Monday, March 9, 2015

Statement Analysis of Patrick Reed's Denial of Cheating and Stealing

Patrick Reed responds to book allegations of cheating, stealing

Patrick Reed is not pleased with a book that was written about him. (Getty Images)
Patrick Reed is not pleased with a book that was written about him. (Getty Images)
Over a month ago, Shane Ryan released an excerpt about Patrick Reed and his confusing past from his new book, "Slaying the Tiger."
In it, Ryan reported that Reed cheated and stole when he was playing college golf.
"During a qualifying round prior to a tournament, according to sources, Reed hit a ball far into the rough. When he approached the spot, he found another ball sitting closer to the fairway, and was preparing to hit it when several of his teammates confronted him. Reed pled ignorance, but the other Georgia players were convinced he had been caught red-handed trying to cheat."
"That same fall, several items went missing from the Georgia locker room, including a watch, a Scotty Cameron putter, and $400 cash."
Shortly after the excerpt came out, Reed released a statement saying that he and his team were looking into the matter.

Over the weekend, at the Cadillac Championship, Reed pushed his chips into the middle of the table and said his team has sent Ryan's book publisher a letter asking that they remove the excerpt from their book.

"We wanted to set the record straight," said Reed. "We wanted to let everyone know that none of that stuff is true, all of it is false. It's taken us a while to come out and say it because we wanted to get the evidence and facts to back it.
"I'm all for someone writing a book about me (or about anybody) as long as it's the right facts."

A reliable denial (RD) consists of three components.  If there are more than three, or less than three, it ceases to be a reliable denial.
"I did not cheat" and "I did not steal" would show strength of:
1.  The pronoun "I", taking ownership and responsibility for the sentence
2.  The past tense "did not" or "didn't", rather than "never" or "would not"
3.  The specific allegation addressed:  stealing and cheating.  

In the above denial, we note:

1.  He uses the pronoun "we", when it is that "we" have not been accused of stealing and cheating, he has, alone. 
2.  He avoids using the pronoun "I" specifically. 
3.  He avoids using the past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
4.  He avoids specific allegations with "all"
5.  He even feels the need to explain why he was silent.
6.  Note that it is not just "facts" but "right facts", which is not only to avoid a denial, but an indication that what has been stated about him is "fact" but it is not the "right" facts to put in a book.  

He goes a long way to avoid saying "I didn't steal" and "I didn't cheat."

Note a commonality among the deceptive is to ask audiences to be patient, or to wait. 

There are no legal consequences for an innocent person to say 
"I didn't do it", and there is no justifiable reason to delay a reliable denial.  

Reed also told Golf Channel he has affidavits from his coaches at Georgia and Augusta State "contradicting" what Ryan wrote.


If Patrick Reed is unwilling or unable to say that he did not steal and cheat, we will not say it for him.  


Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

Weeping and wailing Nick Gordon, the troubled fiancé of Bobbi Kristina Brown, has admitted that he has twice tried to kill himself and confessed: 'I'm so sorry for everything.'

Gordon, 25, was speaking to Dr Phil McGraw in a dramatic intervention due to air on Wednesday, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

Asked if he still intended to kill himself he said: 'If anything happens to Krissi I will.'

Amid scenes of high emotion, an often incoherent Gordon admitted drinking heavily and taking Xanax, for which he has a prescription, in an attempt to deal with life since Bobbi Kristina was found, face down and unresponsive in her bathtub on January 31

He said: 'My pain is horrible. My heart hurts. I have panic attacks.'

In recent weeks Gordon has twice overdosed on a mixture of Xanax, alcohol and prescription sleeping pills.

Gordon had agreed to meet with Dr Phil believing that he was there to be interviewed. According to Dr Phil: 'He felt like he was being vilified and presented as some sort of monster.'

Instead, on learning of Gordon's rapidly deteriorating mental, emotional and physical state, the eminent psychologist staged an intervention and he is now in rehab.

Dr Phil stated: 'I don't think he has any chance of turning this round. Left to his own devices he will be dead within the week.'

Gordon's mother, Michelle, was by her son's side as he alternated between compliant and aggressive – at one point threatening to attack camera men as they filmed.

She described her son as 'at breaking point.'

She said: 'He cannot take too much more of not being able to see Kriss. He blames himself. He's torn up and carrying guilt.

'He's dealing with it by drinking. I've begged him to stop. I've tried to help him but he can't let go of the guilt.'

Leaning towards Gordon's mother, Dr Phil said: 'You and I have one mission with one possible outcome and that's for him to agree to go to rehab to deal with his depression, his guilt…and to get clean and sober.'

He added: 'His life absolutely hangs in the balance.'

Questions still rage regarding just what happened in the early hours of January 31st that led to Bobbi Kristina, 22, ending up face down in her tub.

Just two days ago Bobbi Kristina's aunt, Leolah Brown, made a series of explosive Facebook posts in which she alleged that the family had 'strong evidene of foul play' relating to Gordon's role in events.

She posted: 'Nick Gordon is very disrespectful and inconsiderate! Especially to my family. Moreover, he has done things to my niece that I never thought he had in him to do!'

Leolah made her claims in response to being invited onto Dr Phil's show.

In her message she wrote: 'With all due respect, Nick Gordon is under investigation for the attempted murder of my niece….We have strong evidence of foul play.'

Marks were found on her face and arms, marks that Gordon has explained as the result of CPR which he administered to her for 15 minutes before emergency services arrived.

And speaking to Dr Phil, Gordon insisted: 'I did everything possible in the world to protect them [Whitney and Bobbi Kristina].'

Railing against the decision by Bobbi's father, Bobby Brown, to ban him from his fiancée's bedside at Atlanta's Emory Hospital, Gordon said: 'My name will be the first she calls.'

According to his mother, Michelle, Gordon cannot forgive himself for his 'failure' to revive Bobbi Kristina. His guilt is compounded by the eerily similar situation in which he found himself almost exactly three years earlier.

Then, on 11 February 2012, it was Gordon who tried to resuscitate Whitney when she was found unresponsive in her bath-tub just hours before she was due to attend a Grammy awards party.

Tania Cadogan said...

Speaking to Dr Phil, Michelle said: 'Nicholas just continually expresses how much he has failed Whitney.

'He administered CPR [to Whitney] and he called me when he was standing over her body. He couldn't understand why he couldn't revive her. He said, "Mommy why? I couldn't get the air into her lungs."

Gordon has now entered a rehab facility in Atlanta. Meanwhile his fiancée continues to fight for her life in a medically-induced coma.

It is now six weeks since Bobbi Kristina – Krissi as she was known to friends - was found face down and unresponsive in the bath-tub of the home she shared with Gordon in Roswell, Georgia

Unlike Whitney's death that was ruled accidental, police are treating Bobbi Kristina's near drowning and injuries allegedly sustained by the 22-year-old as a criminal investigation.

While Bobbi Kristina fights for her life a troubling picture of her relationship with Nick, of drug use and domestic turbulence in the weeks leading up to the incident, has emerged.

In an interview with The Sun a friend of the couple, Steven Stepho, claimed they were using various drugs daily including heroin, Xanax, pot and heroin substitute Roxicodone.

Sounding eerily similar to Bobbi's mother and father's drug-dependent relationship, the friend said the pair used whatever they could get their hands on.

'Bobbi and Nick would spend a lot on drugs every day, it just depended on how much money they had. It wasn't unusual for them to spend $1,000 a day on drugs.

'There were times when it got really bad - they would be completely passed out for hours, just lying there on the bed. There were times when she would be so knocked out she would burn herself with a cigarette and not even notice. She was always covered in cigarette burns.'

Their relationship was also very volatile.

'When Whitney died Nick was left with nothing, so he knew he had to control Krissi to get access to the money. She'd do whatever he told her.

'He was very manipulative and would even use the drugs to control her. They would argue a lot and there were times when he would be violent with her and push her around.'

According to Stepho: 'But Krissi really loved him because he was there to fill the gap left by her mother. She was not close to her father and did not have anyone else close to her. Nick knew this and took advantage of it.'

Read more:

I wonder, if Bobbi dies and he is charged, will they look again at the death of her mom Whitney since there are similarities in the manner and location and also he was present both times and both times tried to perform CPR?

Sammie said...

For all dog lovers:

I know it is off topic but it is still important. Peter have you covered this?

Sammie said...

and one more. I know Alan Dershowitz is a very far leftists but this article on "Nuclear Theology" is worth reading.
It is similar to what you wrote.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


Thank you. I differ with AD on some issues, but like to listen to his arguments.

As to these articles: he did not write them, but is on the board there. They are both well written.

The issue of Islam and dogs, first, is more about Islamic cultural pressure. They are against personal dog ownership and since 2012 (it is an old article) have made headways into bullying European citizens and their pets. Europe continues to encourage Islamic migration, however, and a clash of culture is inevitable.

Still, in Europe, women' rights groups have not been in the forefront of this cultural warfare, nor has same-sex right groups. Both are under increasing pressure to break off from partisanism and exert a voice against Islam.

As to the latter, President Obama's Islamic leanings from childhood, and not ignorance, are what concern me more.

We are arming an apocylpytic nation and religion with weapons that can destroy entire cities, including in the United States.

Israel is our only ally, and although imperfect, we have had strong ties with them since 1948. Obama's tweets this weekend, and Netanyahu's response show enmity.

Freedom from harassment by same sex, women, Jews and Christians may unite a large group of people against Islam. Add in to this artists, literary professionals, and others who rely upon freedom to function and it could become a powerful pushback from the damage that has been done.

Or, like Europe, it may have to get much worse before it gets better.

We did learn one very strong thing from Netanyahu's speech:

Israel's military will not allow the nuclear facility to develop a nuclear bomb, even if it means going to war against us.

I hope to do an article on Islamic deception and statement analysis. Suffice for now, two elements are taught in the Koran:

Cruelty for attention (terrorism, in our wording, today)
Deception. The truth is not owed to "the infidel" but Muslims only owe the truth to fellow Muslims, hence, "Islam is a religion of peace" is not just propaganda, but a deception that they are, religiously, only permitted to give to non-Muslims and those they consider non-practicing Muslims.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


this is what you referred to?

It has a different title, but I assume "nuclear theology" is its reference.

Note it is not AD who wrote it.


John Mc Gowan said...


Parents Say They Are Convinced Their 7-Year-Old Will Kill Someone (VIDEO)

gugi said...

I have been following this blog for a long time and I commented a few times however rarely. I would like to comment on the dogs and islam comment after all this time :)

I live in a country with a mainly muslim population and I had not heard of that dogs being unclean claim until a few months ago. The reason for me even hearing that was because I had adopted a dog and came across someone in my neighbourhood who stayed away from my dog while we were chatting. He said that he was part of a sect (for lack of a better word as I dont know what word I should use for this, it is not like a cult, it is a different interpretation of islam) and according to his belief, he should not be in contact with a dog. Later I also heard that some people believe that angels would not enter your house if a dog entered your house.

I was raised as a sunni muslim and I had not learnt anything about dogs being banned or unclean. I think it might be more related to the culture and lifestyle and that religion can be a part of it. Having dogs as pets is very common here. I am generally yelled at for letting my dogs pee at a particular place rather than the dog being around or "owning" them :D

On another note, the angels must be waiting outside the door every time I enter the house :D

I dont like when people try to push their beliefs onto others and trying to put their religious practice into policies that affect all. Nobody has to have a dog and if someone told me to get rid of my dog because they believe dogs are dirty or unholy or whatever, I would give a very rude answer.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


I don't mind someone disagreeing, respectfully, with my right to own Dex.

If it turns into a societal issue, it is another story.

Stay tuned...

thanks for commenting, and welcome,

Anonymous said...

Alexandra Semyonova comments from The Netherlands:

Every once in a while allegations that Muslim immigrants to Europe are anti-dog erupt again in the media, sometimes due to a real declaration by a radical Muslim group, but more often due to a widely publicized incident involving someone who happens to be Muslim objecting to the presence of a dog somewhere.

A typical example of this was an article originally published by the Gatestone Institute on January 31, 2012, “Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe,” which more than two years later went viral on Facebook. In this article the Gatestone Institute reported that the Hague (Netherlands) Islam Democrats council member Hasan Küçük had demanded that keeping dogs in the city be criminalized. The Gatestone article then went on to cite other places in Europe where Muslims were supposedly committing jihad against our canine companions.

In fact, the international media and internet riot about the Hague council member’s words was a result of an article in De Telegraaf (a low quality, sensationalist newspaper, with — of course — the highest readership in The Netherlands). Apparently there had been a debate in the Hague city council in which the Party for Animals asked to make the city more dog-friendly. On January 28, 2012, De Telegraaf quoted Hasan Küçük as saying during that debate that he wanted to make keeping dogs illegal because “Dogs belong in nature, not in a house. A dog in an apartment is animal abuse.” On January 30, 2012, Het Algemeen Dagblad (a medium quality paper) published a correction:

“Küçük says his words were quoted out of context. There was a fiery debate last week in the council about the city’s animal policy, says Küçük. During this debate the fraction chairman remarked that he thinks it’s pitiful that dogs are sometimes shut up in flats for 23 hours of each day. ‘But there is no question of our party wanting to ban dog ownership in The Hague.’ He [Küçük] wasn’t available to comment this weekend."

Note that even De Telegraaf didn’t claim Küçük had posed religious grounds or said that dogs are unclean. It seems that is what other media made of it as they interpreted (or freely expanded upon) what Küçük had actually said, implying at the same time that all Muslims share this fabricated view.

Anonymous said...

It should be noted that the Islam Democrats are not the only party that considers keeping dogs in a city to be animal abuse. The Hague City Party, a purely indigenous (ie, without roots in any immigrant culture), secular, mostly white local party, also wants to discourage dog ownership in town for the same reason (“dogs belong in nature”), but unlike Küçük, the City Party has always added that dogs are carriers of disease and spreaders of filth (faeces) and don’t belong among us, at least not in urban areas.

In a better effort at journalistic integrity, Trouw (a high quality paper) published a column on February 2, 2012, in which the columnist asked an Islamic neighbor boy about Islam and dogs. The boy, who loved to walk his neighbor’s dog said the Küçük incident led him to ask his father, an imam, whether walking dogs was allowed. His father had told him this:

“Animals, including dogs, should be treated with love and respect. Only when you pray, for which you must be absolutely clean, are you not allowed to touch them.”

This jibes with what Muslim neighbors tell me –– they avoid me when I’m out with my dogs not because they fear or dislike dogs, but because if a dog touches their clothing, they have to change their clothes before they can pray. This doesn’t mean that all imams or all Muslims will approve of interacting with dogs.

It does mean that we can’t paint all of them as anti-dog, any more than any other community is unanimously anti-dog or pro-dog.

Tania Cadogan said...

In the UK it has gone to ridiculous extremes with pc going so far as to enforce halal meat in school for fear of upsetting muslims, changing holidays to generic day of whatever, even to complaints about ornaments with one woman being reportd for having a ceramic pig in her window.

I don't know about muslims make unreasonable demands though it oes happen, it is also the jobsworhs who go looking for non existent problems and sticking their oar in to disrupt be it religion, nationality sexual preference or age of your pet rock.

Personally i expect every immigrant to abide by my country's rules and freedoms.
If they don't like it and want to enforce their religious beliefs , codes and morals on my country they can bugger back to where they came from and then live to their own desired rules and religious edicts.
I am also all for anyone regardless of age to be prosecuted for treason and sentenced to a minimum 50 if they go to syria or another country in order to join a terrorist organisation.
I am also in favor of banning halal meat since it is cruel to the animal and banning all full face veils.
In my country we want to see who you are and hear you clearly since if we can't see your face you could be anyone, even a man.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Some excellent points here and I appreciate the European education.

PETA, the dog killing machine, opposes ownership too. They are "non religious", unless one considers...well, that's for a different argument.

There are animal rights activists who feel that animal ownership is immoral itself.

Tania, you could easily be accused of xenophobia by what you say, yet, it is that you were born in your country, love what your country has become and want to see it remain.

If you wanted to live in a muslim country, there are those to which you can move.

This was what people once believed about the United States, with States being plural; independent states with very different cultures and backgrounds, with a federal organization for the purpose of mutual defense.

In this way, you could "vote with your feet" and move to a land that you wanted to be a part of.

With dramatic change in world viewpoint, the European Union began.

Greece would like to have

30 hour work weeks,
more vacation time than any other country,
retire at the youngest age,

have the others pay off its debts.

Sounds good to me!


PS: I'd like for the non Muslims in support of Islam to weigh in on the next article, to help me understand more about their view points.

For example:

why would a woman's right's person support Islam.

The animal rights portion is interesting.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


weighing in on the next article would be interesting, so please consider.

thank you,


Gugi said...

Do you mean the article about the husband that might be taking his wife's pain meds?

I should make an account. I dont want my screen name to be associated with cars and black doors at some point :D