Statement Analysis has already shown that he was deceptive about a number of topics, including his claim to have not used during his comeback tours; tours in which drug tests have shown he was using.
Here is the article, with quotes followed by Statement Analysis in bold type. You will notice that he never actually said, "I did not dope in 2009", for example. He does not "lie" technically, but avoids issuing a reliable denial.
For new readers:
A reliable denial has 3 components. If one is missing, or a fourth added, it is "unreliable." Deceptive people avoid the simple "I didn't do it" of a Reliable Denial. They will substitute the more vague, all encompassing word, "never", or drop the pronoun, "I", or change the allegation.
Lance Armstrong may have lied to Oprah Winfrey during his so-called confession Thursday night about his doping during the Tour de France bicycle race, investigators told ABC News today.
Armstrong, 41, admitted for the first time that his decade-long dominance of cycling and seven wins in the Tour de France were owed, in part, to performance-enhancing drugs and oxygen-boosting blood transfusions. He told Winfrey that he was taking the opportunity to confess to everything he had done wrong, including angrily denying reports for years claiming that he had doped.
Investigators familiar with Armstrong's case, however, said today that Armstrong didn't completely come clean. They say he blatantly lied about when he stopped doping, saying the last time he used the drugs and transfusions was the 2005 race.
"That's the only thing in this whole report that upset me," Armstrong said during the interview. "The accusation and alleged proof that they said I doped is not true. The last time I crossed the line, that line was 2005."
Yes or No questions are the easiest to lie to, which is why we view every single word after "no" as important. Here he only tells us what upset him. Nothing else in the report upset him? This, itself, is not true, as he said that being compared to the biggest scandal in all of sport bothered him, highlighting the East German athlete scandal. He said "the accusation and alleged proof that they said I doped is not true"; he did not say that he did not dope, but that the accusation and alleged proof is not true. Had Oprah been trained in analysis, she would have asked if other proof would have been true, for example. He avoided simply saying, "I did not dope in the 2009 Tour", plainly. This is what innocent people do. It is something Armstrong has avoided for more than 10 years, as he tore into others and sought to destroy lives and intimidate team mates wives. "The last time I crossed the line..." is not to deny anything. What line? What does it mean to cross it?
My guess is that Lance Armstrong continued doping when he ran the recent marathon and cycling races.
"You did not do a blood transfusion in 2009?" Winfrey asked.
This is a poorly worded question and only speaks to blood transfusion. It is a yes or no question.
"No, 2009 and 2010 absolutely not," Armstrong said.
The answer "no" is immediately weakened with five additional words, which tell us nothing regarding the denial, but with analysis, lots.
He did not issue a reliable denial about doping in 2009 and 2010.
Due to the his history of Unreliable Denials, it is safe to go beyond the simple conclusion of "Unreliable Denial", but to say that this is his pattern of deception and it continued in the Oprah interviews.
Investigators familiar with the case disagree. They said today that Armstrong's blood values at the 2009 race showed clear blood manipulation consistent with two transfusions. Armstrong's red blood cell count suddenly went up at these points, even though the number of baby red blood cells did not.
Investigators said this was proof that he received a transfusion of mature red blood cells.
If Armstrong lied about the 2009 race, it could be to protect himself criminally, investigators said.
He was deceptive about other issues too, including his ex wife, his son, the damage done to others, and so forth.
He may have thought he would reclaim his reputation, but he actually has made himself much worse. What is so "scary", to use his own word, is how he can appear to have no empathy with anyone in life damaged by him.
His "confession" is with deception and can only infuriate those ruined by him.
He owes many, including those who donated to his cancer fund, far more than an apology.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment