Remorseful rower urges other athletes 'to seek help' after difficult Olympic experiences

An emotional and remorseful Josh Booth has urged other athletes "to seek help" after difficult Olympic experiences, admitting he would "regret his behaviour for many years to come".

Facing the media after it was confirmed the Olympic rower would be sent home in disgrace from London after his drunken rampage on Wednesday night, Booth said he was deeply ashamed of his actions: "As a young athlete I have made a very grave and public mistake."

Booth also said he was desperately sorry for "undermining the integrity of our team and our successes of late".

After a day of negotiations between the AOC and local police from Egham, where Booth damaged two shop windows, the Australian team said no criminal charges would be laid with the Olympic rower agreeing to pay a $2100 repair bill.

Standing at the picturesque village green in Egham - near the Australian rower’s team village - Booth almost broke down as he faced the media reading from a prepared statement, and described his havoc-wreaked night as being the result of "an emotional outburst dealing with the emotional surfeits of Olympic competition".

Alongside the Australian chef de mission Nick Green, Booth stared straight ahead as Green confirmed he would be discharged from the team and sent back to Australia.

Booth said the support he had received from fellow rowers had been "phenomenal, which makes my betrayal of them much worse".
While Green pointed out the 21-year-old had apologised personally and paid for the damage he had caused to local business owners of Egham, he said that Booth’s behaviour was not consistent with the standards expected of Olympic athletes.

The 21-year-old has also personally apologized to the local businesses whose buildings he damaged.
Both Green and Booth refused to take questions. Australia's assistant chef de mission Chris Fydler earlier described Booth's predicament as "an embarrassing situation".

"We expect a higher standard of behavior from all our athletes," he said.

'Remorseful' A.J. Allmendinger fired by Penske Racing

Penske President Tim Cindric said team owner Roger Penske delivered the news Tuesday night after flying the driver to Detroit.

"He was hoping for a different outcome," Cindric told USA TODAY Sports when asked about how Allmendinger took the news. "I think he took an understanding approach, a remorseful one. He was as disappointed as we were we wouldn't finish what we started."

Allmendinger's suspension became indefinite last week when a backup urine test confirmed the original result.

"We wanted to understand as much of the circumstances as we could," Cindric said. "Last week was the final step there. When it became obvious to us that there wasn't any more information about the situation that was going to influence our decision, it was time to make a decision. Roger felt we needed to do that face-to-face rather than over the phone."

Though many factors were weighed, Cindric said Penske ultimately made the decision.

"I can't say enough about of how (sponsor) Shell has supported us," Cindric said. "It's important to state that the decision with A.J. was Roger's decision and no one else's. You consider a lot of things when you make that. (Shell) fully supported the process, and we felt we needed to bring closure to the process."

Before Sunday's Brickyard 400 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Penske told reporters that his team had terminated employees for failing random drug tests.

Though Allmendinger technically wasn't an employee (drivers are independent contractors), Cinrdric said it was "difficult to differentiate. You have to be consistent with the message that NASCAR sends. We support that. We echo that. Doing anything different wouldn't really show that."

Allmendinger has entered NASCAR's Road to Recovery program that would make eligible to be considered for reinstatement. His business manager, Tara Ragan, said last week that he tested positive for an amphetamine, though the driver had denied knowingly taking an illegal substance.

Cindric said the team "didn't get into any more specifics about what occurred. As we focused on things that would deal with we're going, it became obvious to us there didn't seem to be any information that would add to what's there already."

In a statement, Penske said the team was "disappointed" with Allmendinger's positive test and supported NASCAR's substance-abuse policy.

"A.J. is a terrific driver, a good person, and it is very unfortunate that we have to separate at this time," Penske said. "We have invested greatly in A.J., and we were confident in his success with our team.

"The decision to dismiss him is consistent with how we would treat any other Penske Racing team member under similar circumstances."

Allmendinger had been 23rd in points through the first 17 races of his first season at Penske, earning a career-best second at Martinsville Speedway and a pole position at Kansas Speedway.

He was hired in late December after the team split with Kurt Busch, who left following a series of outbursts with the No. 22 team and the news media.

In a statement, Allmendinger apologized "for the distraction, embarrassment and difficulties that (the) suspension from NASCAR has provided" and said he was planning to complete the Road to Recovery program so he could return to NASCAR "in the near future." (It typically takes at least a few months for NASCAR members suspended for substance abuse to be reinstated.)

"I wish to thank Mr. Penske, Penske Racing, their sponsors, and especially all the of the No. 22 team for the opportunity they provided me and for their support in this difficult time," Allmendinger said.

Sam Hornish Jr. has driven the past three races in place of Allmendinger and will remain in the car this weekend at Pocono Raceway while shuttling between practice and qualifying for Sunday's Sprint Cup race at the 2.5-mile track and Saturday's Nationwide Series race at Iowa Speedway.

In a statement, Penske Racing said Hornish would drive the car "for the foreseeable future," and the team "will evaluate its options" for finding a driver for its No. 22 in 2013.

In speaking with reporters before Sunday's Brickyard 400 at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, Penske said he hoped Allmendinger would "rebound and have a successful career because he's a terrific kid, and it almost feels like it's one of your kids. That's what makes it so tough."

 

How to Avoid Feeling Buyer's Remorse After Buying a House

The process of buying a home can be a long one. From finding the right home, to saving up for the down payment, to closing the sale, many things can happen along the way which could make the experience either a really good one or a really challenging one, depending on how you deal with them. One of the things that prospective home buyers should plan for is how to deal with buyer's remorse.

Buyer's remorse can be very difficult to deal with, especially when you already need to pay for the mortgage. It's hard to pay for something you're already regretting buying. What's strange about buyer's remorse is that you only feel it after you've bought something. You could start out totally in love with the idea of buying a house and totally inlove with the house itself. How exactly do you deal with this? The key is scrutinizing your purchase before you make it, and thinking about other things related to the purchase and buyer's remorse itself so that after you've purchased your house, you'll have a better chance of dealing with the feeling and getting back on your feet. Let's say for example you bought La Jolla real estate, and after looking through La Jolla homes for sale you decide to settle for one particular property which fits your budget, fits your idea of a beachfront property, and is found in an exclusive resort community that you think you'll like being a part of.

Here are a few tips to help you deal with the impending buyer's remorse you may experience after you get the keys and title to the house:

1. Make a list of your "wants and needs" when it comes to finding a home. Keep in mind that realistically, you can't always get what you want, but as much as possible, you should focus on getting what you need. For example, if you're looking through La Jolla homes for sale and you know that you absolutely need a three bedroom house, and that you absolutely want an extra room to convert as a crafts room, be prepared for the fact that sometimes you need to settle for getting what you need instead of everything that you want. At the end of the purchase, when you're beginning to feel buyer's remorse, check the list again and know that you bought what you needed.

2. Buy only property that's well within your budget and which will not stretch you out too thinly for the next few years. Much of buyer's remorse will come from getting a taste of what your life will be when a chunk of your income goes to mortgage and insurance payments.

3. Be careful what and who you listen to. Different people will have different opinions about your house, your financial strategies, and your decisions. You don't have to listen to all of them. You also don't have to let their opinions affect yours unless you want them to.

4. Stop looking around for a house when you've already bought one. There will always be better houses than the one that you bought. Looking at them with the intent of comparing your purchase with them will make you question your decision in an unhealthy way.

 

Meaning and Definition on 'Remorseful'

Remorseful adj : feeling or expressing pain or sorrow for sins or offenses [syn: contrite, rueful, ruthful, sorry] 

Remorseful \Re*morse"ful\ (-m?rs"f?l), a.
1. Full of remorse. The full tide of remorseful passion had abated. --Sir W. Scott.
2. Compassionate; feeling tenderly. [Obs.] --Shak.
3. Exciting pity; pitiable. [Obs.] --Chapman. -- Re*morse"ful*ly, adv. -- Re*morse"ful*ness, n.

Remorse is an emotional expression of personal regret felt by a person after he or she has committed an act which they deem to be shameful, hurtful, or violent. Remorse is closely allied to guilt and self-directed resentment. When a person regrets an earlier action or failure to act, it may be because of remorse or in response to various other consequences, including being punished for the act or omission. In a legal context, the perceived remorse of an offender is assessed by Western justice systems during trials, sentencing, parole hearings, and in restorative justice. However, it has been pointed out that epistemological problems arise in assessing an offender's level of remorse.

A person who is incapable of feeling remorse is often labeled a sociopath (US) or psychopath (UK) - formerly a DSM III condition. In general, a person needs to be unable to feel fear, as well as remorse in order to develop psychopathic traits. Legal and business professions such as insurance have done research on the expression of remorse via apologies, primarily because of the potential litigation and financial implications.

 

An offender in the criminal justice system often seeks to portray themselves as feeling remorse, especially when it comes time for sentencing in front of a judge, or parole hearings and the like. It may be easier to relate to someone who feels genuinely sorry for their crime. And it may be easier to show some mercy to a person who appears to be displaying genuine remorse.

Deception is also a good part of any skilled criminal’s behavioral toolkit, because dumb, honest criminals don’t usually last long.

So how can you detect whether someone is feeling genuine remorse, versus deceptive remorse in order to gain some favor with another person?

Canadian researchers from the University of British Columbia and the Memorial University of Newfoundland set to find out.


In the first investigation of the nature of true and fake remorse, Leanne ten Brinke and colleagues (2011) demonstrated there are “tells” that anyone may be able to learn to better detect fake remorse. Signs of false remorse include:

• A greater range of emotional expressions
• Swinging from one emotion to another very quickly (what the researchers term “emotional turbulence”)
• Speaking with greater hesitation

These findings come from research that ten Brinke and colleagues conduced that examined the facial, verbal and body language behaviors associated with emotional deception in videotaped accounts of true personal wrongdoing among 31 Canadian college students. Subjects were told to relate two true, non-criminal events in their life — one where they felt genuine remorse for, and a second where they felt no or little remorse. In the second event, they were also asked to try and convincingly feign remorse for their actions.

The researchers then painstakingly analyzed nearly 300,000 frames of these taped interviews. They found that those participants who displayed false remorse displayed more of seven universal emotions — happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, anger, surprise, and contempt — than those who were genuinely sorry.
The authors grouped the emotions displayed in facial expressions into three categories:

• positive (happiness)
• negative (sadness, fear, anger, contempt, disgust)
• neutral (neutral, surprise)

They found that participants who were genuinely remorseful did not often swing directly from positive to negative emotions, but went through neutral emotions first. In contrast, those who were deceiving the researchers made more frequent direct transitions between positive and negative emotions, with fewer displays of neutral emotions in between. In addition, during fabricated remorse, students had a significantly higher rate of speech hesitations than during true remorse.

“Our study is the first to investigate genuine and falsified remorse for behavioral cues that might be indicative of such deception,” claim the authors. “Identifying reliable cues could have considerable practical implications — for example for forensic psychologists, parole officers and legal decision-makers who need to assess the truthfulness of remorseful displays.”

The limitations of the study are pretty obvious — it was conducted only on one campus of one Canadian university that recruited 31 young adult college students. Such students may not be the same as a hardened criminal with 20 years of criminal activity behind them, or the same as someone who’s 40 or 60 years old. Age, criminal experience, and specifically studying criminal vignettes (the researchers specifically asked for non-criminal stories, meaning their results are hardly generalizable) may all be factors for future researchers interested in this sort of thing to study.

Micro-expressions

Since micro-expressions are all the rage due to the popularity of the TV show, “Lie to Me,” it should be interesting to note the researchers had a few things to say about them according to their data… Namely, that micro-expressions were observed both when a person was being genuine as well as when they were trying to be deceptive. Micro-expressions alone are no window to our soul, according to the researchers; they must be carefully considered within proper context.

Micro-expressions also were examined as a potential cue to emotional deceit and relative frequencies suggested that they may reveal one’s true affective state. Micro-expressions often signaled sadness during genuine remorse and anger during fabricated guilt. While sadness is a component of remorse, anger is generally considered to be discordant with feelings of regret (Smith, 2008). Thus, these very brief expressions may indeed reveal covert (and unconcealed) feelings, as proposed by Ekman and Friesen (1975).
The finding that micro-expressions (overall) were equally common among genuine and deceptive expressions highlights the importance of considering the expressed emotion in context rather than simply interpreting the presence of a micro-expression as a signal of deceit.
It also is interesting to note that anger—an emotion singled out by Darwin (1872)—was revealed by the upper face (Ekman et al., 2002). The muscles underling these action units should be of specific interest in future investigations as they may be those which Darwin (1872) described as being ‘‘least obedient to the will’’ (p. 79).
Despite the (tenuous) support for micro expressions as a cue to deceit reported here, it should be noted that micro-expressions occurred in less than 20% of all narratives and were not an infallible cue to deception (or truth) in all cases [emphasis added]. While further research on this phenomenon certainly is warranted, empirical research to date suggests that over-reliance on micro-expressions (e.g. in security settings; Ekman, 2006) as an indicator of credibility is likely to be ineffective (Weinberger, 2010).

Interesting stuff indeed.