Lie Detector Tests and the NFL

I have to say that I was dismayed to read this story about how Denver Broncos wide receiver, David Kircus, was reinstated to the team after he successfully passed a lie detector test involving his role in a fight.

ESPN.com reports:

Broncos receiver David Kircus' job is no longer in jeopardy over allegations he threw a punch that landed a man in the hospital with multiple facial fractures.

   Coach Mike Shanahan, who had pledged to release Kircus if it was determined he was at fault in the fight, said Tuesday that Kircus passed a lie-detector test administered by an expert and will remain with the team regardless of the legal outcome of his case.

   "David came to me and said, 'Hey coach, I guarantee I did not take the first swing. I defended myself. I probably used poor judgment, being at the wrong place at the wrong time.'

   "I said, 'Well David, I'll give you a chance to take a lie-detector test,' and he wanted to do that. And he passed it with flying colors, so he will be on our football team," Shanahan said . . .

   "If he flunked the test, he would not be with us," Shanahan said. "He wanted to take the test. He said, 'Coach, if I flunk it, I won't be on this football team. If I do pass it, I'll be on this team.' I said, 'Hey, that's fair enough for me.'

So, now what matters is the outcome of a scientifically unreliable lie detector test rather than the legal outcome? 

Perhaps, Coach Shanahan should read the federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, which, except in limited circumstances not applicable here, does not permit employers to require or request an employee to take a polygraph or use the results of those tests for employment purposes. This is because there is a general scientific consensus that such tests are not reliable.

My question is where was the NFLPA when all of this was going on?  Shouldn't they be protecting their players' employment rights in these circumstances and not allow them to be subject to the whim of a polygraph test?

PS