Sunday, February 14, 2016

Peyton Manning Transcripts

The following is a transcript from the video interview with Manning.  

We note not only the lack of a denial (RD) but we note just how far he is going to avoid or deflect in his responses. 

We also see that he justifies in his responses, as well. 

What does this suggest?

Not only may we conclude that Manning did use PEDs via the lack of denial and detection of deception, but the degree of which he goes suggests:

a.  habitual or patterned deceiver
b.  Greater issues beneath the surface, beyond this one allegation. 

Note his hostility and anger is not commensurate with the accusation of using HGH to facilitate healing.  Note that he justifies his healing through hard work and dedication; unnecessarily, making the healing from the specific neck injuries very sensitive to him. 

It is likely that Peyton Manning has some other issues of which he is concerned.  


Lisa: Tell me Peyton, what was your reaction to the Al Jazeera report that you had human growth  hormone
Peyton: Yeah
Lisa: mailed to your home when you were recovering from neck surgery
Peyton: Well, I think I rotate, Lisa, between being, uh, angry, uh, furious on and on, but disgusted is really how I feel. Sickened by it, that uh, I’m not sure I understand how someone can make something up about somebody, um, admit that he made it up and yet it somehow it gets published in a, in a story. Uh, I don’t understand that, maybe you can explain it to me, somebody else can, so um it’s completely fabricated, complete trash, garbage, uh there’s some more adjectives I’d like to be able to use, um, but it really makes me sick, makes me sick, makes me sick that it brings Ashley, uh into it, her medical history, her medical privacy being violated, that makes me sick. I don’t understand that and um, you know, I’m in the middle of my throwing workout, which I enjoy doing that and I gotta interrupt, interrupt this workout to come, and you know, talk about this, uh it’s not right. I don’t understand it.
Take note of order giving priority: his wife does not come first, and the introduction is incomplete, which is appropriate if the reporter knows his wife. If not, it is distancing language. See the number of words in the answer before his wife's privacy is an issue.
Lisa: Have you ever used HGH or any performance enhancing drug?
Peyton: Absolutely not, absolutely not and what and what hurts me the most about this is whoever this guy is, this slapstick trying to insinuate that in 2011, when I, you know, more or less had a broken neck, I don’t know four neck surgeries, you know broken neck, I’m not sure, I’m sure there’s a difference in there, but I had a bad neck and uh, I busted my butt, you know to get healthy, uh put in a lot of hard work. I saw a lot of doctors. I went to the Guyer clinic, he had a hyperbaric chamber that our coach, trainers and doctors thought might be good for me. They went with me and uh, um, thought it might help. Don’t know if it helped, uh, didn’t hurt. Time ended up being, probably my best medicine, along with a lot of hard work and that uh, it, it really uh it stings me whoever this guy is insinuated that I cut corners; I broke NFL rules in order to get healthy. It’s a joke. It’s a freaking joke.
Here is where readers may see the initial deception in his response. He does not say "no" to the "yes or no" question, but uses the emphatic "absolutely" added in unnecessarily. Next, note the need to assert, without denial, breaking rules and taking short cuts. This may be leakage of an embedded confession, since he does not attribute it linguistically to anyone else: "I broke NFL rules" will now need proof: instead of denying that he broke NFL rules, he needs to assert that he could not have because they were present. This is to not only admit he would have had they not been present, hypothetically, but it is a subtle shifting of blame to them, and it is insight into his personality. It is likely that he has been "gotten out" of trouble before and learned early in life how to shift blame to others.
Lisa: You mentioned your wife, uh their source for this report, uh, he’s a guy, Charlie Sly, who used to work for Guyer institute. He says they actually mailed medications to your home in your wife’s name.
Peyton: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know this guy, I’ve never heard of this guy, up until this report, never met this guy. 
The halting of broken sentences all begin with the pronoun "I" which show a marked increase in anxiety for Manning at the mention of "this guy." He uses the word "this" instead of "that", which brings the man 'closer' psychologically to him. This guy is very important to Manning; it not only caused him to repeat on the word "I", but to repeatedly use the word "this" regarding him. Not knowing or having met "this guy" is to move the target of his language from HGH to the guy. This is to not only avoid saying "I didn't use HGH" but to show a need to move the conversation to a different argument; or tangent.

Uh, any medical treatments that my wife received, that’s her business, it has nothing to do with me. 
As to being one who blames others; he now brings suspicion of possible HGH use to his wife. Note that his wife's medical treatments have "nothing to do with me", which is not something most husbands and wives say of each other: it is to distance one from the other.
Nothing that’s ever been sent to her, or my wife has used, have I ever taken, absolutely not. 
Liars go to far, and here he not only says that nothing that's ever been sent to her has he taken (with "absolutely not" showing the weakness of persuasion) but he adds "or my wife has used" offered unnecessarily. It is likely that she, too, used the anti-aging HGH besides him. He is not only deceptive in his denial, but implicates her in usage as well. This is not someone used to taking ownership and responsibility of failure.
HGH is used in low dosages to speed healing, and to reverse aging. It is considered the most popular drug of Hollywood stars who are desperate to look young for roles.
He continues to move the topic away from breaking NFL rules to his wife:
I have my treatments that I do, she may have hers, that’s her business, there’s no connection between the two and whoever this, uh, I’d love to, you know, I, I loved to understand, you know, why this guy is saying this, why he’s making it up and then he admits he makes it up, yet it still becomes a story. I’d like to be told and explained that.
"You know" is a habit of speech that shows a new acute awareness of the interviewer's presence. Here, he asserts that the "guy" reported it and recanted it, but he wants to know why it "still becomes a story", yet, this is betrayed just as quickly in his language with the distancing, "I'd like to be told that." He is not waiting for any answer.
Had he not used he would have said that, alone, and there would be no story, no follow up, and no new questions. Even without training, people recognize the increase in both words and emotions couples with a lack of denial, keeping the story alive. It is also to reveal that Manning has a desperation to run from this topic, which suggests more deception. What other rules did he break?
Lisa: You went to the Guyer Institute?
Peyton: Yes
This is the first reliable response he has given.
Lisa: And you’ve had treatments and you’ve had medications from there before?
Peyton: Yes
Lisa: What kind of stuff did they do for you?
After two short yes or no questions she must dig further. Now we follow the pronouns...particularly, when they go missing:
Peyton: Yeah, Yeah, Hyperbaric chamber, went with the Colts trainers, Colts doctors, hyperbaric chamber, um something called ECCP, which, uh, is supposed to create blood flow in your muscles. It is interesting to see how long he talked without using the pronoun "I" while at the clinic. This is distancing language.  First, the psychological removal of self, with the missing pronoun "I", but then, he continues 'not wanting to put himself there' with the second person pronoun, "you" as follows:
You’ve got to do 35 consecutive days of treatment. 
Finally, the subject 'arrives' at the location, but only when he is completely done with them:
I did all 35 days for an hour treatment, watched Hoda and Kelly Lee during my treatment, cause I was there during normal business hours at 9:00 AM eastern standard time and uh, I did that.  
Liars most always tell you something they did truthfully, because it marks a complete uptick in confidence for them to go into experiential memory. He really did watch "Hoda and Kelly Lee" and confidently says this, yet, even here, he feels the need to explain "why" he did something, though he was not asked, with "cause I was there during "normal business hours" which tells us:
**When the word "normal" is used, something not so normal took place: this is that he had interaction of some form with the clinic outside the 9-5 hours. This moves him closer to an admission.
It shows both the confidence of truthful memory (TV show) and the weakness of having to give such a minor, unimportant detail. This means he knows he is lying, and fears that his audience knows he is lying, so he must buttress his statement with something that establishes his presence there.
It is to offer an "alibi" or proof that he was there.
This means he knows he needs an alibi.
This is utterly unnecessary if the subject is truthful. Note next, a subtle blaming of others, including medical professionals:
I was a good patient, uh, had some nutrient IV therapies that I did that uh, um, that I thought may have helped me as well. 
He was a "good patient"; what do "good patients" do? they follow directions. He was following directions and if proof comes out, expect Manning to blame the staff.
Note regarding "some nutrient IV therapies" he drops his pronoun. "IV" is via needle.
HGH is via small needle, such as diabetics use. This may be the subtle distancing of the dropped pronoun: a needle. He continues to signal that he will blame others:
So, everything was under Colts, uh, authorization,
He was a "good" patient and "everything" that he did, was authorized by the Colts. You now know who, specifically, will be blamed if he is caught: the medical staff, and the Colts, his former team. This is a subject who is preparing his defense while avoiding making a denial. Watch how emphatic he is with this:
they knew about it, they went with me and um, uh, you know, anything else this guy is insinuating, complete garbage.
"This guy" did not "insinuate" (minimization of allegation) anything: he plainly stated that he was sent HGH from the clinic and then he recanted it.
Lisa: So in the age of PED use that we live in, we, we’ve seen all the athletes accused, we’ve seen many of the athletes deny
Peyton: Yeah
Lisa: we’ve seen many of them eventually admit
Peyton: Right
Lisa: So right or wrong, the cynicism is there for us  
Peyton: Sure
Lisa: so what do you want to say to a little kid waking up hearing this about Peyton Manning?
This is a good question to ask the image conscious athlete who has made a great deal of money on selling the image of squeaky clean. It is to formulate a question based upon the psychology of the subject:
Peyton: I can’t, I can’t speak for another athlete, I know what I’ve done, 
He was not asked to speak for another athlete.
Note "I know what I have done" is to avoid the denial, while, perhaps, considering exactly what he has done.
Next, we have justification:
I know how hard I’ve worked during my 18 years of playing in the NFL.
This is to both justify and to dilute. He justifies the use of HGH because using it, without hard work, will not bring success. He also moves from this specific period of time to 18 years; a lengthy dilution.
There are no short cuts in the NFL. 
No pronoun "I" here, yet, and no denial. This is a generalization for all NFL athletes; the ones he said he would not speak for.
I’ve done it the long way, I’ve done it the hard way and to insinuate anything otherwise is a complete and total joke, it’s defamation and it really ticks me off.
A. The allegation is minimized to insinuation
B. Complete
C. Total
D. Joke
E. Defamation
F. Ticks him off (emotion)
This is to suggest that he may use his money, like Lance Armstrong, to sue those who do not believe him.
Lisa: Your initial reaction when you heard about this? Your initial reaction?
She is looking for a denial; something he has not done.
"I did not use HGH" is the simplest way to end the interview. Nothing else matters, including his 18 years, his hard work, his doctors, the presence of the NFL, the "guy", and his wife. "I did not use HGH" was all that was needed; there were no other questions to be asked after that. It closes things out and it is what truthful people do. No need to minimize the allegation. He accused and I deny; end of story.
Peyton: Like I said, sick, disgusted, makes me want to, you know, just can’t say it on TV, nut you know, makes me sick, makes me nauseous.
Self reference indicates he is recalling what he said earlier.
Note the emotions: this is to show "moral high ground" and the need to have moral high ground. The need to show moral high ground is often an indicator of guilt. This is to 'sermonize' and project. I do believe he is sick to his stomach, but not over the accusation, and not over the use, since he justified it by the severity of the injury and the hard work and length of his career.
He is sick to his stomach because he is caught and is forced into not only damaging his image, but the expense of possible law suits. The more he speaks the more we know, the deeper he is in trouble.
Lisa: How do you plan to fight it?

How narcissistic will he go? He does not make us wait long. Here, he does not give further indication of any "fight" to come, instead focuses on his own emotions. No concern for the kids referenced earlier, nor his wife, nor the others he has cast suspicion and responsibility towards:
Peyton: I plan to go throw today, you know, a little harder, my ball has a little extra heat on it today. I  got some built up anger, as you might understand and uh, try to do what I can to help the Broncos get a win tomorrow night and I’m moving on, this is, I’m not losing any sleep with this, uh report. This slapstick’s lies and uh, you know, I’ll keep my head above it and keep pressing on to get healthy, try to uh, get back on the field next week and uh practice with the team and go from there.

Note the plural as quite telling.



If you wish to study Statement Analysis, we have both seminars and at home courses: www.hyattanalysis.com

16 comments:

Marianne from Brooklyn said...

Peter, you say in your analysis that he seems like someone who has been gotten out of trouble before.

Yes, he has.

When he was in college at the University of Tennessee, there was a sexual assault incident with a female trainer in 1996.

See this article from 2003: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/colts/2003-11-04-manning-defamation-suit_x.htm

tania cadogan said...

never met this guy.
All the first person pronouns, then he drops it in relation to meeting this guy

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Me2l said...

All these appearances of guilt have been present with Davey Blackburn, as well. He appears, however, to NOT be guilty.

I think I've lost just a little faith in this method....not a lot, but there does appear to be ample room for error.

tania cadogan said...

Statement analysis works.
it is for LE to show probable guilt and then juries to find the defendant guity.

Casey anthony showed she was guilty, her parents also indicated for deception.
Cyndi committed perjury.
The jury for whatever reason found casey not guility of the murder of her daughter Caylee and other related charges and yet found her guilty of lying to LE.

Her mom was never prosecuted for perjury as she should have been.

Statement analysis shows the truth and the lie, the rest is up to the relevant authorities and the courts.

Davey can still face charges, he has not been cleared.

Nic said...

I was a good patient

This implies he did as he was told. Coaches and trainers talk about the "talent" and make decisions for the "talent". They don't want their investment to sit idle, not making a return on investment. So he was a "good patient" and did what he was told to do.

Who me? I'm just a good patient.

Shifting the blame.

Anonymous said...

I think Davey Blackburn IS guilty of planning the murder of his wife.

Me2l said...

We can "think" whatever we want. Evidence does not uphold that DB was involved.

Me2l said...

DB has not been cleared? You're mistaken.

John mcgowan said...

Peyton Manning Allegedly Covered Up Sexual Assault

Recent reports suggest the Super Bowl-winning quarterback may not be as squeaky clean as his image has made him out to be.



http://www.snopes.com/2016/02/14/peyton-manning-sexual-assault/

Me2l said...

......and the thugs who have been arrested for his wife's murder are just sitting there in jail taking the blame? Why are they doing this?

John mcgowan said...

Peyton Manning: HGH allegations are "nothing but pure junk"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/superbowl-50-peyton-manning-hgh-allegations-are-nothing-but-pure-junk/

XianJaneway said...

I'd like to see you analyze the statements Manning made about the alleged sexual assault. He keeps focusing on her "trashy mouth" and how she has a "foul mouth." However, he couldn't produce a single witness who had heard her swear. There's some sort of obsession w/ this alleged victim's mouth that is bothering me. :(

Lis said...

His obsession with money was made clear when he used his victory speech to plug products he has a financial stake in. Tacky, tacky.

His assault of the female trainer was not a "mooning" but a really despicable, disgusting assault. He has continued to taunt her about it through the years, and even the teammate who he claimed to be "mooning" denied it and told him to take responsibility for what he did. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/13/release-of-13-year-old-court-document-dusts-off-peyton-manning-incident-at-tennessee/related/

He's a smooth manipulator.

Lis said...

Me21, When Peter wrote about DB's case, if I remember correctly, he said that deception and sensitivity were indicated but it was not clear what they were due to. A lot of commenters here felt that DB is guilty of involvement in his wife's murder but that could not be proven from his statements.

Personally, I think he is lacking in empathy and common decency, and driven towards fame and notoriety, that led to a lot of weird statements he made, and then the marriage he made such complaints about being ended could be a coincidence. Maybe unlikely but it could happen.

Anonymous said...

Budweiser steadfastly denied Any affiliation with Manning.
He can't be too obsessed with money, since he took a Four Million Dollar pay cut with the Broncos this season.