Skip to content

How did the Gareon Conley polygraph test come to be?

AP

A game of hot potato possibly could emerge regarding the lie detector test taken by Raiders cornerback Gareon Conley before the draft. Per multiple reports, the Ravens requested it. A source with knowledge of the situation insists the Ravens did not request it. Conley’s representatives, however, contend generally that a team requested it.

It’s a potentially important distinction because of a law known as the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988. The law says that non-governmental employers may not “directly or indirectly . . . require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test.”

As explained by Peter King of TheMMQB.com, the Ravens decided to administer the test on Thursday, and they found a firm in northeast Ohio to conduct the test late Thursday afternoon. But other aspects of King’s report cut against the notion that the Ravens requested it or otherwise crossed the line created by federal law.

According to King, one of Conley’s agents sent an email from the person who conducted the test to all 32 teams. If the Ravens had requested it, why would the Ravens have allowed the results to be given to all 32 teams? The goal would have been to conceal the information, in the hopes that other teams would pass on Conley.

Our guess is that the Ravens simply suggested the test or maybe raised the possibility, and that Conley’s camp took it from there. While merely suggesting it could be regarded as a violation of the law, it’s unlikely that federal authorities will be descending on the team’s facility and launching a perp-walk parade any time soon. But it’s definitely the kind of thing that the league office should be advising teams to not do, and the advice extends beyond merely not “requesting” a polygraph.

Teams also shouldn’t suggest, directly or indirectly, that a player submit to a polygraph. In this case, the available evidence suggests that the spark came from the Ravens. And that should provide the league office with the spark to remind all teams about what the law does and doesn’t permit.

When it comes to polygraph testing and private employers, the law basically prohibits anything and everything relating to polygraph testing.

Permalink 25 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Baltimore Ravens, Home, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill
25 Responses to “How did the Gareon Conley polygraph test come to be?”
  1. ronfromnm says: Apr 28, 2017 5:30 PM

    “Our guess is that the Ravens simply suggested the test or maybe raised the possibility, and that Conley’s camp took it from there.”

    Put yourself in Conley’s shoes, Florio. He WANTS to do anything he can to convince teams he is falsely accused. Why is it at all hard to believe that Conley raised the idea of the polygraph?

  2. radrntn says: Apr 28, 2017 5:37 PM

    just the little bit I know about it. The alleged victim in her statement agreed to have a foursome at 3am while in an elevator. (I guess I am getting old)

    Also I have heard the entire “alleged rape” is all on video, and from what I heard she seemed to be all good with it, until they kicked her out the room.

    Time will tell, but we all know if none of this happened before the draft he would have never lasted to 24 as the Ravens really wanted him, but felt that could not justify the risk with the pick at 16.

  3. wolfgangvomframps says: Apr 28, 2017 5:39 PM

    For those wondering, a major reason why they are forbidden is that there are major questions as to whether they are reliable.

    The test measures a stress a response. If a person lacks the moral basis to have a stress response while lying the person will come up clean.

    In contrast, others are prone to false negatives.

    I’m sort of amazed any team would put much credibility into the test.

  4. btv77 says: Apr 28, 2017 5:40 PM

    Legalities aside; if the suggestion to take a polygraph came from any team before the idea was presented by Conley’s agent then Conley might want to find a new agent. One could argue those test results might be the only reason Conley was drafted in the first round, or even drafted at all.

  5. donterrelli says: Apr 28, 2017 5:48 PM

    Strange the Ravens would suggest it because how often their players take and fail them.

  6. dawoger says: Apr 28, 2017 5:56 PM

    Florio, this must be a perplexing scenario for you. Your liberal bias and legal training demands you stay dutifully bound to the left’s playbook. So now your torn somewhat between protecting the veracity of Conley’s accuser or coddling a criminal by debunking the valid or invalid use of a polygraph. This is why the left will eventually end up eating their own out of existence.

  7. wolfgangvomframps says: Apr 28, 2017 6:05 PM

    dagower,
    Only a creepy tea partiers could turn this discussion into some rant about the left.
    Go yell at clouds. Nobody cares about your political views on a football page.

  8. maust1013 says: Apr 28, 2017 6:11 PM

    It’s not exactly the first time the Ravens didn’t ‘understand’ a rule

  9. deneb1973 says: Apr 28, 2017 6:20 PM

    It’s silly to criticize the agent for finding an avenue that would allow his client to be drafted (and make millions) versus being an undrafted free agent (with unviolated rights). Protecting ethereal rights at the cost of severely impacting a young man’s career is the height of a legalistic approach that has so infected this site … and that’s from a lawyer who practiced more than two decades longer than Florio. No one knows if Conley was told of the law and voluntarily waived his rights; does anyone think he would care? He was already on record as having said nothing happened and the results are inadmissible. What did he lose versus the enormous gain he obtained?

  10. cabosan1978 says: Apr 28, 2017 6:31 PM

    He didnt have an employer at the time of the test so my guess is no laws were broken.

  11. dawoger says: Apr 28, 2017 6:34 PM

    Wolfgaygangbang, Since you couldn’t discredit the message you attack the messenger? Typical tactic used by liberal twits to avoid cognitive dissonance.

  12. planeluvr says: Apr 28, 2017 6:43 PM

    cabosan1978 says:
    Apr 28, 2017 6:31 PM

    He didnt have an employer at the time of the test so my guess is no laws were broken.

    …or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test.”

  13. laserw says: Apr 28, 2017 6:53 PM

    I was required by a huge car dealership in Virginia to take a lie detector test prior to being hired.

    It should be interesting that on the sales floor I was the honest salesman – the other “lot lizards” were liars and knew nothing about the cars we were selling – those idiots came to me because I knew my product.

    Two months and 16 cars sold later, I turned in my D tag because I hated my job and hated everyone around me.

  14. wolfgangvomframps says: Apr 28, 2017 7:01 PM

    dawoger, “the message”?

    Dude, the only “message” is that you lack the internal filters necessary to realize that liberals are not hiding in your closet.

    This is about football.

    Son, is that clear? Football.

    Take your tea party rants to “Crazed Right Winger Daily” or Stormfront of wherever your kind hangs out.

  15. genericcommenter says: Apr 28, 2017 7:09 PM

    Sometimes rules meant to “protect” players may actually cause them harm.

  16. bannedfromchoirpractice says: Apr 28, 2017 7:17 PM

    That employment polygraph law has resulted in a lot of stolen paper clips from the workplace. Once you make it to your car with those office supplies tucked safely away in purse or pocket, you’re home free.

  17. wolfgangvomframps says: Apr 28, 2017 7:44 PM

    By the way, Dawoger,

    Saw how you changed my name.

    Go troll for dates someplace else. I’m not interested. I like women.

  18. johnjackguy says: Apr 28, 2017 8:54 PM

    Sadly Peter King has proven that he cannot be trusted anymore. He is property of the NFL.

  19. MichaelEdits says: Apr 28, 2017 9:28 PM

    If it had not been the Ravens, but rather the Patriots, the crackdown would’ve been fast and furious. And I don’t even like the Patriots.

  20. droppedinagreasefire says: Apr 29, 2017 7:00 PM

    Kinda interesting. Rape kit results should have been completed by now. Guess here is that Davis is using his Vegas mafia to churn the chick with a check and/or beating to keep quiet.

  21. racerx1225 says: Apr 30, 2017 2:49 AM

    HE VOLUNTEERED TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH.

    Morons and haters gonna hate… Raiders are great!

  22. babygaga19 says: Apr 30, 2017 10:40 AM

    Something just doesn’t sound right here. I doubt the chick would have had a rape kit done without the “supporting evidence.” The real question is, if there was sex, was it consensual? Conley has eye witnesses saying there was no rape. This sounds like a set up, shake down, by the chick. Conley is young but I hope he learned a valuable lesson, don’t make yourself an open target. The Gold diggers are everywhere!

  23. sodoyoufeelluckypunk says: May 1, 2017 1:15 AM

    GOOOOOOOO REGGGGGGGGIIIIIEEEEEE

    Oakland Raiders: D-

    Draft picks: Ohio State CB Gareon Conley, Connecticut S Obi Melifonwu, UCLA DT Eddie Vanderdoes, Florida G/T David Sharpe, Wake Forest LB Marquel Lee, Washington State S Shalom Luani, Alabama State T Jylan Ware, North Carolian RB Elijah Hood, Toledo DT Treyvon Hester

    The Raiders had nine picks, but it was a struggle vs. previous much better draft and offseason hauls from Reggie McKenzie. Conley’s gambling style isn’t worth the character risk, and Melifonwu and Vanderdoes were taken more because they look the part than anything else. Those early picks had an Al Davis feel to them. Between Sharpe and Hester late, there isn’t much front-line help for a rising young AFC title contending team.

  24. oneilistheone says: May 1, 2017 8:17 AM

    The important thing is that he passed the test,who cares who requested it.The Media!

    I’m a die hard and I don’t care so why do you?

  25. war27 says: May 1, 2017 10:05 AM

    Two days later. I guess the Raiders only had a first round pick.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!