Saturday, February 8, 2020

Baseball Cheating Statement Houston Astros

Houston Astros general manager, Jeff Luhnow was investigated by MLB and fired by his team, for electronic cheating of stealing the opponents' signs. The team also fired the manager.  No players were disciplined. 

For non-baseball fans, knowing the type of pitch coming is a significant advantage to a batter.  It is such that the catcher, himself, must know, in order to adjust to the speed and movement. Without such, he could miss the ball and possibly be injured. 

The team had been accused of setting up cameras and using a computer algorithm  to steal, discern and communicate the sign (via noise) to their batters.  

In detecting deception, we begin with the presupposition that the subject "didn't do it" and is telling the truth.  

In training and application, we hold to a basic tenant -- we believe that he didn't "do it" and his statement will have to talk us out of this position in order for us to conclude deception. 

We expect him to tell us that he did not do it, with a strong linguistic commitment.  

"I didn't know my team was stealing signs" would be a good example of a strong statement, with a reliability near 90%.  

Here is what he said: 

I am not a cheater. Anybody who has worked closely with me during my 32-year career inside and outside baseball can attest to my integrity. I did not know rules were being broken. As the Commissioner set out in his statement, I did not personally direct, oversee or engage in any misconduct: The sign-stealing initiative was not planned or directed by baseball management; the trash-can banging was driven and executed by players, and the video decoding of signs originated and was executed by lower-level employees working with the bench coach. I am deeply upset that I wasn’t informed of any misconduct because I would have stopped it.

Let's look at it again, using some basic principles of statement analysis. 


I am not a cheater. 

Instead of saying, "I did not cheat" (or "I did not know my team cheated"), he tells us of what he is, presently, at the time of the statement. 

This has a form of psychological avoidance of the events that took place, in particular, in 2017.  

Let's say a person is abusing drugs, but woke up today with the resolve to never use again.  He then took his drugs and flushed them. 

"I am not abusing drugs" is a truthful statement...in the moment. 

This goes for many issues, including theft.  It avoids what one has been, only addressing what one is not now, in the moment.  

This is a point of weakness (-) but we do not conclude deception on it alone. 

We wait for him to tell us that he did not cheat, and/or that he did not know his team cheated, looking back to the 2017 season which would address the allegation. 

Instead of going back to 2017, he goes much further back----therefore, we go with him more than 3 decades: 



Anybody who has worked closely with me during my 32-year career inside and outside baseball can attest to my integrity. 

We are now invited, by him, to examine his 32 year career, both inside and outside of baseball. 

An investigator, if so disposed, would now do what the subject has advised him, via this statement, to do so.  This is often why defense attorneys insist that their clients remain silent. 

Rather than tell us that he did not cheat, he has a need to portray himself as "the good guy", not only in 2017, but for 32 years. 

This is an indication of his need of portrayal, rather than the truth. The "good guy" portrayal suggests to the contrary. 

In context, he is comparing things he has done that he considers examples of integrity, with the cheating. 

He is "balancing the account."

It is like someone with guilt standing next to Adolf Hitler and feeling really good about his position.  It is to grade by comparison. 

The subject is weighing the allegation of 2017 with 32 years of behavior and is minimizing his own guilt. 

This is not a good sign.  

The "good guy principle" is only needed when one has not fulfilled the status.  (-)  This is a negative, yet we continue to wait to hear him issue a denial.  

The Psychological Wall of Truth

This wall of truth is simple: the subject didn't do it, and a reliable statement is often short and...somewhat boring. 

"I didn't know my team was stealing signs" and will have no need to go off in a 32 year tangent, nor have any need to build a psychological wall of defense, such as 'what a good guy I have been for 32 years' and 'just ask anyone' and so on. 

 The psychological wall of truth is powerful because it is truth.  It places the heaviest burden, not upon the accused, but upon the accuser.  The wrongfully accused has a strength to which psychological protection is provided. It can wear down over with frustration over not being believed, but it remains in tact, even over many years.  We look for it in the interview process, as the subject who genuinely did not "do it", refers back to it, naturally.  


I did not know rules were being broken. 

He came close but what did he do wrong here?  

Q. Why is this not a strong denial?

A. He uses passivity in his statement. 

"rules were being broken" removes human responsibility---we do not know who broke the rules.  

He is, therefore, concealing the identity of those who broke the rules.  Point of weakness (-) number 3. 

"rules were being broken"---did he not know that using e surveillance in baseball was against the rules? 

He goes further to distance himself from responsibility: 


As the Commissioner set out in his statement, I did not personally direct, oversee or engage in any misconduct

It is not that he did not direct it, he did not "personally" direct it. Now because he is quoting another, we give a pass or neutral rating (0) to this. 

Why is it not a positive (+)?

It is not a positive (+) because he felt the need to include it in his statement and it should not be necessary.  


 The sign-stealing initiative was not planned or directed by baseball management; 


Here, he could be still quoting the commissioner, but he could have said, "the sign stealing was not planned or directed by me..."

He avoids telling us that he did not give the okay or have knowledge of the sign stealing.  This is different than the "rules"---sign stealing, that is, visibly peeking, is not "against the rules" as it is the opposing team's responsibility to use their discretion.  It is specifically against the rules to employ cameras, microphones, iPhones, employees in the stands, and so on, to steal signs. 


the trash-can banging was driven and executed by players, and the video decoding of signs originated and was executed by lower-level employees working with the bench coach. 

He tells us the players' actions and he tells us about the "lower level employees" who worked with the bench coach, all the while avoiding issuing a simple denial.  

He names players, the bench manager and low level employees. Now, go back to his passivity:

"rules were being broken" concealed the identity. 

"players, bench manager and employees" reveals the identity. 


Context is key:

He conceals the identity of those who were "breaking rules" but not those who banged on trash cans (noise) or the bench manager signaling, nor the employees running the camera and computer. 

He has the need to conceal identity in the context of  who were part of "rules were being broken" but not when assigning a specific task. 

This is the point of passivity; to conceal identity and/or responsibility.  

Context is always key. 

In a riot, "rocks were thrown" is passivity --yet if one does not know who threw the rocks, it is "appropriate use of passivity."

He has revealed who did specific tasks, making the passivity inappropriate.  

He has at least one person in that context, of whom he wants to protect.  

We continue to listen: 


He is "deeply upset."

He should be as he was fired from his job for something the players, bench manager and low level employees did...right?

 This would not need to be said----he would have been unjustly fired and could plainly say so. 

Instead, he has a need to explain why he is upset.  This is unnecessary information, making it very important to the analysis. He could say, "I am upset because I was fired what they did!" or something similar. 

He tells us specifically the he was upset for a different reason than false accusation or wrongful termination: 

I am deeply upset that I wasn’t informed of any misconduct because I would have stopped it.

He would have stopped it. 

Who stops corruption or cheating?

The "good guy" does. 

This is another negative (-) as he has the need to explain why (which can be a weakness itself) and that his reasoning is because he is a good guy. 

Analysis Conclusion:

Deception Indicated. 

The subject one and consented, either actively, or passively, to his team's illicit action. 

He could have said, "I didn't cheat. I didn't know my team cheated" but instead avoiding this simple denial (-) and showed the need to be seen in a positive light. 

Had he had no knowledge of it, he should be very upset for being wrongfully terminated. This would be understood by all: being falsely accused. 

Instead, he doubled down on being the "good guy", making it even more sensitive. 

It is akin to a bank robber who claims to have been going to the bank for 32 years, making withdrawals lawfully, without robbing it.   

Aren't I a good guy for this? 

Doesn't it count for something? 

I find that once training begins, cops and other law enforcement professionals know this instinctively and pick it up in the interview process readily.  

It is similar to Lance Armstrong or so many others who tell us how many times they passed a drug test, rather than tell us, "I didn't take PEDs."

It is as if one is bragging for not being caught, therefore, the listener/reader should interpret this as if the person did not now do it. 

Yet we do not interpret ---we listen. 

It is a psychological form of avoidance due to the internal stress of a direct confrontational lie about reality.  

To book a seminar or to train at home, visit Hyatt Analysis Services for deception detection.  

5 comments:

JezMyOpinion said...

Disappointing but I very much agree with you Mr. Hyatt. He's making Pinocchio look honest.

Anonymous said...

Passivity intended.

About a week or so ago an "event" happened outside and directed at my home. The person(s) was seen and was heard doing it. The next day I txt this person and confronted them with what they were involved in. I told them it has to stop or LE will be informed.

Their reply was. "I'm not in (said area, haha). At the time of their reply it was true, they weren't. Yet they didn't say they "didn't do it" or that they weren't in said area AT THE TIME of the event. They thought I wouldn't get onto it, but I did.

Chaim Lech Maneuver said...

"I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." - Mitch Hedberg

Trigger said...

Did anyone believe Mitt Romney’s “oath under God’” self report as to why he was the only Republican to vote against his party and the President?
Deception indicated by invoking “God” as the crux for his vote against POTUS.

Shari said...

Trigger,

What caught my attention about Mitt Romney's statement was that it was in the form of a question. "Does anybody honestly believe I would do this for any other reason than....?" (I'm paraphrasing.) He didn't deny ulterior motives. He just asked if anybody believed they existed.