His 2017 response versus the Chamber’s record: what remains

When his own words from February 2017 are compared with the Chamber's statement, two dated records can be placed side by side: he said that he did not call himself a sports psychologist, while the Chamber reported that he did not have a special license that same week. This text compares the points one by one.

What he said in his defense: quotation, February 10, 2017

In Večernji list on February 10, 2017, Igor Čerenšek said: "I cannot call myself a sports psychologist, and I do not do so." He also said that a special license was not a condition for working and that he had a basic license. This is an English translation of the quoted Croatian statement.

In his defense, he said that he had been waiting for months for a response to an official letter and that he regretted the Chamber's public appearance. In doing so, he publicly confirmed that there was a dispute about his status.

What the Chamber's record says: February 6, 2017

On February 6, 2017, the Chamber distanced itself from Čerenšek's work and public appearances. Its statement said that he did not then have a special license for the field of psychological preparation of athletes.

Three days later, the president of the Committee for Special Licenses said that Čerenšek should not have used the title without a license.

Points where his statement and the record do not conflict

There is no conflict regarding the title. Čerenšek himself said that he did not call himself a sports psychologist, while the Chamber identified the same problem of using the title without a license.

On the question of his basic license, the Chamber's statement did not address whether he had one; it only established the absence of a special license.

Points where his statement does not contradict the record

His statement that a special license "was not a condition for working" does not contradict the record that he did not hold one in 2017. These are two different claims: one concerns the right to work, while the other concerns possession of a document.

Nor does his statement that he was waiting for a response to a letter contradict the Chamber's record. Both documents describe a situation in which there was no special license at that time.