He was out with the others at a sex party.
He was intoxicated.
He and the team broke into a bathroom, damaging the door.
They were confronted by an armed security guard.
The armed security guard made them pay for the damage, on the spot.
Think of this from the perspective (or expectation) of an American.
To pay a guard for the damage would be akin to a bribe or payoff.
To pay an armed guard, if there was no choice given, would be theft.
Sex: lights within a statement are sometimes indicative of sexual activity. "Sometimes" means to the interviewer to explore.
“We got pulled over, in the taxi, and these guys came out with a badge, a police badge, no lights, no nothing just a police badge and they pulled us over.
It may be that they were at some form of sex party or brothel. Some reports suggest prostitutes while others have mentioned transvestism.
They pulled out their guns, they told the other swimmers to get down on the ground — they got down on the ground. I refused, I was like we didn’t do anything wrong, so — I’m not getting down on the ground.
“And then the guy pulled out his gun,
They pulled out their guns is given first, but then "the guy" pulled out his gun with the chronological error.
"And then" skips over time, but if the guard was armed, the "gun" entered the language of the subject reliably.
"The guy" is to specify a particular one of the group. If we learn the guard was alone, we now may see that the plural was unreliable but the deception contained the reliable information about "the" guy.
The use of the article "the" tells us that the subject had interaction with this specific "guy" prior to this moment in the statement.
he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said, ‘Get down,’ and I put my hands up, I was like ‘whatever.’
"he cocked it, put it to my forehead and he said" is reliably constructed. What does this mean if it is false?
By itself, it stands strong. Yet, the words that follow it (heroic description) do not fit: "I was like 'whatever'"
This is not fitting language for such an unclose personal threat.
If the guard did not cock it and put it to his forehead, it is a direct fabrication and it tells us: our subject is very accustomed to lying, within his personality. He is a habitual liar that fabricates reality.
He took our money, he took my wallet — he left my cell phone, he left my credentials."
We can see where this might have come from: if they, the swimmers, did take their money to pay for the damage, this is technically truthful. That he "took" suggests against his will.
Still, consider the source:
Originally we saw narcissistic like traits within the language but here, "he took our money" came before "he took my wallet."
Why would he put "our money" before "my wallet"?
A narcissist is going to be more concerned about his own rather than others, and although "our" includes him, the wallet has lots of personal information in it and it has money.
Perhaps, "he took our money" came first because...
the guard did not take his wallet.
Reliably we have "gun", "money" and "the" guy (singular), mixed with unreliable. Consider this while reviewing his statement:
"I want to apologize for my behavior last weekend – for not being more careful and candid in how I described the events of that early morning and for my role in taking the focus away from the many athletes fulfilling their dreams of participating in the Olympics. I waited to share these thoughts until it was confirmed that the legal situation was addressed and it was clear that my teammates would be arriving home safely.
He does not say he was not robbed. This may be the justification of paying off an armed guard.
He knew legal consequences could have impacted the others, hence the delay.
Rio appears to be harping on this because of all the other failings they had including shootings, violence, pollution, and so on.
It's traumatic to be out late with your friends in a foreign country – with a language barrier – and have a stranger point a gun at you and demand money to let you leave,
Here he intimates kidnapping; that is, the armed coercion to stay and give money to leave.
Yet, it is to "you" and not "me" or "us" with his team.
He still does not admit lying, and we learn why he feels he was robbed at gunpoint.
This is consistent with the analysis: something happened that night, but not as described.
but regardless of the behavior of anyone else that night,
this refers to the behavior of others in relation to his own behavior.
I should have been much more responsible in how I handled myself and for that I am sorry to my teammates, my fans, my fellow competitors, my sponsors, and the hosts of this great event.
As a victim of an armed hold up and kidnapping, what should he have done differently?
This is akin to the narcissism the original statement showed.
He is telling us that something he did was amiss. Yet, he only owns not being "more careful" and "candid" at choosing his own words.
I am very proud
To which the analysis agrees...
to represent my country in Olympic competition and this was a situation that could and should have been avoided. I accept responsibility for my role in this happening and have learned some valuable lessons.
I am grateful for my USA Swimming teammates and the USOC, and appreciate all of the efforts of the IOC, the Rio '16 Host Committee, and the people of Brazil who welcomed us to Rio and worked so hard to make sure that these Olympic Games provided a lifetime of great new memories. There has already been too much said and too many valuable resources dedicated to what happened last weekend, so I hope we spend our time celebrating the great stories and performances of these Games and look ahead to celebrating future successes."
Something indeed happened but it is not as he described.
As Americans, we would consider an armed guard demanding money, off hours, without an estimate and receipt, theft, as well.
This is what made his statement helpful for some advanced work: there are elements in it that were reliable ("gun, the guy, money") and some that were unreliable (order of being pulled over, guns being pulled out in plural, versus gun by the guy) which is to balance closely between some reliability and some deception.
I continue to contend that there is still more to this story and the element of embarrassment is yet to be concluded.
More candid? "I'm sorry"?
He does not own deception, nor the trouble that caused the incident, nor his condition that preceded the incident.
Lesson: In overall deceptive statements, there are elements that are reliable. Even lies have an origin.