| |
Main
Date: 08 Aug 2006 06:56:26
From: Kenny
Subject: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
difference?
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 13:55:54
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Kenny wrote:
> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
> difference?
It would provide another data point. I'd like to see him do it, with
the test administered by a neutral party. If he was unwilling, that
would say a lot.
Art Harris
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 23:10:26
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On 9 Aug 2006 13:55:54 -0700, "Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Kenny wrote:
>> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
>> difference?
>
>It would provide another data point. I'd like to see him do it, with
>the test administered by a neutral party. If he was unwilling, that
>would say a lot.
>
>Art Harris
If he failed, it would say even more.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 02:35:51
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Art Harris wrote: (clip) If he was unwilling, that
>>would say a lot
>
>R. Brickson wrote: If he failed, it would say even more.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable. If he took a test and passed
it, that would be good for him. But, in taking it, he would run considerable
risk of a false positive. Then any protests by him that the lie detector
was wrong would look like more of the same. Many lawyers advise their
clients not to take this risk.
I'm not referring now to whether I think he did or didn't take testosterone.
But, since you ask (;-), I find it impossible to explain the presence of
SYNTHETIC hormones as "body chemistry."
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 05:47:14
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:35:51 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>Art Harris wrote: (clip) If he was unwilling, that
>>>would say a lot
>>
>>R. Brickson wrote: If he failed, it would say even more.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable. If he took a test and passed
>it, that would be good for him. But, in taking it, he would run considerable
>risk of a false positive. Then any protests by him that the lie detector
>was wrong would look like more of the same. Many lawyers advise their
>clients not to take this risk.
Is there an echo in here?
>
>I'm not referring now to whether I think he did or didn't take testosterone.
>But, since you ask (;-), I find it impossible to explain the presence of
>SYNTHETIC hormones as "body chemistry."
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 17:05:25
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
"R Brickston" wrote: Is there an echo in here?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Help me out here, RB. What is it I am supossedly echoing?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2006 02:59:13
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:05:25 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>
>"R Brickston" wrote: Is there an echo in here?
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Help me out here, RB. What is it I am supossedly echoing?
>
Nothing right now because you conveniently snipped the entire post
out.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 00:56:31
From: Kevan Smith
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
In article <1155045386.248020.12260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Kenny" <Postoasted@gmail.com > wrote:
> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
> difference?
No. Lie detectors are crap for evidence.
--
Vegan Reich!
http://www.meetyourmeat.com/
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 03:26:54
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On 8 Aug 2006 06:56:26 -0700, "Kenny" <Postoasted@gmail.com > wrote:
>If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
>difference?
No. Integrity is not the issue with such enforcement bodies; their
interest is restricted to whether a specific narrowly-defined test has
returned a result that is out of bounds. Intent, knowledge of the
violation, the cause of the infraction, whether the test is 100%
conclusive about the cause of the out-of-spec result; these things are
irrelevant to them.
I know too little about the science involved to have an informed
opinion about the validity of the tests, but my gut reaction to a
single spike in a series of tests as closely spaced as the ones under
discussion is that it looks much fishier for the testing body than the
athlete.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 17:17:21
From: cc
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Werehatrack wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 06:56:26 -0700, "Kenny" <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
>> difference?
>
> No. Integrity is not the issue with such enforcement bodies; their
> interest is restricted to whether a specific narrowly-defined test has
> returned a result that is out of bounds. Intent, knowledge of the
> violation, the cause of the infraction, whether the test is 100%
> conclusive about the cause of the out-of-spec result; these things are
> irrelevant to them.
>
> I know too little about the science involved to have an informed
> opinion about the validity of the tests, but my gut reaction to a
> single spike in a series of tests as closely spaced as the ones under
> discussion is that it looks much fishier for the testing body than the
> athlete.
>
I agree completely.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 20:12:47
From: Ernie Willson
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Kenny wrote:
> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
> difference?
>
I don't now much about this, but is it possible that someone doped his
urine samples?
ISTM that he knew his samples would be subject to test, and I cannot
believe that he would be so dumb to think he would not be caught if he
took illegal substances.
EJ in NJ
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 10:22:50
From: Bob Dole
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Kenny wrote:
> If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
> difference?
The reliability of lie detector tests is hardly impressive.
The following is from the American Polygraph Association site
http://www.polygraph.org/betasite/apa5rev.htm
so it probably doesn't reflect any tendency to bash the polygraph
industry:
"The American Polygraph Association has a compendium of research
studies available on the validity and reliability of polygraph testing.
The 80 research projects listed, published since 1980, involved 6,380
polygraph examinations or sets of charts from examinations. Researchers
conducted 12 studies of the validity of field examinations, following
2, 174 field examinations, providing an average accuracy of 98%.
Researchers conducted 11 studies involving the reliability of
independent analyses of 1,609 sets of charts from field examinations
confirmed by independent evidence, providing an average accuracy of
92%. Researchers conducted 41 studies involving the accuracy of 1,787
laboratory simulations of polygraph examinations, producing an average
accuracy of 80%. Researchers conducted 16 studies involving the
reliability of independent analyses of 810 sets of charts from
laboratory simulations producing an average accuracy of 81%. "
Unless I'm missing something, average accuracy of 80% means that 20% of
the time it's wrong. That doesn't sound useful.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 19:31:17
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On 8 Aug 2006 10:22:50 -0700, "Bob Dole" <tsdev@mailcity.com > wrote:
>Unless I'm missing something, average accuracy of 80% means that 20% of
>the time it's wrong. That doesn't sound useful.
It seems to me, that a person basing their career, and AFAICT, their
Mennonite upbringing, on skirting the rules would have "natural"
lying tendencies. Perhaps throughout their lives they've been
deceitful children.
When they found out that _nobody_ can bullshit a bicycle they tried
tweaking the engine and found out that they can get away with it. . .
most of the time.
Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on backward
in every photo I've seen.
--
zk
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 15:01:25
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
:: On 8 Aug 2006 10:22:50 -0700, "Bob Dole" <tsdev@mailcity.com > wrote:
::
::: Unless I'm missing something, average accuracy of 80% means that
::: 20% of the time it's wrong. That doesn't sound useful.
::
:: It seems to me, that a person basing their career, and AFAICT, their
:: Mennonite upbringing, on skirting the rules would have "natural"
:: lying tendencies. Perhaps throughout their lives they've been
:: deceitful children.
What? That makes no sense to me.
::
:: When they found out that _nobody_ can bullshit a bicycle they tried
:: tweaking the engine and found out that they can get away with it. . .
:: most of the time.
::
:: Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on backward
:: in every photo I've seen.
Oh, so he's guilty just because you don't like the look of a guy with a hat
on backward? Geez...
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2006 19:14:36
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
>:: Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on backward
>:: in every photo I've seen.
>
>Oh, so he's guilty just because you don't like the look of a guy with a hat
>on backward? Geez...
No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.
--
zk
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 10:23:42
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Zoot Katz wrote:
:: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
::
::::: Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on
::::: backward in every photo I've seen.
:::
::: Oh, so he's guilty just because you don't like the look of a guy
::: with a hat on backward? Geez...
::
:: No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.
So, for you, looks = intelligence.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 15:09:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Roger Zoul wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
>>> <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on
>>>>>> backward in every photo I've seen.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so he's guilty just because you don't like the look of a guy
>>>> with a hat on backward? Geez...
>>>
>>> No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.
>
> So, for you, looks = intelligence.
Especially rich, given Snooty Putz's grotesquely distorted proboscis. LOL
(Not to mention the menagerie of strangely clad cretins with whom he roams
the streets. Yet a baseball cap is somhow "dopey"?!?)
He's just a hater. Biz as usual.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 12:23:43
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Zoot Katz wrote:
::::: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com > wrote:
:::::
:::::::: Anyway, to my eye, he's always looked dopey with his hat on
:::::::: backward in every photo I've seen.
::::::
:::::: Oh, so he's guilty just because you don't like the look of a guy
:::::: with a hat on backward? Geez...
:::::
::::: No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.
:::
::: So, for you, looks = intelligence.
::
:: Especially rich, given Snooty Putz's grotesquely distorted
:: proboscis. LOL
::
:: (Not to mention the menagerie of strangely clad cretins with whom he
:: roams the streets. Yet a baseball cap is somhow "dopey"?!?)
::
:: He's just a hater. Biz as usual.
I didn't know!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2006 00:18:59
From: Kevan Smith
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
In article <qi5ld2p7l59rn9i9olkh004bd45qs7pfv6@4ax.com >,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com > wrote:
> No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.
Mr. Smith goes to the Tour de France. Yeah.
--
Vegan Reich!
http://www.meetyourmeat.com/
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 17:27:49
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
Bob Dole wrote:
:: Unless I'm missing something, average accuracy of 80% means that 20%
:: of the time it's wrong. That doesn't sound useful.
Hmm....if that were true for a game of craps....
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2006 14:27:52
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: A Lie Detector Test for Landis?
|
On 8 Aug 2006 06:56:26 -0700, "Kenny" <Postoasted@gmail.com > wrote:
>If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
>difference?
Only if he failed it.
|
|
