|
Armstrong stops fighting doping charges - USADA wants him banned and stripped for titles
|
| Flair |
Posted on 14-10-2012 13:21
|
Domestique
Posts: 402
Joined: 01-08-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://www.bbc.co...g/19941030
Apparently, Armstrong team want all the witness to take lie tests. Not too keen on Armstrong taking one though XD |
| |
|
|
| Vien |
Posted on 14-10-2012 13:33
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2322
Joined: 16-06-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Flair wrote:
https://www.bbc.co...g/19941030
Apparently, Armstrong team want all the witness to take lie tests. Not too keen on Armstrong taking one though XD
Lol, that guy probably believes in his own lies.
Edit: The article in Dutch I have says Armstrong wants to take lie tests himself?
Edited by Vien on 14-10-2012 13:33
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 14-10-2012 15:41
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Is he also going to lie test those dollars that made their way to Ferrari's bank account ?
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 15:51
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Armstrong's lawyer was asked about lie detector tests, and said that if one was performed under correct conditions on any of the witnesses, Lance's team would no longer dispute that person's testimony. He was then asked if Lance would take one, and sort of talked around it, but did at the very least leave the door open for it happening.
To quote:
We might do that, you never know. I don't know if we would or we wouldn't. We might." |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 16:00
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Lie detector tests fall completely under the category of pseudoscience though.
|
| |
|
|
| Strydz |
Posted on 14-10-2012 16:17
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5894
Joined: 02-08-2011
PCM$: 1625.00
|
It boggles the mind how some people manage to get a law degree
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald
https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/ |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 16:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Lie detector tests fall completely under the category of pseudoscience though.
Not really true, especially some of the newer, experimental ones that look directly into the brain.
They aren't the end all be all, but they are extremely useful. They are still accepted as evidence in just about every nation in the world. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 26-11-2024 03:29
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 16:53
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Lie detector tests fall completely under the category of pseudoscience though.
Not really true, especially some of the newer, experimental ones that look directly into the brain.
They aren't the end all be all, but they are extremely useful. They are still accepted as evidence in just about every nation in the world.
Nope: https://en.wikiped...s_in_court
https://en.wikiped...ontroversy
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 14-10-2012 16:57
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Lie detector tests fall completely under the category of pseudoscience though.
Not really true, especially some of the newer, experimental ones that look directly into the brain.
They aren't the end all be all, but they are extremely useful. They are still accepted as evidence in just about every nation in the world.
North America contains every nation in the world?
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:02
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Lie detector tests fall completely under the category of pseudoscience though.
Not really true, especially some of the newer, experimental ones that look directly into the brain.
They aren't the end all be all, but they are extremely useful. They are still accepted as evidence in just about every nation in the world.
North America contains every nation in the world?
Neither does Europe. The vast majority of nations still accept them in one form or another.
The key piece that a lot of the attacks on lie detectors miss is that the lie detector test is not simply the lines on the page. It's observed by the same investigators who have interrogated the suspect previously. It's not that heart rate corresponds to lying, it's that an increase in heart rate when dealing with certain questions when the suspect believes that they are going to be caught can trigger lines of interrogation to continue towards. A well handled lie detector test being administered by someone who understands the facts of the case and is able to lead the questioning down certain paths is extremely valid, extremely useful, and in most cases, considered reasonable for investigations and, even still in many cases, as evidence in court.
The brain scanners are more precise, and are the future, because we have a very good idea of the brain patterns that are synonymous with lying.
EDIT:
Here, that isn't that clear, so I'll give an explanation of how this works and why's it's valid.
Lance enters the room, which is tightly enclosed and has mirrors running along each wall. A long, extensive, and unexplained process is undertaken to hook him up to the machine, and then the questions start. The claustrophobic room, the process of hooking him up to the machine, and the pointedness of the questions elevates his stress, which causes him to start to dread in his mind certain questions that might be asked.
A set of baselines questions is asked to establish a base heart rate. Is your name Lance Armstrong, is your BOD ..., are you married to ..., etc. Then the questions turn to the matter at hand. Say the interrogator brings up the bribe to the UCI. Watching the polygraph, a small, momentary blip occurs in Lance's heart rate, as it's one of the questions he doesn't want to answer. The interrogator moves down a line of questions on the subject. They are all direct, clear and to the point, but they do not follow a logical stream, and often switch from positive to negatively phrased. As such, Lance cannot fall into a pattern of answer. He must consider each question. The high stress levels, expounded by being forced to talk about something he doesn't want to, leads to hesitation, visible uncomfortableness, and a consistently increased heart rate (not the spikes you see on television). This data, combined with the footage taken by a camera in the room, clearly shows Lance becoming significantly more agitated during that specific line of questioning on the UCI incident. As such, the interrogator's judgement (specifically his judgement, not some kind of objective evidence) is that Lance is not trustworthy on that specific topic.
It's a form of interrogation, not an objective observation. I shouldn't of said it isn't pseudo-science, because that implies I mean it is science. It's not, it's not either of them. And it isn't presented in court as such (outside of TV), because it's well established it isn't scientific.
If well handled, it's completely legitimate and extremely useful.
Edited by Deadpool on 14-10-2012 17:17
|
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:14
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
The key piece that a lot of the attacks on lie detectors miss is that the lie detector test is not simply the lines on the page. It's observed by the same investigators who have interrogated the suspect previously. It's not that heart rate corresponds to lying, it's that an increase in heart rate when dealing with certain questions when the suspect believes that they are going to be caught can trigger lines of interrogation to continue towards. A well handled lie detector test being administered by someone who understands the facts of the case and is able to lead the questioning down certain paths is extremely valid, extremely useful, and in most cases, considered reasonable for investigations and, even still in many cases, as evidence in court.
The key piece that you're missing is the scientific literature tends to disagree. Especially for false positives (which have an increased likelihood when an investigator leads questioning down a certain path)
EDIT: I'm not talking here about brain imaging lie detection tests. I haven't read enough literature on it to pass a judgment
Edited by Crommy on 14-10-2012 17:16
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:17
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Read my edit to my previous post. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:19
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:23
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:27
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own.
No, it's not a supporting fact. That's why it's a pseudoscience, and is not particularly useful in investigations.
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:37
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own.
No, it's not a supporting fact. That's why it's a pseudoscience, and is not particularly useful in investigations.
It is as legitimate, and is treated as being as legitimate, as the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer in the court of law, because that's exactly what it is. Sworn testimony of a trained and accredited person (in this case, the polygraph interrogator) based on evidence gained through efforts whose validity has been confirmed by higher courts as being legitimate.
Stop talking about it being pure science. That's not what I'm arguing here, and it's not how it's been used by anyone outside of TV since the 1960s. It's a form of interrogation and police investigation, which is the fundamental basis of all law enforcement operations everywhere in the world since antiquity.
You completely misunderstand how it's used. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:50
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own.
No, it's not a supporting fact. That's why it's a pseudoscience, and is not particularly useful in investigations.
It is as legitimate, and is treated as being as legitimate, as the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer in the court of law, because that's exactly what it is. Sworn testimony of a trained and accredited person (in this case, the polygraph interrogator) based on evidence gained through efforts whose validity has been confirmed by higher courts as being legitimate.
Stop talking about it being pure science. That's not what I'm arguing here, and it's not how it's been used by anyone outside of TV since the 1960s. It's a form of interrogation and police investigation, which is the fundamental basis of all law enforcement operations everywhere in the world since antiquity.
You completely misunderstand how it's used.
And you're completely misunderstanding how false positives and false negatives can mislead an officer
 |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:52
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own.
No, it's not a supporting fact. That's why it's a pseudoscience, and is not particularly useful in investigations.
It is as legitimate, and is treated as being as legitimate, as the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer in the court of law, because that's exactly what it is. Sworn testimony of a trained and accredited person (in this case, the polygraph interrogator) based on evidence gained through efforts whose validity has been confirmed by higher courts as being legitimate.
Stop talking about it being pure science. That's not what I'm arguing here, and it's not how it's been used by anyone outside of TV since the 1960s. It's a form of interrogation and police investigation, which is the fundamental basis of all law enforcement operations everywhere in the world since antiquity.
You completely misunderstand how it's used.
And you're completely misunderstanding how false positives and false negatives can mislead an officer
Wait, you mean just like any other part of an investigation? Wow, that means that everything that police officers do means nothing? So only the CSI teams can gather any actual evidence, because detectives aren't empirical...
Holy shit dude. Listen to what I'm saying. |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 14-10-2012 17:59
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Crommy wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Read my edit to my previous post.
Which still doesn't account for a false positive
Which is why it isn't the end all be all. A lie detector test is like any other form of interrogation. Unless you get a confession, it's simply a supporting fact. Lance having a bad go through a lie detector test, and his teammates not, would be a supporting fact to the dossier of evidence the USADA has supplied. It wouldn't stand on its own.
No, it's not a supporting fact. That's why it's a pseudoscience, and is not particularly useful in investigations.
It is as legitimate, and is treated as being as legitimate, as the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer in the court of law, because that's exactly what it is. Sworn testimony of a trained and accredited person (in this case, the polygraph interrogator) based on evidence gained through efforts whose validity has been confirmed by higher courts as being legitimate.
Stop talking about it being pure science. That's not what I'm arguing here, and it's not how it's been used by anyone outside of TV since the 1960s. It's a form of interrogation and police investigation, which is the fundamental basis of all law enforcement operations everywhere in the world since antiquity.
You completely misunderstand how it's used.
And you're completely misunderstanding how false positives and false negatives can mislead an officer
Wait, you mean just like any other part of an investigation? Wow, that means that everything that police officers do means nothing? So only the CSI teams can gather any actual evidence, because detectives aren't empirical...
Holy shit dude. Listen to what I'm saying.
There is not enough certainty and reliability in results of polygraph tests to be a useful tool in interrogation. It's clear despite the scientific literature being on the side of polygraph tests not being useful, that your mind won't be changed
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 14-10-2012 18:08
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
There is not enough certainty and reliability in results of polygraph tests to be a useful tool in interrogation. It's clear despite the scientific literature being on the side of polygraph tests not being useful, that your mind won't be changed
What I'm trying to say is that all that scientific literature misses the point of how polygraph tests are actually used. They are never presented as conclusive proof of whether someone is lying. They are used and presented the exact same way that the testimony of a detective is, as a determination made by a human being as to the guilt of a person based on a combination of procedures that have been recognized by the court system to be a legitimate approach to investigating a crime, with that determination being informed by years of training and experience.
They are not infallible. But error within them is human error, because the conclusions that are being drawn are being drawn by human beings based on subjective evidence, not objective fact.
Those papers you quote are entirely correct...and entirely miss the point.
Edited by Deadpool on 14-10-2012 18:09
|
| |
|
