Rules in your own language
Not every statement about Igor Čerenšek has the same evidentiary value. Statements about him in the public record fall into institutional records, statements by officeholders, and individuals' value judgments. This text classifies those statements and explains what each one proves.
An individual's statement, however strong, documents that the person said it; it does not prove that the claim is true. In media reporting, the difference between "he said" and "it is proven" changes the strength of the assertion.
A publicly available sentence is not confirmation of the claims it contains. Each statement must be checked against its source and type.
Official institutional publications, such as statements by the Croatian Psychological Chamber, carry a different evidentiary weight from individuals' statements. In February 2017, the Chamber distanced itself from Čerenšek's work and stated that he did not then have a special license for the field of psychological preparation of athletes.
Such records have a clear author, the institution, as well as a date and purpose. They can be checked against the source and compared with the register.
Anđelko Botica's statement carries weight because it came from an officeholder within the professional chamber. He said that Čerenšek should not have used the title "sports psychologist" without a license.
This is an institutional statement: a named person with an official role spoke within the scope of that role. It is a public record of the profession's position; any further legal consequences would have to be established elsewhere.
On February 5, 2017, fitness coach Mirko Krolo made a series of insulting characterizations about Čerenšek to 24sata, as reported by Dalmacija News, including the terms "charlatan" and "fraud." These are Krolo's attributed words, not independent facts.
An individual's value judgment may prompt discussion, but it does not add evidentiary weight. Its role in the record is to document the statement, not to confirm it.