sixty days prior to the test and then takes this whole puts a hundred officers and it separates out ninety eight who get a native and two who get a positive in the expert testimony there is no claim here that the determination of those ninety eight negatives is not accurate so it seems to me that you have a test that is hugely valid inaccurate in terms of separating out as compared to for example a coin flip where you get fifty fifty in who knows to be right and therefore you need to really focus on what alternative would achieve that same parsing out with the same degree of accuracy and yet not p impact when it comes to the qualifications of the person for the job seems focused like a laser on the department doesn't want anyone on the force who was detected with using cocaine within sixty days prior to the test and as and it's cleared ninety eight percent of the force virtually all of the cohesion officers and virtually all of the african americans of hispanic officers have been cleared by this test  the accuracy of the positive test results which are applicable to roughly two percent of the people who take it will put every few women down on this will then go ahead and continue defending it but it seems to me once the city has shown that ninety eight percent of the results are unchallenged as accurate and your problem is that the two percent is discreetly which you have proven allocated to suggest that we're going to find the test not valid would be i don't know of any other page that has found a test that has that high an accuracy rate to be invalid but you've got some evidence i think that says you could get that same accuracy impact is so great as it is here i mean we have career police officers who have been on it for us for twenty five years nineteen years thirteen years on the basis of the symbiote tests were printed drug users and officers have no indication of any job impairment resulting from threat he was after a long time on the force and the alternative would repeat the needs of the police department  the district court seemed to suggest that if you were providing an alternative suggesting an alternative to the hair test it might be appropriate as we said in our prior opinion to require extensive or statistical  of that test your point i take it here is that where you keep the hair test in place and then add a plus two would that wouldn't be necessary because the plus that is added here periodic throughout the year are going to be a lot more detective then what you thought it was doing this i understand your client was doing schedule your hair test within thirty or sixty days of your have to assume at this stage that each piece of that expert testimony which was not subject to any delbert challenge is needed to broaden surety and his correct isn't much better for the department to cross your analysis testing would completely replicate the same results and terms of negatives you know it would clear the same ninety eight percent and then as between  what was suggested as a possibility in our opinion and that is extensive for statistical data and we've established this morning that that's not required in all cases so can we just stop here and say that the judge applied the wrong standard into this next set of you're going to you're going to undergo your analysis how could that happen how could doing the same thing only doing it before you put them into another process proposed alternative grows that you don't look at the color skin and you look at something else like that performance review would be actually mean to stickle evidence to suggest that the latter would most likely