or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee - Page 41  

post #721 of 762
:doh:
post #722 of 762
There's one major difference here. For other sports, fans and therefore sponsors don't equate off field martial events with on field matters. No one claims that MJ or Kobe are any less a basketball player despite their marital woes. With Tiger, people are now calling him an on course cheat given his off course philandering. BC should know better but he's just playing to the crowd for his 15 minutes of fame. That's self serving and plain wrong.
post #723 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

Good posts, interesting how it correlates to the WWW, Main stream news and blogosphere.

 

I think we are losing sight of the fact that BC never called Tiger a "cheater" the word was never used. As most of us know instead he derived his reasoning for the grade of F due to his own "cheating" on a test in fourth grade.  He linked the 2 by referencing Tiger as  "rather cavalier with the rules".  Insinuating that he was less than truthful and in some circles that he cheated. One could also find his own "F"as a teacher assigning it to BC by simple knowing, a hunch, a high probability of his own cheating. BC never really lets us know how exactly the teacher knew.

 

Readers unfamiliar with BC and perhaps reading it for the first time with reasonable intelligence had to understand it was opinion. The style of writing makes this pretty clear. I would venture to say a large majority of these casual fans had certain judgments & assumptions based on what they have already read and  seen on the mainstream media. Tigers cheating ,lying, adultery etc. ( it is not my intention to raise this back up in a discussion)  this will be a portion of  his legacy.  It was not that long ago and lets face it was on all media outlets including the 6:30 National news as well as every late night talk show.

 

 I don't believe BCs editorial changed many casual golf fans impression of TW, some have forgiven and yet others have not. I think he is still on somewhat shaky ground compared to what his image was before the hydrant. One only has to see market surveys of women perception of him is far behind Men's and has not deviated much since that Thanksgiving. Did the editorial hurt him financially? I doubt it very much, most of the damage he feels today was conducted years ago by himself,  People may forgive but they generally don't forget.

 

Brandel clearly accused Tiger of cheating.  He didn't say "Tiger is a dirty cheater," but he didn't have to.  The intent of the message was clear.

 

As for the rest of your post, I basically agree.  I think that Tiger has done far more to damage his own "standing" and "reputation" than anything that Brandel could do with a paragraph.  And I think that his personal transgressions have colored people's opinions of his character.  If that makes them more likely to believe a poorly supported claim of cheating, then that is still mostly Tiger's own doing.  If those people didn't already have a low opinion of Tiger's character, then Brandel's paragraph wouldn't affect them any more than GD, Fourputt, or NTG are affected by random outbursts by morons on this forum.

 

(Of course I'm not referring to my own outbursts--those are brilliant and highly influential.):smartass:

 

Now as for the rest of your posts...please try to work on whole sentences and punctuation so people can understand what you're saying.  Give some thought to explaining/supporting as you did in the second two paragraphs of what I quoted instead of just making wild claims.  And anytime you're going to start posting about someone's dad, and you feel the need to say "with all due respect", then just don't post that.

post #724 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

 

And I'll just add that I think this confirms a point I made about 30 pages ago in this thread:  Brandel's article didn't "decrease Tiger's stature or reputation" in that case.  I would guess that a lot of folks who took Chamblee's paragraph as truth are the same people who already thought Tiger was a scumbag because of the events of 2011.  That's not taking someone who had a positive opinion of Tiger and turning them negative, it's simply affirming in their minds that he has poor character.

Those that believe or thought that Tiger was a "scumbag" most likely thought so because of the negative press he received from the failure of his marriage.  BC once again brought into question his morals and ethics which led my father to say "he cheats on his wife and now in golf".  It's a fact and he's admitted to cheating on his wife, it's not a fact and he's actually denied cheating in golf.

 

When Tiger's marriage failed, he lost a significant amount of endorsement money which he's likely only starting to recover.  Those that didn't abandon him, likely included some ethics and conduct clauses into his agreement.  Given his history, any negative press could cost him money but having a Golf Channel analyst write an article for golf.com where he implies Tiger is a cheater would certainly cause some businesses to reconsider using Tiger to endorse their products.

post #725 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

Your father, with all do respect is not on Tigers marketing radar, (or anyone's for that matter) he is a nothing, he is less than 1% of the 1% his camp does not cares about. Sorry not trying to be spiteful but his opinion does count and who ever he mentions it to, will not be impacted. Like you for example may have had the idea that Dads wrong. I'm assuming you clarified it with him.

With all "do" respect you're ignorant if you believe Tigers agents and team don't care about how he's perceived by the general public.  Tiger is like Michael Jordan, he's transcended his sport and has become a household name.  Tiger endorses Rolex, rental car companies, and other non-golf ventures.  He cares about how his name is marketed and perceived by the entire world, not just golf fans.

post #726 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Those that believe or thought that Tiger was a "scumbag" most likely thought so because of the negative press he received from the failure of his marriage.

Not trying to revive this old issue, but I think it's relevant to your characterization of the Brandel issue.

People didn't judge Tiger because of bad press. They judged him because he acted like a scumbag and did a lot of scumbag things. It was his actions which yielded well-deserved judgment, not press reporting.

Again, in this case I think it's people's judgment of his actions that is relevant. The press is just a catalyst to get those discussions going.
post #727 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


Not trying to revive this old issue, but I think it's relevant to your characterization of the Brandel issue.

People didn't judge Tiger because of bad press. They judged him because he acted like a scumbag and did a lot of scumbag things. It was his actions which yielded well-deserved judgment, not press reporting.

Again, in this case I think it's people's judgment of his actions that is relevant. The press is just a catalyst to get those discussions going.

The press reported Tiger had multiple affairs which he owned up to.  A majority of married couples have had extra-marital affairs, so let's not all be outraged because Tiger did it.  If Tiger was an actor or football player it wouldn't have made the back page of newspapers.  Even Jordan and Kobe Bryant didn't get slammed in the press the way Tiger did and Kobe was accused of raping someone.

 

Tiger is held to a higher standard and articles like BC's are irresponsible and written for self-promotion.  Do you really think BC would write the same final paragraph if it was Phil or Dufner who had the rules violations?

post #728 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

People didn't judge Tiger because of bad press.

 

It's Off Topic but yes, some did. Some places reported that he'd slept with hundreds of women. If that's incorrect, and the number was more like eight, then "incorrect" or "bad press" could certainly shape the way people perceived him.

 

As I said, though, it's off topic. The "cheating on Elin" stuff is old stuff at this point.

 

There are on-topic points that can be similarly made, but I've been done with this thread for awhile now. I just don't like sweeping statements like "nobody judges Tiger based on the press" or such.

post #729 of 762
Thread Starter 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

Those that believe or thought that Tiger was a "scumbag" most likely thought so because of the negative press he received from the failure of his marriage.

Not trying to revive this old issue, but I think it's relevant to your characterization of the Brandel issue.

People didn't judge Tiger because of bad press. They judged him because he acted like a scumbag and did a lot of scumbag things. It was his actions which yielded well-deserved judgment, not press reporting.

Again, in this case I think it's people's judgment of his actions that is relevant. The press is just a catalyst to get those discussions going.

 

This is an opinion. Some people in this world would say that they would do the same thing as he would have. You are pressing someone to live by your values. Tiger has always held high regard for most of his colleagues. Damaging that rapport is of significant value to him.

 

Quote:
 slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.

I am sorry but I feel he has a case.

 

 
post #730 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 
 
 

 

This is an opinion. Some people in this world would say that they would do the same thing as he would have. You are pressing someone to live by your values. Tiger has always held high regard for most of his colleagues. Damaging that rapport is of significant value to him.

 

I am sorry but I feel he has a case.

 

 

Tiger and his camp may have a beef with it, but any sort of legal action or civil liability is extremely far fetched at best and likely would never even be heard by a judge. Steiney I'm sure found this out right after he opened his mouth or else it was just grandstanding.

post #731 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

Tiger and his camp may have a beef with it, but any sort of legal action or civil liability is extremely far fetched at best and likely would never even be heard by a judge. Steiney I'm sure found this out right after he opened his mouth or else it was just grandstanding.

 

Actually it would be heard by a judge, Tiger has the right to due process. Now the motion can be shot down, but a judge will still read the claim and decide of they want to hear the case. A judge can not just just decide based on media coverage if the case should be heard or not.  

 

It is hard to tell, because Tiger must show monetary loss. Now if a few of his sponsors dumped him because of this, then yes he probably has cause to take Brandel to court. Beside seeking punitive damages, there is really nothing Tiger can do but maybe lean on the PGA Tour to get involved, or who ever is Brandel's employer.. 

post #732 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

Tiger and his camp may have a beef with it, but any sort of legal action or civil liability is extremely far fetched at best and likely would never even be heard by a judge. Steiney I'm sure found this out right after he opened his mouth or else it was just grandstanding.

I don't think there is interest in a legal case, if there was, they wouldn't have "encouraged" the Golf Channel to discipline BC for his actions.

post #733 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

Actually it would be heard by a judge, Tiger has the right to due process. Now the motion can be shot down, but a judge will still read the claim and decide of they want to hear the case. A judge can not just just decide based on media coverage if the case should be heard or not.

 

It is hard to tell, because Tiger must show monetary loss. Now if a few of his sponsors dumped him because of this, then yes he probably has cause to take Brandel to court. Beside seeking punitive damages, there is really nothing Tiger can do but maybe lean on the PGA Tour to get involved, or who ever is Brandel's employer..

 

He also must show that Brandel intentionally misrepresented a fact.  Not a biased opinion, erroneous personal conclusion, or misguided comment, but a fact.  This is where Tiger loses, well before any discovery on damages.  This case never makes it past summary judgment, and might be thrown out for failure to state a claim.

post #734 of 762
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 
 
 

 

This is an opinion. Some people in this world would say that they would do the same thing as he would have. You are pressing someone to live by your values. Tiger has always held high regard for most of his colleagues. Damaging that rapport is of significant value to him.

 

I am sorry but I feel he has a case.

 

 

Tiger and his camp may have a beef with it, but any sort of legal action or civil liability is extremely far fetched at best and likely would never even be heard by a judge. Steiney I'm sure found this out right after he opened his mouth or else it was just grandstanding.


Like how you leave the legal definition of slander out of the quote.

post #735 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleygolfer View Post
 


Like how you leave the legal definition of slander out of the quote.

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed

 

 

In your opinion is the "untruth" the fact that he broke the rules? or is the "untruth" the opinion that was drawn by BC on tiger him being "caviler with the rules"?

 

BTW doesn't this slander occur all the time at every election in this country, some of those ads are brutal making some out to be criminals. Yet none of these go to court, that I am aware of.

post #736 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed

 

 

In your opinion is the "untruth" the fact that he broke the rules? or is the "untruth" the opinion that was drawn by BC on tiger him being "caviler with the rules"?

 

BTW doesn't this slander occur all the time at every election in this country, some of those ads are brutal making some out to be criminals. Yet none of these go to court, that I am aware of.

Being penalized for breaking a rule of golf and being labeled a cheater are quite different. Are Woody Austin, Jeff Overton, Stacy Lewis and Michael Allen cheaters too since they had rules infractions this year as well?

 

By definition politicians are crooks...

post #737 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfisher View Post
 

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed

 

 

In your opinion is the "untruth" the fact that he broke the rules? or is the "untruth" the opinion that was drawn by BC on tiger him being "caviler with the rules"?

 

BTW doesn't this slander occur all the time at every election in this country, some of those ads are brutal making some out to be criminals. Yet none of these go to court, that I am aware of.

 

 

Breaking the rules DOES NOT EQUATE cheating. It is very obvious the point Brandel was making. Your struggle here to make your point is just an act of futility. 

post #738 of 762
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post


Breaking the rules DOES NOT EQUATE cheating. It is very obvious the point Brandel was making. Your struggle here to make your point is just an act of futility. 

All he's saying is that it's not libel or slander. That's not an act of futility, that's just reality.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
This thread is locked  
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Brandel Gives Tiger an F/ Tiger's Agent Hints at Legal Action Against Chamblee