Just make them take a polygraph test,simple,law enforcement does it,make then take one once a year,if your clean you have no worries.
2007-12-20 01:18:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
I know the union wont let it happen,but they should,and Roger if he's as clean as he claims this test would be all his detractors would need to make them eat their words,but methinks roger is afraid.
2007-12-20 01:24:44 · update #1
no a polygraph is a lie detector test..wow
2007-12-20 01:25:22 · update #2
See b no their not foolproof but their good enough for law enforcement,and are a better tool than taking a persons word---as far as me being a dip shite well i wonder if youd be so brave....ah u know the rest.
2007-12-20 01:30:57 · update #3
WE can let the few who beat the test get by,but most would not and that would make all the difference,and the test given by a pro is very hard to beat and more accurate than you think.
2007-12-20 01:33:13 · update #4
Mr Danger you obviously have no experience with one,measures are taken in the beginning of the test to unsure this does not happen,simple questions are asked such as your name and birth date reactions are taken ,it is not a 100% nothing is but it's a good start.
2007-12-20 01:42:18 · update #5
horizon good change on your answer how do you know they are not accurate when u thought they tested blood alcohol level?
2007-12-20 02:10:05 · update #6
Whats full proof??
2007-12-20 02:43:41 · update #7
is it just some yankee fans that dont want this done?wouldnt you like a ligitmate W/S title?
2007-12-20 02:45:27 · update #8
I REALIZE THE UNION WOULD PROBABLY NOT ALLOW THIS,AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED,AS FAR AS COURT WHO CARES,THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS A NECESSITY TO ENTER OR CONTINUE IN THE LEAGUE!
2007-12-20 03:37:35 · update #9
Great idea. The players union will have to take a stance sooner or later. The drug part of the contract doesn't expire until 2011.
They need to do something soon.
2007-12-20 01:33:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
First problem is that the Union would never consent to that, they would never allow their players to do that...secondly, (this goes hand and hand) a polygraph test is no admissable in ANY court of law, so the validity of it will never be able to sway a verdict one way or another. Basically if MLB tried to suspend someone for something that was proven with a lie detector, the Union would sue...and win; then MLB has more egg on their face.
There are a lot of legal issues about this whole subject. Everyone is saying that "if it were me I would sue"; sue for what? It is one persons word against another, these players are probably being advised by Lawyers who are telling him what they can and can not do...it is more complicated than most of us understand. We keep hearing "libel" and all kinds of other terms that most of us do not really understand what burden of proof there would need to be for a win in court.
2007-12-20 03:21:21 · answer #2 · answered by bdough15 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Information from a polygraph test is inadmissible as evidence in US courts because all the test assumes is that an honest person would feel guilty about lying and that feeling of guilt would show up as a measurable physiological response on the test. .A person that feels no guilt all about lying would pass a polygraph test easily conversely a very nervous ,completely honest person might fail the test miserably.
2007-12-20 01:37:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
maybe we should let the Red Sox answer the questions first..starting with Mr Henry..
on why they had the only confirmed actual police involved situation where an employee was caught with syringes and steroids..
and it was dismissed as a footnote in the Red Sox Report with the employee being referenced in the report as not involved..because he was driving a player's car?
that stinks of a cover-up..and with all of the unsourced here say that the Red Sox got away with submitting..I say get every single player from them first as the test group..and most know already a lie detector test is not reliable or even admissible as evidence
2007-12-20 01:53:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually it's not that far off of an idea, a lot of professions use it and it's not as though these players are criminal masterminds (or George Costanza) that could beat the test easily.
2007-12-20 02:44:35 · answer #5 · answered by JenEstes 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not a simple as you think, what are the chances the Players Union will agree to that?
2007-12-20 01:22:51 · answer #6 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
yes i think that would be a good idea, help use know who to believe and show kids that people get caught if they try to do something there not- im not saying steroids are bad but it might have gave them a small advantage- players still need reflexes and knowledge to play the game
2007-12-20 01:32:10 · answer #7 · answered by sambo369 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Great idea, I've actually thought of that too. Like mentioned above that wouldn't fly with the players union.
2007-12-20 01:30:58 · answer #8 · answered by Let's go Red Sox! 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Good idea,i'm wondering why there are so many nay-sayers we are not talking about court,and why not use every means at our disposal to clean up the game?
2007-12-20 01:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by Tribe of benjamin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
polygraph tests can be beat so you cant trust them anyway.you really cant use a polygraph test it can be used as an example but the test really means nothing in court.
2007-12-20 01:29:10 · answer #10 · answered by tjnas77 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋