What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Site offers Cam Newton $1M (1 Viewer)

No Way Jose

Footballguy
My link

Attention Cam, pass a professionally administered lie detector test

by answering “No” to these 4 questions..and $1,000,000 is yours

Prior to signing with Auburn, were you aware your father was “shopping” you to Mississippi State or any other school?

Did you tell Dan or Meghan Mullen that you signed with Auburn because of the money because you truly believed Auburn had paid for your commitment?

Did anyone on the Auburn coaching staff/athletic department instruct you how to answer questions from the NCAA by lying or avoiding the truth?

Did you or your family ever receive any impermissible benefits from Auburn?

The TRUTH Matters

Cam, have your attorney contact our attorney to work out the mutually agreed upon details:

Email:info@camnewtonliedetector.com

Call: 302-284-6213

For media requests, please contact our spokesperson at the above email.

:popcorn:

 
Wow this is incredibly interesting....

Whateveridontcare
This. I don't want to hijack the thread in any way so I'll try to stay on course, but I really couldn't care less. He made it through college without anyone attempting to bring to light any foul play. The only ones I think that should be concerned are the people privately interviewing him for their clubs. And that's only if they deem it noteworthy for the draft.
 
Wow this is incredibly interesting....

Whateveridontcare
This. I don't want to hijack the thread in any way so I'll try to stay on course, but I really couldn't care less. He made it through college without anyone attempting to bring to light any foul play. The only ones I think that should be concerned are the people privately interviewing him for their clubs. And that's only if they deem it noteworthy for the draft.
So the only ones that deserve to know if he took money in college and was uneligable are potential NFL teams? Interesting thought.The only reason I posted the link was to give a little laugh. The website looks like it was made by the Alabama Departmentof Transportation, it's equally as crappy as their roads.

 
Wow this is incredibly interesting....

Whateveridontcare
This. I don't want to hijack the thread in any way so I'll try to stay on course, but I really couldn't care less. He made it through college without anyone attempting to bring to light any foul play. The only ones I think that should be concerned are the people privately interviewing him for their clubs. And that's only if they deem it noteworthy for the draft.
Uh, we're talking about Cam Newton, right?
 
These people would poop their pants if he ever took them up on this deal...you think WCOFF is having a hard time paying their winners? These guys will be sunk out of the gate.

 
Lie detector tests are garbage.

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[20][21] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services,[22] critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[23] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."[24]
 
Lie detector tests are garbage.

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[20][21] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services,[22] critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[23] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."[24]
Yep. Way too many ways for the results to go wrong.
 
Lie detector tests are garbage.

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[20][21] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services,[22] critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[23] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion..."[24]
Yep. Way too many ways for the results to go wrong.
Yea, especially if you are lying.
 
Did you or your family ever receive any impermissible benefits from Auburn?
Too big of word for Cam. He may pass this one due to not understanding the question.
After watching Cam say they liked to "keep things simple at Auburn" on Gruden's show I have serious doubts about Cam becoming a good QB. Gruden told him many times "your going to have to work on the verbage". He is not JaMarcus but he will struggle learning the offense in the NFL.
 
Problem with this is that it's like raising all-in with a k-high flush on the river - the only hand that calls you is the hand that beats you-

 
How about "Did you steal that student's laptop while at Florida?"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was assuming all NFL people think his dad did get paid, and he knew about it? And that they were letting that one go to immature mistakes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top