Gee, you know.... I cannot help but think that with five hours lead time to sign on, a MANAGER might have had time to contact any union reps who might need to be contacted, organise a breath testing unit and, with the union rep in attendance, explained to the crew of the allegation that had been made. Mindful of union niceties, those that wished not to take the test would have an opportunity to report sick, while those willing to take the test could have done so, and the flight may well have departed on time.
I suspect the union rep would have headed off anyone not willing to take the test well before they got to sign on with a quick call to the Purser, so I cannot help but feel that action along these lines would have saved ten or twelve, and possibly all, of the crew from months of grief as they attempt to prove that this allegation was false.
I have often wondered what I would do if the plod came to my cockpit before departure telling me they had received a report that I was drunk and wished me to take a breath or blood test. I am probably fooling myself, but I do not believe I would be outside my rights to agree to take the test, but only after I see the complaint in writing, with the name and address of my accuser clearly written on the letter making the allegation against me, with the clear inference that I will be taking the person making the allegation to court for every penny they own if I deliver a clean test.
Surely the police could be instructed to adopt a policy of informing any person attempting to place an anonymous report of this nature that their report will be ignored unless they are willing to give their name and address. If some such sytem is not adopted, we will quite possibly see flights cancelled and delayed by the dozen as those who think aeroplanes are polluting the environment realise they have stumbled on a surefire way of reducing such "polluting" flights.