I seriously doubt the veracity of that report altogether.

In addition to the panel discrepency pointed out by tign8r, I found other anomolies:

- The fact that there is no signature provided by both the lab scientist, nor the MRO, which is a must on all CCF forms.

- The report is stated to have been verified on 6/16/09 - 1 day after the sample has been collected. And all this after the sample has been sent off to another site for analysis. Sorry, but even if the sample was rush-couriered to another facility, and that the sample was analyzed with the most instant means of methodology available, the process would still take longer than 1 day.

- Uric acid is not tested in a urine sample. If it was, it would be clearly outlined in the criteria set by the US Deptartment Of Health & Human Services (the governing body that overlooks the operations of all labs practicing in the US), complete with cutoff thresholds established, just like it is for creatinine, pH, SG, etc. As you see in the regulations, no such criteria has been established. Therefore its highly improper for a lab to flag a sample for a lack of uric acid when there is no criteria established for uric acid.

- A lack of smell is not a sufficient cause to flag a urine sample because this condition can be had in human urine samples too. Therefore its improper for a lab to flag a urine sample due to a lack of smell present.

- A sample with a "bright yellow color" is not a sufficient cause for a red flag. Therefore its improper for a lab to reject a sample because of this condition. Samples with foreign colors to them (blue, black, purple, or any other color thats not supposed to be present in human urine) are cause for red flags.

- A lack of foaming, like a lack of odor, can be had in some human samples as well. Therefore its improper for a lab to reject a sample due to a lack of foaming. What will raise the flags is excessive foaming when the sample is shook (due to the use of some adulterants).


My decision? In total agreement with Deejay - either you are telling one big BS story, or you have been screwed over big time by the lab not following established protocols. The bad thing is this couldve happened to you even if you gave them a clean human sample. The report in no way, shape, or form proves from an evidentiary standpoint that you have used a synthetic substitute for the U/A.

If this whole story is actually true, then you need to fight this all the way to the end. As I said, this couldve happened to anyone who was truly drug-free and had submitted their own clean sample.