Saturday, January 11, 2014

Statement Analysis: Alex Rodriquez Denial of Performance Enhancing Drugs


The following is the statement from Alex Rodriquez in response to the binding arbitration ruling that has upheld most of his suspension.  He is suspended for the entire 2014 season, forfeiting a salary of $25,000,00 for the year.  
I.  Expected versus Unexpected
II.  The Statement 
III.  The Statement with Analysis.
I.  The Expected Versus The Unexpected:  Statement Analysis presupposes the person is truthful and innocent.  This is the presupposition, or "pre-judging" the subject.  We seek to put ourselves into the shoes of the accused, and answer how we, truly innocent (not just judicially innocent) would respond.  
We expect the innocent to say, early, "I did not use PEDS" without qualifier.  
When we do not find the expected, we then deal with the unexpected for analysis.  
II.  The statement.  
Some will argue that this statement was prepared by his legal team, while others will believe that he, himself, wrote it.  
It matters not. 
We are not analyzing Alex Rodriquez, but are analyzing the statement itself.  For the purpose of analysis, the subject, A-Rod, is nonexistent to us.  We are analyzing words on a page, and seeking to avoid undue outside influence (that is, beyond the setting, or reference point of the statement) in our analysis.  Therefore, for example, if the analyst is a passionate Yankee fan, or A-Rod fan, he or she would not want this emotion to influence the analysis.  
III.  The statement with analysis in bold type, with emphasis added.  You will find that italics, underlining, bold type, and colors are added for emphasis.  The statement is broken up, to allow for clarity. 
II.  The statement 
"The number of games sadly comes as no surprise, as the deck has been stacked against me from day one. This is one man’s decision, that was not put before a fair and impartial jury, does not involve me having failed a single drug test, is at odds with the facts and is inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Drug Agreement and the Basic Agreement, and relies on testimony and documents that would never have been allowed in any court in the United States because they are false and wholly unreliable. This injustice is MLB’s first step toward abolishing guaranteed contracts in the 2016 bargaining round, instituting lifetime bans for single violations of drug policy, and further insulating its corrupt investigative program from any variety defense by accused players, or any variety of objective review.
I have been clear that I did not use performance enhancing substances as alleged in the notice of discipline, or violate the Basic Agreement or the Joint Drug Agreement in any manner, and in order to prove it I will take this fight to federal court. I am confident that when a Federal Judge reviews the entirety of the record, the hearsay testimony of a criminal whose own records demonstrate that he dealt drugs to minors, and the lack of credible evidence put forth by MLB, that the judge will find that the panel blatantly disregarded the law and facts, and will overturn the suspension. No player should have to go through what I have been dealing with, and I am exhausting all options to ensure not only that I get justice, but that players’ contracts and rights are protected through the next round of bargaining, and that the MLB investigation and arbitration process cannot be used against others in the future the way it is currently being used to unjustly punish me.
I will continue to work hard to get back on the field and help the Yankees achieve the ultimate goal of winning another championship. I want to sincerely thank my family, all of my friends, and of course the fans and many of my fellow MLB players for the incredible support I received throughout this entire ordeal.”

III.  The Statement With Analysis 

The statement is 366 words in length.  
"The number of games sadly comes as no surprise, as the deck has been stacked against me from day one. 
Where a person begins his statement is always important, often indicating the reason for writing.  Here, he addresses the length of the suspension rather than a statement of a reliable denial.  
A reliable denial consists of three components.  Where there are two components, for four components, it is not to be deemed "reliable" in analysis. Here, he does not begin with a denial of using PEDs. 
Note that sadness comes because there was no surprise in the ruling.  Usually, sadness comes when expectation is not met.  Here, expectation is met, yet is was "sad";  which may lead some to question whether these emotions are artificially placed here, in the beginning of his statement.  The sadness is not due to being falsely accused, or even due to the suspension, but from the "number of games" instead.  
Note the pronoun "me" is used, and not "us", as if a team.  
This is one man’s decision, 
Note that when parties agree to a single arbitrator, it goes down to the decision of one man.  This is a truthful statement:  it was one man's decision, previously agreed upon by the subject and his attorneys. 
that was not put before a fair and impartial jury, does not involve me having failed a single drug test, is at odds with the facts and is inconsistent with the terms of the Joint Drug Agreement and the Basic Agreement, and relies on testimony and documents that would never have been allowed in any court in the United States because they are false and wholly unreliable. 
Having agreed to go to an arbitrator, it is truth that there was no agreement to take it to a jury.  
Note the order, and the additional language that the subject compares "one man" to:
1.  jury; specifically a jury that is "fair" and "impartial"
2.  a location where a failed drug test is presented 
3.  at odds with the facts
4.  inconsistent with terms of Joint Drug Agreement and Basic Agreement 
5.  relies on testimony and documents that would not have been allowed.
Note that in this list we find priority.  Last on the list of priority is the testimony and documents.
Please note that the list of where this ruling did not take place is infinite.  This means that it is worded in the negative, making it very important.  We first learn that the length of games is most important, and the second topic is the location of the decision.  
This injustice is MLB’s first step toward abolishing guaranteed contracts in the 2016 bargaining round, instituting lifetime bans for single violations of drug policy, and further insulating its corrupt investigative program from any variety defense by accused players, or any variety of objective review.
Please note that the third topic is not "I didn't do it" but to call attention to a business decision he believes will be made in 2016.  This is sensitive information as it is outside the boundary of addressing the suspension, and continues to avoid issuing a reliable denial.  It is also in the plural, which like the use of the word "we", may be used to spread about guilt.  The abolishing of contracts in 2016 is not to say he did not use PEDs. 
I have been clear that I did not use performance enhancing substances as alleged in the notice of discipline, or violate the Basic Agreement or the Joint Drug Agreement in any manner, and in order to prove it I will take this fight to federal court. 
Self reference. 

Note that this is not a reliable denial, but only that he has been "clear" that he did not use PEDS "as alleged"; indicating that he did use them, but in a manner that may not have been alleged.  This is not a reliable denial.  

He does not say "I did not use PEDS", but is self referencing in the past, with "I have been clear" but notice that even this is different than a straight forward past tense assertion:  "I was clear" is "I have even clear."  He is not stating that he did not use PEDs, but is asserting that he was previously clear.  

He also  adds to the denial by qualifying it with "as alleged" and "as alleged in the notice of discipline", as if there could be other allegations elsewhere that he cannot deny.  It may be that he did not do all things that were specifically alleged in the referenced document, and also that he did other things that were not included in the document.  
Please note the intention to take this to a federal court judge.  This will be done to prove his limited denial.  
I am confident that when a Federal Judge reviews the entirety of the record, the hearsay testimony of a criminal whose own records demonstrate that he dealt drugs to minors, and the lack of credible evidence put forth by MLB, that the judge will find that the panel blatantly disregarded the law and facts, and will overturn the suspension. 
Please note that "I am confident" is a weak assertion.  
Please note that "a Federal Judge" is in the singular, meaning "one man's decision" will be in his favor (or one woman).  
No player should have to go through what I have been dealing with, and I am exhausting all options to ensure not only that I get justice, but that players’ contracts and rights are protected through the next round of bargaining, and that the MLB investigation and arbitration process cannot be used against others in the future the way it is currently being used to unjustly punish me.

Note the attempt to broaden the concern:  One player suspended for using steroids, to the entire MLB roster's contracts.  
I will continue to work hard to get back on the field and help the Yankees achieve the ultimate goal of winning another championship. I want to sincerely thank my family, all of my friends, and of course the fans and many of my fellow MLB players for the incredible support I received throughout this entire ordeal.”

Rodriguez does not issue a simple denial that passes the test of reliability. We must also recognize the emphasis of the statement itself. 

The statement is 366 words in length.  The statement began with the length of the suspension.  


1.  Regarding the length of the suspension he uses 20 words or 5%
2.  Regarding denial of PEDs, he uses   words 46 words, or     12.5 %
3.  Regarding other MLB players, (not himself) he uses 112 words or 30.6%

The statement begins with the length of the suspension, and not the suspension itself, but dedicates the most (more than 30%) of the words to other Major League Baseball players and their contracts.  

This should be considered a classic deflection where the topic is sought to be changed from the use of steroids (PEDs) to 2016 contracts, which broadens the scope beyond his own suspension. 

 As we have seen before in analysis of Alex Rodriquez, he was not able or unwilling  to bring himself to deny using Performance Enhancing Drugs, therefore, we are not going to say it for him. 

Rodriquez has consistently avoided issuing a reliable denial. 

People do not like to lie directly, as it causes internal stress.  

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9:50, it was too late for Tonya Harding to deny that she had knowledge of the attack prior to it's occurrence. Her handwritten notes that she made in detailing the attack were coincidentally discovered in trash that had been thrown into someone elses dumpster miles away from her home and were used against her to prove her involvement. Too late for her denial.

I suppose her lies and denial could be used for good fodder for statement analysis; nonetheless, it has already been proved that she had prior knowledge of the attack on Nancy Herringan and was subsequently charged, disqualified and banned for this reason.

As to Alex Rodriquez; liar, stupid, fool, FREAK!!!!! WHO would risk losing a $25,000,000M salary? ONLY an idiot. Too stupid NOT to be a liar.