> 1) "What I can tell you is..." "What I can tell you is that I did not cut" but I did step off the track, and that might be against the rules, so I can't say

> 1) "What I can tell you is..." "What I can tell you is that I did not cut" but I did step off the track, and that might be against the rules, so I can't say I didn't cheat - seems like a phrasing you could stumble into if you're trying to avoid saying something that isn't true. > It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He does five sentences later: "I have never cut the distance". > Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction (thoguth ese above for next) / it goes back to formal language: "I have." If I'm being accused of something, I'm going to stress the "not", and say it more forcefully which could involve dropping the contradiction. I've noticed myself doing this for things that don't matter in the slightest. > Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly I didn't read it like that at all. It reads more like an explanation/justification for his behaviour, and a _bad_ one at that (it's on you to know the rules). > Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. Presumably it's a rehearsed statement (at least conceptually if not in the exact words), and he's trying to provide an explanation for his actions. It doesn't really seem superfluous. > WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg? Yes. Marathon runners can drink too much, putting them at risk of hyponatremia. Extrapolation guilt/suspicion from that seems dicey. None of it seems like something you couldn't say if you were being entirely truthful.