Ive never had to wait this long to get cleared for work...and i always thought....NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS!....SMH!
WOW....finally found out that the test came back INCONCLUSIVE! with no other reason! now...hopefully my employer will let me do this shit all over again! this time without Agent-X....I WILL NEVER USE SYNTHETIC EVER EVER AGAIN! PERIOD!
Uhg, that sucks. maybe thats better than a FAIL? or i wonder if it is counted as a FAIL? I have been reading how you can freeze clean pee and use it at a later date and its kinda interesting. glad i didnt use Agent X. will they refund you?!?!
an INCONCLUSIVE result is definetely 100% better than a FAIL! if you do a search...you will see that if you drink too much water before the test it ill be "diluted" and get flagged as inconclusive...or if a synthetc is sused, it will be inconclusive too....Im soooooo glad i get to take another test in the a.m. with some fresh clean real urine...
and as far as a refund...bwahahahahaha....yeah sure...
Thats incorrect. Too much water means a "diluted" result. And "Diluted" and "Inconclusive" are two entirely different rulings under the regulations set by the DHHS.Quote:
if you do a search...you will see that if you drink too much water before the test it ill be "diluted" and get flagged as inconclusive...or if a synthetc is sused, it will be inconclusive too
And if a synthetic sample is used, and was determined as so, the ruling would be "Substituted specimen" (aka "not consistent with human urine") not "inconclusive" :rolleyes:.
The MRO has to report the reason why the sample was "inconclusive'' because there are several possible reasons why a sample is ruled inconclusive. Stating that a sample is just "inconclusive" without a reason will not suffice in the eyes of the DHHS.Quote:
finally found out that the test came back INCONCLUSIVE! with no other reason!
so what will get you an INCONCLUSIVE result like i got?
and that IS the only thing anyone would tell me about this....just that it was inconclusive....thats it! nothing noted/stated anywhere....
Nothing in regards to synthetics, thats for sure. As Ive already stated, a "failing" synthetic batch would not be ruled "inconclusive" It would be ruled a "Substituted specimen". This is not coming from me - this is coming straight from the DHHS regulations on Specimen Validity Guidance in which all certified facilities have to abide by.Quote:
Originally Posted by ableman
And you shouldve raised hell about it if what youre stating is true. Because with any ruling that is not a straight-up "negative", the MRO must provide the reason(s) for the ruling, complete with quantitative values to support the ruling. In short, the burden is on the labs to prove why a sample would not obtain a passing grade. Something as incomplete as "inconclusive - nothing else" is not sufficent from an evidentiary standpoint and should never be accepted as if it were a stick of gum.Quote:
and that IS the only thing anyone would tell me about this....just that it was inconclusive....thats it! nothing noted/stated anywhere....