Saturday, February 4, 2017

Student Submission: Linford Christie Suspension

In the Complete Statement Analysis Course, the student analyst is to submit homework, quiz and tests.

Would you like to see a new student's first assignment?

Here is one new student's submission with additional notes of correction in bold type. The student analyst has graciously allowed me to use her work as a sample.

Her work shows promise as she builds a foundation of understanding.

So much goes beyond just a few points on a blog, and she has now entered the world of formal training so as to be efficient at deception detection.

In this case, an athlete was suspended for drug taking. At any time she could have gone on line and found thousands of people insisting he was falsely accused and suspended.

Did he, or did he not, take drugs?

The student analyst gets to the answer.

1999 Linford Christie suspended for drug-taking

This is a transcript of the beginning section of an interview Linford Christie gave a BBC Sports programme he was due to be a presenter on. It was his first interview after the official announcement he had been suspended for drug abuse.

In preparation I listened to another interview Christie gave a couple of years earlier. I realise it introduces contamination, but I wanted to to get a feel for his internal dictionary in another situation. In open speech he does tend to use “you know” a lot. Also, he does use “you” when referring to himself – “you have to believe no one’s better than you”, “you just weren’t at peak fitness on the day”, so I’ll mostly skip over these.

She correctly identifies contamination of her own thoughts. She should avoid this in the future.
However, her recognition shows good self awareness and her reason is appropriate: she sought to learn his baseline for language.

She should have analyzed it 'cold' first, and then in 'round two' (content) go to prior interview to answer the questions she appropriately raised. (it is necessary for psycho-linguistic profiling).

Interviewer: “As a pretty big shock to the British sporting public, let me ask you, what was your reaction when you first heard the news that you were going to be suspended for drug abuse.

Christie: “Well I mean, I... you know, I thought it was a joke. You know. I always seems to think these things are jokes because… you know, when you know you haven't done anything and someone tells you that, I mean... you think it's a joke. And then, when you realise it is true, you go into a little bit of shock. But... I mean now… you know, it's just... you know, I've just got to say I'm innocent. And it sounds like, you know, the same old gramophone record, everyone saying they’re innocent, and... You know, but, I am and that's all I can really say.”

He though it was a joke -- why would he think it was a joke? The person who told him? 

The question, "why?" is our most popular question. She is thinking to herself, seeking reasons. This shows a bias towards believing him, which is what we presuppose:

The subject didn't do it and he is telling us the truth. This is our position before we analyze. By asking "why" here, she is allowing for it to be truthful: he thought it was a joke. This should be believed...

unless he talks her out of it.

She was not made to wait long.

And then he refers to “joke” as “always” and “these things” -- plural -- is this not the first time, do people play pranks on him, try to belittle him?

Again, she is working to establish that he is truthful and she believes him, but it is becoming more challenging.

In detecting deception we believe everything everyone says...and to conclude deception, they must talk us out of this position. In fact, they must "demand" we call them on lying.

This is a basic and necessary element for success. This is why suspicious people struggle more than gullible, in training.

you haven’t done anything” -- He switches from “I” to “you” -- he doesn’t want to own the word drugs by saying it, but neither does he disown it -- distancing.

I added in my notes to her that athletes are notorious for using the pronoun "you"; especially about performance.
"You do your best" and "you train really hard for a long time and..."

We still must label it for what it is, (classification) however, we look at its sensitivity (quality) with this reference point.

He addresses “suspended for drug abuse” as “that”, then switched form “I thought it was a joke” to “you think it’s a joke” -- still distancing, yet not denying.

Great point. She now introduces what we expect to hear: "I didn't take drugs"...

it is true” -- leakage?

I caution new analysts to stay away from the topic of leakage until they have established a strong foundation. This is particularly challenging for the talented and intellectual.

After months of experience, most of them thank me for "tethering them to principle." It is difficult, and it is a 'good problem' for me to encounter.

a little bit of shock” -- I think there was a lot of shock, he’s still using “you”, I think it was not just him in shock, this wasn’t meant to happen.

This is commentary and not analysis.

It is important to stay to principle. She is actually describing the expected here, which is correct, but the sentence should be analyzed:

"a little bit of shock" minimizes shock by using the descriptive "little bit" and it is also incongruent with innocence. If you did not take drugs, you would be very shocked. (This is what she was addressing).

Note how my 'corrections' are not outright corrections, but additions. The commentary could be used in describing expectation after the analysis. It does not need to be removed.

I’ve just got to say I'm innocent” -- this I find the most interesting -- why has he got to say? Who’s telling him he’s got to say? If he didn’t have to say “I’m innocent” what would he have said instead? -- I’m not believing him

She will later learn to address dependent words ("just") along with compulsion ("have to, got to" etc).

It is true: he is "innocent" if not under a legal status to the contrary. Here is where we explore what to include in a report.

"Innocence" is not a denial.

When she says "I'm not believing him", (written to me, not on a report), she is being 'talked out of' and is not in the complete past tense: this tells me, as instructor, she is being guided by the statement and remains open for a reliable denial.

everyone saying they’re innocent” -- somebody else from the British team was caught at about the same time using the same substance, it’s mentioned later in the interview -- another clue to this being bigger than Christie -- athletes being told what to say?
that's all I can really say” -- not issuing of a reliable denial -- Why is that all he can say? Has he been told what to say?

Interviewer: “Ok, then let me ask you the question. You’ve been tested for taking a banned substance. Did you, on this occasion, take a banned substance?

I’m interested to why the interviewer felt it necessary to add “on this occasion” when asking former 100m Olympic Gold champion if he’s taken a banned substance. Surely he should be asking: “Have you ever knowingly taken a banned substance?” -- Isn’t that’s what we all want to know.

Solid point: even new to analysis, she is analyzing the interviewer.

Christie: Er no, not at all, not at all. You know, I, I never would, you know. It's... All through my career, I mean, you know, at the en… I mean. It's a really funny thing, because all through my career, I’ve always been one of these athletes who have come out, you know, when I won in Barcelona the first thing I said was, you know, I did it, and I did it clean. And I’ve always, you know, said you know, you can get to the top without doing anything, and then to do it now... especially when, you know, I don’t even know if semiretirement is the right word... when I’m total… when I’m virtually retired, you know, it would be totally ridiculous. I mean, it’s stupid. I, you know, I... what have I got to gain? You know, I mean, I stated, you know, first of all year that I was not going to do no world championships or anything. I ran indoors for a bet. You know, against, you know, the guys and s… you know saying I couldn’t do six-seven, you know, so... you know, what have I…what hav… what have I got gain from it… nothing at all. So… I wouldn’t do it, no.

no, not at all, not at all” -- very weak denial, repeat makes it weaker
I never would” -- use of never, and still unable to say drugs/substance

"never" is unreliable; it is not a signal of deception by itself. However, the quality of the unreliable denial is actually made even weaker by the decided assertion of the question: he sought a specific time period, making "never" even weaker.

His hesitations, stopped sentences, shows an increase in tension.

It is self censoring. This indicates missing information. It is as if the TV screen went blank just for a moment, and when it came back on, he was still talking but we missed a second or two of words/thought.

By this point, she is citing principle (+) with each point.

It's a really funny thing” -- it’s not funny at all, plus some...

commentary instead of analysis. She will learn to 'still believe him', analyze the sentence, as he is working diligently at "talking her out of believing him."

"it's not funny at all, plus some" is her verbal description of "the expected."

Should she take to journalism or blogging, this type of sentence (after analysis) will have a strong impact on the reader.

What we put in an Analysis Report and what we write in a blog are two very different things. (she was writing neither; she was writing as a homework assignment).

come out” -- curious term, negative connotations of having something to hide

This is a way of describing leakage; forbidden to her for now, but it shows the talent that will be unleashed later in training.

Those who embrace this discipline, no matter how much they strain against it, end up going much deeper in analysis.

Statement Analysis seeks to be near or maintain 100% accuracy.

Content Analysis is also very close.

Yet, when we reach the point of profiling---psycho linguistic profiling identifies four things:

1. Background of the subject
2. Experiences in life that the subject has lived through and has impacted his language
3. His priority
4. Personality traits

The accuracy declines from 100% on detecting deception. We seek an accuracy rate of 100% but if we remain above 80% in specific detail, it is extremely high. (This is how we identify anonymous authors).

The problem should then be obvious:

The analyst routinely concludes "truthful" or "deception indicated" at 100% accuracy.

If he or she later declares "borderline personality disorder" with the actual diagnosis (we do not diagnose) with the same authoritative and definitive voice, it is only a matter of time before we are in error.

By building a strong foundation where the analyst runs at 100% accuracy at detecting deception, the analyst's own expectation can be the betrayer.

"boderline like traits", "oppositional" and so on, comes from deep analysis.

This student's 'wading into the water' is cautioned against, even when accurate, because she must wait until she has been exposed to many statements and can spot deception readily.

I said” -- just because he said it then, doesn’t mean it applies now -- also, somebody could have told him what to say. It means nothing here.

Here is a correction: she has not yet learned communicative language and his statement is important and must be analyzed and believed. The subject has done such a good job talking her out of believing him that she now must correct herself.

She will get to the section of the course where communicative language is studied.

Question: Since she already knows he is deceptive, what is the point of believing him here?

Answer: Content Analysis.

Most lying comes from missing, withheld or suppressed information.

This means that within an overall deceptive statement, even if he "did it", most of the information will be reliable and in the next 'round' of analysis, we will learn things such as:

How did he do it?
When did he do it?
Why did he do it?

and so much more.

This is called "Content Analysis" and is the "second round" of three rounds, with the third being profiling.

(there are more, but these are the three basics...peer review and personal review after an emotional disconnect are two more).

you can get to the top without doing anything” -- again, that doesn’t mean he did
totally ridiculous” “stupid” “what have I got to gain?” -- a need to convince, yet he’s leaving it to us to decide, he’s not telling us he didn’t take drugs

The need to persuade (NTP) is strong here and she recognized it with "need to convince" but she also raised an excellent point with "...yet he's leaving it to us to decide, he's not telling us he didn't take drugs."

This is an astute observation.

She has not yet been taught the point of questions within an open statement. She does, however, intuitively understand their nature.

If he is going to allow us the choice of not believing, how can we believe he didn't do it?

When a young man says to your daughter, "If I were you, I would not trust me either", Statement Analysis says:

Believe him!

Our student analyst grasps this well.

stated” -- increase of tension, he’s increasingly annoyed thinking about it

She has not had communicative language yet but she caught it here! "Stated" is the stronger version.

Not everyone picks this up, but most everyone...gets a feel for it.

She has the intelligence to recognize a change from "said" to "stated" (going to the other interview to look at the same is a good idea after analysis).

People 'feel' a difference. She is analyzing, and you can see that even though she is impacted "I'm not believing him", she is being trained to separate that from her actual work. The self awareness she shows is strong.

not” “no” -- double negative, does this denote tension/annoyance?

She posed this as a question.

I urge analysts in team training to not write in the imperative but in the question form. We ask questions. It is what we do.

She will see how important her use of this question is when she is in team analysis training.

what have I got to gain from it?” -- again, he’s not telling us he didn’t take drugs, and these words seem to denote annoyance.
I wouldn’t do it, no” - he finishes with another weak denial

Excellent point. 

Regarding the question:  

In an open statement, we listen for questions and as interviewers we do not answer them. 

As analysts, however, we seek to.  

He is challenging us (audience) to learn his source.  

Remember the baseball pitcher who said something similar?

'If I were using these drugs, where did I get them from?  I wish the person would come forward...'

Roger Clemons got his wish as his dealer came forward.  

We view questions as very sensitive information.  Sometimes the subject is seeking to learn what police know.  See the analysis on Kate McCann for such examples, as well as Roger Clemons.  

Interviewer: Ok, some some might say that at the age of 39 and being semiretired, you thought you wouldn’t get tested anyway.

Christie:  No, not at all, I mean, the funny thing about it… I… asked my name to be put back on the list. You know, I wanted to run for my club and you need to after you retire, you need to stay on the list, and I ran for my club, I think, at the end of last year. So I had to have... I asked for my name to be put back on the list. So if I was doing anything, I didn’t have to leave my name on the list anyway. You know, so just to prove the fact that I would never do anything like that, I asked them to put my name on the list. Because I haven’t got nothing to hide.

no, not at all” -- again, he starts with a weak denial
the funny thing about it” -- not funny, and he’s now brought up the word ‘joke’ three times and ‘funny’ twice -- this is deadly serious
He goes into a section where he uses I/my almost exclusively, he is owning having his name back on the list, it was something he decided to do.
So if I was doing anything” -- again, he’s not telling us, and he still won’t use the word drugs
didn’t” “anyway” “fact” “would never” “like that” -- none of these words are convincing me
I haven’t got nothing to hide” -- so he has got something to hide? Something to “come out”?

I reviewed with her the extreme sensitivity of one who needs to explain 'why' without being asked why. This indicates that the subject is not only thinking about his explanation, but he

anticipates being asked why.


I’m not a big fan of athletics, especially off-track talk, so I don’t know if Christie has ever confirmed his drugs use, but here’s what I think from the analysis.

Hence, the point of analysis. She is to be guided by the statement.

In the last decade, I have only had a few occasions where the analysis stood in stark contrast to the evidence.

In each case (including two passed polygraphs), the subject so overwhelmed me with his statement, that I did not back down from my conclusion.

It is a rather frightening and lonely place to be. Yet, I have come to trust the subject's words to guide me.

In each case, the analysis proved correct.

Sadly, in one case, the passed polygraph led to a child being re-offended upon.

In another case, the passed polygraph and more than 20 years of police experience stood against the analysis. In this case, the only thing I had was a 911 call. This stood against the polygraph, experience, coroner's finding, and so on.

The caller is now in prison for the rest of his life.

In those two cases, the subject "demanded" a conclusion.

Christie was unable to say “I didn’t take drugs”. I therefore believe the reason this drugs test was positive was because he had taken the stated banned substance.

Exactly. It was not just a single unreliable denial that led her to this conclusion.

How about some insight into the intelligence and talent I am privileged to train?

Note what follows and keep in mind: she is a beginner...

The statement has areas pointing to Christie being a co-conspirator. I would suggest this is not at club level, he is happy to own his club. For me, there is coercion in his language, suggesting a higher level pushing down, telling him what to say.


She has a sense that there is more to his words (there is) and she shows the likelihood of not only success in training, but a candidate for Advanced work.

I believe Christie was told to say ‘I’m innocent’, maybe when he was informed about his suspension. In the previous interview I watched, he said “you have to believe you’re the best”, etc. I wonder if he’s parroting his coaching staff when he slips into “you/you’re”. I wonder if the source of the drugs is his coach, maybe coming from higher.

In advanced work we explore the potential for influence upon the language, including from an attorney or from his team.

With regards to the 100m Olympic Gold medal Christie won, I’m inclined to believe him when he said “I did it, and I did it clean”. -- 

here is why I praised her self awareness. Some call this "emotional intelligence."

She knows he used but she is willing to still submit to the statement (found elsewhere) which is something that many people find emotionally difficult to do.

Human nature is very complex. The more I study it and its impact upon language, the more I feel that I am bereft of any tangible grasp.

She also projects here, as we all do. She is telling me, as instructor, that she is open minded and likely a very honest person (honest people lie, feel their lie, correct their lie, etc) who is going to excel at this work.

Suspicious people can, through much painful self analysis, have success in this work, but it is far easier for 'gullible' people.

Liars fail at this work.

Those who have experienced significant trauma in life, which led to suspicion, if they possess self awareness and are willing to work through it, will succeed.

They often show signals of strong intellect (as seen in self awareness).

It was being gullible that led me to this work, originally but I have also seen suspicious analysts (especially after a few years of street patrol in cities) do well because they learn to "submit to the science."

Here, our student analysts shows intellect, discipline and ability to retain principle.  

I remember the interview directly after he won, I did think it was odd banging on about “being clean” when he’d just won Gold. 

Bingo! Even though this is not a quote, it would be analyzed as such:

Declaring himself to be "clean" is unnecessary unless it is necessary for him.

What would make it necessary for him?

Being "not clean."

Now it makes sense that earlier medals he won, he might not have been clean... But for this one, he wanted to do it clean, and that’s why he had the need to say it, and own it.

I think he slipped back, a shortcut to keeping his edge training. He didn’t expect there to be a problem, and was shocked when there was. The question then has to be, why?

Instructor's Conclusion:

Here is the analysis of a new student in training and it should serve as an encouragement to those who wish to learn to detect deception.

This student analyst is going to do well.

What are necessary elements to lie detection work?

*One must be willing to embrace the unsettled feeling of an incomplete puzzle.

It is not pleasant. It is as if only one piece of an almost completed puzzle remains and the rush to put it in must be subdued.


Humility embraces correction. It doesn't want to be seen as correct; it wants to be correct and is grateful for correction. Humility presupposes the need for growth.

Self Awareness

Personal bias can destroy work and unresolved issues can influence specific analysis. In seminars, this is called the

"yeah, but" syndrome.

This is where a principle is cited and, for example, a statistic is given of "80% will do such and such."

The one that feels it important enough to interrupt a seminar with "yeah, but I..." will struggle unless the issues it represents are dealt with.

With 80% or even 90%, there is the other % that we do deal with, but we learn to walk before we run, and we do not establish principle on exception.

Religion is a good example.

*Did you ever wonder why Alcoholics Anonymous teaches the participant about "the higher power"?

It is not to spread religion.

Everyone has a religion and those who make themselves the 'center' of all things (right from wrong, etc) identify their 'god' as self.

Question: Can you guess who got the person in trouble to begin with?

One who feels it necessary to submit to 'self' over all else struggle with statistics.

We are guided by statistics, and it is like being on a journey:

Sometimes we make a sharp left turn, while other times, we only 'bear left' because the sensitivity indicator's quality may not be strong (justified, for example). The analyst must hold a place of "indifference" where the statement is to 'rule over them' rather than their own 'feelings', including experiences.

Submission or totally yielding to the statement is not always easy, but it yields results. This, too, necessitates humility.

When one interrupts a seminar with the assertion (not question) of "yeah, but", I consider that should I answer him or her publicly, due to the public assertion, the attendee is likely lost for the seminar. The need to assert, and to even disrupt, gives insight into the subject. What follows is often confirmation.

Recall the embarrassing moment in which I was covering oaths in analysis with "I swear to God" or "Upon my mother's grave, I am telling you..." in which an attendee disrupted with the assertion,

"I don't believe that at all."

I took the bait. In most, I remain silent and ask that we continue, but she was angry.

She told the audience why she knew this principle was 'wrong':

She was about 50 years old.

She said that while growing up, she and her sister have an agreement that they made in childhood and have kept for decades.

The agreement was that when one of them said to the other, "I swear to God" they could not lie.

She said, "And we have kept this ever since."

Heather rarely speaks out in a seminar but tutors during work exercises in small groups. Here, however, she could not resist the irony:

"You just proved the principle!"

There was an awkward silence but then a trickle of laughter increased until everyone broke out laughing.

I attempted to show her that her need to say "I swear to God" indicates prior lying, but she not only would not hear this, she was lost for the seminar. She was emotionally shut down.

Those who are accustomed to believing their emotions above all else will not succeed in detecting deception.

Over the years, I have seen this in bizarre ways including those who "knew" statement analysis "didn't work" because...

they were 15 years old when Michael Jackson's "Thriller" came out and "no way" did he lie about child molestation. In one seminar, including child protective social workers, such a defender was asked, "What did you think about him sharing his bed with a little boy?"

Not only did the attendee refuse to answer, but she was lost to the training, entirely.

We need to be vigilant about our own prejudices because left unchecked, they will damage our work.

We all feel strongly about things in life, but with much experience (statement after statement after statement --(in the lengthy Advanced Course), the analyst eventually develops an indifference. They also end up with a more mature and realistic view of heroes and villains in the world.

This student analyst's work shows a most promising future. Working with her is a privilege.

To answer an anticipated question, how promising is her potential?

She enrolled in training late November 2016.

Whether she uses it for journalism, blogging, investigation, therapy, sales, or just to prepare a stronger resume for whatever life's challenges bring her, she is off to an excellent start.


Habundia said...

Again a very interesting lesson in SA. Thanks to the woman who has given us the privillege to look into her analysis and gave us an oppertunity to learn.

I was thinking about the 'funny'and 'joke' words he used in his statement. We need to believe him (as SA does) so I believe him when he says 'its funny', 'its a joke'
Could it be that because he was on his way for retirement he thinks it's 'funny', because he has gotten away with it for maybe years and only now they catch him using drugs and he also got it together to get his name back on the list.
Maybe he saw this as a 'joke' because he had gotten away with it so easy?

Then there was 'come out'......the word that popped into my head or better said the question that popped up was.....could he be gay? :x (i don't know the guy so have no clue on his sexual oriƫntation, but this was what popped up in my mind when reading it)

Anonymous said...

Who cares.... He said that he succeeded without it before but in semi retirement he may've needed PED's. Bug deal. Good topic for analysis but dont make him a criminal.

Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Poor Trump...he is being undermined by that judge, and you can tell he is really upset, because he is tweeting up a storm. I feel bad that he is not being respected as out President and that people seem to be fighting tooth and nail for the rights of terrorists rather than the rights of terrorists victims!!!

Why don't they remember that 8 year old boy trying to watch a marathon when a terrorist rat placed a pressure cooker bomb down right next to him?! How can anyone fight to let countries swarming with terrorists have access to our country? HOw stupid are people? Trump is right!!!!

Anonymous said...

The swamp fights back.

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore tweeted.
1.4 million people in the Bronx -- and not a single bookstore! Please help. I did! … #indiegogo via @indiegogo

Attention mike moore: most cities are w/o a bookstore nowadays. Check out his link to the pitiful fundraising campaign. Would you contribute to them? Why isnt he in jail? In Russia, he'd be in jail for sedition.

Anonymous said...

Oh Michael Moore, we know how passionate you are about literacy in urban areas!!!

I looked at the's someone who wants to start a winebar/bookstore. Why don't they start Annie's bookstores? Where people can buy used books and then exchange them for more books and also turn in other used books to get other books? I love Annie's Bookstores!!! Bookstores are very expensive, so either set up an Annie's Bookstore or use the library.

Anonymous said...

Bookstores are a total rip-off, highway robbery. $30 for a book. That's bull. I love used bookstores so much and you have a way better shot of finding a good read. Michael Moore is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Good tip for Annies. Good concept. Libraries are filled with books that never move. Very little new. But a bookstore library hybrid selling, lending and trading in new and used is a great concept. 2-3 day delivery from Amazon. Coffee.

Anonymous said...

Yeah! That sounds really nice! Great idea! I love the coffee part too :) It's just amazing the magical books you can find in a used bookstore--so much better when they have more character too from someone else reading them first! Wow, you're making me want to go to Annie's!

Zsuzsanna said...

Excellent on her part and yours!

Zsuzsanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
elf said...

What has he to gain ? Winning.

John Mc Gowan said...

Congratulations to the Anon who allowed the article post

Anonymous said...

Visa holders rush to board flights to the US while Trump's travel ban remains blocked

By Associated Press and Dailymail.

Habundia said...


I am reading into a statement where the subject is using the term.......'anyways' quite often.
It indicates missing information, but does it otherwise say anything? Does it has any importancy, if it's used often within a statement? And if so does it indicates more then just missing information?

Anonymous said...

Context would help......

Anonymous said...

Does anyone here know when Breitbart updates their news site? Really, how long does it take?

Anonymous said...

Habundia, Could you give any context or example from the statement you are analyzing?
In my opinion, "anyways" used frequently could mean "let's move this along" like the person feels uncomfortable with the subject he or she is speaking about. It could possibly indicate missing info, but without any context, there is no way for us to know more.

Anonymous said...

Whadda news day already!!! M&M says he gonna ruin the Trump brand via his garbage rap music. Teamsters prez endorses Ellison for DNC. SNL trashes Trump calling him little white B%@tch. Max Waters 'goal' to impeach DJT.

Anonymous said...

Diane Fine Stine says Trump divided the nation. All this in less than 3 weeks? Moore inciting mobs & not held accountable. Rumor is GaGa will ridicule Trump at halftime........

Pray God stops the rising tide of evil...

happyuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
happyuk said...

"The one that feels it important enough to interrupt a seminar with "yeah, but I..." will struggle unless the issues it represents are dealt with."

It's plain bad manners. Which I would surmise is also an impediment to learning. I came across this all the time when doing part-time instruction in computer science labs. Until the student lost their "self" and came to their senses (shut up and listen) I was never successful in imparting the knowledge to them.

Seagull said...

This is a great article and fantastic analysis. It's refreshing to see how quickly Statement Analysis can put the "meat on the bones" of our thoughts and confirm why we feel the way we do about certain things at times.

All this from a couple of months of training. This is a great inspiration for anyone wishing to learn what is really being said. The student analyst / analyst such is the quality of the work who wrote this should be rightly proud of what has been accomplished in such a short period of time. Thank you for sharing. I appreciated being able to read it.

happyuk said...

What stand out for me are:

1. 8 x unnecessary instances of "you know" in this example statement. Seemingly unnecessary usage of "You know" is probably not entirely useless - in fact it is being being tacked on to Linford's sentences as a means of consensus-building, a means of getting the listener to react affirmatively to what is being said. Linford very much wants you on his side.

2. Similarly, his frequent usage of "it" (I counted at least 5) and "thing" rather than the specific issue he is referring to. Normal usage of "it" is as a means of not having to repeat yourself. For example: If you want to write a paragraph about 'The Declaration of Independence,' having to repeat those words every time you reference this magnificent document will become tedious. In Linford's usage, it is not at all clear at any stage what "it" is/was supposed to be, and his use of "it" then appears to become a tool of confusion.

If "it" is replaced with "drug testing" and if we strip away all unnecessary words then his statement seems to make much more sense. Replace "it" with "drug test" and do away with "mean", "you know" etc for example:

"I mean... you think it's a joke"

"I think drug testing (is) a joke.

This is someone who holds anyone who dares question his conduct in contempt, as liars do. A "joke" as he calls them.

Anonymous said...

Dear Tom Brady I hope the Pats are a smug idiot liar baby-abandoner liar are so stupid...I hope when you throw the ball it doesnt work and it doesnt go anywhere and just falls to the ground. I hope the Pats lose Bigtime!!!!!

Anonymous said...

An impediment to learning? Shut up and listen? In a computer sciences lab? And you're a reacher?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Your fingers are so shaky

Anonymous said...

I be ok. Thanks for concern. Just read Tavis Smiley article. His comments and responses dont even make sense.

Anonymous said...

The Pats may just do it again. Putin rigged it.

Anonymous said...

Patriots owner wants the 2004 Super Bowl jewels he says Putin STOLE and offers to buy the Russian president a replacement. DailyMail

Maybe them leffties is right bout Ole V Putin and his Rushins

Anonymous said...

How does he do it? Russia is rigging Superbowl LI.

Anonymous said...

Michael Moore ‏
Wow. Just like the November election. Complete with Falcon fans celebrating their Super Bowl victory 30 min early

Anonymous said...

Remember Thom Hartmanns book The crash of 2016, the plot to destroy America? Did either happen in 2016?

Anonymous said...

Geez, look around you. Neither happened.

Anonymous said...

Effective immediately I've decided to temporarily ban the democratic party for 90 days and their affiliated media for 36 months. CNN offices are to be vacated, logo removed and property available to Breitbart News Org. In fairness, Focks News will be required to operate only Tuesday and Wednesdays 2am - 2:45am. MSNBC shall vacate, remove logo and hand keys to RT news for 24/7 coverage. Univ at Berkley is to be closed permanently & campus buildings dismantled, parking lots reclaimed for conversion to organic agriculture. Laborers needed.

Anonymous said...

I think Howard Stern is right about Donald Trump...I think the Presidency is going to be bad for his mental health and he's going to have a nervous breakdown...he seems so vulnerable lately.

Anonymous said...

He seems emotionally vulnerable.

Anonymous said...

Effective immediately. The Fayette Missouri DQ is being appropriated via eminent domain via fiat from Berkshire Hathaway with out recompense and repurposed as an Annies bookstore in honor of Kenny with a 20 year operating endowment appropriated from Berk Hath. Bookstore serving Dunkin donuts coffee and Haagen Dasz ice cream.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

On behalf of the student analyst, your comments and encouragement is kind.

She shows just how much progress an intelligent woman can make in two months by carefully listening to the lectures (repeatedly) and following principle.

Can you imagine her work at the end of the course? (6 months on average).

Then, add in live training where she not only puts her knowledge to work, but she gets to rub shoulders with professionals who love to learn and encourage one another greatly.

It becomes a life long training where not only are the skills brought to very high levels, but they are maintained.

If this were not enough benefit, how about the emotional satisfaction of solving live cases!!


Habundia said...

@Anonymous: February 5, 2017 at 12:02 PM

"He had had one and he lost it. See, I had gotten him one years ago, and he -- I think he lost and then -- [u]anyway[/u], I had gotten this little teeny Panasonic one at, store near the Boulder. Sound Tracks, one of those, Sound Advice or -- and I had it -- I had it sitting on the window ledge charging and he walked in and found it, I said okay fine, I will just take this one."

Ment in this context....need more? or is it clear?
Thnx :)