Re: Re:
glenmalure said:
...the entertainment industry - likes of Jeremy Kyle - consistently says the test results are 99% accurate. (take from that what you will)
Pure puffery.
Firstly, the hardware used in a polygraph isn't functionally any different from that which a physician uses when he performs a physical examination. Except of course the skin conductivity test, which the physician's standard battery of tests omits. The device does not illuminate a green light to indicate "Truth" and a red light to indicate "Lie," it simply tracks the changes in physiological responses. It is entirely incumbent upon the administrator to make of those changes what he will. Validity of the test results is entirely dependent upon the skill of the administrator. In that regard it is no different from using a panel of judges to score Olympic gymnastics. Count on the East German judge to always be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the American judge.
So in the end, it still comes down to a
subjective interpretation of an
indirect test. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Secondly, how do they know it is "99% accurate?" Such a figure only is objectively and empirically testable if they have an alternative test of truthfulness that itself is provably empirically superior to the polygraph. And if a provably superior test exists, why do they continue to use the poly?
Experimental testing using voluntary human subjects who lie or tell the truth as directed is not a perfect substitute for "real world" testing because, unlike the real world subjects, the experimental subjects have nothing to lose from their deceits. It is unrealistic to expect physiological responses of the two groups to be the same. To be similar is not to be the same, and those who lie generally can counted on to lie yet again to support the original lie, therefore asking the test subject to validate his own polygraph results after the fact is ludicrous. And no mathematical result ever can be more accurate than the least accurate term used to produce it.
Anyone who attaches a numerical value to the accuracy of the polygraph almost certainly has a vested interest in their perspective being regarded as authoritative. Therefore their analysis is no more reliable than asking the subjects of real-world polygraph tests whether they lied while taking the test.
Simply put, there is no deterministic method for assessing the accuracy of the polygraph. And if there were, that method, not the poly, would be the gold standard. But to the contrary, many still dispute the polygraph's efficacy, and there is considerable anecdotal evidence to support that claim.
Tertiarily, just like there are companies whose business is enabling people to defeat drug tests, there also are organisations whose goal it is to abolish nonjudicial use of the polygraph (such as
Anti Polygraph.org). Or at least to make a bob or two from enabling others to defeat the testing. So they buy their own polygraphs, study how to defeat them, then sell those particulars. In a nutshell, the simplest tactic is to skew the baseline by deliberately self-inflicting physical discomfort or psychological stress before offering a response to those "control" questions which the subject is directed to answer truthfully. When there is no valid baseline, the result only can be "inconclusive." And in rational world, an inconclusive result is never grounds for punitive action.
In the end, the polygraph is much like drug testing itself. Its effectiveness varies directly with the subject's willingness to cooperate.
Quaternarily, the body of professional cyclists have a history of bristling at the idea of "being treated like criminals." Regardless of the efficacy of the poly, the use of the "lie detector" is inextricably linked to the police and criminal prosecutions. I can fair guarantee you that the body of professional cyclists will put their umbrage on full parade at the suggestion that they are to be subjected to routine polygraphing.
Lest we forget, most western nations have a long-standing tradition of recognising one's
right to silence. The most well-known codification probably is the USA's "5th Amendment," but the legal principle in the UK is far older, tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215 (Clause 39). So just how many "rights" accorded to common citizens can one reasonably expect expect cyclists to surrender so that they might pursue their profession, particularly when this particular surrender is only necessary because of WADA/UCI [pick one] ineptitude?
The simplest way to defeat the poly would be for everyone to refuse to speak. They can't fire them all, or even a substantial portion of them. And just like some cyclists claim to being motivated to dope by the fear that there are others who are doping undetected (and thereby diminishing their earnings), some will be motivated to refuse to speak simply because they think others are refusing.
I do not think this is a tactic the racers themselves ever are likely to support.
And finally, the CN forum has danced around this maypole before:
bit.ly/1Hpf1Po We all know Brian Cookson reads "The Clinic" daily
, and as the idea was being put forward here as much as five years ago, it seem reasonable to me to conclude that he already has examined that possibility and found it wanting.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram