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

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word. If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word? The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

For me, it's because he originally defended his article.

From: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/oct/25/glf-woods-chamblee/

Quote:

"I think `cavalier with the rules' allows for those with a dubious opinion of the BMW video," Chamblee said Tuesday in an email to the AP. "My teacher in the fourth grade did not have a dubious opinion of how I complete the test. But she was writing to one, and as I was writing to many, I felt it important to allow for the doubt some might have, so I chose my words accordingly.

"What people want to infer about that is up to them," he said. "I have my opinion, they can form theirs."

...

"I don't feel I'm the one that needs to justify the `F.' The BMW video does it for me, followed by Tiger's silence _ until confronted _ and then by his denials in the face of incontestable evidence to the contrary of his petitions," Chamblee said. "To say nothing of the fact that he was disrespecting his position in golf, the traditions of golf and his fellow competitors, in my opinion."

Personally, I think everyone involved has always acted in their own best interest.  It is in Tiger's best interest to follow the rules as best as he can and to not intentionally cheat.  It is in Chamblee's best interest to write opinion pieces that get people talking because they're going to come back next month to see what he says next.

[dsc123]

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word.  If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word?  The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

Here's why I think the guy who published an article to the world calling Tiger a cheater, then added "disrespecting" the game and other golfers, is not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt as the guy who said he didn't see his ball move an 1/8th of an inch:

1 - Only Tiger knows what he was thinking at the time.  So as to judging Tiger, all we know is that the ball moved and that he said he didnt see it, and that it seems possible that he didn't see it.  Brandle called Tiger a cheater  and a liar--essentially saying that Tiger saw the ball move.  There's no way for Brandle to possibly know that.  That makes it harder to believe that he was just calling it as he saw it and not trying to hurt anyone.

2 -There's no other way to interpret what he wrote.  Chamblee thought Tiger wouldn't find offense to calling him a cheater?  Giving him an F?  Comparing him to a fourth grader?  Even a fourth grader would know that would be offensive.

3 - When first asked about it, Chamblee didn't apologize, he doubled down.  In addition to calling him a cheater, he added "disrespecting his position in golf, the traditions of golf and his fellow competitors."  So when two days later he says he didn't mean to hurt Tiger...well...that's just not believable.

4 - Then look at his apology.  First he says he didn't realize it would incite such a hot debate.  Anything written about Tiger is a hot topic.  Chamblee has spent the past 2 years trying to make a name for himself by trashing Tiger.  Its not believable that he didn't think calling the biggest sports star in the world a cheater would be a hot topic.

5- If we assume that the article was reviewed by a lawyer to make sure it doesn't cross the line into libel, which many on here have, then someone--either chamblee or the editor--clearly thought it was offensive.

6 - You can NEVER trust a man with hair like that.

[dsc123]

The evidence on Tiger "can" be put down to carelessness - there is enough doubt in these situations, I think, to say, "these things happen to the #1 player who is constantly watched by zoom lenses."

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghalfaire

I suppose that depends upon whether you believe Brandel just made a mistake in judgment or deliberately libeled Tiger.  I think he just made a mistake, like Tiger did a few times this year in playing within the rules.  If all of those who called for Brandel to lose his job because of the article are unwilling to give him benefit of the doubt why are you so willing to give Tiger the benefit if the doubt?  Sort of hypocritical in my estimation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Completely different situations.   Chamblee was trying to stir up controversy, Tiger never has done so with intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Because Tiger's mistake in judgment wasn't intended to take down another human being.

Actually, I think ghalfaire makes a pretty good point.  We all agree (if you don't agree then that simply means I'm not talking to you) that we have no idea what Tiger was thinking when we said he didn't see the ball move, but we take him at his word.  If Brandel says he didn't intend to hurt anybody, why shouldn't we also take him at his word?  The type of mistakes are different, sure, but that doesn't preclude them from both potentially being mistakes.

If we're going to make the assumption that Brandel intended to hurt Tiger, then everybody who has the assumption that Tiger intentionally cheated gets to have that opinion validated.

Is it possible that Brandel's article was calculated from the start to stir up this controversy and that it was not a mistake, and his apology is not sincere?  Of course.  But it is also possible that Tiger did see his ball move, yet hoped nobody else did, and played dumb when he was caught.  We can't have one and not the other.

Are really saying that calling someone a cheater isn't intending to do harm?  Really?

[Golfingdad]

Here's why I think the guy who published an article to the world calling Tiger a cheater, then added "disrespecting" the game and other golfers, is not entitled to the same benefit of the doubt as the guy who said he didn't see his ball move an 1/8th of an inch:

1 - Only Tiger knows what he was thinking at the time.  So as to judging Tiger, all we know is that the ball moved and that he said he didnt see it, and that it seems possible that he didn't see it.  Brandle called Tiger a cheater  and a liar--essentially saying that Tiger saw the ball move.  There's no way for Brandle to possibly know that.  That makes it harder to believe that he was just calling it as he saw it and not trying to hurt anyone.

2 -There's no other way to interpret what he wrote.  Chamblee thought Tiger wouldn't find offense to calling him a cheater?  Giving him an F?  Comparing him to a fourth grader?  Even a fourth grader would know that would be offensive.

3 - When first asked about it, Chamblee didn't apologize, he doubled down.  In addition to calling him a cheater, he added "disrespecting his position in golf, the traditions of golf and his fellow competitors."  So when two days later he says he didn't mean to hurt Tiger...well...that's just not believable.

4 - Then look at his apology.  First he says he didn't realize it would incite such a hot debate.  Anything written about Tiger is a hot topic.  Chamblee has spent the past 2 years trying to make a name for himself by trashing Tiger.  Its not believable that he didn't think calling the biggest sports star in the world a cheater would be a hot topic.

5- If we assume that the article was reviewed by a lawyer to make sure it doesn't cross the line into libel, which many on here have, then someone--either chamblee or the editor--clearly thought it was offensive.

6 - You can NEVER trust a man with hair like that.

For 6, ... LOL!

1 and 2 don't really apply here because I'm certainly not suggesting that what he did wasn't wrong.  That's been stipulated.

4 and 5 are both valid points.  But you're still making an assumption that you don't believe him.  People who say they don't believe Tiger when he says he didn't see the ball move are also making an assumption.

I'd say 3 is valid.  You've had a chance to digest what you wrote and the reaction to it and you are holding fast in your position.  However .....

For me, it's because he originally defended his article.

Devils advocate here .... does that not correlate perfectly with Tiger's comments once he was shown the video of his error?  I mean, he was shown video of his ball moving and his first reaction to that was also a "double down" on his opinion that it did not move.  Both guys were stubborn when they were first given the chance to "correct" their mistake.

The bottom line for me is that if Tiger tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, and Brandel tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, then I will take them equally at their words, because, after all, I don't know either of them from a hole in the ground, personally.

Of course most people know, I'm easy like that.  ;)

[Golfingdad]

Are really saying that calling someone a cheater isn't intending to do harm?  Really?

No, I'm saying there is no way to know.  People do dumb things.  They make rash decisions.  They don't think things through all the time.  It's possible (not saying it's likely, just possible) that he didn't even consider Tigers reaction to his article at all.

This morning the car in front of the car in front of me wasn't going when the light turned green, and I couldn't understand why and I got impatient and honked ... and that's when I saw the pedestrian appear around the first car.  It was a bonehead move on my part, but it's because I simply just didn't consider that the pedestrian was there ... not that I actually wanted the first car to run him over.

Sorry about the (potential) double pst here.  Was writing the last one at the same time as fourputt writing this one. ;)

[Mr. Desmond]

But could you say the same of Chamblee?  That his article was "careless"?  I mean, that thing was written, reviewed by and editor, possibly a lawyer, then published on the internet, then he stood by it before backing off.

As I said previously:

I think Chamblee could have avoided the problems and could have still stirred the pot if he had given Tiger an " Incomplete" Grade. He could have said, "Sure, Tiger won 5 Tournaments, but he fell apart on the weekends in Majors, his putter was inconsistent, his driving in Majors was ill-directioned or non-existent (he did not use driver at times), and he SEEMED to have a cavalier take on enforcing the rules against himself." And then cite the examples.

As an attorney, I would have counseled Brandel to do something like the above - it stirs the pot, but not the ire.

I think Chamblee and his editors or counselors were somewhat careless. If Brandel had all that help, then he had poor help.

So that begs the question - he meant what he said, and he poked hard. The apology, I think, is false.

[dsc123]

For 6, ... LOL!

1 and 2 don't really apply here because I'm certainly not suggesting that what he did wasn't wrong.  That's been stipulated.

4 and 5 are both valid points.  But you're still making an assumption that you don't believe him.  People who say they don't believe Tiger when he says he didn't see the ball move are also making an assumption.

I'd say 3 is valid.  You've had a chance to digest what you wrote and the reaction to it and you are holding fast in your position.  However .....

Devils advocate here .... does that not correlate perfectly with Tiger's comments once he was shown the video of his error?  I mean, he was shown video of his ball moving and his first reaction to that was also a "double down" on his opinion that it did not move.  Both guys were stubborn when they were first given the chance to "correct" their mistake.

The bottom line for me is that if Tiger tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, and Brandel tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, then I will take them equally at their words, because, after all, I don't know either of them from a hole in the ground, personally.

Of course most people know, I'm easy like that.  ;)

Just to clarify what I meant by 1 and 2--not so much that it was wrong, but that it was so obviously wrong that its hard for me to believe he didn't know that at the time.

You're right that Tiger did double down too. I kept thinking about that as I went through my list.  My gut tells me its different, but each time I try to justify that, I can't.

[3putter]

Agree.

It is tough to judge intent, and therefore it's best not to judge it, and instead look at actions. Still, it is a fuzzy task.

Do we take Tiger's word that he did not intend to be "cavalier" with the rules?

Do we take Chamblee's word that he meant no ill will?

I think Chamblee could have avoided the problems and could have still stirred the pot if he had given Tiger an "Incomplete" Grade. He could have said, "Sure, Tiger won 5 Tournaments, but he fell apart on the weekends in Majors, his putter was inconsistent, his driving in Majors was ill-directioned or non-existent (he did not use driver at times), and he SEEMED to have a cavalier take on enforcing the rules against himself." And then cite the examples.

The story about him cheating as a kid and tying it to Tiger? Poor taste and I had a tough time with that comparison - wasn't a good analogy in my book.

I think it's best to judge actions over a period of time - you can't point to one act and say "ah-ha, got'cha!" But if we have several questionable actions, it does create doubt.

Look at Vijay ... early eraser mark with his score and suspension tainted him, he gained a reputation as mistreating caddies, he used moose antler spray to gain an edge... that's consistency over 20 years in one aspect of his life - golf. Is it enough to create that he intended to violate the rules? Depends on the evidence.

The evidence on Tiger "can" be put down to carelessness - there is enough doubt in these situations, I think, to say, "these things happen to the #1 player who is constantly watched by zoom lenses."

In Chamblee's case he has demonstrated dislike for Tiger in many of his commentary, so it isn't hard to think his article was meant to harm Tiger's reputation....especially given his analogy to cheating in grade school.

Tiger has been a pro for a while now with virtually all his shots in a video archive, has he been known to intentionally break the rules?

I'm not Chamblee fan, and this incident doesn't make me dislike Chamblee anymore than I already do. But IMO, those who are harsh on him aren't far off at all

[dsc123]

As I said previously:

I think Chamblee could have avoided the problems and could have still stirred the pot if he had given Tiger an "Incomplete" Grade. He could have said, "Sure, Tiger won 5 Tournaments, but he fell apart on the weekends in Majors, his putter was inconsistent, his driving in Majors was ill-directioned or non-existent (he did not use driver at times), and he SEEMED to have a cavalier take on enforcing the rules against himself." And then cite the examples.

As an attorney, I would have counseled Brandel to do something like the above - it stirs the pot, but not the ire.

I think Chamblee and his editors or counselors were somewhat careless. If Brandel had all that help, then he had poor help.

So that begs the question - he meant what he said, and he poked hard. The apology, I think, is false.

Gotcha.  I got that you didn't think he should have said it that way, but now it get the careless wording but still meant what he said.  Hadn't thought of it that way.

[krupa]

Devils advocate here .... does that not correlate perfectly with Tiger's comments once he was shown the video of his error?  I mean, he was shown video of his ball moving and his first reaction to that was also a "double down" on his opinion that it did not move.  Both guys were stubborn when they were first given the chance to "correct" their mistake.

The bottom line for me is that if Tiger tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, and Brandel tells me he's sorry and made a mistake, then I will take them equally at their words, because, after all, I don't know either of them from a hole in the ground, personally.

Of course most people know, I'm easy like that.  ;)

I don't think it does.

Here's my opinion on the Tiger thing:  I watched the video repeatedly and barely saw that the ball moved (as defined by the Rules of Golf.)  I totally saw it jiggle.  Many people in the thread about the incident did not realize that a ball that oscillates and comes to rest in its original position has not moved as defined by the RoG.

So Tiger says the ball didn't move.  Which definition of "move" is he using?  I realize I'm splitting hairs a little here, but unlike the definition of "is", we're talking about a word that has multiple meanings.  So I can't really make up my mind if Tiger was claiming that the ball didn't do anything (which I think his hesitancy when moving the twig shows he knew it jiggled) or that he was asserting that the ball didn't move as the RoG defines it.  I didn't see it move and people had to use a lot of technology to show that it did.

The other difference is that Chamblee had a lot of time to consider what he was writing and then more time to consider how to react to the public's reaction to his writing, etc,  Tiger was challenged after the round and had to answer for it right then and there.  I don't really know how it affects my point, but with Chamblee, anyway, he had plenty of time to think about what he was writing before letting it out to the public and he still originally chose to defend his article.

[wannabe]

Haven't read all of the thread, so pardon if I'm being redundant, but here's my take on this whole discussion.

Seems like what Brandel's calling Tiger out for is more about spirit than technicality.  In golf, there's a tradition that favors the integrity of the game beyond any doubt about scores and results.

Over and over again throughout the life of the sport, golfers are revered for disqualifying themselves, calling penalties on themselves, etc.  My understanding is that even for those situations where the was even the shadow of doubt about rule infraction, the good golfer was the golfer who fell on the sword and DQ'd himself.  Golf has a noble air about it, and this is why.  Brandel is calling Tiger to this higher view of the game and his actions within the spotlight of this great sport.

Tiger's been in some situations where other golfers would've disqualified themselves, no questions asked, just due to the cloud of suspicion surrounding the event, regardless of whether the golfer believed they were within the strictness of the rules, the rules officials got it wrong, what some machine shows, etc.  Their own consciences and the call of the game was to a higher standard than just what's written in the book or decided by a committee or recorded by a camera.

Brandel may be calling him a cheater, but I think he's actually aiming for something that is supposed to be worse in golf: he's calling him a man of low character.  With this -- and for Tiger, who has told us all along that winning is all he cares about -- I agree.

If Tiger can bend the rules in his favor to get the win, he will.  That's not the way golfers are supposed to do it.

[Golfingdad]

In Chamblee's case he has demonstrated dislike for Tiger in many of his commentary, so it isn't hard to think his article was meant to harm Tiger's reputation....especially given his analogy to cheating in grade school.

Tiger has been a pro for a while now with virtually all his shots in a video archive, has he been known to intentionally break the rules?

I'm not Chamblee fan, and this incident doesn't make me dislike Chamblee anymore than I already do. But IMO, those who are harsh on him aren't far off at all

Regarding your last sentence ... that is a pretty good summation of my feelings towards Chamblee as well.  I'm not a big fan of his either.  He comes off like a pompous know-it-all jerk.

All I was really saying is that I agreed with the assessment that it's not fair of us to give Tiger a pass (by either claiming we know he didn't intend to cheat, or just taking him at his word) and then turn around and not give Brandel a pass (by claiming we know he intended to harm Tiger, or just not taking him at his word). @ghalfaire says that is hypocritical, and I agree with him.

Now, regarding the bold sentence ... I know a lot, A LOT, of people on here agree with that, but I am not one of them.  I've said it before as well ... Brandel in his past criticisms of Tiger, always came across to me as the father or school teacher disappointed in his underacheiving son or prized student that he felt could be so much more.  I've never thought that he disliked Tiger, just that he always thought he could be better than he was.  Disclaimer:  I don't watch Brandel a lot so that is from fairly limited exposure to his comments.

[birlyshirly]

Well said wannabe. Taking a step back, two things strike me about this thread. One is the lack of discussion of Brandel's assertion that "Ethics matter more than athleticism". The other is the lack of discussion of Brandel's grading of Dufner.

The first seems more relevant to me as a critique of Tiger. But lots of posters seem incapable of believing that Tiger could think a bad thought.

The second seems more relevant to me as a critique of Brandel. But since hardly anyone appears capable of believing that he could think a good thought - maybe that seems beside the point.

[Golfingdad]

Haven't read all of the thread, so pardon if I'm being redundant, but here's my take on this whole discussion.

Seems like what Brandel's calling Tiger out for is more about spirit than technicality.  In golf, there's a tradition that favors the integrity of the game beyond any doubt about scores and results.

Over and over again throughout the life of the sport, golfers are revered for disqualifying themselves, calling penalties on themselves, etc.  My understanding is that even for those situations where the was even the shadow of doubt about rule infraction, the good golfer was the golfer who fell on the sword and DQ'd himself.  Golf has a noble air about it, and this is why.  Brandel is calling Tiger to this higher view of the game and his actions within the spotlight of this great sport.

Tiger's been in some situations where other golfers would've disqualified themselves, no questions asked, just due to the cloud of suspicion surrounding the event, regardless of whether the golfer believed they were within the strictness of the rules, the rules officials got it wrong, what some machine shows, etc.  Their own consciences and the call of the game was to a higher standard than just what's written in the book or decided by a committee or recorded by a camera.

Brandel may be calling him a cheater, but I think he's actually aiming for something that is supposed to be worse in golf: he's calling him a man of low character.  With this -- and for Tiger, who has told us all along that winning is all he cares about -- I agree.

If Tiger can bend the rules in his favor to get the win, he will.  That's not the way golfers are supposed to do it.

Good post.

The other is the lack of discussion of Brandel's grading of Dufner.

That's an easy one.  The thread is specifically about Brandel's grade of Tiger and Tiger's agents response.  That is why there is no discussion about his grade of Dufner in here. ;)

[dsc123]

[birlyshirly]

Good post.

That's an easy one.  The thread is specifically about Brandel's grade of Tiger and Tiger's agents response.  That is why there is no discussion about his grade of Dufner in here. ;)

Point taken - although the OP was simply "here's a link to Brandel's grades for the tour this year". And so much of this discussion has been about Brandel's character and agenda, rather than the argument that he made specific to Tiger. If there's a separate thread entitled "Nevermind Tiger's F, how about Dufner's (wife's) A++" then I missed it.

http://thesandtrap.com/newsearch?search=dufner%27s+wife+chamblee

[dsc123]

Well said wannabe. Taking a step back, two things strike me about this thread. One is the lack of discussion of Brandel's assertion that "Ethics matter more than athleticism". The other is the lack of discussion of Brandel's grading of Dufner.

golf.com posts so much of that sort of thing.  they don't even try to make it seem legit, sometimes they just post photos of golfer's wives or even golfers and openly discuss them being hot.