Two words . . . Polygraph Test!

[miloman]

Results from polygraph (lie detector) tests are recognized in more 56 countries internationally. Polygraphs tests are considered 90% accurate. I’d take those odds. Why won’t Lance, Tyler, Floyd . . . anyone take a polygraph test? Granted, in light of recent allegation, it appears most top-level cyclists are crafty, convincing prevaricators. However, if any of the key players would submit to a test and pass, they’d have my vote!

 

[DirtyWorks]

How about we get the UCI to tighten their intentionally loose rules? They can't seem to process one positive like another either. Some just disappear!

How about lowering some blood content limits? Not without controversy....

How about back testing samples and processing them today?

My gut feeling is if international law enforcement forces the IOC into an epiphany about their passive stance on drugs, I'm pretty sure Hein's going to follow along.

No one needs to rely on polygraphs.

 

[trompe le monde]

I don't think polygraphs are that reliable. If they were, then there would never have been the need to use fMRI (functional MRI) as a means of failsafe truth seeking. And since fMRIs are also considered questionable, there probably isn't an objective test to determine if one is telling the truth.

Besides, hooking Lance up to one would probably cause it to overheat and possibly explode.

 

[datalore]

there probably isn't an objective test to determine if one is telling the truth.

Bingo. To quote George Costanza, "Its not a lie if you believe it."

 

[forty four]

Results from polygraph (lie detector) tests are recognized in more 56 countries internationally. Polygraphs tests are considered 90% accurate. I’d take those odds. Why won’t Lance, Tyler, Floyd . . . anyone take a polygraph test? Granted, in light of recent allegation, it appears most top-level cyclists are crafty, convincing prevaricators. However, if any of the key players would submit to a test and pass, they’d have my vote!

umm because any non *** person can simply and easily pass if there not a complete moron..... you do know how these tests work right? oh wait you dont if you did well there would not be a new thread put simply....

 

[auscyclefan94]

Three words...margin for error.

 

[Cerberus]

Results from polygraph (lie detector) tests are recognized in more 56 countries internationally.

Source?

Polygraphs tests are considered 90% accurate.

Certainly I'll take your word for it if you say you consider them 90% accurate, but that's far from an accepted fact. Yes, some studies do indicate high accuracy, but other indicate much lower reliability. A meta-study indicated only 61% accuracy, not that much better than flipping a coin, and there are several techniques for beating tests.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-lie_x.htm

I’d take those odds. Why won’t Lance, Tyler, Floyd . . . anyone take a polygraph test? Granted, in light of recent allegation, it appears most top-level cyclists are crafty, convincing prevaricators. However, if any of the key players would submit to a test and pass, they’d have my vote!

Not all states even recognize Polygraphs as admissible.

 

[miloman]

You miss the point. There are no “legal” grounds here, no legal ramifications or enforcement -- just a show of “good faith.” Simply put: if one of these guys is confident enough to put his story to a polygraph test, and ultimately passes, I’ll buy into it hook line and sinker. 90% is better than 0!

Citation: http://www.polygraphis.com/WebsiteFAQ.htm

 

[Cerberus]

You miss the point. There are no “legal” grounds here, no legal ramifications or enforcement -- just a show of “good faith.” Simply put: if one of these guys is confident enough to put his story to a polygraph test, and ultimately passes, I’ll buy into it hook line and sinker. 90% is better than 0!

Citation: http://www.polygraphis.com/WebsiteFAQ.htm

Pro-polygraph web-site which doesn't link or cite the actual study=worthless. Your purchasing habits are of cause yours to decide, but I like to be a bit more selective in what I buy.

 

[Granville57]

You miss the point. There are no “legal” grounds here, no legal ramifications or enforcement -- just a show of “good faith.” Simply put: if one of these guys is confident enough to put his story to a polygraph test, and ultimately passes, I’ll buy into it hook line and sinker. 90% is better than 0!

Citation: http://www.polygraphis.com/WebsiteFAQ.htm

I'm pretty sure I remember the polygraph issue being mentioned in one of Bonnie D. Fords interviews with FLandis last year.
Someone else can search for that. My work is done for the night (day?).

In other news:

Floyd Landis was offered $100,000 to take a polygraph test

I called his handlers and sent them a letter offering to give Landis $100,000 to take a lie detector test

Adam Corolla conducted a live-broadcast interview with Landis. Tried to trick him into polygraph

Diana Taurasi passed polygraph test

Gilbert passes polygraph, says he never knowingly took illegal substances! (What?)

 

[The Sheep]

Polygraphs haven't been scientifically proven to work the only value they have is as a coercion method to people admitting guilt before a trial.

 

[Barrus]

Results from polygraph (lie detector) tests are recognized in more 56 countries internationally. Polygraphs tests are considered 90% accurate. I’d take those odds. Why won’t Lance, Tyler, Floyd . . . anyone take a polygraph test? Granted, in light of recent allegation, it appears most top-level cyclists are crafty, convincing prevaricators. However, if any of the key players would submit to a test and pass, they’d have my vote!

polygraphs are notoriously unreliable, there are quite a few tricks that can be used in order to rig the test. I also wonder where you found the number of 56 states that recognize the test? If it is the link you posted in a subsequent post, that link is wrong, it just states states where it is not expressly denied by the highest judicial authority, or by a federal law, even though lower courts have ruled on the inadmissability of the polygraph test as evidence. Also funny that when they mention states they mention the Middle East as though it is one state

The Israel claim is also wrong, see Menora Insurance Vs. Jacob Sdovnik. Canada is wrong, see R. v. Béland
And these two inconsistencies I found just through a simple wiki search. If I took the time and the effort to really go through the claim it would probably be even more apparent that the claims and that website are complete bull

 

[brianf7]

If they can find a drug to cover up the PEDS then its easy to find something to cover a lie detector.

One day they will face their maker!!!!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Did anyone else picture this when seeing this thread?

Scene here.

 

[frenchfry]

First trick question:

Is your name Lance Gunderson?

 

[Mambo95]

90% is better than 0!

Actually, it's not. If it was 0% acturate, that means it is 100% certain to give the wrong reading. So if it says the subject is telling the truth, that means he is definitely lying (and vice versa).

90% is nonsense anyway. I notice your source was a company which sells polygraphs.

Most studies show that it is slightly more accurate than flipping a coin. Would you be willing to entrust your future to even 90% odds? I wouldn't.

 

[patrick767]

I see we've got "polygraphs are not reliable" covered. Good and absolutely correct.

Here in the US, the most relevant Supreme Court ruling (UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER) I could find concerns a challenge to a military rule that prohibits the use of polygraph tests as evidence in courts-martial. A defendant wanted to use polygraph test results because they benefited him. The Supreme Court ruled against him, saying that there is insufficient evidence to justify the admission of polygraph test results as evidence.

A look at the scientific research shows a wide disparity of results as the court found themselves when they took up this case.

 

[miloman]

Here in the US, the most relevant Supreme Court ruling (UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER) I could find concerns a challenge to a military rule that prohibits the use of polygraph tests as evidence in courts-martial. A defendant wanted to use polygraph test results because they benefited him. The Supreme Court ruled against him, saying that there is insufficient evidence to justify the admission of polygraph test results as evidence.

You are right. In U.S. v. Schellee (1998), the Supreme Court upheld a personal evidentiary rule against the admissibility of polygraph evidence at military trials.

However, the use of polygraphs in court was brought to trial in 1989. In the case of United States v. Piccinonna, a polygraph was deemed admissible as evidence, only if both sides agree to its use or the judge allows it based on criteria set forth in the case. A Supreme Court ruling in 1998 expanded the judge's authority in the use of polygraphs in federal cases. Some states accept this ruling, but not all. On the state level, polygraph use is dependent upon the judge and the case.

This is beside the point. I don’t suggest that the findings be used in any court save the court of public opinion. I hope I’m wrong, but more and more it appears that this whole mess is shaping up to be another “he said, she said” debacle where justice proves to be very blind indeed. For me, the Hamilton/Armstrong confrontation at a posh restaurant in Colorado was the last straw. It has been more than a year since Floyd made his allegations. I guess I’m just getting a little bit impatient.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are right. In U.S. v. Schellee (1998), the Supreme Court upheld a personal evidentiary rule against the admissibility of polygraph evidence at military trials.

However, the use of polygraphs in court was brought to trial in 1989. In the case of United States v. Piccinonna, a polygraph was deemed admissible as evidence, only if both sides agree to its use or the judge allows it based on criteria set forth in the case. A Supreme Court ruling in 1998 expanded the judge's authority in the use of polygraphs in federal cases. Some states accept this ruling, but not all. On the state level, polygraph use is dependent upon the judge and the case.

This is beside the point. I don’t suggest that the findings be used in any court save the court of public opinion. I hope I’m wrong, but more and more it appears that this whole mess is shaping up to be another “he said, she said” debacle where justice proves to be very blind indeed. For me, the Hamilton/Armstrong confrontation at a posh restaurant in Colorado was the last straw. It has been more than a year since Floyd made his allegations. I guess I’m just getting a little bit impatient.

Basically you want people to go on the record (using a highly dubious method) to "prove" what they are saying is true.

You appear to be ignoring some obvious points.

Landis has made numerous statements over the last year including a 9 hour piece with Kimmage - if he was lying it would be easy to refute that level of detail.
Hamilton has told 60 minutes his story (the same as he told the GJ) - again, if he is lying it would be easy to spot.

Armstrong has made one public comment since California:

“It wasn’t my company,” Armstrong said. “I can’t make it clear enough to you. I don’t know. I didn’t know the company. I didn’t have a position. I didn’t have an equity stake. I didn’t have a profit stake. I didn’t have a seat on the board. I was a rider on the team. I can’t be any clearer than that.”

- which of course was a lie.
Everything else has been through The Master of Disaster.

 

[miloman]

Basically you want people to go on the record (using a highly dubious method) to "prove" what they are saying is true.

You appear to be ignoring some obvious points.

Landis has made numerous statements over the last year including a 9 hour piece with Kimmage - if he was lying it would be easy to refute that level of detail.
Hamilton has told 60 minutes his story (the same as he told the GJ) - again, if he is lying it would be easy to spot.

Armstrong has made one public comment since California:
- which of course was a lie.
Everything else has been through The Master of Disaster.

Armstrong has made more than one public comment since California. But that is beside the point. When all is said and done, I'm afraid the only "hurt" Armstrong will likely receive is to his wallet because of all the lawyers he has had to put on retainer. The credibility factor will go way up in my opinion if Hincapie comes out and corroborates Floyd and Tyler’s stories. I’d take one Hincapie confession over Floyd and Tyler combined.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Armstrong has made more than one public comment since California. But that is beside the point. When all is said and done, I'm afraid the only "hurt" Armstrong will likely receive is to his wallet because of all the lawyers he has had to put on retainer. The credibility factor will go way up in my opinion if Hincapie comes out and corroborates Floyd and Tyler’s stories. I’d take one Hincapie confession over Floyd and Tyler combined.

Saying that he isn't losing sleep over the investigation is not a public comment.

Why does it take Big George for you to be corroborate 2 other peoples story?
Hincapie had the opportunity to deny that he told the GJ that he said he and LA had swapped or shared EPO, he didn't take it.

 

[miloman]

Saying that he isn't losing sleep over the investigation is not a public comment.

Why does it take Big George for you to be corroborate 2 other peoples story?
Hincapie had the opportunity to deny that he told the GJ that he said he and LA had swapped or shared EPO, he didn't take it.

That is not all he has said “publicly”. For the record, by definition any “comment” made in “public” is a public comment. That aside, both Tyler and Floyd are admitted liars. The rationale being if hey lied before in hearings, what’s to stop them this time? Weren’t they sworn in when they gave testimony in their respective cases? I don’t believe they are lying now, but they lack credibility by most standards so what they say can be easily dismissed by the Armstrong machine. George probably had greater access to Armstrong’s world than anyone else and devoid the legal baggage as the others. I doubt there are many people who follow the sport left that think Armstrong was clean. But the most casual observer or rabid Armstrong fan will probably need more than the word of Tyler and Floyd to finally stop drinking the Kool-aid.

 

[Barrus]

Shall we not discuss the entire Landis/Hamilton/Armstrong affaire in here as well? We already have done that in many other threads and if this thread solely exists for this purpose it will be fused with one of the other threads. This thread concerns the possible viability of lie detector tests and their validity

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is not all he has said “publicly”. For the record, by definition any “comment” made in “public” is a public comment. That aside, both Tyler and Floyd are admitted liars. The rationale being if hey lied before in hearings, what’s to stop them this time? Weren’t they sworn in when they gave testimony in their respective cases? I don’t believe they are lying now, but they lack credibility by most standards so what they say can be easily dismissed by the Armstrong machine. George probably had greater access to Armstrong’s world than anyone else and devoid the legal baggage as the others. I doubt there are many people who follow the sport left that think Armstrong was clean. But the most casual observer or rabid Armstrong fan will probably need more than the word of Tyler and Floyd to finally stop drinking the Kool-aid.

That's a pretty loose definition - Hamilton and Landis have both given lengthily interviews.

Can you point out some comments where Armstrong directly comments, denies or discuses the actual points raised in the investigation?

Floyd and Tyler are admitted liars - they admitted it. Lance is a liar, yet you appear to put more trust in to someone who continues to lie.

Shall we not discuss the entire Landis/Hamilton/Armstrong affaire in here as well? We already have done that in many other threads and if this thread solely exists for this purpose it will be fused with one of the other threads. This thread concerns the possible viability of lie detector tests and their validity

The OP has said they would put 90% trust in the test because they got that "viability" from the website of a lie detector maker.

If you think this is a nonsense thread (& I'd agree) then just let it hang - rather than polluting other proper threads.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Results from polygraph (lie detector) tests are recognized in more 56 countries internationally. Polygraphs tests are considered 90% accurate. I’d take those odds. Why won’t Lance, Tyler, Floyd . . . anyone take a polygraph test? Granted, in light of recent allegation, it appears most top-level cyclists are crafty, convincing prevaricators. However, if any of the key players would submit to a test and pass, they’d have my vote!

On Long Island where I grew up, a neighbor's son was married to a woman who worked as the head teller in a bank. Over a period of six months she stole about $500K. The FBI gave her a polygraph and she passed with flying colors. If you don't think/feel it's theft or doping you won't trip the meter and be found a liar.

That said, I'm all for waterboarding Lance and would gladly volunteer to head the project at an offshore, undisclosed location to be selected by the CIA.