The Devonshire Cougars trio who refused to take doping tests on Saturday will not play football again this season unless they can prove they are drug free.

Raymond Beach, Heys Wolfe and Omar Butterfield have ten days to explain why they failed to show for a third drugs test the day before Bermuda lost 3-0 to Santos and if they cannot prove they had ?reasonable excuses? to miss the tests, they have 14 days to appeal or face mandatory one-year bans from international football.

They could also be banned from domestic football unless they sign a contract with an approved drug testing agency, agree to one-on-one drug counselling, pass an initial test, and then subject themselves to random testing throughout the one-year period.

If, at any stage, they were to fail a test or refuse to take one, they would automatically be banned domestically for a full year.

Although none of the players actually gave positive samples, refusing to show for a test without reasonable excuse is deemed a ?drug use related infraction? under Bermuda Council for Drug Free Sport (BCDS) procedures, and carries an automatic one-year international ban for first offences.

The three players, who had been training with national coach Kyle Lightbourne?s squad ahead of the opening tour game, will now miss Sunday?s FA Cup quarter-final tie with North Village ? a huge blow to Cougars who will miss Beach?s awesome strike power.

The diminutive striker has scored 19 goals in ten games and his elevation to the national squad was the only outcome as he clearly became the most devastating marksman in the league ? and Lightbourne was looking forward to having him as part of his plans.

The weekend?s revelations, unless an appeal is successful, could prove costly for Andrew Bascome?s Cougars as they pay the ultimate price for failing to adhere to Bermuda?s zero-tolerance drug policy.

Vaughan Mosher, managing director of Benedict Associates who carry out the drug tests on behalf of the BCDS, said that athletes were tested for five drug types; Opiates, Amphetamines, Meth-Amphetamines, Cocaine and Marijuana.

?In 1997 standards were put in place and those standards are best-practised for the way things work globally,? he told though refusing to comment specifically on the Cougars cases.

?It has remained hard and steadfast, two features that are looked at for what make a sample a valid sample. One is what?s called Specific Gravity and the other is called pH level. A lot of other things can be measured but we only measure those two things for drugs screening because those are the vital ones.

?The pH level is not to be greater than seven. It goes from a low of two to a high of nine or even ten. Most of all our samples are within the four, five or six range ? and that?s perfect.

?If the body has fluid in it that has a pH level that?s so much higher than seven, then that means there is something in that individual that really puts things way out from what a normal range is.

?And although we can?t say, and shouldn?t say, that that means the person has tried to adulterate the sample ? like drinking a gallon of vinegar or something like that ? we can?t say how it got to be that way or they were intentionally trying to camouflage something. We can?t say that at all.

?But if the pH level is above seven then that is invalid and unacceptable and therefore we can?t test for any drugs in the body because the sample itself is not a valid sample that can be measurable.?

?Specific gravity means that the process of urine filtering through the kidney and bladder as it flows through the system is around long enough so that kidneys take out metabolites from the food. Those metabolites are what gives urine the colour and there are all sorts of metabolites including drug metabolites in there that are measurable.

?We know that these are actually urine samples because our standard is that we must see the delivery of that sample end to end. We must see the stream so that we know there is no way of somebody taking in somebody?s else?s urine because the process is witnessed. Every drug screen that we do is observed or witnessed.?

Meanwhile, BFA president Larry Mussenden remained tight-lipped on the matter, stating that he was unable to talk due to the privacy conditions of their agreement with the BCDS.

?The BFA, like every other national sporting governing body, are signatories to the agreement with the BCDS,? Musssenden told

?The rules, procedures and protocols and the infractions and punishments have been in place for some time now and we are signatories to the agreement and, as such, we abide by the agreements.

?The agreement does call out for matters involving individuals to remain confidential and the BFA will not speak about individual cases in accordance with BCDS policy.

?As signatories we have always been bound by the agreement and that will not change.?

Sports Minister Dale Butler, who watched Sunday?s game, refused to comment on the issue specifically, stating it was a matter for the association and the BCDS.

He did state, however: ?All athletes are aware of the rules and the consequences, so what happens, happens.

?We advocate all sports being played in a drug-free environment in accordance with the BCDS.?

Butler added that he had twice been tested ? and twice passed ? after competing in road running events.