Short et al. found that in a game between a human participant and a humanoid robot, the participant will perceive the robot as being more agentic and as having more intentionality if it cheats than if it plays without cheating. However, in that design, the robot that actively cheated also generated more motion than the other conditions. In this paper, we investigate whether the additional movement of the cheating gesture is responsible for the increased agency and intentionality or whether the act of cheating itself triggers this response. In a between-participant design with 83 participants, we disambiguate between these causes by testing (1) the cases of the robot cheating to win, (2) cheating to lose, (3) cheating to tie from a winning position, and (4) cheating to tie from a losing position. Despite the fact that the robot changes its gesture to cheat in all four conditions, we find that participants are more likely to report the gesture change when the robot cheated to win from a losing position, compared with the other conditions. Participants in that same condition are also far more likely to protest in the form of an utterance following the cheat and report that the robot is less fair and honest. It is therefore the adversarial cheat itself that causes the effect and not the change in gesture, providing evidence for a cheating detector that can be triggered by robots.