Attempt to fool drug test with fake urine lands men in real jail

| Wednesday, October 15, 2003

For anyone who ever tempted to try to beat a drug test, authorities in West Texas have a message – don’t.

Five men have been caught in the past six months using a “realistic looking prosthetic device” to take a urine-based drug test, The Associated Press reported. And all five, who were on probation at the time, are likely to return to life behind bars because they used the devices.

The five were using a device called the “Whizzinator.” The device’s manufacturer describes it as a realistic-looking prosthetic that contains artificial urine and a device to warm the liquid to body temperature.

The device is meant to look realistic, but it was sound, not appearance, that gave at least one man using it away, the news service reported.

"A body part when it's up against a plastic cup isn't going to go 'clink,'" Tom Madigan of the Lubbock County adult probation office told The AP.

Truckers who might be tempted to use a device like the Whizzinator should think twice. Donna Ryun of OOIDA said that truckers who used a device that was intended to produce a false result would be treated the same way as someone who refused to take a required test.

“An employer who receives a verified adulterated or substituted drug test result must consider this a refusal to test and immediately remove the employee involved from performing safety-sensitive functions,” she said. “The employer must take this action on receiving the initial report of the verified adulterated or substituted test result.”

That employee would be barred from further duty until he or she completed evaluation, treatment, education and other requirements specified in the federal safety rules.

Not only could the driver lose his or her job, the driver would likely find it hard to get another one.

“Other carriers are not likely to hire someone with this type of record,” Ryun said.

--by Mark H. Reddig, associate editor

Mark Reddig can be reached at mark_reddig@landlinemag.com.

Comments