The Statement Analysis Gold Medal goes to…. John Coates of Australia
PART ONE
Sometimes in Statement Analysis we have to work off a very short piece. It can be a suicide note, or a postcard, or even a text message. And we can still glean useful information from it about the author.
But sometimes we get lucky and strike Statement Analysis gold.
Sometimes we find a piece so long and so rich in analyzable detail that we can get lost in the statement for weeks.
With the 2020 Olympics finally about to start a year late in Tokyo I thought we would take a look at one of the key players in the Olympic Movement. I have found a transcript of an interview with the Vice President of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), John Coates.
As we shall see we are going to be able to analyze some extremely interesting statements on topics such as:
· Bullying
· Doping in sports
· Financial impropriety, including bribery
· And even, sexual impropriety
***
John Coates is long-time sports administrator, almost unknown outside of his native Australia, but one of the most important and influential figures in world sports. As well as being the VP of the IOC, he is the President of their Australian counterpart, the AOC, and the President of a body called the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS), which administers and operates the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He is, in short, a big hitter in sports.
He is also pretty controversial.
From his statements, my pen-sketch of his character is that he is a bully, a man of low ethics and morals and someone who generally comes across like a Union thug. I would want to ask him a bunch more questions on subjects such as:
· His business structures
· His tax affairs
· His behavior at work
· His behavior towards women
· His attitude towards performance enhancing drugs
· His attitude towards his athletes
· His relationship with Russia
· His law qualifications
***
Coates doesn’t give many interviews, and in Statement Analysis terms we’re kind of feeding off scraps. Sometimes though, it has to be said, these scraps are still pretty useful for analysis.
Take this response to allegations of bullying in 2017, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald[1]:
“There has been no treatment of staff by me that’s objectionable.”
I don’t know Coates, all I have here is his statement, and of course we are led, as always, by what he says in the statement. But ask yourself these questions:
· Is this a reliable denial?
· Is the speaker present in the statement? i.e. where is the prounoun – does he say “I” at the start?
· Is “there” distancing language? I would say yes, absolutely.
The statement uses passivity, which removes or distances oneself from personal responsibility. On closer analysis the statement is strongly qualified. Ask yourself these further questions:
· Might there have been treatment of any non-staff members that is objectionable?
· Might there have been treatment of staff by anyone else that’s objectionable?
· How, in fact, does he define “objectionable”? “Not able to be objected to”? Is this because of a contractual arrangement or legal injunction that prevents a victim of bullying from objecting and speaking out?
Bullying is a theme that we shall return to later.
***
Consider another Coates quote from the same article:
“The best part of the whole involvement with the Olympics is living with the team,” he says. “Just to hang around with these kids when they’ve finished competition… that’s the highlight. That’s why you do it.”
This statement is concerning. Again as Statement Analysts we are led by what we are told. Does he mean being in the changing rooms? If not, what does he mean? I would want to ask the speaker follow-up questions about what it was exactly that he enjoyed so much about being “involved” when “these kids” have finished competition.
***
This is a statement from an article by Australian journalist Mike Hawthorn[2], also published in the Sydney Morning Herald, regarding a company that Coates has evidently had a long involvement with – Sports Marketing and Management, or SMAM:
“I was only ever an honorary Director, put in to look after the AOC’s interests,” Mr Coates told Fairfax Media. “It [SMAM] was a joint venture to benefit the AOC. I have never held in financial or pecuniary interest in the company.”
The speaker is present here, but students of SA will know the problem with the phrase “only ever”, which strongly suggests an alternative narrative that is not said. Why is this?
“Put in” is a passive phrase, and seems to be an attempt to imply that he was not responsible for the positon – again it is distancing language.
“It was a joint venture to benefit the AOC”. This could be read as a Need to Persuade (NTP). He was not asked the purpose of the business, only about his involvement, so why the need to reassure the listener that the joint venture was to benefit the AOC?
“I have never held in financial or pecuniary interest in the company.”- “Held in”? If this is not a typo (which it could be), does that mean that, in fact, he held a financial or pecuniary interest “out” in some way, like “out of the country”, or offshore? When he uses the word “interest” in this context, is this leakage? Is he, in fact, thinking of and using it in the double meaning of interest from a bank account? I think it is possible.
Why the double “financial or pecuniary” anyway? Overly complex explanations can be indicative of deceptive language. Did he ever hold an interest in some other structure, perhaps via another entity?
From the same article we get this statement:
"To be honest, I don't know who every single share is owned by, but as far as I am concerned it is Bushell's company" Mr Coates said. "From my memory, it was Barker's company and he sold it to Bushell when he was getting older," Mr Coates said.
Again, keen-eyed SA students will recognize that starting a sentence with “to be honest” is clearly NTP and immediately sets off an analyst’s alarm bell. Why the need to state that he will be honest? Should this not be expected from him?
Previously in this article his memory was faultless and he was able to give strong definitive statements about the company and his involvement. Now he seems vague, and we have to ask ourselves why this might be? Again, loss of memory in this fashion can be indicative of deceptive language. In combination with the plea for honesty at the start, I do not find this statement reliable, and would want to ask further questions about Mr Coates’ business structures and, quite possibly, his tax affairs.
Here’s one more statement. This is from an article by Ali Cromie in Financial Review titled “Mr Olympics chases his own gold (part 1)”, and refers to alleged conflicts of interest in the run up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
“Coates, in a letter to BRW on April 7, wrote that he specifically wished to record that as a SOCOG board member he has:
1. Not accepted bribes or similar payments or rewards of any kind or in any form.
2. Not acted in any way that would expose him to allegations of bias in breach of the required standards of conduct.
3. At all times acted in the interest of SOCOG.
4. Not breached its guidelines in relation to potential conflicts of interest.
In response to these points, I would ask Coates the following questions:
· He didn’t accept any bribes, but did he offer any bribes or similar payments? (We can see from the interview that the answer to this is yes!)
· He didn’t act in any way that would expose him – does he mean that he did in fact exhibit bias, and was in breach of the required standards, but that he didn’t get caught? It could sound like that.
· Did he breach guidelines in relation to anything else? Again, the interview would suggest that yes, surely he did.
I will analyze the interview itself in Parts 2 and 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment