Tiger Woods auto accident today

[Marrila]

I don't think 50 is considered a kid. I would trade your "kids" to "celebrities".

And yes, after a couple of other incidents I can't believe he hasn't figured out to NOT being in the driver's seat.

Agree, he in no way is a "kid." Due to his age he qualifies for the Senior (old geezers) Golf Tour.
He doesn't seem to care about endangering himself. But being wealthy doesn't give him the right to put others in danger.
Let's hope his license is revoked for at least a year.

He declined the urinalysis for a reason. Just speculating, but lots of doctors, lots of surgeries can mean multiple pain and other pill prescriptions.

If he wants to be there for his children in the coming years he likely needs rehab and long term support.

 

[bcla]

His refusal to submit to a urinalysis is legally considered the equivalent of a positive test result.

Not exactly. The reporting is that It’s considered a misdemeanor with an automatic one year suspension of license and even jail time. But the consequences for a positive drug test could include a felony if it’s something like an illegal hard drug (like heroin).

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statute...te&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html

 

[Marrila]

Not exactly. The reporting is that It’s considered a misdemeanor with an automatic one year suspension of license and even jail time. But the consequences for a positive drug test could include a felony if it’s something like an illegal hard drug (like heroin).

https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statute...te&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.1932.html

Well yes, your thoughts are why he said no. But most states don't let the refusal be just fine. That would be stupid.

He didn't have an actual drug test. He refused to submit to urinalysis.

His refusal is considered an equivalent, that is not identical to an actual test result. And it is a misdemeanor.

 

[bcla]

Well yes, your thoughts are why he said no. But most states don't let the refusal be just fine. That would be stupid.

He didn't have an actual drug test. He refused to submit to urinalysis.

His refusal is considered an equivalent, that is not identical to an actual test result. And it is a misdemeanor.

Sure. But again, the consequences for a positive test with certain illegal drugs could be extremely severe.

It was probably a bit different when most states only tested for alcohol. When I studied for my driver’s test decades ago, the driver being asked to submit a sample had a choice and there was legally no difference as long as a urine, blood, or breath sample was provided.

I’m sure an attorney could slice and dice the differences. But certainly Woods refusing was likely deliberate. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have an attorney advise him, after he’d previously been tested positive with all manner of substances including antidepressants, sedatives, THC, etc.

 

[Marrila]

Sure. But again, the consequences for a positive test with certain illegal drugs could be extremely severe.

It was probably a bit different when most states only tested for alcohol. When I studied for my driver’s test decades ago, the driver being asked to submit a sample had a choice and there was legally no difference as long as a urine, blood, or breath sample was provided.

I’m sure an attorney could slice and dice the differences. But certainly Woods refusing was likely deliberate. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have an attorney advise him, after he’d previously been tested positive with all manner of substances including antidepressants, sedatives, THC, etc.

Just my opinion, but I bet plenty of folks think likewise:
He didn't need an attorney to immediately advise him yesterday. He knows how the DUI game is played. He knew exactly what he had (or hadn't) used or taken.
Breathalyzer, sure, happy to.
Urinalysis? Gonna nope that.
Of course his refusal was deliberate.