Saturday, November 10, 2012

Michael Barry's Admission of Lying

           This is a great sample for Readership.

In 2010, Michael Barry was accused of using performance enhancing drugs by cyclist, Floyd Landis.  Note the title of the article says "Denies" and note what a reliable denial is, and what it isn't.  In part two, we have the video, from 2012, of Barry admitting his deception.

I.  The initial Denials
II. The Admission Video

Bold type is Statement Analysis.  The article is in plain text and is from 2010.  

(2010 Article) Michael Barry (Team Sky) has strongly denied allegations leveled against him by Floyd Landis that he took performance-enhancing products and discussed doping practices prior to the 2003 Vuelta a España.
Barry’s name was mentioned in an e-mail sent to USA Cycling highlighting Landis’s personal doping practices as well as leveling accusations against many former teammates.
An emotional Barry spoke to VeloNews and another journalist before the start of Friday’s 13th stage at the Giro d’Italia. Here are excerpts from the interview:
Michael, what was your initial reaction when you heard about what Landis said?

This is not a good question, but it may be one in which he attempts to get Barry to deny the allegation:

Michael Barry: Pretty shocking. I found out just before the stage yesterday, and, obviously, I was stunned, the stories aren’t true.

Note that it is not "shocking" but only "pretty" shocking.  This means that "shocking" is sensitive (1 indicator in the word "pretty") 
He was asked how he felt, which he answered, but then went beyond the boundary of the question telling us when he found out.  This was not asked.  

Principle:  Note anything that goes beyond the boundary of the question as sensitive and important. 

Next, note that he went from "pretty shocking" to "stunned", which is much stronger. 

Principle:  A change of language must represent a change in reality within the statement.  If not, it is an indication that the subject is not working from experiential memory, has lost track, and is deceptive. 

"My car stalled out. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."  This is a true statement.  It was a "car" while it still could be driven, but became a "vehicle" when it no longer could be driven.  

For Barry, "pretty surprising" is a mild reaction while "shocked" is  a much stronger reaction; found so close together in the statement.  Since there is nothing in the statement to justify the change, it is likely deceptive.  (He will admit to this deception in the video).  

This is a very easy way to spot deception but it also highlights just how much information we give away in our speech. 

Question:  Are you shocked that you were mentioned?

This is a very poor question, since he already gave his emotions, including the word "shocked" above. 

MB: For sure, when you see false allegations like that, it is pretty shocking. I was thinking about it during the race quite a bit, it is traumatic, really.
Question:   If it’s not true, why would Landis do that?
MB: I don’t know. I have not spoken with him in several years. I said hello to him at the Tour of California last year.
What has been the reaction from Team Sky?
MB: They have been supportive. The last few years, I have raced with teams with anti-doping stances, and throughout my career I have had a strong anti-doping stance and for clean sport.  That was the one big reason I decided to come to Sky. They looked at all the biological passports of the riders. They are contributing to moving the sport in the right direction and that has always been important to me.
What did you tell team manager Dave Brailsford last night?
MB: They just wanted to know my side of the story, that was it. They have faith in me, that is why they hired me.
Will you continue in the Giro?
MB: Yes, for sure. There is no reason not to.
What’s been the reaction from your family and friends?
MB: It is very supportive. It is amazing. My BlackBerry is getting trashed with e-mails. It is just buzzing non-stop. I have had a lot of support from friends and I think everybody is really surprised to see my name in there.  It’s been great to have that support. It is a difficult time for my wife and family.
So the team has rallied to support you?
MB: For sure. We have a good group of guys here. You can see it the way we’ve been racing since the start. We stick to plan, the morale is always good at the dinner table.
What can you do to fight this?
MB: State my innocence, the story’s untrue. That’s it. I think Lance made a ton of statements yesterday. I have not been in contact with Floyd, so I don’t know where this is coming from. It is frustrating.
Are you surprised about what he said?
MB: Who knows what to know? He has lied and denied things.  I don’t know where he is mentally at right now.
Landis said you trained before the 2003 Vuelta and talked about doping products?
MB: I did train with him for two days. When we were in Girona, I trained with him very little when we were racing for U.S. Postal. Prior to the Vuelta, he was staying up in the mountains and I drove up there with my wife and rode with him for six hours one day and two hours the next day. And then we drove back home. That was it.

Here is now the video of his admission of lying.  Please note that he references the above date when he "panicked" and issued his denial of Landis' allegation. 


Statement Analysis Blog said...

I thought this reverse look at analysis would have garnered more responses!

For readership: knowing ahead of time that he lied--is it dull?



Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla

MB: It is very supportive. It is amazing. ( He is amazed to be supported)
My BlackBerry is GETTING TRASHED ( trash talk? Describes e-mails as trash) with e-mails. It is just BUZZING NON-STOP ( He's not taking calls if it's "buzzing"). I HAVE HAD( past tense doesn't jive with the first "IT IS very supportive" a lot of support from friends and I think EVERYBODY IS REALLY SURPRISED TO SEE MY NAME IN THERE.( Doesn't own his own surprise, cuz he's NOT surprised.) It’s BEEN( past tense again) great to have that support. IT IS A DIFFICULT TIME FOR MY WIFE AND FAMILY.( finally a true statement)

Light the Way said...

I actually commented on this article, but my comment has disappeared!

It's great to be able to examine a verified lie like this. It's not often that the liar is forced to admit his deciept publicly.

Usually, we take the statements of convicted criminals as our examples of "known lies".
The assumption being that their conviction of the crime "proves" their original statement of denial was a lie.

The problem with this is that juries aren't infallible, leaving room for possible doubt.

I'm glad Lance Armstrong was cornered into admitting his lies.
It gives us a great group of control statements to compare future SA material to, and check our work!

Thanks USADA investigators for keeping at it until the truth was irrefutable!! :D

Tania Cadogan said...

MB: They have been supportive. The last few years, I have raced with teams with anti-doping stances,

This caught my eye.

I have raced with teams with anti-doping stances,
Does this mean then there are teams racing that don't have an anti doping stance?

Prior to the last few years has he raced with teams that don't have an anti doping stance?

This is what he tells me.

Anonymous said...

Peter, IMO there are several reasons there hasn't been more response to the reverse analysis of deception prior to Michael Barry's admission of guilt. They ALL did a good job at lying before the truth came out, or thought they did.

1) My first thought is that maybe there aren't as many readers reading and posting on week-ends. Probably busy with family, etc.

2) Possibly some getting tired of reading about the world of cycling and all the lying dopers and cheaters; have said all they have to say, what more can they say since a larger percentage were doping and now the truth is out. What's one more? Losing interest? Possibly.

3) Maybe some (like me) weren't all that intersted in cycling, Lance Armstrong and team mates to begin with, since we/I (ME) are not into sports in the first place, and particularly not into cycling and couldn't care less one way or the other.

4) Maybe some like John are more involved in events in their own country, like this peodphile Savile who got away with molesting/raping helpless/homeless children all his rotten sorry life. Understandable that he would be. Also others who have some interest in other topics. The world of cycling can only entertain so long.

Just my thoughts; (but then, I am a negative dud when it comes to most sports and cheating/doping, I don't care whether they dope or they don't, lie, win or lose, and readily admit it). They ALL knew what they were doing when they did it, so HA HA they got caught, serves them right and I'm glad. Just feel sorry for them that they've wasted the best years of their lives.

To me, they are mostly a waste of humanity who cares only for themselves and their self-seeking glory; when there are far more important issues than riding a bicycle. I can't imagine being part of a crowd following them around and being some silly woman screaming as they roll into the finish line. But that's just me.

Maybe I'm right, maybe not. Just expressing my feelings. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

I wish to add Peter, that you did an excellent job in your statement analysis of Michael Barry's comments from 2010, pointing out his deception at that time. You were right. My compliments!

Anonymous said...

I'm not very good at statement analysis & my comment really doesn't have anything to do with it, so I hope you bear with me.
I've not been into sports (any sports); but after reading this blog for some time, I have a new respect & interest in sports. I have a new insight into the cycling world & find it fascinating, I like & appreciate these articles/posts.
Thank you Peter & to all those that comment.

Tania Cadogan said...

Personally, even though i am not into sports in general though i do watch live motor sport, i find any topic related to SA fascinating.
It allows me to expand my horizons, it teaches me facets of analysis and thus deception in cases not involving crime. Deception can be in many forms, from outright whoppers involving creation of false realities in crime(anthonys) to doping and cheating in sports, to politicans, celebs in general about love lives, money, to white lies about an outfit or feelings to creative advertising and lying by ommission, listening to what isn't being said.
Seeing analysis about a wide range of topics sharpens my senses, tunes in and tweaks what i already know.
Yes, it can be boring reading a topic and analysis on a subject i am not particularly interested in, however i continue to read and analyse because i learn from what i read, it broadens my horizons, it encourages me to read more carefully what it is written even though i am tempted to skip parts, it helps me see areas of sensitivity i might have missed.

Analysts can't pick and choose what they are asked to analyse, if they are asked to interview a subject, they can't tune out because it's a subject they aren't interested in, to do so would be doing a disservice not only to their employer, it also does a disservice to the subject and themselves.
Although i am not interested in cycling as a sport, i am fascinated by the statements coming out from participants explaining their involvement, why they did or didn't do something.
It lets me see consistency in SA when applied to any situation.
The topic may be different, the principles stay the same.