Do Fishing Records Require Lie Detector Tests?

Polygraph tests have been used to clear up questions at major tournaments,
and even at small local "derbies" (where cheating has become common). For
records, it's a new page. Ray Scott is one of its more vocal advocates.

"I think the tests should be mandatory for all world records," insists the
father of modern bass fishing. "I've used polygraph tests for years [he's
mainly talking about tournaments] and they've got me out of trouble.
Eighty-five percent of the time they proved innocence, not guilt," Scott
says.

Unfortunately, these days potential for big bucks and prestige has lead to
increasing numbers of "record thieves" who've resorted to bizarre and
complex schemes. Nowhere has this been truer than in the effort to grab a
new world largemouth bass record.

Polygraphs done by a certified examiner are highly reliable and are the
reason why many record pretenders refuse them. Ray Scott relates the tale of
one fellow from California who some time back tried claiming a new bass
record. Scott, an International Game Fish Association trustee, got the guy
(with the blessing of IGFA) to reluctantly agree to the polygraph. Scott had
set up the test in California with a certified examiner but the record
seeker never showed and refused to answer phone calls. Then he then hired a
lawyer and filed suit against the IGFA claiming –among other things-- that
it had no authority to insist on the polygraph. The judge thought otherwise,
tossed the case and also fined the record seeker $200 in court costs.

So what do you think? Are lie detector tests warranted? If not, why not?