Saturday, February 13, 2016

Peyton Manning Denial Examined

When one is a liar, he holds the world in contempt.  Lying presupposes the audience to be too stupid to discern the deception.  

When caught, liars often attack and go on the offensive, and will do and say most anything other than the reliable denial. 

They often use more words than necessary, too, showing a desperation that may have more information behind it.  We listen not only for the lack of reliable denial, but we listen for the words used. 

Peyton Manning was specifically accused of using HGH yet the source recanted and attacks were made, still, against those who accused him.  

We, however, may listen to his denial, and this may now follow on the heels of much more regarding Manning. 

Look back at his denial. 

HGH has been hailed as the "anti aging miracle" hormone, reportedly widely used by Hollywood as well as professional athletes. 

It is the hormone that:

a.  helps sleep
b.  gives energy
c.  Facilitates healing from injury
d.  provides strength

In short, when you see a child jumping up and down, non stop, and you become exhausted looking at him, you are looking at the magic of human growth hormone. 

In low dosages, particularly over time, it has reportedly cut injury recovery time dramatically and has given athletes many additional years in their careers.  It is often combined with low dose testosterone, good nutrition and exercise for maximum results. 

Roger Clemens, for example, was indicated for deception regarding PEDs.  

Lance Armstrong, for years, avoided the Reliable Denial, instead, used his millions to destroy the lives and businesses of others, like a cornered animal, striking out against others to bully them into silence.  It is what liars do, especially when they have power. 

What has Manning said about the accusation of using performance enhancing drugs in rehabilitating an injury?

The expectation is, "I didn't use HGH."

The word "never" spans a large and sometimes indefinite amount of time, thus it is "unreliable."  If it is coupled with a reliable denial, it is appropriate, but alone, it is not. 

The use of "would not" or "would never" is not a reliable denial.  

Lance Armstrong "never" used PEDs.  He went on to confess, though even his confession contained points of deception.  

Marion Jones, who spent time in prison for lying, "never" used PEDs.  She combined "never" with qualifiers indicating a new level of weakness: 
"never" plus "NTP", or "Need to Persuade." 

Her video denial so impressed body language experts that even the media bought it; yet, she eventually was charged and convicted of lying.  

When someone has "never" used, he or she may say, "I did not" or the relaxed, "I didn't" (both are reliable), followed by "never"; but alone, it is not to be deemed reliable. 

If "never" is, itself, sensitive, it becomes even 'weaker' for the purpose of analysis, as it now combines the unreliability of "never" with the need to persuade. 

Peyton Manning denies allegation he received HGH in 2011

Peyton Manning issued a statement before the Super Bowl denying allegations  from an investigative report that an Indianapolis anti-aging clinic supplied him with human growth hormone in 2011.

"The allegation that I would do something like that is complete garbage and is totally made up.  It never happenedNever. I really can't believe somebody would put something like this on the air. Whoever said this is making stuff up."

The allegation is not that he "would" do anything:  the allegation is that he used HGH to hasten his healing from his injury.  This is the first step of distancing himself away from the direct lie of "I did not use..."

Next, we note that his statement is to say that this is to say that the allegation is not only "garbage" but "complete garbage."  In his own personal dictionary, what is "garbage"?  It is something worthy of throwing out?  Is it "garbage" to have published it?  

It is not only "made up" but it is "completely" made up.  This is to increase the sensitivity about the report, but not about the allegation.  Psychologically, he is running away from denying, which would be, if he used, a direct lie.  

This is to also avoid denying using PEDs, but rather make something "made up", itself, sensitive to him. 

Then we note "it never happened" is passive voice.  "It" needs someone to inject, after someone "mailed" or facilitated its purchase.  The passivity is used to conceal identity and/or responsibility, and without a reliable denial, it further weakens the denial. 

This is even further from "I didn't", with the pronoun "I" omitted; thus, the continuation of Peyton Manning psychologically removing himself from the denial.  

For the analyst, this is now becoming clearer. 

Not only does he distance himself from the denial, but he distances himself from injecting it (via the missing pronoun "I") and the report itself, by reducing the allegation to "stuff."

This is not "stuff", but a direct allegation that he used human growth hormone to facilitate a quicker recovery from injury, having it shipped to his home through his wife.  


"making stuff up" is to use the word "stuff", which is nondescript. 

 This, too, not only avoids denying the allegation, but seeks to introduce vagueness, which is the essence of "never"; it avoids a specific time period which would increase tension for the liar, as the time period narrows.  The psychological hiding in a vast time period is not echoed by the material:
It is "stuff", which is often said when some things are not true (being "made up") but others may be true. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated  

1.  He does not issue a denial.  This, itself, is not enough to conclude deception; only to conclude that he has not denied the allegation. 

2  The use of "never" is a psychological thinning out of time. 

3.  The repetition shows increase in sensitivity. 

4.  The passivity is noted. 

5.  The need to persuade coupled with the above, including deliberately vague language, in both time and in content, allows for conclusion. 

6.  He psychologically distanced himself from both the denial, and the report itself.  This is important because even though he does not issue a denial, he shows an increased need to not only 'run' from the denial, he does not want to even deal with the allegation.  It is a specific allegation, not a   bunch of "stuff" from which Peyton Manning does not even want to confront. 

As easy as it is for the innocent to say, "I didn't use HGH", he cannot, nor can he even face the accusation.  This tells us that there is more, perhaps, that Manning is concerned about, than just this one allegation.  

This is particularly interesting when we consider the source has recanted and the report came from the soon defunct Al Jezeera.  

Yet, he is incapable of simply saying the words of truth.  

Expect more...

Manning missed the 2011 season because of four neck surgeries and joined the Broncos as a free agent prior to the 2012 season. The NFL collective bargaining agreement ratified in 2011 banned the use of HGH. However, the league did not begin testing for the substance until 2014. No NFL player has tested positive for HGH.

According to the  documentary "The Dark Side," British hurdler Liam Collins went undercover to expose the rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. As part of his investigation, Collins met with Charles Sly, a former pharmacist at the anti-aging Guyer Clinic in Indianapolis. Sly said he mailed HGH to Manning's wife, Ashley, to avoid any link to the quarterback. Collins gained fame in 2009 when he reached the semifinals of "Britain's Got Talent" as part of the Faces of Disco with his cousin. Collins received a 14-year ban in 2013 for bilking investors in a multimillion property scheme.

In a follow-up interview, Sly recanted the allegations, saying they "are absolutely false and incorrect." 

note, both "false" and "incorrect" seem reduntant.  Are they false?
Or, are they incorrect?

He then went on to give a reason for his original statement:  

Sly said Collins took advantage of him during a vulnerable time in his life following the death of his fiancée.

What would the death of his fiancee mean to one in this situation?

No matter what evidence is weighed, we listen to the subject, himself, and fail to hear truth.  

Ari Fleischer, who heads a sports communications company and is an adviser to Manning, slammed the accusations in an interview with The Denver Post on Saturday night, calling the report "junk journalism."

"There's no truth to it," Fleischer said. "What they have is a well-known con man from England who secretly recorded a former intern."

Again, we have no reliable denial and now a pummeling of the source.  This, too, is the pattern of an outright liar.  This is what Armstrong used, and others with much to lose also employ:  avoid the truth and raze the deliverer of the truth to the ground.  

Sly was an unpaid intern at The Guyer Institute from February 2013-May 2013, according to Fleischer. This disputes information in the documentary, which says Sly worked at the institute in 2011. Sly confirmed Fleischer's account, telling ESPN on Saturday that he worked at the institute in 2013, not in 2011 as the Al Jazeera report alleges.

According to Fleischer, Manning was a patient of The Guyer Institute in the fall of 2011 for rehabilitation from neck surgeries. Manning has not been a patient since, Fleischer said.

Manning told ESPN on Saturday night: "Yes, I have been a patient under Dr. Guyer. I have had nutrient therapy, oxygen therapy and other treatments that are holistic in nature but never HGH."

Here, again, he is unwilling or unable to say that he did not use HGH.  Note he does show he knows how to speak for himself, with the pronoun "I" correctly, and since the time period was significant, a simple statement would be:

"I didn't use HGH."

Rule:  if the subject is unwilling or incapable to deny the allegation, we are not permitted to say it for him.  


Kathead said...

It's looking like Manning is another Armstrong. Have you seen the article about a previous sexual assault on his trainer at Tennesee? He ruined her career eventually.

Anonymous said...

Or she was trying to ruin his career. What she said happened really does not make sense. He would have had n clothes I would think while having his foot examined. I don't believe her.

Marianne from Brooklyn said...

Anon at 9:35, the University settled with her for the 1996 sexual assault AND there was a previous incident in 1994 between the two that has been sealed. She was not trying to ruin his career. There was at least one witness whose testimony supported her version of the events.

Anonymous said...

OT: Fake or real?




Nic said...

According to Fleischer, Manning was a patient of The Guyer Institute in the fall of 2011 for rehabilitation from neck surgeries. Manning has not been a patient since, Fleischer said.
Manning told ESPN on Saturday night: "Yes, I have been a patient under Dr. Guyer. I have had nutrient therapy, oxygen therapy and other treatments that are holistic in nature but never HGH."

When I read his (unreliable) denial, I note that in one breath (sentence) he is bundling HGH in with nutrient/holistic based therapies and treatments offered "on-site" at the Institute, but then separates HGH as not part of those on-site services. Never doesn't mean no, just perhaps that the "treatment" didn't happen at the Institute "under" Dr. Guyer. And technically, HGH wasn't mailed to him, it was mailed to his wife, off-site. So we could deduce that not only did Dr. Guyer, or a representative of The Guyer Institute not administer the non-holistic treatment, he wasn't in receipt of the treatment at the Institute, either. Just like he said.


Nic said...

Peter said: When caught, liars often attack and go on the offensive, and will do and say most anything other than the reliable denial.

Regarding 'going on the offensive'. What about the liar that lies about/discredits somebody to the point that believers abandon decades long friendships with said somebody, all on the premiss that if by chance [they] were to spill the beans (reveal known secrets about the liar,) nobody would believe them? Confusing, I agree. But that has been an experience of mine. It took me a long time to figure out why life long friends and acquaintances "dropped me", but eventually I figured it out when I discovered the common denominator was my best friend from high school. Then it was about figuring out why she would do this to me in the first place. The funny thing is, everyone who she has separated me from knows as much as I do about her, (we all go way back,) except for one, very dark secret, and it's something that I hadn't thought about for years until I was driving by the site of my old apartment I shared with my ex. It made me think of him, my life with him, who I was hanging around with (her) and then I remembered: She aborted a baby back in her early 20's and I am the only one around, now, who knows it. I was married to somebody else at the time and it was my ex-husband who drove her/picked her up from the hospital that day (I didn't have my driver's license, then). He is long gone/living in another province, but I'm "still here"! But it's not just about the abortion, the scandal around the abortion is that she was just under five months along. She talked the doctor into performing the abortion by saying that she had an alcohol problem (not like she does today!) and a drug problem (she occasionally smoked drugs). The bottom line was that she was in denial about being pregnant in the first place and then when she had no choice but to confront her situation and have the baby (past the "legal" 12 week time frame), she refused to go through with the pregnancy because as she put it, "I can't support a baby and myself." So she LIED to the doctor about her alcohol and drug use.

She is a chronic liar, not just to the people closest to her, but to her employer/s (fired from a nearly 20 year position for using petty cash for personal use), and mostly to herself. She is now and alcoholic and based on past conversations/gossiping with "old friends", she has two doctors, one a 'shrink', writing her prescriptions for pills. (Assumption being that neither knows about each other so she must be using more than one Pharmacy, too, (different database).)

They often use more words than necessary, too, showing a desperation that may have more information behind it.

Last I found myself in the company of one of my daughter's friend's mother, she was talking a "bazillion" miles a minute about her 'nanny drama' and all that she had done to accommodate her but that she had to let her go. I couldn't follow the ball as to what she was going on about, each explanation further muddled my understanding of the situation, ergo making me feel "dumb" about the complicated sponsoring process related to bringing someone in from another country (Philippines in this case). Fast forward some months later, I'm lunching with a common acquaintance and she relays a Facebook message she read posted by a relative of this nanny asking if anybody knew anyone in need of a nanny as her last employer "screwed" her.

Jane said...

I don't think "it never happened" is an example of the passive voice. Could grammarians out there please comment on this? I think it could instead be called an inappropriate 3rd person statement, when a direct 1st person statement is expected. An example of the active voice is "John took the money," and an example of the passive voice is "The money was taken by John."

Nic said...

@ Jane,

Doesn't "3rd person" imply passivity? As opposed to first person, when "I" is speaking?

Also, nothing never happens. It could be that whatever is happening is interrupted. :0)

Karl said...

One thing I have not caught before is that a direct lie and a reliable denial can be the same thing. So somebody can be running from a reliable denial and from the direct lie at the same time. To me, that causes more tension than just coming out and giving the direct lie. Unless there is a greater fear of having to deny the same accusation again, by way of a direct lie, in the future.

I am not sure my thoughts even make sense.

Me2l said...

An area often cited by SA as showing guilt is the lack of a firm denial, but passive denials, talking around the subject.

I don't get that. Why would a liar have a problem with outright lying by saying, "I did not do it"?

A liar lies. Why would a liar suddenly be hesitant to lie and instead, offer passive denial?

Lis said...

Me21, it's not impossible to lie right out but it is difficult. When you tell a lie, you have to think it out and think about all the possibilities for further questions that may be asked that could trap you. This takes time and is stressful. Also because once you commit to something, you have to remember the fact(s) you committed to and remain consistent in further statements. That's hard to do, so accomplished liars always leave themselves wheedle room.