When someone says "I'll be honest with you", what do you think?

Personally I find myself wondering "If you're being 'honest' now, what does that indicate about everything else you have told me?"

Call me cynical. Call me suspicious. I'll be honest with you - I don't care.

The question of honesty has arisen this week in connection with the plaintive cry of The Netherlands footballer Arjen Robben.

Following the Dutch team's 2-1 win over Mexico in their round of 16 match at the World Cup finals in Brazil - a win decided by a penalty earned in what many felt was a questionably dramatic fashion by the winger - there has been an outcry. And indeed a Twitter storm.

Reason being that Robben, who was accused by Mexico's coach Miguel Herrera of diving on three different occasions, admitted that on one of those occasions, he had been bang to rights.

Although he insisted that the showy fall which led to the decisive goal had resulted from a genuine foul, Robben admitted: "I took a dive in the first half."

Arjen Robben goes to ground to win the crucial penalty for The Netherlands in their World Cup match against Mexico ©Getty Images

The problem, as he described it, was that he was expecting a foul that never actually arrived. "I went to ground because I thought he would tackle me, but he took his leg away," the former Chelsea forward explained.

Oddly, the Mexican nation failed to find comfort in these words and there was an outburst of anger which appeared to be directed equally towards the Dutchman's actions and explanations. For Robben, read Robber.

The Dutchman's subsequent response - "I think it's a shame because I was very honest" - was, frankly, a bit of a conundrum. If you're honest about being dishonest, does that then make you honest? But then if you're dishonest about being dishonest - "Not me, guv", "I never said them things", "I don't recall" - does that then make you honest? I mean, two negatives make a positive, don't they? Anyone? Bertrand Russell? What do you mean he's been dead since 1970? That's not helpful.

The philosopher Bertand Russell might have had an opinion on the conundrum of 'honest' cheats such as Arjen Robben - but sadly we will never know ©Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Anyway, the conundrum has excited numerous members of the Twitterati all over the world. The subject has been top of the trending lists, with numerous doctored photos being posted of our Arjen poised on top of a 10 metre diving board, or throwing himself around dramatically in the manner of a ballerina.

And yes, of course, there have those who have demanded that he be punished for his admission, or rather for the action he has admitted to. England's former World Cup referee Graham Poll opined that, while there was a case for Robben winning his last minute penalty under a challenge from the Mexican captain Rafael Marquez, "the way that the Dutchman dives with his legs flying out behind him would stop me giving that penalty."

Poll also suggested that such perceived offences could in future be liable to retrospective punishment following analysis of the recorded action. Even the FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, has spoken encouragingly of such a system.

Former World Cup referee Graham Poll believes Robben had a case for the penalty he won -but adds that the threatricality of his subsequent fall would have convinced him not to give it ©Getty Images

But as a FIFA spokesperson made clear soon after the match, Robben will not have to fear any retrospective judgement for what is a yellow rather than a red card offence.

You can see it from Robben's point of view. He probably does feel the penalty given was legitimate. But he also seems to think that diving in pursuit of an earlier penalty was legitimate - at least within his terms of reference.

Here we recall Lance Armstrong's "honest" admission last year on the Oprah Winfrey Show to the charge of taking performance enhancing drugs during his Tour de France victories.

But please don't run away with the idea that Armstrong considered himself a cheat. He told the talk show host that he had looked up the definition of the word cheat, which entailed gaining an advantage over others, and concluded that he was merely ensuring "a level playing field." Ipso facto, he was not a cheat.

When is cheating not really cheating? Answer, when you gain no advantage because - you believe - everyone else is at it too. So Lance Armstrong, stripped of seven consecutive Tour de France victories for doping, told TV host Oprah Winfrey ©AFP/Getty Images

Following the revelations about his systematic doping, Armstrong has been vilified as no other athlete other than Ben Johnson, whose 100m gold at the 1988 Seoul Olympics was swiftly taken off him following a positive drug test.

"It's only cheating if you're the only one doing it," was Johnson's mantra. By this yardstick, Robben is not a cheat. Clearly there are many others trying to bend or push the rules over going to ground.

Armstrong's and Johnson's basic position on the relative virtue of doping was mirrored, albeit in far less of a high profile way, by the case of British shot putter Neal Brunning, who tested positive for steroids in 1992, admitting his guilt before the second of the two samples was analysed. "I did it because I felt others were doing it," he told me. "If they can do it and get away with it, then let's have a go."

Robben's claim to being honest recalls a similar statement made four years ago by the French forward Thierry Henry after he had effectively performed a baskeball dribble to control the ball near the byline before setting up the goal which effectively ended Ireland's hopes of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup finals.

"I will be honest," said Henry. "It was a handball." He even went so far as to agree with vainglorious Irish opinion that there should, by rights, be a replay.

Again, the question is raised: what is the point of being honest about being dishonest? Particularly after the event.

Bobby Jones, who won golf's grand slam as an amateur in 1930, offered examples of sportsmanship which remain as a yardstick during our current moral turbulence ©Hulton Archive/Getty Images

At the 1925 US Open, amateur golfer Bobby Jones brushed the grass with his club as he addressed a shot in the rough close to the 11th green. This apparently caused a slight movement of the ball, unseen by anyone other than Jones. He took the shot, but then informed his playing partner, Walter Hagen, and an official that he was calling a penalty on himself, resisting several attempts to reconsider and sticking to the fact that he felt he had infringed Rule 18, concerning moving a ball at rest after address.

The docked shot meant he was involved in a play-off, which he subsequently lost. After earning widespread praise for his sportsmanship, Jones responded dismissively: You might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank as to praise him for playing by the rules.