Sport doping denial: Is Toon Aerts convincing or deceptive?
Sport doping denial: Is Toon Aerts convincing or deceptive?
What do his words say?
Doping in sports has been in the news this week, with a story from the Olympics taking centre stage.
In the cycling world, a Belgian rider called Toon Aerts has also failed a test and issued a statement. Usually, I’m wary of looking at words from a non-native English speaker, but the concepts in Aerts’ statement are too interesting to ignore.
Here’s what he said
Yesterday my world was turned upside down..I received a letter from the UCI that no athlete wants to receive in his career. I was informed that an abnormal result was found in my urine sample, which was taken during an out-of-competition check at my home on January 19th.
The first thing I see here is Aerts creating distance between himself and what has happened. He doesn’t say he got a letter he never wanted to receive. Toon says he received a letter “no athlete wants to receive in his career”. Not only does this remove him personally from this action, he is also trying to show that this could happen to anyone.
There is more distance created by saying the substance was found “in my urine sample” rather than the more direct “in my urine”. Often in doping defences, the possibility of a contaminated sample will be raised and it’s possible this is the start of such a defence.
In the dark
I am currently in the dark as to how this could have come about. The product 'Letrozole Metabolite' was found in my urine sample. A product that I had never heard of until yesterday and do not know how it got into my body.
This is supposed to read as a firm denial of having knowingly taken the substance, but it is far from firm. A line like “I have not taken Letrozole Metabolite, so I do not know why it is present in my sample” would be straightforward.
Instead, there is a logical fallacy. Just because you’ve never heard of a product doesn’t mean it must have mysteriously appeared in the sample.
Aerts says he is “in the dark” and does “not know” how this happened. There are two possibilities, either he did take a banned substance or it has accidentally entered his body or the sample. So, he does know how it is possible, although in the second case he may not know the specifics.
Again, this is distancing language creating space between his actions and the result of the test.
Where he doesn’t create distance this time is saying the substance “got into my body” rather than it merely being in his sample.
Ask anyone who knows me
Anyone who knows me a little knows that I have been against any form of doping all my career and have always done everything I can to set an example as an athlete.
There’s yet more distancing here. Why not just say, “I have been against doping all my career”? Although he tries to make it look as if he is saying he’s been against doping, he doesn’t say that. He merely says that people who “know” him would know that. It’s another chance to say something emphatically that he doesn’t take.
He is also trying to “prove” that numerous people know he is against doping, even people who only know him “a little” will tell you that. He’s going for social proof here, asking, “how can everyone who knows me be wrong?”
He says he has “always done everything I can to set an example as an athlete”. This is another weak assertion. He doesn’t say what kind of example he’s tried to set, and only that he’s “done everything I can” which sounds a lot, but could truthfully amount to very little.
Innocence
I will therefore do everything I can to prove my innocence and clear my name. Pending the analysis of the B sample and further investigations, I will not comment. I would urge everyone to respect this and to give me and my family the time and opportunity to get more clarity first.
In criminal cases, we often see people try to confuse guilt/innocence in court with did it/didn’t do it. Many people who didn’t do a crime have been found guilty and many people who did do a crime have been found innocent.
It’s an important distinction to know that being found “innocent” is not the same thing as not factually doing the crime.
That feels like what is going on here. Aerts says “I will.. do everything I can to prove my innocence and clear my name”. Note, he doesn’t say, “I will do everything I can to prove I did not take performance enhancing substances”.
Conclusion
There are many indicators of deception here. Distancing language, story telling, lack of a strong denial and use of caveats all make this a weak statement.
It could be that Toon Aerts is copying one of the hundreds of previous statements from athletes who have failed tests. If so, it’s a bad idea, as very few have gone on to be cleared.
It could be that Toon Aerts’ words have been shaped by lawyers and PR people. If so, Aerts has final responsibility for words issued in his name.
It is possible to write a convincing denial. It would be straightforward and unequivocal.
“I was informed yesterday I have failed a test. I am a clean athlete, so this must be a mistake. I do not and have not ever taken banned substances to enhance my performance. I will now be working to prove this is an error.”
The trouble is, such a statement is hard to release if it is not true.
Pending the analysis of the B sample and further investigations, I will not comment. I would urge everyone to respect this and to give me and my family the time and opportunity to get more clarity first.
The last part is something that we hear from people wanting to mourn in private, for example. A truly innocent person would be outraged at the injustice, racking their brains what could have happened - did a competitor trick him? Is the doctor an agent of his competition? Anything that would explain to him what really happened. He would be offering alternative scenarios - the samples must have been mixed up, the readings are wrong, the tech person is incompetent - anything to clear his name.
All of that is missing. He is using moral high ground - the good guy principle - and does not accuse the "real" perpetrator.