PDA

View Full Version : Canseco To Take Lie Detector Test


mikehuff
02-23-2005, 03:42 PM
I can't believe I haven't seen a thread on this yet. Maybe I missed it. If I did, then please excuse this.

Jose Canseco is planning a Pay-Per-View event where he will take a lie detector test to defend his allegations of steroid use in the MLB.

I originally read this yesterday on MSNBC. There were transcripts of an interview Matt Lauer did with him. I also saw it on Fox News last night. Canseco is trying to keep it somewhat secret right now, but says it will be announced soon.

Here's some of the articles...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/10969824.htm?1c
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/283630p-243022c.html

Randar68
02-23-2005, 03:44 PM
I can't believe I haven't seen a thread on this yet. Maybe I missed it. If I did, then please excuse this.

Jose Canseco is planning a Pay-Per-View event where he will take a lie detector test to defend his allegations of steroid use in the MLB.

I originally read this yesterday on MSNBC. There were transcripts of an interview Matt Lauer did with him. I also saw it on Fox News last night. Canseco is trying to keep it somewhat secret right now, but says it will be announced soon.

Here's one of the articles...
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sports/baseball/10965748.htm?1c

He reportedly has already taken and passed one due to concerns by the publisher or someone associated with the book's production (can't remember exactly)...

RKMeibalane
02-23-2005, 03:44 PM
*Sighs*

mikehuff
02-23-2005, 03:46 PM
I corrected the links above. The first one I posted, didn't work.

I don't know what this is going to do. Polygraphs are inadmissable in court anyway. No matter what the polygraph says, people won't change their opinions.
I don't mind though. I love it. Keep selling these idiots out.

munchman33
02-23-2005, 09:48 PM
Well, polygraphs are inadmissable in court, mostly because nervous people can tell the truth and it says they're lying.

But if the machine says he's telling the truth, there's no reason to believe he's not.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 09:50 PM
Well, polygraphs are inadmissable in court, mostly because nervous people can tell the truth and it says they're lying.

But if the machine says he's telling the truth, there's no reason to believe he's not.They're inadmissible in criminal proceedings, but are they also inadmissible in civil suits? I honestly don't know, but the rules of evidence are different in civil suits.

Jerko
02-23-2005, 09:51 PM
They're admissible on Maury.

Jjav829
02-23-2005, 09:52 PM
Would anyone actually change their mind based on the results of this? I'm wondering, because I believe him and even if he failed it, I'd still believe him. I guess the question is more for those who don't believe him. If he takes a lie detector test, and it shows he isn't lying, would you believe him (more)?

munchman33
02-23-2005, 10:01 PM
Would anyone actually change their mind based on the results of this? I'm wondering, because I believe him and even if he failed it, I'd still believe him. I guess the question is more for those who don't believe him. If he takes a lie detector test, and it shows he isn't lying, would you believe him (more)?

Right now...I only partially believe him.

If he passes...I will fully believe him.

If he fails completely, I'll still partially believe him.

Ol' No. 2
02-23-2005, 10:06 PM
Maybe I missed it, but so far no one has asked the real question, here.

Who would pay to see this on pay-per-view?:?::?::?:

MRKARNO
02-23-2005, 10:12 PM
And Jose Canseco continues his effort to profit at the expense of baseball's integrity....

The Racehorse
02-23-2005, 10:21 PM
And Jose Canseco continues his effort to profit at the expense of baseball's integrity....

... don't you mean "baseball's lack of integrity"? If MLB had "integrity", steroids would have been "banned" when the US government banned there use and possesion without a prescription back in 1990.

Viva Medias B's
02-23-2005, 10:33 PM
Did any of you see Canseco on "Today" the other day? Matt Lauer grilled him, and Canseco's responses were evasive.

MRKARNO
02-23-2005, 10:34 PM
... don't you mean "baseball's lack of integrity"? If MLB had "integrity", steroids would have been "banned" when the US government banned there use and possesion without a prescription back in 1990.

It's one thing to reflect the truth. There certainly is a steroids problem and the MLB hasnt in the past done enough to fix it, but the new drug testing policy is a large step in the right direction and it's time to let it work. It's another to make wild accusations about some of the greatest players who have ever played the game without any proof just to make a buck, which I believe is what Canseco is doing. He's someone motiviated by two things: Money and Self-promotion; thus, you really can't take anything he says seriously. He also said that 85% of players are on steroids and no one believed that. So why believe his book? Do you think his book is going to run contrary to that figure? Of course not. But all of a sudden, people are believing these "stories" he's telling when a lot of the guys he's accusing, he never shared the locker room with. As Hawk said, he's a "whore."

DumpJerry
02-23-2005, 11:51 PM
Who would pay to see this on pay-per-view?:?::?::?:
Nobody. No need to pay for it. The media will heavily report it as soon as it is over.

Oh wait, what am I saying? Cub fans will pay! These are the same people who let the owners of their beloved team scalp tickets to them.:tongue:

munchman33
02-24-2005, 05:49 AM
They're inadmissible in criminal proceedings, but are they also inadmissible in civil suits? I honestly don't know, but the rules of evidence are different in civil suits.

I believe in civil cases they are admissible, but never required. The prosecution can't make a defense witness take one, and vice versa.

mikehuff
02-24-2005, 07:22 AM
There certainly is a steroids problem and the MLB hasnt in the past done enough to fix it, but the new drug testing policy is a large step in the right direction and it's time to let it work.

This is one of the things I never can understand. Why is just "taking a step in the right direction" acceptable? There is no reason that you can't make an effective poilicy right away. They are not serious about this and it shows.
MLB can bring up the isssue to the players and say we want a 1 year suspension for anyone caught using steroids, period. MLB would have the public opinion on their side. The MLBPA would be committing a huge PR mistake is they rejected this idea. Most of the players would want it this way anyway, so what the hell is the problem here?

soxfan26
02-24-2005, 08:46 AM
Would anyone actually change their mind based on the results of this? I'm wondering, because I believe him and even if he failed it, I'd still believe him. I guess the question is more for those who don't believe him. If he takes a lie detector test, and it shows he isn't lying, would you believe him (more)?

Great Point. There is no denying that Canseco is a whore. Why else make the results available only to people willing to pay $39.95?

Why spend your time worrying about whether the 85% claim is accurate? Let the media clowns get wrapped around the axle about each individual player accused. Just like Jjav pointed out you either believe him or you don't, but understanding who he is, take the story for what it is worth.

Canseco is old news. Follow PHG's advice and look at where the story is going...

idseer
02-24-2005, 09:11 AM
... don't you mean "baseball's lack of integrity"? If MLB had "integrity", steroids would have been "banned" when the US government banned there use and possesion without a prescription back in 1990.

baseball has no intregrity at this point. and the blame goes to a combination of everyone involved but especially bud selig. he made the old mistake of getting what he wished for.

Ol' No. 2
02-24-2005, 09:27 AM
This is one of the things I never can understand. Why is just "taking a step in the right direction" acceptable? There is no reason that you can't make an effective poilicy right away. They are not serious about this and it shows.
MLB can bring up the isssue to the players and say we want a 1 year suspension for anyone caught using steroids, period. MLB would have the public opinion on their side. The MLBPA would be committing a huge PR mistake is they rejected this idea. Most of the players would want it this way anyway, so what the hell is the problem here?I'm with you on this. The current program is a fig leaf designed to cover up the problem more than to solve anything. But IMO the problem with the current program has more to do with the insufficiency of the testing. They completely ignore most of the new designer drugs that BALCO and others are producing. They need a thorough testing program like there is in international sports.