Always note when an unreliable denial is coupled with a diverting accusation. It is critical for analysis. It weakens the unreliable denial even further.
"I would never steal from my company. You might steal, but not me." This not only is an unreliable denial, but it is coupled with an attack that seeks to divert attention away from the subject.
Lance Armstrong tweeted/ Facebook last week:
"Had a great coupla days in Portland working with my great partners Nike. Awesome to see the show of support on livestrongday. 16 yrs!
Did he know what was about to be announced?
After stepping down from the Livestrong Foundation, and being dropped by other major sponsors, the biggest, Nike, announced that they are also dropping him.
A "Reasoned Decision" has shown a full career of not only cheating, but ridiculing those who did not cheat (some refreshing portions in the account) and attacks on anyone who dared question him. Read A Reasoned Decision
Nike statement: “Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.”
Note "with" between people indicates distance.
Trek followed shortly after: Trek is disappointed by the findings and conclusions in the USADA report regarding Lance Armstrong,” a statement from the bike company reads. “Given the determinations of the report, Trek today is terminating our longterm relationship with Lance Armstrong.”
Looking at 10 years + of denials, Lance Armstrong did not issue any reliable denials. A reliable denial has 3, and only 3, components:
1. Use of the Pronoun, "I" must be in place. If he were to say "We did not use..." it would not be reliable.
2. Past Tense verb. "I did not take EPO..." We often hear, "I would never take..." which is to avoid using the past tense verb. Another common unreliable denial is "I don't use EPO" which uses present tense verb.
3. Event/Allegation Specific "I did not take Cortisone pills" would be a very strong denial, but when the allegation is avoided, the denial is unreliable. "I did not use while training" would leave "use" open to speculation: Use what?
We see this in child abuse cases: "I did not harm that child" with the word "harm" now open to interpretation (this is the most common word used by child molesters)
Armstrong avoided using a reliable denial but his denials also were accompanied by attacks.
This leads us to a principle:
We see this in "shoot the messenger" types where the message, itself, cannot be answered, so the person attempts to discredit the messenger. This is commonly seen:
If one disagrees with the President, they are "racist." This is used when the person wants to move the debate away from the issue at hand.
I wondered last summer if analysts avoided the Charlie Rogers hoax because they were concerned with claims of "homophobe" and other such insults. People read the analysis for what it was: a disconnect between reality and language.
I did not receive a single such insult during the weeks where her case was posted here.
When the mother of a "missing" child, for example, sets upon herself to attack those who do not believe her, we see the same principle that Armstrong used: Instead of answering the charges, allegations or beliefs, the response is with anger and personal attacks: An attempt to divert attention. Not only note the need for diversion, but not the language employed in the attack.
If your child was missing, would you have the time, energy, or even the slightest care to attack someone who did not believe you? Parents of missing children who are innocent care for nothing but their missing child, and could not care less if someone doesn't believe them. They are insulated by pain, and wrapped in single minded concern for their child and have nothing left for anyone else.
Note unreliable denials coupled with diverting attacks. This coupling strengthens the conclusion of "unreliable" denial, as well as highlighting the subject's need to change the topic.
Lance Armstrong, in 2005, got a sponsor to agree to pay him $5 million dollars if he won the Tour. He won the Tour but when evidence of doping arose, the company refused to pay. Not only did Armstrong sue them, but he repeatedly insulted them. The company had to pay the $5 million plus another $2.5 million in legal fees and interest.
Today, they are preparing suit to recover the $7.5 million paid, plus the cost of legal fees and interest from 2005.
It is just the tip of the ice berg. The lawyer said, "Armstrong said we were scum. But he did not get away with it forever. You owe us 7.5 million" and plans on recovering it.
With Nike dropping him, his largest source of income is gone. With loss of income comes a loss of lawyers. With a loss of lawyers, comes loss of his offensive lawsuits, and now will highlight a deficit in defensive lawsuits which he will face. Criminally, for his drug use, coercion, conspiracy, and other allegations, faces an estimated 130 years in prison if convicted.
Deception. Those who deceive have a reason to deceive. Those who divert, have a reason to divert.
Those who deceive and divert are especially noted.
He is a good reminder that the unreliable denial is sometimes accompanied by a diverting personal attack.