Conor Benn: Did he deliberately dope?
Conor Benn: Did he deliberately dope?
What his words tell us
Like clockwork, sportspeople test positive for a banned drug and trot out a tired list of excuses. Often, these involve the word “never” which is regularly problematic. Sometimes, they waffle, deviate and try too hard to persuade us or convince us that they are not a drugs cheat.
So, when The Times publishes an interview with Conor Benn, I’m paying attention. Benn is a British boxer and it was announced earlier this month that he’d failed a drugs test, with the banned substance clomifene found in his sample.
Armed with all the tactics for detecting deception in someone’s words, let’s analyse what he has to say.
Let’s break it down
The journalist says the opening question was about Benin’s state of mind.
It’s hard. It would be hard if I wasn’t innocent. But knowing I’ve actually done nothing wrong makes it even harder. My innocence will be proven. It has to be. I’ve not taken anything. I never have done, never would. It’s not what I stand for, it’s not what my team stands for.
I quite like this answer for honesty. Benn owns what he is saying with plenty of use of I. He really owns his innocence, calling it “my innocence”. Instead of hiding the fact he could be guilty and creating distance from that thought, he tells us he has thought about how a failed test would feel if he had taken drugs.
Using “my innocence” suggests that Benn has the concept that he is innocent in his head. It’s different from saying “It will be proved that I’m innocent” which can often refer to technical innocence. As we’ve seen in the past, a guilty person can claim “I’m innocent” if there isn’t enough evidence to prove their guilt. “My innocence” doesn’t rely on evidence, it’s a purer concept.
He does use the word “never”. Typically this word is used as it sounds solid, but in practise it isn’t. For example, if he had only said “never would” that doesn’t mean he never has. Furthermore, how many times have we said we’d NEVER do something, only to end up doing it. However, Benn uses never twice to cover this off “I never have done, never would”.
It’s not all good news. There is a bit of distance created when he says, “I’ve not taken anything”, I’d have been more reassured if this had been more specific rather than the generic “anything”.
I also don’t like the fact so much of what he says is stated in the negative. I’d have preferred to hear “I stand for clean sport” rather than “it’s not what I stand for”.
Next Benn says…
Why would I take the biggest fight of my life and then use this substance? If you Google this substance it stays in your system for months. And yet I’m going to take it knowing I’m going to be tested in the build up to this fight? Do I look like an idiot? It doesn’t make any sense. Why would I take something then? Do I look like a guy who would do that?
This quickly falls down as an argument. Just because it’s a stupid thing to do doesn’t prove it didn’t happen.
I do like the mention of Google though. At the very least, it suggests Benn isn’t an expert on all aspects of the drug. If he’d said, “this substance stays in your system for months, why would I take it?” I would have found that more concerning.
You’ve just got to look at who I am as an athlete, my dad, my family — the whole life I live is completely against that. It’s a risky sport. Steroid cheats should be banned for life.
Again we’ve got a bad argument here. The family you have and the life you live isn’t proof you didn’t take a banned substance.
What I do find interesting is the like about “steroid cheats should be banned for life”. That is strong and direct. As someone who may be deemed a steroid cheat by an investigation, it is reassuring to see he doesn’t downplay his preferred punishment or attempt to get into softer bans in case it’s an accidentally ingested substance.
Often, when you ask guilty people who are claiming innocence what should be the punishment for the crime, they start to minimise the punishment or qualify it. For example, ask a thief what punishment a thief should get and they’ll say “it depends on the circumstances or how much they stole”. Benn doesn’t go for that tactic at all.
Contamination
Next, Benn puts forward what he thinks happened
The only thing I can think is contamination. The science will prove that. I’ve got the best scientists on this. I am spending a lot of money trying to prove my innocence here. A lot of money. You are talking about me really trying to prove my innocence and get to the bottom of what has happened here.
There’s the reassuring “my innocence” once more.
What I like here is that he isn’t stopping with saying he wants to prove his innocence, but also what has happened. He’s also not laying out all his defence here, he says he has theories right now, not definitive proof.
Many guilty sports dopers will offer a definitive story of what must have happened, or claim they have “no idea” how they failed a test. They try too hard to persuade us of their innocence. Benn is much less solid.
Other fighters test positive for steroids and get cleared to fight — it feels like they’ve got it in for me.
Once again, Benn doesn’t try to minimise what he is accused of. He’s talking about it head on, rather than trying to create distance from it.
Phone call
Benn tells about speaking to the boxer he was supposed to fight and informing him of the failed tests.
I told him I’m a clean athlete and I’m tested all the time. I told him it was hard, hearing it. The only thing he was really concerned about was if I thought the fight was still going to go ahead.
Finally, he states in the positive that he’s a clean athlete. This is a much stronger statement than “I’m not a doper”.
What’s missing?
Conor Benn is very direct with his words. He doesn’t use unneeded words to turn up the volume on what he is saying, suggesting he is confident that what he is saying is true.
Elsewhere in the interview, Benn does seem more deceptive. It’s not when he is discussing the failed test, but when he’s talking about other’s reaction to it. For me, this is a signal that he can use deceptive language when he wants to. That he doesn’t when he’s talking about whether he doped or not is a big marker.
Conclusion
I do seem some warning signs in Benn’s words. He creates distance at times from the accusation he faces and some of his arguments as to why he can’t be a cheat fall flat.
However, I see many more markers of truth than deception in Benn’s words. He’s straightforward with his statements and he doesn’t shy away from what he’s accused of.
From this, I don’t believe he did deliberately take this substance to enhance his performance.