Owners, and coaches that want players that aren't suspended, and are truthful.
I just want to get this out there-
Negative and positive results are just what they seem. However, if it’s positive-dilute, there was still a sufficient amount of drug in the urine to produce a positive result, so it’s still a positive.
If a sample is negative-dilute, however, that’s often a different story. A common way to pass a drug test is to consume mass quantities of water so that urine runs clear. This can often be enough to pass a drug test, even if there are drugs in a donor’s system.
How is this known? Experience.
Most test labs clients have a requirement to get a retest of those donors getting negative-dilute results, and a good many of those come back positive on round two. The others? Some people just drink a lot of water.
It's the amount of creatinine in the sample that determines the concentration of the sample (diluted or not). A Diluted Negative sample can also contain detectable amounts of drug(s) in them, just not up to the minimum level specified to be considered positive. Therefore, if the individual's drug concentration is near the cutoff of an assay, the urine may be diluted enough so that the sample will test below the cutoff level.
Only the NFL and the affected player(s) knows, though. There are harsh penalties in the CBA drug policy for leaking that info.
Already introduced myself and told my story of how i got here...but my local paper, The San Diego Union-Tribune got wind of it and did a front page article about it and i didn't know where else to post it so i thought it might be interesting in here.