Saturday, November 15, 2014

Statement Analysis: Agent Scott Boras Denial

Scott Boras received national attention when he represented Alex Rodriquez and landed the huge contract from the New York Yankees baseball team.

Recently, he has come under fire from Newsday, regarding a connection to Tony Bosch, the supplier of steroids and Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) to major league baseball players.

He is accused of attempting to cover up Manny Ramirez' failed drug test in his contact with Tony Bosch.

Is Boras truthful in his statement? First, see his statement, then his statement with analysis, and then on to a portion of the article that has the accusation.  

A reliable denial would be:  "I did not attempt to cover up Manny Ramirez' failed drug test. "



Here is the message posted by Scott Boras:

"I have never met Tony Bosch. I have never talked to Tony Bosch. I have never been to his office or conducted any meetings with him.
"In 2009, we received notice of a positive drug test for Manny Ramirez. It was while investigating that matter we learned about Tony Bosch for the first time. We were told he was a doctor treating Ramirez. One of our staff attorneys reached out to Bosch to obtain his medical records, like we would with any doctor.
"There was no litigation in this matter, or statements taken from anyone in our office. The player was represented by the MLBPA, and hired independent counsel to aid in his defense. MLB and the MLBPA then worked out a settlement. We were not a party to those negotiations. Anyone curious about the counsel we gave our client should examine the statement that Ramirez gave the media following his settlement. Ramirez admitted use, and did not offer a legal defense.
"Furthermore, I was not personally called or emailed about these allegations. Newsday chose to publish this story without any direct communication or contact with me."


Let's follow the pronouns: 

"I have never met Tony Bosch. I have never talked to Tony Bosch. I have never been to his office or conducted any meetings with him.
The word "never" is not reliable.  It may be true, but we cannot conclude it from the above. The pronoun use is singular.  
"I" never "met, talked to, been to his office, nor conducted meetings."
This excludes emails. But what of possible contacts with Scott Boras' employees?
If the pronoun "I" stays consistent, it would make it stronger.  "I" can be strong personal responsibility and we look for it to remain consistent.
In 2009, we received notice of a positive drug test for Manny Ramirez. 
He changes to "we" here. 
This now can be said of the above that we cannot conclude that his office did not "meet, talk, been to his office, or held meetings" with Tony Bosch.  His office could have. This is the result of changing from "I" to "we."
He uses the "I" in connection to contact with Tony Bosch, but "we" regarding the positive drug test.  
It was while investigating that matter we learned about Tony Bosch for the first time. We were told he was a doctor treating Ramirez. 
The "we" continues.  
He does not say "I learned about..."
Note also that "we were told" is passive voice.  Who told "us"?  He continues to avoid the personal pronoun "I" and now conceals  or does not know the identity of the person who told them Bosch was a doctor.  
Since only "I never met" and the change to "we", we should consider that his office did, in fact, have contact with Tony Bosch.  This is suggested by the pronouns.  We now see the admission: 

One of our staff attorneys reached out to Bosch to obtain his medical records, like we would with any doctor.
We now know that his office had contact.  Yet, it is not "meet" or "talked to" but "reached out" which is a change of language from the opening statement.  This is now sensitive to Boras.  
He does not tell us if the "reach out" was successful.  
"like we would" seeks to justify the action, as it is unnecessary to say.  This is the same as saying "normal" or "normally", making it anything but normal.  This is to show awareness that reaching out to Bosch was something very sensitive to him, and not "normal" for him.  
Next he tells us what did not happen:  
"There was no litigation in this matter, or (sic) statements taken from anyone in our office. 
He reports what did not take place, first, but then tells us that statements were not taken in a specific location.  This is not to say, "no statements were taken" but only not in "our" office.  This is to suggest that statements were taken elsewhere. Was this part of the "reaching out"?
The player was represented by the MLBPA, and hired independent counsel to aid in his defense. MLB and the MLBPA then worked out a settlement.
We note that he uses "Tony Bosch" and the "Bosch"
We note that he introduces "Manny Ramirez" but now he uses "the player" which is distancing language.  Why the need to distance himself?

 We were not a party to those negotiations. Anyone curious about the counsel we gave our client should examine the statement that Ramirez gave the media following his settlement. Ramirez admitted use, and did not offer a legal defense.

He again uses "we", but "those" also shows distance.  The distancing language may not be a mystery, as he goes on to say that Ramirez did not offer a "legal" defense. 
The distancing language may be because Ramirez did not take their counsel.  
"Furthermore, I was not personally called or emailed about these allegations. Newsday chose to publish this story without any direct communication or contact with me."
He does not say "we were not called or emailed" because it might be a direct lie.  Instead, he now switches to the personal pronoun "I", and adds the unnecessary word "personally"
This is not to say that his firm or employees were not contacted.  It also may suggest narcissism as not only did Ramirez not take their counsel, but he, himself, (after using "we" for the bulk of the statement) was not "personally" contacted.  
This is further buttressed in the next portion where he says "direct" communication, instead of "communication."
We may conclude that his office did have contact, meetings, etc, with Tony Bosch, and that he has the need for distancing language and change of pronouns. 
This is an Unreliable Denial and there are enough indicators of deception in his statement to conclude that he did attempt to cover up Manny Ramirez' failed steroid test.  

This is how deception often plays out.  Boras may not have "personally" met with Tony Bosch, by having "buffers" or layers of contact, while he orchestrated the meetings and strategy.  It allows deceptive people to be "technically not lying" outright, but are deceiving just the same.  His additional wording shows the need to persuade, and to "split hairs" because he is deceptive.  

Instead of saying "I did not attempt to cover up Ramirez' drug test", Boras changes the topic to meeting, personally, with Tony Bosch.  

In Statement Analysis we have a rule:

If the subject is not willing to say he didn't do it, we are not permitted to say it for him.  

**************************************************************************************************

According to an exclusive Newsday report, Biogenesis founder Anthony Bosch told federal investigators earlier this year that Boras arranged a meeting after client Manny Ramirez tested positive for banned substances in 2009. His agenda, according to two of Newsday's sources, was to request Bosch's help in fabricating medical records and concocting a cover up story to explain why Ramirez failed his test.
Boras, according to Bosch, came up with an explanation for the failed test that involved Ramirez accidentally using an elderly uncle's testosterone cream because he thought it was aftershave.
According to the sources, Bosch made the claims while being debriefed by the Drug Enforcement Agency. The sources said Bosch's accusations were recorded in reports filed with evidence in the federal criminal case against Bosch and others linked to Biogenesis, a South Florida anti-aging clinic that provided performance-enhancing drugs to numerous baseball players
It's noted that Bosch claimed neither he or his father,  Dr. Pedro Bosch, a licensed Miami doctor who was listed as the prescribing doctor for Ramirez, kept charts on his clients, but that Boras asked him to create a chart for Ramirez that would list the women's fertility drug human chorionic gonadotropin, or hCG, as a prescribed medication.

1 comment:

GetThem said...

That was very interesting Peter. When he says: I have never met Tony Bosch. I have never talked to Tony Bosch. I have never been to his office or conducted any meetings with him.

He says never three times. So you are saying, because "never" is not a reliable word, having said it three times reduces credibility even more because he is not admitting or denying that someone from his office met, talked or went to the office of T. Bosch. -------------- I love SA, so enlightening.