Chella Choi Cheating. What is the LPGA doing about it?

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

What surprises me just as much is her thinking that no one would notice.  There are cameras everywhere, fans and other competitors watching.  It is like a guy who robs a bank without a mask.

Well, it's the LPGA, so maybe she didn't consider that one of their four cameras would be on her…

.  She has eyes doesn't she!  That guy over there, with the giant camera on his shoulders, is a "camera man"!

[Jeremie Boop]

.  She has eyes doesn't she!  That guy over there, with the giant camera on his shoulders, is a "camera man"!

There has been some discussion abut her eyesight, so you know, maybe she couldn't see him if she couldn't see where she picked her ball up from.

[Shorty]

Grumpy is not even close to describing your piss poor attitude. I am not condoning what she did but clearly condemning someone as a scumbag is beyond the pale. I hope you live your life to flawless standards less someone think of you as a piece of garbage. Sometimes the internet is the way people throw out their trash without thinking of how it makes them look.

How do you describe someone trying to gain an unfair advantage over her peers in a sport where honesty and self-assessment of penalties is supposedly the norm and what sets the game apart?

Are you going to say she's "just a kid", or that "we all make mistakes" or that "she may not have known the rule"?

This player knowingly and wilfully cheated. There is no debate and no grey area.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence and what would initially be considered a mild penalty, she refused to accept it.

I'm perfectly happy to be seen as someone who despises dishonesty and cheating.

If you think that calling people out and attempting to embarrass them for outrageously dishonest and unsportsmanlike behaviour is poor form, that's up to you, but I'm betting that you're in the minority.

As I said before, it's the reaction that proved beyond any doubt the character of this woman. And, I'd back my own reputation against hers any day of the week.

I WANT people like her to read that people she's never met think she's a scumbag, a liar and a cheat.

Shaming is a very effective way of modifying behaviour and others may think twice lest (not less, as in your post) they be subject to the same treatment.

I would have her banned for at least six months.

Other players should make their feelings known and Judy Rankin should hang her head in shame.

She had the opportunity to make a strong statement, but her initial reaction was to defend the player and downplay the significance of the act.

[zipazoid]

To me, the guilt is based on the utter simplicity of what she was to do - marking and placing a ball back down in the same spot.

To contrast, we've seen penalties where a player moved the coin a putterhead's length then forget to move it back...or a questionable drop (like Tiger in the 2013 Masters)...or whatever. With those, there's a modicum of reasonable doubt/brain fart/whatever.

This was a rudimentary move that a 36-handicapper can do without incident...and a pro can't?

Add this in - look at the video again - she places the coin not directly behind the ball but to the left side of it, picks the ball up, then places it it to the left of the mark. She didn't even mark it correctly to begin with, which would be directly behind the ball.

Cheater.

[Shorty]

There has been some discussion abut her eyesight, so you know, maybe she couldn't see him if she couldn't see where she picked her ball up from.

If that's true, I place it in the same basket as Tim Clarke's need for a long putter because he has an arm/elbow issue.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop

There has been some discussion abut her eyesight, so you know, maybe she couldn't see him if she couldn't see where she picked her ball up from.

If that's true, I place it in the same basket as Tim Clarke's need for a long putter because he has an arm/elbow issue.

I believe @Jeremie Boop was being facetious @Shorty .

[Shorty]

I believe @Jeremie Boop was being facetious @Shorty .

Phew. That's a relief.

But, in court you  can bet that it would be tabled as a defence.

[Jeremie Boop]

If that's true, I place it in the same basket as Tim Clarke's need for a long putter because he has an arm/elbow issue.

Someone jokingly said maybe she was blind, so that post was in jest only.

Only thing I've disagreed with was the derogatory names thrown around, but that's because I'm not the type of person to call names. She cheated, therefore I agree that she's a cheater but not with any other name that she's been called. However that's not really here nor there, the OP was simply what is the LPGA going to do about what she did and others have take the opportunity to call her names instead of discuss proper penalties and repercussions.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

I believe @Jeremie Boop was being facetious @Shorty .

Phew. That's a relief.

But, in court you  can bet that it would be tabled as a defence.

As would the Coriolis Effect that caused her to rotate around the marker when she replaced the ball.

[Shorty]

This is what Judy Rankin should have said:

You know, this great game of ours is based on honesty and integrity.

This young lady, in my opinion, has just made a major error of judgment that may affect how she is remembered and how she is regarded by her peers, as well as the millions of golf fans out there.

She needs to do something about it very quickly. Not only will she damage her own reputation, but what she appears to have done also makes a mockery of the ideals that we like to say sets our game apart from all others.  I just hope she reconsiders her actions and does the right thing.

Now....how many of Choi's peers in the professional game would think that that was cruel and unfair?

If I was a public figure, I'd say the same, moderate  thing, but on the internet I'm a a bit harsher. (Just in case some people hadn't noticed.)

[MSchott]

How do you describe someone trying to gain an unfair advantage over her peers in a sport where honesty and self-assessment of penalties is supposedly the norm and what sets the game apart?

Are you going to say she's "just a kid", or that "we all make mistakes" or that "she may not have known the rule"?

This player knowingly and wilfully cheated. There is no debate and no grey area.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence and what would initially be considered a mild penalty, she refused to accept it.

I'm perfectly happy to be seen as someone who despises dishonesty and cheating.

If you think that calling people out and attempting to embarrass them for outrageously dishonest and unsportsmanlike behaviour is poor form, that's up to you, but I'm betting that you're in the minority.

As I said before, it's the reaction that proved beyond any doubt the character of this woman. And, I'd back my own reputation against hers any day of the week.

I WANT people like her to read that people she's never met think she's a scumbag, a liar and a cheat.

Shaming is a very effective way of modifying behaviour and others may think twice lest (not less, as in your post) they be subject to the same treatment.

I would have her banned for at least six months.

Other players should make their feelings known and Judy Rankin should hang her head in shame.

She had the opportunity to make a strong statement, but her initial reaction was to defend the player and downplay the significance of the act.

I'm not disputing the fact that she cheated. She clearly did then she compounded it by not taking responsibility. As far as this reflecting on her overall personality, who the hell are you or I to make this sort of snap judgement? It's phenomenally arrogant and judgmental to do so. I rebel against people who make such accusations thinking that one action defines another person. The internet allows for such a thing but my take is that being prudent and open minded is a better tact.

[Shorty]

I'm not disputing the fact that she cheated. She clearly did then she compounded it by not taking responsibility. As far as this reflecting on her overall personality, who the hell are you or I to make this sort of snap judgement? It's phenomenally arrogant and judgmental to do so.

I disagree totally. It is things like this that define a person's real character.

If you had an employee who you thought was a good worker and you discovered that last weekend he did something utterly shameful and refused to accept responsibility for it - even mocked authority over it, would you give him a pass?

I will say that a person who throws rubbish out of a car window is a scumbag. If I saw you do it,as an adult,  it would forever change my perception of you.

I will say that a person who is cruel to animals is a scumbag.

It doesn't matter what else they do - it is the little things that truly define character.

This woman gave us an opportunity to see who she really is.

I'm not talking about a momentary lapse in judgement or a dumb mistake which is atoned for.

I'm talking about actions which can not possibly defended.

It's not the 98% of good that matters, it's the 2% of (very) bad that affects perception and that you can't hide from.

The people of Steubenville didn't get this simple equation.

That's left field, but I'm talking about principles.

[Ernest Jones]

I disagree totally. It is things like this that define a person's real character.

If you had an employee who you thought was a good worker and you discovered that last weekend he did something utterly shameful and refused to accept responsibility for it - even mocked authority over it, would you give him a pass?

I will say that a person who throws rubbish out of a car window is a scumbag.

I will say that a person who is cruel to animals is a scumbag.

It doesn't matter what else they do - it is the little things that truly define character.

This woman gave us an opportunity to see who she really is.

I'm not talking about a momentary lapse in judgement or a dumb mistake which is atoned for.

I'm talking about actions which can not possibly defended.

It's not the 98% of good that matters, it's the 2% of (very) bad that affects perception and that you can't hide from.

I'm with @Shorty here. I'm sure she NEVER would have done such a thing if she knew people would catch her. I think it speaks volumes about her character or lack thereof.

[zipazoid]

I disagree totally. It is things like this that define a person's real character.

If you had an employee who you thought was a good worker and you discovered that last weekend he did something utterly shameful and refused to accept responsibility for it - even mocked authority over it, would you give him a pass?

I will say that a person who throws rubbish out of a car window is a scumbag. If I saw you do it,as an adult,  it would forever change my perception of you.

I will say that a person who is cruel to animals is a scumbag.

It doesn't matter what else they do - it is the little things that truly define character.

This woman gave us an opportunity to see who she really is.

I'm not talking about a momentary lapse in judgement or a dumb mistake which is atoned for.

I'm talking about actions which can not possibly defended.

It's not the 98% of good that matters, it's the 2% of (very) bad that affects perception and that you can't hide from.

The people of Steubenville didn't get this simple equation.

That's left field, but I'm talking about principles.

Wow. quite a lofty standard you possess.

For me, I would be quite fine with someone who was 98% good. The 2% means they're human.

Choi may be a very fine person who I may consider a friend if I got to know her. But she's a cheater, so she cannot, nor should not, play a sport for money that requires self-policing.

[CarlSpackler]

Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater.

I like pumpkin ________ and it's the season. ;-) It's truly sad that a "professional" would do this.

[Shorty]

Wow. quite a lofty standard you possess.

For me, I would be quite fine with someone who was 98% good. The 2% means they're human.

By the 2% I mean the fact that he only beats his girlfriend once every 50 days.

Or the thief that only stole from his employer three times that year.

I am not talking about human foibles and common weaknesses.

I am talking about pathological character flaws.

A cheat who denies cheating is not someone who is simply showing common human frailty.

[Aguirre]

By the 2% I mean the fact that he only beats his girlfriend once every 50 days.

Well, she took an improper drop.

[zipazoid]

By the 2% I mean the fact that he only beats his girlfriend once every 50 days.

Or the thief that only stole from his employer three times that year.

I am not talking about human foibles and common weaknesses.

I am talking about pathological character flaws.

A cheat who denies cheating is not someone who is simply showing common human frailty.

Then we differ on definition, cuz I would label all the above as simply bad people. A wife beater who hits his wife every 50 days is still a wife beater, whether its 2% or 100% of the time.

And a thief is a thief, irrespective of the frequency of the theft.

But I wouldn't put Choi's actions on a par with a wife beater or common thief. Those are criminals. She isn't. No law was broken. She just does not have the ethics to be a professional golfer.