Techniques of deceptive communication about doping

PS: I didn't post this in one of the threads on the BTC Case, because I kind of lost track which would be the most appropiate one.

I don't have access to it either but would be an interesting read.

The Shelby statement, something like: "I never took PEDs" is different than "I never took nandrolone." If she were in a deposition a good attorney would jump on that differentiation. If she has rationalized that nandrolone is maintenance, anti-inflamatory, stabilizing, a supplement or anything that she can internally justify as not being a PED, then polygraphs and interviews and pre-recorded statements are easier. Especially if fan-boy journalists don't smell the blood of avoidant/deceptive language in the water.

jaggers at law wrote:

I don't have access to it either but would be an interesting read.

The Shelby statement, something like: "I never took PEDs" is different than "I never took nandrolone." If she were in a deposition a good attorney would jump on that differentiation. If she has rationalized that nandrolone is maintenance, anti-inflamatory, stabilizing, a supplement or anything that she can internally justify as not being a PED, then polygraphs and interviews and pre-recorded statements are easier. Especially if fan-boy journalists don't smell the blood of avoidant/deceptive language in the water.

Seems like a viable mental strategy of evasion. Humans have a huge ability to rationalize. Good thread.

Big Juicy Steak wrote:

Seems like a viable mental strategy of evasion. Humans have a huge ability to rationalize. Good thread.

Yeah, something like that probably happens with alot of forbidden behaviour. "It's ok for me to steal this wallet because i really had bad luck and need to to pay my rent" in a sense like the first season of breaking bad.

Obviously that is not part of a communication techniques.

Lol...It's called "lying"..

The author is a professor of Sport and Health Sociology at the University of Göttingen in Germany. He seems to specialize in different approaches and viewpoints on doping. His academic c.v. is here:

https://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/635012.html

I wrote to him and he sent me a copy of his article. I have yet to read through it completely, but it certainly is more nuanced and detailed than some of the postings on these boards.

His address:

marcel.reinold@uni-goettingen.de

The Shelby statement, something like: "I never took PEDs" is different than "I never took nandrolone." If she were in a deposition a good attorney would jump on that differentiation. If she has rationalized that nandrolone is maintenance, anti-inflamatory, stabilizing, a supplement or anything that she can internally justify as not being a PED, then polygraphs and interviews and pre-recorded statements are easier. Especially if fan-boy journalists don't smell the blood of avoidant/deceptive language in the water.

Totally agree.

What does the first point mean?

I have access and read most of the article; it expounds on the abstract - for most readers the abstract is probably good enough.

casualrunner wrote:

What does the first point mean?

Moralisation without personal criticism - they express an opinion against doping but avoid criticizing any individuals who have been caught.

From the article: "deceivers unambiguously condemn doping but consistently fail to condemn any doper."

In the UK at least fully available here

https://boa.unimib.it/retrieve/handle/10281/58787/449190/Deceptive%20behavior%20in%20doping%20related%20interviews.pdf

whoops it's a different paper. will leave here anyway

jaggers at law wrote:

If she has rationalized that nandrolone is maintenance, anti-inflamatory, stabilizing, a supplement or anything that she can internally justify as not being a PED, then polygraphs and interviews and pre-recorded statements are easier. .

As far as I know polygraph results are not admissible in criminal court as they can be manipulated. Comments like "I took a polygraph and it says I'm telling the truth!" are an attempt at controlling the public's opinion but don't actually count for anything.

For people that lie a lot, passing a polygraph is easy. Do you know who lies a lot? Dopers.

Anyway, thanks OP for the paper, really good stuff.

Roflcopter wrote:

jaggers at law wrote:

If she has rationalized that nandrolone is maintenance, anti-inflamatory, stabilizing, a supplement or anything that she can internally justify as not being a PED, then polygraphs and interviews and pre-recorded statements are easier. .

As far as I know polygraph results are not admissible in criminal court as they can be manipulated. Comments like "I took a polygraph and it says I'm telling the truth!" are an attempt at controlling the public's opinion but don't actually count for anything.

police in some jurisdictions use polygraph to decide if they may investigate (not a verdict), but from a source they know and trust.

it is used to dismiss cases that seem to be mostly hear say.

it's used here unofficially, as a practical way to clear a lot of he says she says cases.