Two words . . . Polygraph Test!

[Alpe d'Huez]

I suggest we get Jesse Ventura to do the waterboarding, right after he's done with getting Dick Cheney to confess to Sharon Tate's murder.

 

[miloman]

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.

In episode 93 of the USA popular science show Mythbusters, they attempted to fool the polygraph by using pain to try to increase the readings when answering truthfully (so the machine will supposedly interpret the truthful and non-truthful answers as the same.) They also attempted to fool the polygraph by thinking happy thoughts when lying and thinking stressful thoughts when telling the truth to try to confuse the machine. However, neither technique was successful for a number of reasons. Michael Martin correctly identified each guilty and innocent subject. The show also noted the opinion that, when done properly, polygraphs are correct 80-99% of the time.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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!

A 10% miss rate is huge. Massive. If I told you that you had a 10% chance of dying in a car accident when you drove to the store, you would walk.

Tyler and Landis I'm sure would take one. It's Cache Cache boy who would balk even though he would likely pass a lie detector test because he's a sociopath and lying doesn't make him sweat. That's all a lie detector test does anyway - detect increased sweat, increased heartrate, and other such nonsense that even the most unsophisticated doper on a U.S. Continental team could pass with a little detergent suppository or something.

Let us know if you have any other Eureka moments, jackass.

 

[miloman]

Tyler and Landis I'm sure would take one.

Really? Then explain why Floyd turned down the opportunity to clear his name in 2006 and was offered $100k to take a polygraph test? The most logical explanation is -- as we know now -- he was lying and he was afraid it would ultimately convict him not clear him. Say what you want about polygraph tests, but if you’ve got something to hide would you freely submit to a polygraph test? If your conscience is clear, what’s the harm? Have you ever taken a polygraph test? And what’s up with the detergent suppository? That’s really out in left field. I'd still like to see how any of these guys would respond to the polygraph offer?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

In episode 93 of the USA popular science show Mythbusters, they attempted to fool the polygraph by using pain to try to increase the readings when answering truthfully (so the machine will supposedly interpret the truthful and non-truthful answers as the same.) They also attempted to fool the polygraph by thinking happy thoughts when lying and thinking stressful thoughts when telling the truth to try to confuse the machine. However, neither technique was successful for a number of reasons. Michael Martin correctly identified each guilty and innocent subject. The show also noted the opinion that, when done properly, polygraphs are correct 80-99% of the time.

If the person is a sociopath the test will not work. The person has to perceive that they are lying before the test will work. That's why in your study they were trying to manipulate/overwhelm the machine with sensory data.

 

[GWAR79]

i have 2 words for Italy

I have 2 words for Italy:

Power Wash

 

[miloman]

If the person is a sociopath the test will not work. The person has to perceive that they are lying before the test will work. That's why in your study they were trying to manipulate/overwhelm the machine with sensory data.

I don’t discount that a few people are wired (no pun intended) in a way that they can beat a polygraph, but how many people out of 100 would be able to cheat the test? Maybe one or two? How many procyclists have been able to cheat UCI/WADA drug tests? Looks like the odds are better with the polygraph

 

[Mambo95]

I don’t discount that a few people are wired (no pun intended) in a way that they can beat a polygraph, but how many people out of 100 would be able to cheat the test? Maybe one or two?

At 90% accuracy, 10 people would be wrongfully convicted, which you seem comfortable with. (In reality, proper scientific studies - not those done by polygraph salesmen and Mythbusters - put it around 60-70%)

It's only real purpose is as a subtle method of intimidation to get confessions from the fools who believe this claptrap.

 

[miloman]

At 90% accuracy, 10 people would be wrongfully convicted, which you seem comfortable with. (In reality, proper scientific studies - not those done by polygraph salesmen and Mythbusters - put it around 60-70%)

It's only real purpose is as a subtle method of intimidation to get confessions from the fools who believe this claptrap.

You arrived at the wrong conclusion. It wouldn’t be 10 out of 100 innocent people found guilty, it would be 10 guilty people being found innocent and cheating the test. I never suggested that this should be used as a control method for riders. I only suggested that the likes of Tyler, Floyd and Lance offer themselves up to a polygraph test and see if their current stories hold up.

 

[GJB123]

You arrived at the wrong conclusion. It wouldn’t be 10 out of 100 innocent people found guilty, it would be 10 guilty people being found innocent and cheating the test. I never suggested that this should be used as a control method for riders. I only suggested that the likes of Tyler, Floyd and Lance offer themselves up to a polygraph test and see if their current stories hold up.

Statistics really isn't your strong suit, is it? Do you really not understand that a polygraph might also show up someone as lying although he was actually telling the truth. Oh god, why do I even bother?

Regards
GJ

 

[miloman]

Statistics really isn't your strong suit, is it? Do you really not understand that a polygraph might also show up someone as lying although he was actually telling the truth. Oh god, why do I even bother?

Regards
GJ

OK, I’ll state it again. I am not suggesting anyone but Lance, Tyler and Floyd take a polygraph test to corroborate their stories. No one gets hauled off in handcuffs, no one goes to jail. If I understand you correctly, your concern is that when asked a particular question the response may be interpreted as inconclusive or a lie when actually the truth. It’s possible, but not probable. It’s possible a plane will crash into you house today but not probable. Nothing is 100%

If both Floyd and Tyler took a polygraph and passed, and Lance took one and failed would you deem the results credible? Two against one, does that give it anymore credibility? What if it went the other way? Depending on how you look at it, some may argue that the precedent has already been set for people lying to federal investigators and getting away with it. Remember the testimony of Stephanie McIlvain? She said one thing to Greg LeMond in a recorded phone conversation and something completely different later. It’s possible she lied to Greg, but told the truth to the feds. Both stories can’t be true. The same goes for Tyler, Floyd and Lance. They either cheated and lied about it or they didn’t. Both stories can’t be true.

 

[GJB123]

OK, I’ll state it again. I am not suggesting anyone but Lance, Tyler and Floyd take a polygraph test to corroborate their stories. No one gets hauled off in handcuffs, no one goes to jail. If I understand you correctly, your concern is that when asked a particular question the response may be interpreted as inconclusive or a lie when actually the truth. It’s possible, but not probable. It’s possible a plane will crash into you house today but not probable. Nothing is 100%

Thanks for illustrating (once again) that you understand diddly sh*t about statistics.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

If both Floyd and Tyler took a polygraph and passed, and Lance took one and failed would you deem the results credible? Two against one, does that give it anymore credibility? What if it went the other way? Depending on how you look at it, some may argue that the precedent has already been set for people lying to federal investigators and getting away with it. Remember the testimony of Stephanie McIlvain? She said one thing to Greg LeMond in a recorded phone conversation and something completely different later. It’s possible she lied to Greg, but told the truth to the feds. Both stories can’t be true. The same goes for Tyler, Floyd and Lance. They either cheated and lied about it or they didn’t. Both stories can’t be true.

And as for this part. I don't need any of them to take a lie detector test because such test is worth zilch. let's just wait and see whether Hamilton's and Landis's GJ testimony is corroborated by other team members such as Hincapie, Andreu, Livingstone, etc. Perhaps that adds sufficient preponderance for you to finally start seeing the chosen one for what he really is. Because let's be honest if 5, 6 or even more teammates declare more or less the same against only Armstrong's words, who needs a lie detector test?

Regards
GJ

 

[Roninho]

Maybe a stupid question but does the 90% work both ways?

1. If i lie i have a chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is lying.
AND
2. If i tell the truth i have chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is telling the truth.

Or is it only 1 of these 2 options?

 

[GJB123]

Maybe a stupid question but does the 90% work both ways?

1. If i lie i have a chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is lying.
AND
2. If i tell the truth i have chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is telling the truth.

Or is it only 1 of these 2 options?

Not a stupid question at all, because miloman still doesn't seem to get it. Naturally the inaccuracy works both ways and it is well documented that get so stressed out at taking the test that, although telling the truth, the machine registers a lie or as inconclusive.

Regards
GJ

 

[Cerberus]

Maybe a stupid question but does the 90% work both ways?

1. If i lie i have a chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is lying.
AND
2. If i tell the truth i have chance of 90% that the detector has as result: he is telling the truth.

Or is it only 1 of these 2 options?

It's not well documented that the 90% works either way, but that issue aside the number is actually adjustable. You can decrease the false positive rate at the cost of increasing the false negative rate and vise-versa.

 

[Roninho]

Not a stupid question at all, because miloman still doesn't seem to get it. Naturally the inaccuracy works both ways and it is well documented that get so stressed out at taking the test that, although telling the truth, the machine registers a lie or as inconclusive.

Regards
GJ

Thanks! (need 10 characters to post)

 

[bobs nob]

Thanks! (need 10 characters to post)

I think, although I don't post as much as I used to, if you just use the space bar to complete the post, it will count the spaces as part of the 10. Or I would put spaces and then maybe a period. Any software can be outsmarted. You just have to apply yourself.

 

[bobs nob]

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

Beat me to it. The 'polly' as they say in Seinfeld, is tailor made for a narcissist to appear to be telling the truth. Not that pro cycling has any of those....