Mark Sanchez tested positive for PEDs and made a statement on social media.
If you did not use PEDs, you are going to say so. It is your priority and it is your "contextual psychological profile", that is, it is your "psychological wall of proof" as seen in language.
It makes no difference what the blood test showed because, "I did take PEDs."
In training for law enforcement, discerning truth from a lie is oftentimes more challenging than spotting deception.
Let's look at his statement.
1. The Pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't" (both are reliable; only Reid differentiates)
3. The allegation answered.
These three elements must be present.
If there are less than three or more than three, the denial is no longer reliable.
We flag some as "Unreliable" while others we may flag as "not reliable." The difference is within context and how the analyst sees the statement.
In theft allegations, Statement Analysis is a time saver that gets to the truth. This is why I advise investigators make their own phone calls to set up the interview.
In some cases like theft, a suspect in a crime may not even realize he is being accused, therefore, his denial may be "not reliable" and may change when he is made aware that he is the recipient of the allegation. When he realizes why he is being questioned:
"Oh, no, I see. I didn't take the money. I thought you were asking me if I knew who did..."
Here he framed the words, "I didn't take the money." If then asked, "Well, why should I believe you?" his answer is vital. The psychological "wall of truth" rises in the truthful (de facto innocent; not judicial) because he did not do it. If he says, "I didn't take the money. You should believe me because I told the truth", using "truth" in this manner, it is more than 99% reliable. He didn't take the money.
“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance. During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean. I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”
What do you know about Mark Sanchez?
1. His priority
2. His revelation
Where one begins a statement is always important and tells us that these are the first words his brain chooses, so they are important.
Next we ask:
Q. What surprised or "blind sided" him?
A. "the news."
Not a false test, and not even "a test" but "the news", which uses the article "the" as a settled matter.
For those who did not "do it" (de facto innocence), it is never settled because it cannot be settled because it did not happen. This is the type of language that may, after years of wrongful imprisonment and repeating account, move into. The years of processing, for example "rape" can mimic language that says "my story."
It is not the language of one who is shocked or surprised. It is not the language of an event that just taken place.
The subject has has processed the failed drug test and has accepted its conclusion. It is not "news" but it is "the news."
2. Question: Does he say he never used?
He does not say it.
He says he "wants to say" instead. I'd like to say that I am young, slim and handsome but I can't because 2 of those points would be lying.
This is a subtle form of psychological distancing from the internal stress and confrontation of a direct lie.
Law of Economy tells us that the shortest sentence is best and the more effort (more words), the greater the emotion.
This sentence is emotional weighted.
He shows himself to be a practiced or accomplished deceiver. We listen to his words. Not only is is something he "wants to say" instead of saying it, but listen to what he actually says when he gets to it.
He wants to say that he's never used "to gain" a competitive advantage.
Not only is this unreliable, but it is to assign a specific motive.
We may now consider: He used due to injury recovery and perhaps aging.
The motive for use should be irrelevant and unnecessary. By viewing all "unnecessary information" the investigator gains valuable insight.
He is very concerned about motive and the public's perception of the motive. Now we understand why his emotional state is his priority.
In fact, he may be telling the truth that he used for injury recovery. This is how the human conscience seeks to cover deception while justifying guilty behavior.
His priority is image; expressing surprise. Yet he reveals something else:
“I was blind-sided by the news and I want to say unequivocally that I have never cheated or attempted to gain a competitive advantage by using a banned performance enhancing substance.
He used more than one.
He wants to say and he wants to say "unequivocally" (added emphasis is unnecessary) that he did not "cheat" or "attempt" to gain...
This is to recognize that it did give him competitive advantage but only that this was not his motive.
Then he goes singular on a "banned" performance enhancing substance.
He did not deny yet.
Now he defends his character (reputation...remember his priority?) by going back in time, not to the failed test, but 9 years ago:
During the past 9 years as an NFL player I have been subject to 73 drug tests — an average of over 8 tests per season — and all but one have been clean.
He relies on all the times he was tested.
This is akin to a bank robber saying, "but I have used this bank for years and not once did I rob it!"
This is a tangent which indicates not only the need to distract from the accusation, but affirms his motive for writing: his reputation.
This is similar to rape suspects lecturing on how they have stood for women's rights in Hollywood.
a. It is unrelated.
b. It is unnecessary.
c. It is to inflate credibility instead of relying upon truth (the psychological wall of truth which cannot be penetrated).
He is an accomplished liar as seen in this sophistication. He now introduces another tangent in the word, "supplement."
I have taken the same regimen of supplements for the past five years without any issues.
What is an "issue"? A failed drug test?
It is rare, but it has happened before that a test has been a false positive.
In one such rare case the subject told the doctor he did not care what the test said. "I didn't take ____."
He was given the opportunity to allow for the possibility of it being taken "by accident" with "supplements" but he refused.
"No. I don't know what caused your test but its wrong. I didn't take ______."
He was tested again and failed but refused to yield. The next test found the error in methodology.
This subject stood behind the psychological wall of truth and blamed the test. He was telling the truth. Later he said he did not even know what the drug looked like.
After introducing "supplements" we expect him to blame them.
He does not, however, blame supplements. Listen to him and do not interpret. Listen.
He simply allows "supplement" to influence the reader without a direct lie.
He introduces a new element:
The timing and results of my tests establish circumstances of unknowing supplement contamination, not the use of performance enhancing substances.”
He introduces "time" as an element. What does "time" have to do with a failed test?
"I did not use PEDS. The test is wrong."
The timing of the test would be immaterial.
Yet, it is what he employs in an attempt to indict the supplements and the test without the direct accusation.
It only "establishes circumstances" of "unknown supplement contamination."
He not only issues an "Unreliable Denial" but indicates his motive for the statement and his motive for usage being not directly to gain competitive advantage.
He knowingly used PEDs and gaining competitive advantage was a side effect or attendant result.
His excessive use of tangents indicate a guilty conscience with an acute awareness of his reputation.
He does not deny using PEDs, instead focuses on the times he was not caught.
This is in contrast to those who say, "I am sorry I did this, accept my punishment and will work hard to regain the trust of my teammates and the league..."
The caution in directly blaming supplements may not only be due to the internal pressure that direct lying causes, but may be related to various supplement contracts, past, present and future endorsements by him and others in the league.
Lie Detection training is invaluable for all professional and personal use.
To study with us, visit Hyatt Analysis Services.
We offer seminars and at home complete courses.