A Lie Detector Test for Landis?

Kenny said:

If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
difference?

Only if he failed it.

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....

Kenny said:

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

Bob Dole said:

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 [censored] 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

Kenny said:

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.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kenny said:

If Floyd took a lie detector test and passed would it make any
difference?

No. Lie detectors are [censored] for evidence.

--
Vegan Reich!
http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

Zoot Katz wrote:
:: On 8 Aug 2006 10:22:50 -0700, "Bob Dole" <[email hidden]> 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 [censored] 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...

Kenny said:

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

Art Harris said:

Kenny said:

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.

Werehatrack said:

Kenny said:

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.

Roger Zoul said:

:: 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

Art Harris wrote: (clip) If he was unwilling, that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Zoot Katz said:

No, he just looks stupid enough to get caught.

Mr. Smith goes to the Tour de France. Yeah.

--
Vegan Reich!
http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

Leo Lichtman said:

Art Harris wrote: (clip) If he was unwilling, that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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."

Zoot Katz wrote:
:: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email hidden]> 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.

Roger Zoul said:

Zoot Katz said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[email hidden]> 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.

Bill Sornson wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Zoot Katz wrote:
::::: On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 15:01:25 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::: <[email hidden]> 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!

"R Brickston" wrote: Is there an echo in here?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Help me out here, RB. What is it I am supossedly echoing?

Leo Lichtman said:

"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.