Allegedly, David Mullins has failed a polygraph test after fishing at the Elite event this weekend at Tombigbee. No official statement has been made by Bass or David yet, but expect more info to come out soon.

Mullins finished the event with a 30th place finish that netted him $5500.

1 hour ago, fishballer06 said:

Allegedly, David Mullins has failed a polygraph test after fishing at the Elite event this weekend at Tombigbee. No official statement has been made by Bass or David yet, but expect more info to come out soon.

Mullins finished the event with a 30th place finish that netted him $5500.

I'm sure Get Ur Fish On will be making him out to be a victim here soon.

https://www.in-fisherman.com/editorial/mullins-awaits-word-on-credibility-assessment/548182

Finally found an article from a credible source on the matter.

And I'm going to repeat

Polygraphs are not reliable, they can't be used in courts, why are they still using this psuedo-science here?

7 minutes ago, MN Fisher said:

And I'm going to repeat

Polygraphs are not reliable, they can't be used in courts, why are they still using this psuedo-science here?

I agree. Cousin and I won a 500 boat tournament and he took the test. I didnt trust the thing. He passed. I will never voluntarily take a polygraph.

Maybe with Mullins Go Pros being on they will come to the conclusion that he not guilty of any infraction and see how insane this polygraph issue is.

21 hours ago, fishballer06 said:

Mullins finished the event with a 30th place finish that netted him $5500.

Didn't he go on to sink the final shot for U-Conn?? Conflict of interest right there !

Went to In Fishermen and couldn’t help but see Wheeler won again.

He’s gotta be the hottest fisherman on earth

Him having video seems like a pretty simple solution to the FFS claims. Watch his video and see if he was using it or not.

The getting information one is such a grey area thing that I really don't like. If a person is out, actively hunting for or buying information is one thing, but if a guy is passing another boat and they blurt out that they're killing them on white spinnerbaits, that angler is suppose to report himself for receiving information? I guess maybe it's just because I don't have an issue with "dock talk", it's part of the overall experience of fishing that makes it enjoyable to me and chasing someone else's bite has almost always come back to bite me, so I don't care if someone else is doing it.

I read the In Fisherman article. If the reporting in this article is accurate, I think the angler is not being treated fairly, and that is a way to polite way of describing what they are doing to him. I have said it before and will say it again. If a polygraph is the only way to enforce a rule, it should not be a rule. Make rules that can be proven and enforce with hard evidence or don't have them. 100 year old witchcraft technology is not something that should be used to determine the direction of a person's' career.

@king fisher and innocent until proven guilty. Per the article, he passed the first two times and then the third was undetermined. So if they don't have a "he's lying" then what are we even talking about? Even with a flawed test where you'd question a "he's lying" in the first place, if you don't even have that much then what are you doing?

5 hours ago, MN Fisher said:

And I'm going to repeat

Polygraphs are not reliable, they can't be used in courts, why are they still using this psuedo-science here?

And I'll repeat. Polygraphs aren't the only thing they go by.

The fishermen are the ones who asked for more polygraphs. Because they are the ones who know that there are still people out there engaging in funny business.

4 hours ago, king fisher said:

witchcraft

Every time I see a headline about a polygraph at a BASS event I just shake my head. What an embarrassment of an organization.

27 minutes ago, MontanaBasser said:

What an embarrassment of an organization.

Hate the playa not the game.

If people didn't cheat it wouldn't be necessary.

Whether it's accurate or not is a different topic.

Rotten humans CHEAT at all things possible.

I stand by what I said. There are other creative ways to make professional bass fishing feel competitive and compelling. They have done none of it. They try to please everyone and in doing so, fail to please anyone. It's not like the issues facing BASS are unique. Every professional sport has to deal with cheating and the influence of money on the game. A salary/spending cap would go a long way. Or, some version of motorsport style homologation maybe.

They're failing at being the arbiter of the sport and that's their first responsibility.

In a few more tournaments will be a merge between Pro Wrestling and Springer reruns. I sure they can find a spot for Dr Phil

Let me clear some things up...or at least clarify a bit. I was a violent crimes detective for 17 years of my career. I was assigned to an FBI Safe Streets Task Force, I have testified in both state and federal court as an expert witness countless times, and I have investigated more homicides that I can (or care to) remember. Also, I had a state police polygraph examiner assigned to my unit with an office less than 30 feet from my desk (I was not state police).

I'll keep it short because the legalities are way, way off in the weeds.

1. Polygraph examinations are an excellent investigative tool. Please notice the emphasis.

2. Polygraph examination results are absolutely court admissible. This requires a giant flow-chart of legalese to determine if, how, when, and even what. They are admissible. I have testified in numerous trials where the polygraph examination was presented to the jury. The actual results of the polygraph are not Prima Facie evidence of anything (an established fact that must be disproved).

3. A polygraph is an "interpretation". Details regarding the examination itself and the interpretation can be presented for the judge or jury to determine the value, but it is 100% an INTERPRETATION.

4. I stressed #3 because the polygraph is ONLY as useful as the EXAMINER. The state police examiner assigned to our unit was a rock star. This little, eye-glasses-wearing, non-threatening guy would regularly take a suspect back to the polygraph room and get a recorded confession before he ever turned on the machine. Contrasting him, was the F.B.I. polygrapher available at a nearby F.B.I. office. This guy was a train wreck. So bad that we would skip the polygraph if he was the only one available.

5. INCONCLUSIVE IS INCONCLUSIVE. That's it. There is no other discussion to be had and, in fact, it could be illegal to try to discuss an inconclusive polygraph result. This organization cannot act on an inconclusive result. In fact, this fisherman could easily win a load of money with a good attorney just because they have led the press and public to believe that there is any value to an inconclusive test. I'm really kind of hoping he goes after them. They are doing the wrong thing.

So here are my two cents (which you would think would be a few bucks by now with inflation but whatever): The polygraph is a good tool. I like the polygraph in a huge number of scenarios. The polygraph has no business in competitive fishing or any other sport unless it is used as an investigative tool in very specific circumstances and in a CLOSED investigation wherein the results are never released (or only released at the conclusion of any legal proceedings). Unfortunately, Bassmaster is wielding it like a Ouiji board and it's exactly as effective. I agree that the problem is dishonest, unscrupulous cheaters. Bassmaster is actually making it worse with this policy. But that's just my opinion and that's worth less than the discontinued penny. I hope some of this is useful.

15 minutes ago, BigAngus752 said:

Let me clear some things up...or at least clarify a bit. I was a violent crimes detective for 17 years of my career. I was assigned to an FBI Safe Streets Task Force, I have testified in both state and federal court as an expert witness countless times, and I have investigated more homicides that I can (or care to) remember. Also, I had a state police polygraph examiner assigned to my unit with an office less than 30 feet from my desk (I was not state police).

I'll keep it short because the legalities are way, way off in the weeds.

1. Polygraph examinations are an excellent investigative tool. Please notice the emphasis.

2. Polygraph examination results are absolutely court admissable. This requires a giant flow-chart of legalese to determine if, how, when, and even what. They are admissable. I have testified in numerous trials where the polygraph examination was presented to the jury. The actual results of the polygraph are not Prima Facie evidence of anything (an established fact that must be disproved).

3. A polygraph is an "interpretation". Details regarding the examination itself and the interpretation can be presented for the judge or jury to determine the value, but it is 100% an INTERPRETATION.

4. I stressed #3 because the polygraph is ONLY as useful as the EXAMINER. The state police examiner assigned to our unit (we were not the state police) was a rock star. This little, eye-glasses-wearing, non-threatening guy would regularly take a suspect back to the polygraph room and get a recorded confession before he ever turned on the machine. Contrasting him, was the F.B.I. polygrapher available at a nearby F.B.I. office. This guy was a train wreck. So bad that we would skip the polygraph if he was the only one available.

5. INCONCLUSIVE IS INCONCLUSIVE. That's it. There is no other discussion to be had and, in fact, it could be illegal to try to discuss an inconclusive polygraph result. This organization cannot act on an inconclusive result. In fact, this fisherman could easily win a load of money with a good attorney just because they have led the press and public to believe that there is any value to an inconclusive test. I'm really kind of hoping he goes after them. They are doing the wrong thing.

So here are my two cents (which you would think would be a few bucks by now with inflation but whatever): The polygraph is a good tool. I like the polygraph in a huge number of scenarios. The polygraph has no business in competitive fishing or any other sport unless it is used as an investigative tool in very specific circumstances and in a CLOSED investigation wherein the results are never released (or only released at the conclusion of any legal proceedings). Unfortunately, Bassmaster is wielding it like a Ouiji board and it's exactly as effective. I agree that the problem is dishonest, unscrupulous cheaters. Bassmaster is actually making it worse with this policy. But that's just my opinion and that's worth less than the discontinued penny. I hope some of this is useful.

Thank you for your two cents (worth >$2)

12 hours ago, Hartwood71 said:

So here are my two cents (which you would think would be a few bucks by now with inflation but whatever)

That made me laugh.

15 hours ago, BigAngus752 said:

Let me clear some things up...or at least clarify a bit. I was a violent crimes detective for 17 years of my career. I was assigned to an FBI Safe Streets Task Force, I have testified in both state and federal court as an expert witness countless times, and I have investigated more homicides that I can (or care to) remember. Also, I had a state police polygraph examiner assigned to my unit with an office less than 30 feet from my desk (I was not state police).

I'll keep it short because the legalities are way, way off in the weeds.

1. Polygraph examinations are an excellent investigative tool. Please notice the emphasis.

2. Polygraph examination results are absolutely court admissible. This requires a giant flow-chart of legalese to determine if, how, when, and even what. They are admissible. I have testified in numerous trials where the polygraph examination was presented to the jury. The actual results of the polygraph are not Prima Facie evidence of anything (an established fact that must be disproved).

3. A polygraph is an "interpretation". Details regarding the examination itself and the interpretation can be presented for the judge or jury to determine the value, but it is 100% an INTERPRETATION.

4. I stressed #3 because the polygraph is ONLY as useful as the EXAMINER. The state police examiner assigned to our unit was a rock star. This little, eye-glasses-wearing, non-threatening guy would regularly take a suspect back to the polygraph room and get a recorded confession before he ever turned on the machine. Contrasting him, was the F.B.I. polygrapher available at a nearby F.B.I. office. This guy was a train wreck. So bad that we would skip the polygraph if he was the only one available.

5. INCONCLUSIVE IS INCONCLUSIVE. That's it. There is no other discussion to be had and, in fact, it could be illegal to try to discuss an inconclusive polygraph result. This organization cannot act on an inconclusive result. In fact, this fisherman could easily win a load of money with a good attorney just because they have led the press and public to believe that there is any value to an inconclusive test. I'm really kind of hoping he goes after them. They are doing the wrong thing.

So here are my two cents (which you would think would be a few bucks by now with inflation but whatever): The polygraph is a good tool. I like the polygraph in a huge number of scenarios. The polygraph has no business in competitive fishing or any other sport unless it is used as an investigative tool in very specific circumstances and in a CLOSED investigation wherein the results are never released (or only released at the conclusion of any legal proceedings). Unfortunately, Bassmaster is wielding it like a Ouiji board and it's exactly as effective. I agree that the problem is dishonest, unscrupulous cheaters. Bassmaster is actually making it worse with this policy. But that's just my opinion and that's worth less than the discontinued penny. I hope some of this is useful.

Thank you for posting this @BigAngus752. As a retired LEO myself, I concur.

20 hours ago, MontanaBasser said:

Every time I see a headline about a polygraph at a BASS event I just shake my head. What an embarrassment of an organization.

Then you hate the anglers that are asking for them.

18 hours ago, BigAngus752 said:

Let me clear some things up...or at least clarify a bit. I was a violent crimes detective for 17 years of my career. I was assigned to an FBI Safe Streets Task Force, I have testified in both state and federal court as an expert witness countless times, and I have investigated more homicides that I can (or care to) remember. Also, I had a state police polygraph examiner assigned to my unit with an office less than 30 feet from my desk (I was not state police).

I'll keep it short because the legalities are way, way off in the weeds.

1. Polygraph examinations are an excellent investigative tool. Please notice the emphasis.

2. Polygraph examination results are absolutely court admissible. This requires a giant flow-chart of legalese to determine if, how, when, and even what. They are admissible. I have testified in numerous trials where the polygraph examination was presented to the jury. The actual results of the polygraph are not Prima Facie evidence of anything (an established fact that must be disproved).

3. A polygraph is an "interpretation". Details regarding the examination itself and the interpretation can be presented for the judge or jury to determine the value, but it is 100% an INTERPRETATION.

4. I stressed #3 because the polygraph is ONLY as useful as the EXAMINER. The state police examiner assigned to our unit was a rock star. This little, eye-glasses-wearing, non-threatening guy would regularly take a suspect back to the polygraph room and get a recorded confession before he ever turned on the machine. Contrasting him, was the F.B.I. polygrapher available at a nearby F.B.I. office. This guy was a train wreck. So bad that we would skip the polygraph if he was the only one available.

5. INCONCLUSIVE IS INCONCLUSIVE. That's it. There is no other discussion to be had and, in fact, it could be illegal to try to discuss an inconclusive polygraph result. This organization cannot act on an inconclusive result. In fact, this fisherman could easily win a load of money with a good attorney just because they have led the press and public to believe that there is any value to an inconclusive test. I'm really kind of hoping he goes after them. They are doing the wrong thing.

So here are my two cents (which you would think would be a few bucks by now with inflation but whatever): The polygraph is a good tool. I like the polygraph in a huge number of scenarios. The polygraph has no business in competitive fishing or any other sport unless it is used as an investigative tool in very specific circumstances and in a CLOSED investigation wherein the results are never released (or only released at the conclusion of any legal proceedings). Unfortunately, Bassmaster is wielding it like a Ouiji board and it's exactly as effective. I agree that the problem is dishonest, unscrupulous cheaters. Bassmaster is actually making it worse with this policy. But that's just my opinion and that's worth less than the discontinued penny. I hope some of this is useful.

Thank you.

They had a polygraph tech on Bass After Dark and he described how it was used in I think it was MLF. It's an investigative tool, nothing more, nothing less.

He described an instance where a guy was failing a question and it was because when the guy was 10 his dad gave him a fish in a tournament and he still felt guilty about it.

25 minutes ago, Pumpkin Lizard said:

Then you hate the anglers that are asking for them.

No. And I don't know how you would reach that conclusion from what I said.

I don’t know why a camera is mounted on the stern of every boat isn’t part of the rules for these pro events. It would objectify everything and make everything more discrete which would result in less drama and more confidence in the system.

2 hours ago, MontanaBasser said:

No. And I don't know how you would reach that conclusion from what I said.

The anglers are the organization that is calling for polygraphs. That is what you think is embarrassing.

5 hours ago, Happybeerbuzz said:

I don’t know why a camera is mounted on the stern of every boat isn’t part of the rules for these pro events. It would objectify everything and make everything more discrete which would result in less drama and more confidence in the system.

They do have a camera mounted on the stern. But that doesn't confirm or deny information rule violations.

He hasn't even been DQd yet. People should chill until the process plays out.