Ado Carr caught on coke again.

This is the AI take on the fact's of the process, not the individual case of JAC

False Positives & Test Reliability

The initial roadside test (Securetec DrugWipe) is a screening tool. If it returns a positive result, NSW Police take a secondary oral fluid sample using a different machine (e.g., Dräger), which is then sent to a forensic laboratory for final confirmation.

The Error Rate: Statistical data from NSW Parliament indicates the discrepancy rate between positive roadside screening and final laboratory confirmation generally sits between 4.5% and 6%. [1]
Scientific Criticism: High-profile studies, such as those from the Lambert Initiative at the University of Sydney, have publicly criticized NSW roadside testing devices as being structurally unreliable—frequently producing false negatives for heavy usage or triggering positive responses for trace, non-intoxicating levels.]
If it is False: If the laboratory forensic test returns a negative result, the matter is completely dropped, and no charges are laid.

Likely Public Prosecution (Second Offence)

Because this is treated as a presence-only offence (Section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013), the prosecution only needs to prove the drug was in his system, not that he was driving poorly. Under NSW law, a second or subsequent drug driving offence within a 5-year window carries the following maximum court penalties: [1, 2]

Fines: A maximum court-imposed fine of $3,300.
Licence Disqualification: An automatic 12-month licence disqualification, which a Magistrate can reduce to a absolute minimum of 6 months at their discretion.
Criminal Record: A mandatory conviction unless the lawyer secures a lenient sentencing order (such as a Conditional Release Order without conviction), which is exceedingly rare for a repeat offence.
Note: "Presence-only" charges do not carry prison sentences in NSW, unlike Driving Under the Influence (DUI).

Can Quality Barristers Disprove the Process?

Yes. Specialized traffic defense barristers regularly contest Mobile Drug Testing (MDT) charges by exploiting strict legislative procedures. Common legal avenues to defeat the prosecution include: [1]

The 2-Hour Rule: Under NSW law, police must obtain the oral fluid sample within two hours of the person driving. If a barrister proves the timeline was breached, the test is legally inadmissible.
Chain of Custody: High-end legal teams closely audit how the saliva sample was sealed, stored, logged, and transported. Any gap or administrative error in the "chain of custody" can see the evidence thrown out of court.
Device Calibration: Barristers can subpoena maintenance logs for the specific police testing units to prove they were not calibrated or cleaned according to manufacturer specifications.

Is No Dangerous Driving a Mitigation Factor?

It functions more as a baseline reality rather than a traditional legal shield:

It is the Element of the Offence: The lack of dangerous driving is expected because he is being charged with "presence," not "impairment". If dangerous driving had occurred, the police would have upgraded the prosecution to the much more severe charge of DUI or Dangerous Driving, which carries potential imprisonment.
Subjective Mitigation: While it won't get the charge dismissed, a barrister will heavily emphasize his good driving behavior, cooperation with police, and lack of erratic driving during sentencing. This is critical to convince the Magistrate to grant the minimum 6-month disqualification rather than the automatic 12-month penalty. [1, 2, 3, 4]

"The curious in me wants to know if we were to announce Bostock and let's say Sloan to keep it semi realistic tomorrow , how many of us would be too worried about JACs case considering he's going to be out for 12 weeks if we don't sack him ? "

Replies

Trent September 13, 2026 at 3:30pm

Save the fox
Eli Stephens September 13, 2026 at 4:32pm

Decision to be delayed for 6 weeks or so waiting for the 2nd sample. Also because it's the offseason eels/nrl can delay it a little. No call made on his future yet let's wait and see
- Poppa > Eli Stephens September 13, 2026 at 9:20pm
  This is the AI take on the fact's of the process, not the individual case of JAC
  
  False Positives & Test Reliability
  
  The initial roadside test (Securetec DrugWipe) is a screening tool. If it returns a positive result, NSW Police take a secondary oral fluid sample using a different machine (e.g., Dräger), which is then sent to a forensic laboratory for final confirmation.
  
  The Error Rate: Statistical data from NSW Parliament indicates the discrepancy rate between positive roadside screening and final laboratory confirmation generally sits between 4.5% and 6%. [1]
  
  Scientific Criticism: High-profile studies, such as those from the Lambert Initiative at the University of Sydney, have publicly criticized NSW roadside testing devices as being structurally unreliable—frequently producing false negatives for heavy usage or triggering positive responses for trace, non-intoxicating levels.]
  
  If it is False: If the laboratory forensic test returns a negative result, the matter is completely dropped, and no charges are laid.
  
  Likely Public Prosecution (Second Offence)
  
  Because this is treated as a presence-only offence (Section 111 of the Road Transport Act 2013), the prosecution only needs to prove the drug was in his system, not that he was driving poorly. Under NSW law, a second or subsequent drug driving offence within a 5-year window carries the following maximum court penalties: [1, 2]
  
  Fines: A maximum court-imposed fine of $3,300.
  
  Licence Disqualification: An automatic 12-month licence disqualification, which a Magistrate can reduce to a absolute minimum of 6 months at their discretion.
  
  Criminal Record: A mandatory conviction unless the lawyer secures a lenient sentencing order (such as a Conditional Release Order without conviction), which is exceedingly rare for a repeat offence.
  
  Note: "Presence-only" charges do not carry prison sentences in NSW, unlike Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
  
  Can Quality Barristers Disprove the Process?
  
  Yes. Specialized traffic defense barristers regularly contest Mobile Drug Testing (MDT) charges by exploiting strict legislative procedures. Common legal avenues to defeat the prosecution include: [1]
  
  The 2-Hour Rule: Under NSW law, police must obtain the oral fluid sample within two hours of the person driving. If a barrister proves the timeline was breached, the test is legally inadmissible.
  
  Chain of Custody: High-end legal teams closely audit how the saliva sample was sealed, stored, logged, and transported. Any gap or administrative error in the "chain of custody" can see the evidence thrown out of court.
  
  Device Calibration: Barristers can subpoena maintenance logs for the specific police testing units to prove they were not calibrated or cleaned according to manufacturer specifications.
  
  Is No Dangerous Driving a Mitigation Factor?
  
  It functions more as a baseline reality rather than a traditional legal shield:
  
  It is the Element of the Offence: The lack of dangerous driving is expected because he is being charged with "presence," not "impairment". If dangerous driving had occurred, the police would have upgraded the prosecution to the much more severe charge of DUI or Dangerous Driving, which carries potential imprisonment.
  
  Subjective Mitigation: While it won't get the charge dismissed, a barrister will heavily emphasize his good driving behavior, cooperation with police, and lack of erratic driving during sentencing. This is critical to convince the Magistrate to grant the minimum 6-month disqualification rather than the automatic 12-month penalty. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  - Wizard “Alcatraz “Sleeve > Poppa September 13, 2026 at 9:51pm
    
    Yup it's black or white , no level of presence is even a thing.
Tin Tim September 14, 2026 at 8:21am

Mick Cronin didn't sign contracts, he shook hand & made a promise. How do you think Ryles & Ado-Carr start their conversation? I'm assuming with a hand shake & with a promise he wouldn't make Ryles regret his decision of signing him. After having his contract terminated, he was lucky to earn a living by doing what he does best. He was very lucky to have found a club to make a living again. Look at what he done!! He needs to be sacked immediately, show the young players what happens if you don't make good life choices.
Parra-all-the-way September 14, 2026 at 9:02am

he i surely sacked, not a good look for him and the club! measn the club are now looking for another back.....i reckon we bring in bostock and best (i know im dreaming here) and go hard for a herbie as well.
adnan September 14, 2026 at 9:19am

fine him 50k and send him to thailand for rehab and move on
BringBackSemi September 14, 2026 at 9:30am

I don't think he should be sacked. But if the NRL hands down a 12 match suspension, this is a very long time to be without him. So I guess the club is between a rock and hard place on this one. I guess we will know more when his B sample comes back and when the new CEO is appointed.

If Ezra Mam is still playing after what he did, anything is possible.
Wizard “Alcatraz “Sleeve September 14, 2026 at 11:04am

The curious in me wants to know if we were to announce Bostock and let's say Sloan to keep it semi realistic tomorrow , how many of us would be too worried about JACs case considering he's going to be out for 12 weeks if we don't sack him ?
- Eli Stephens > Wizard “Alcatraz “Sleeve September 14, 2026 at 11:23am
  
  This would be the dream scenario tbh.