the best scientific review I could find on the polygraph is a couple decades old, but I think that's because by that time, it had become pretty clear that there was too much error in polygraphy to render valid conclusions. the field of psychology has begun to pursue alternative methods of assessing guilt.

To briefly quote the article's conclusions:

Using psychological research data to answer public
policy questions is inherently difficult. Neither policymakers
who seek to utilize such data nor the
researchers responsible for study designs have one
another in mind. The communication problem between
policymakers and researchers is made more
difficult by the lack of clear standards to evaluate
data and the nascent state of techniques to synthesize
information across research studies. With polygraph
testing, most of the usual problems of policy relevant
research are exacerbated. Only recently have psychologists
become centrally involved in the assessment
of polygraph tests, and there is thus a paucity
of methodologically appropriate research. In addition,
there is no well-established theoretical base,
and use of polygraph tests has far outstripped research
efforts.

The most serious difficulty in the development
of policy relevant conclusions about polygraph testing
is the lack of theory to explain results of testing.
Theoretically, a polygraph test operates on a simple
principle: that anxiety is related to lying. Yet, it is
clear that anxiety has a host of causal factors and
making attributions of deception is cognitively complex
(cf. Ekman, 1985). It is for this reason that
many scientists are skeptical about claims for polygraph
testing.

Despite a priori grounds for ignoring much of
the applied research on polygraph testing, the present
analysis attempted to review this work as carefully
as possible. What emerges is a picture that may
seem overly complicated to laypersons, but is in fact
relatively obvious from a psychological perspective
(cf. Saxe, 1983). The data suggest that under certain
conditions CQTs can detect deception at rates significantly
better than chance, although the data also
suggest that substantial rates of false positives, false
negatives, and inconclusives are possible. What appear
to be very important are the conditions of the
test. These probably include, at a minimum, a
narrowly focused question, an experienced examiner/
investigator, and a subject who believes in the efficacy
of the test. Many other conditions may also be
necessary, and only a small number of these conditions
can be controlled by an examiner.

There is, thus, no way to ensure that a polygraph
test has provided any new information. Similar,
perhaps, to eyewitness evidence that can be systematically
biased (Loftus, 1979), polygraph tests are
not infallible. Despite the aura of technology, they
are relatively simple devices that rely on relatively
simplistic inferences. Research evidence about polygraph
tests obviously has a role, but cannot determine
public use of such tests. Nevertheless, psychological
thinking and research can do much to educate
policymakers about the nature of the problem. Such
was the case in this situation (cf. Brooks, 1985) and
the debate still rages--in Congress, in courts, and
in psychological journals. One can only hope that
the debate is now more informed than before.

Reading this and other threads so far it seems like very few people here had their opinions change based on the 60 Minutes interview. That's not a shock, I suppose, either way.

Running through the transcript and my memory of the interview, there are a few places where I want to know more info. I have no right to this info, but based on what he said in the interview these are the questions I have.

(1) Why are you taking B-12? How long have you had this condition?

When talking about injections he's received from McNamee, Clemens identified lidocaine and B-12. He then gave the reason for the lidocaine but steered away from giving a reason for the B-12, instead saying, "...B-12, I take today. A lot of trainers have, uh..." before being cut off by Wallace.

I'm no doctor, but looking at the general reasons for taking B-12 (mostly, a B-12 deficiency - duh!) I see plenty of plausible reasons and nothing particularly embarassing - unless being a vegan in Texas is worthy of scorn. He volunteered what lidocaine was for, but moved the conversation in another direction on B-12. And I wasn't aware that B-12 deficiency was so common among professional athletes that "a lot of trainers" would be doing anything with it. I guess a follow-up question would be, "Which trainers? We'd like to ask them about B-12."

This kind of stuff interests me on its own, but demands greater scrutiny because Canseco outed "B-12 shots" as a euphemism for "steroid injections". It would seem to me that someone taking B-12 for a medical condition would know why, while someone using "B-12" as a euphemism for steroid injections wouldn't know what it's for.

(2) Why B-12 injections? And tell us about the injections themselves - how often? Where on your body?

Again, I'm no doctor, but I understand that B-12 can be taken in pill form. And I'm not Roger Clemens, but if I'm given the choice between a daily pill and a monthly (or so) shot, I'm still taking the pill.

The details on the injections would be similar to asking the purpose of the B-12: if there are differences between the administration of B-12 and steroids, these kinds of details should set things straight. I don't know if there are differences, but it seems a worthwhile question.

(3) Should we expect someone supplying illegal drugs, or drugs for illegal purposes, to come forward and admit what they did in order to exonerate Clemens?

That's more of a rhetorical question than anything else. Clemens said in the interview, "If I have these needles and these steroids and all these drugs, where did I get them? Where's the person that gave them to me? Please come forward." He did so in an apparent attempt to prove this stuff never happened. Either he's being naive, or he fully knows that nobody will come forward. And whether it's naivete or confidence, it could be innocence or guilt that fueled it. I guess this one is more about me wanting to point out that his plea for someone to come forward is useless.

(4) If McNamee would avoid jail time by telling the truth, how does lying get him to avoid jail time?

Given the surprisingly detailed accusation in the lawsuit GR linked in #94, it would seem that Clemens has an answer, or at least a theory, on this one. It all comes down to whether he had to name Clemens to get immunity, or if he named Clemens subsequent to immunity. Based on the deal mentioned a few weeks ago it sounded like the latter, given that immunity was not conditional on an implication of Clemens. The lawsuit suggests it's the other way around. Either way, grab some popcorn, because either Clemens is going down, or McNamee and a whole federal investigation is going down. (Or neither, I suppose.)

I'm not Roger Clemens, but if I'm given the choice between a daily pill and a monthly (or so) shot, I'm still taking the pill.

I think that's not such an easy decision. I'd take a shot once a month to avoid needing to take a daily pill. In my experience, most injections really itch afterwards more than they really hurt. We're not taking about a tetanus shot after the fact here with a huge needle in the stomach.

It isn't so much about fear of taking pills as much as not ever having to worry about missing a dose. I know practically nothing about B-12 injections but I know some medicines absorb more effectively without going through the digestive tract. Also, my experience with vitamin pills is that they upset my stomach.

have all yall read any of a whole lot of stuff out there on vitamin B-12?

theres a whole lot of people who take it for "energy" - and i don't mean body builders/roids users. and theres a WHOLE lot of people who talk about how you need shots, you need to use special drops under the tongue because pills don't work. i mean it is big stuff with the alternative medicine people.

and i sure as heck can't get upset about someone getting vitamin shots.

but i don't understand why on earth everyone keeps insisting that a shot is in the ass. who give anyone a shot of ANYTHING in the actual ass? insulin you give in the thigh or stomach skin. same with HGH. you get vaccines in the arm or thigh. you get antibiotics in the arm or thigh.

and why on earth couldn't a grown man give himself shots? are all yall babies scard of needles unless they the kind for tats or something? seem to me if you trying to hide that you doing illegal drugs you don't shoot up in front of anyone or get anyone to fix you

- as for mcnamee and the feds, remembering all the crap novitsky pulled with unrecorded conversations with witnesses it wouldn't surprise me at ALL if they, um, suggested that if mcnamee "tell the truth" about clemens, they would go easy on him - it just might could have something to do with all the other drug dealing stuff they are keeping secret.

and besides, UNLESS clemens can absolutely PROVE that he never had roids in his system, mcnamee is home free with that kind of lie. unless, of course, mcnamee takes it back in front of congress and the live tv cameras and says the feds forced him to swear to that

I was a runner in colege and we received B-12 shots every 3-4 weeks during the year. The thinking then (it may have changed since) was that for those who work out extremely hard the B-12 guarded against wearing down and becoming susceptible to minor cold, fevers, etc.

who give anyone a shot of ANYTHING in the actual ass?

There are shots that are given in the ass. One reason is because the needle is bigger.

are all yall babies scard of needles

Yes.

That's baloney. Vitamin B-12 shots don't do a damned thing for your immune system, unless you suffer from B-12 deficiency.

But it doesn't change the fact that athletes actually do get these shots.

1. The_Ex Posted: January 06, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2661934)
I wasn't impressed.

. . .

Would he sue someone - No, that costs money, another dodge

You could be right. Or Not.

Incidentally, Dave. McNamee isn't backing down. His lawyer told ESPN that Clemens lied on "60 Minutes" last night.

And then he intimated that he was not going to sue, because nobody would ever believe Clemens, so McNamee's reputation -- as a rat? as a rapist? as a drug supplier? -- would not be harmed.

It was damn weak.

It also doesn't change the fact that Clemens is a lying, cheating sack of ####.

Actually, it does.

No, it doesn't. And saying that it does doesn't change the fact it doesn't.

And you saying he cheated is no more true now than when you falsely told everyone that Grimsley witnessed Clemens using drugs.

And yet you still haven't admitted you lied about Grimsley's statements.

Was that before or after the taped conversation was aired on ESPN?

Well before.

Grimsley's statements turned out to be correct.

The Grimsley statements LAT made up...

THOSE OF YOU INTO STATISTICS, PROBABILITY THEORY, AND THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE, WHO WANT TO BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY, AND WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT UNCERTAINTY IN DATA MAY LIKE THE FOLLOWING POST:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/gray-fallacy.html

Is anyone else disappointed that Tolaxor doesn't post URLs in all caps?

Grimsley's statements turned out to be correct.

You really don't know how to be honest, even about something minor, do you? There weren't any statements.

Grimsley's statements turned out to be correct.

What? Grimsley's affidavit didn't mention Clemens at all, in any context.

What? Grimsley's affidavit didn't mention Clemens at all, in any context.

Just to be clear, again: although we call it the "Grimsley affidavit" as shorthand, it's actually the Novitsky affidavit. Unlike a real law enforcement officer, Novitsky didn't get Grimsley on tape or on paper.

What? Grimsley's affidavit didn't mention Clemens at all, in any context.

Didn't Grimsley state that he never mentioned Clemens? So, yes, his statements were correct.