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

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I thought that this was the United States, where a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Innuendo, supposition, and assumption is not even close to proof.  I realize that that right has always been ignored by the press, as it has this time by Chamblee, but that has never made it correct, or justifiable.

When Tiger is accused of a crime, I have no doubt he will enjoy full Due Process protections.

But he isn't accorded the same respect outside of a court of law?  I guess we know where you're coming from then.

[k-troop]

But he isn't accorded the same respect outside of a court of law?  I guess we know where you're coming from then.

Umm, no. Outside of a criminal case (which includes civil cases IN A COURT OF LAW) the only issue is what do you believe is the truth? And if you don't think there is at least SOME EVIDENCE then you are exposing your bias. And I've been involved in approximately 100 criminal trials on both prosecution and defense.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But he isn't accorded the same respect outside of a court of law?  I guess we know where you're coming from then.

Umm, no. Outside of a criminal case (which includes civil cases IN A COURT OF LAW) the only issue is what do you believe is the truth? And if you don't think there is at least SOME EVIDENCE then you are exposing your bias.

And I've been involved in approximately 100 criminal trials on both prosecution and defense.

No, I'm exposing my experience with the game and knowledge of the rules of golf.

[k-troop]

No, I'm exposing my experience with the game and knowledge of the rules of golf.

Well then, I'll just say that your opinions (because that's what you're expressing) will carry a lot more weight when you show that you can see two sides to an issue and understand that not everyone is required to draw the exact same conclusions as you. Tiger's reaction when he pulled the twig-- then abruptly stopped-- is evidence that he saw the ball move. It may not be persuasive or sufficient for you, but it is evidence.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No, I'm exposing my experience with the game and knowledge of the rules of golf.

Well then, I'll just say that your opinions (because that's what you're expressing) will carry a lot more weight when you show that you can see two sides to an issue and understand that not everyone is required to draw the exact same conclusions as you.

Tiger's reaction when he pulled the twig-- then abruptly stopped-- is evidence that he saw the ball move. It may not be persuasive or sufficient for you, but it is evidence.

I can see both sides just fine, but I also see them from the viewpoint of a rules official, and I try to keep my personal feelings out of the equation.  Believe it or not, if Tiger had called in a rules official at the time, he might have gotten away with no penalty at all, because the official would have been required to rule on the evidence presented to him, which would have been Tiger's testimony as to what happened.  In that case, he would have agreed that no movement occurred, and Tiger would have continued play without penalty.

At worst, the RO would have ruled that the ball moved, Tiger would have attempted a futile try at replacing it for that 1mm twitch, and he' d have played on with one penalty stroke.  But I doubt that would have been the outcome.

What would you have done if you were removing a twig and saw the ball twitch?  You'd have quit pulling on it just as Tiger did .  And if you truly believed that it hadn't moved, only wiggled, then you'd have continued play, just as Tiger did .  And if you can't admit that then I'm not the one who can't see both sides.

[MS256]

Well then, I'll just say that your opinions (because that's what you're expressing) will carry a lot more weight when you show that you can see two sides to an issue and understand that not everyone is required to draw the exact same conclusions as you.

Tiger's reaction when he pulled the twig-- then abruptly stopped-- is evidence that he saw the ball move. It may not be persuasive or sufficient for you, but it is evidence.

It's also evidence that he thought the ball oscillated and stopped trying to move the stick. As has been said, only he had his view and only he would know.

[k-troop]

It's also evidence that he thought the ball oscillated and stopped trying to move the stick. As has been said, only he had his view and only he would know.

Agree 100%. I've never said anything different. It's evidence. What Tiger thought is known only to him. But it is evidence, and I think a reasonable person could view it either way. To be fair the act of stopping is only evidence that he saw the ball wiggle. The only evidence of what he thought is that he continued to play, and later said that he only saw it oscillate (after saying "I don't see anything"). Both of those subsequent acts are self-serving, so I see that people might give them little weight. And if you think I'm biased or have made up my mind please quote a post where I've said I think Tiger cheated. You won't find one.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Since Brandel called him a cheat, I don't see how you believe those two can co-exist.

Because I think most people, if they think about it, would accept that there's a higher standard of certainty required in enforcing the rules than there is in making a journalistic comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What facts? Do you know for certain what Tiger saw? No. And that's the most relevant fact. We can all agree that the ball moved. We can all agree on what's printed about what was said (though it's hearsay). So really, what other facts do you have? Because at the end of the day you're still missing the most relevant one: you have no clue what Tiger saw or thought.

I see what you did there! I said facts and inferences. But we know how you feel about inferences. You even asked us not to use the word.

People dance around loose semi facts with a weak argument so it doesn't seem implicate bias. What you basically say is that the only way tiger could get out of this with a solid rep is to penalize himself regardless... I think you are a hater.

[birlyshirly]

Originally Posted by iacas

And I would counter that the word "cheat" has an exceptionally high barrier to clear in the golf world with incredibly large repercussions. This isn't MLB or the NFL.

That's true, I agree - although whether that's justifiable is a much wider debate. You can go to court and prove fraud in a civil court on a balance of probabilities - so I don't necessarily agree that it should be harder to call a golfer a cheat than it is to recover money in court from a fraudster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

People dance around loose semi facts with a weak argument so it doesn't seem implicate bias. What you basically say is that the only way tiger could get out of this with a solid rep is to penalize himself regardless... I think you are a hater.

So, come up with a better argument and then we can talk. [But calling someone a hater because you don't like their argument isn't going to cut the mustard]

Better still, read K-Troop's posts above.

And if you read carefully, you might note that I'm open to a position that's more generous towards Tiger than K-Troop outlines as being legal due process. In other words, I'm open to the suggestion that to enforce penalties or sanctions, the case against Tiger should be proven to a higher degree of certainty than just the reasonable balance of probabilities.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

And I would counter that the word "cheat" has an exceptionally high barrier to clear in the golf world with incredibly large repercussions. This isn't MLB or the NFL.

That's true, I agree - although whether that's justifiable is a much wider debate. You can go to court and prove fraud in a civil court on a balance of probabilities - so I don't necessarily agree that it should be harder to call a golfer a cheat than it is to recover money in court from a fraudster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

People dance around loose semi facts with a weak argument so it doesn't seem implicate bias. What you basically say is that the only way tiger could get out of this with a solid rep is to penalize himself regardless... I think you are a hater.

So, come up with a better argument and then we can talk. [But calling someone a hater because you don't like their argument isn't going to cut the mustard]

Better still, read K-Troop's posts above.

And if you read carefully, you might note that I'm open to a position that's more generous towards Tiger than K-Troop outlines as being legal due process. In other words, I'm open to the suggestion that to enforce penalties or sanctions, the case against Tiger should be proven to a higher degree of certainty than just the reasonable balance of probabilities.

The call could go either way with movement of the ball. It didn't look like it moved to him. If you were playing and someone was looking over your shoulder demanding that you take a penalty for something you swear didn't happen and then after the round, the guy walked around the tournament telling everyone that you were a cheater. How would this sit with you?

[Phil McGleno]

In other words-Where you sit on this depends on whether you believe TIger is a liar or not a Liar.

[bplewis24]

No. With respect, I think you're missing the point. "No infraction" could mean "oscillation". But to qualify as "oscillation" there's a 2 stage test. (First) Does the ball move? (Second) Does it move back again? In other words, all balls that oscillate (incurring no penalty) must first move. But not all balls that move (incurring penalty) oscillate. There is simply no way that any purely logical person can simultaneously entertain both Iacas' benefit of the doubt that maybe Tiger couldn't see any ball movement from his PoV and the idea that he thought he saw oscillation rather than movement out of position. Those excuses are incompatible, and it doesn't make sense to interpret "nothing" as oscillation.

Besides, I think it's a stretch to interpret "I see nothing" as "I see an oscillation, which is an allowable exception to the rule about movement which incurs no penalty."

I'm not iacas, and we're not talking about whether he gets the benefit of the doubt.  We're speaking specifically about his comments in response to the video he witnessed.  You suggested he must have been lying to say "he saw nothing" when watching the video, because you're assuming that saying he sees "nothing" means he doesn't see the ball move at all.  That is your interpretation, and that is an unreasonable interpretation.  It is as simple as that, and does not require any two-stage test or any benefit of the doubt comparison.

[birlyshirly]

The call could go either way with movement of the ball. It didn't look like it moved to him. If you were playing and someone was looking over your shoulder demanding that you take a penalty for something you swear didn't happen and then after the round, the guy walked around the tournament telling everyone that you were a cheater. How would this sit with you?

That would depend on whether he was armed with a camcorder.

In other words-Where you sit on this depends on whether you believe TIger is a liar or not a Liar.

Unless you live surrounded by people who always, always, always tell the truth - how do you define "liar"? The issue here is whether he told the truth on this occasion - or perhaps on the 3 or 4 occasions this year where that's been questioned.

I'm not iacas, and we're not talking about whether he gets the benefit of the doubt.  We're speaking specifically about his comments in response to the video he witnessed.  You suggested he must have been lying to say "he saw nothing" when watching the video, because you're assuming that saying he sees "nothing" means he doesn't see the ball move at all.  That is your interpretation, and that is an unreasonable interpretation.  It is as simple as that, and does not require any two-stage test or any benefit of the doubt comparison.

That's like being shown video footage by the police of your car swerving all over the road - and thinking that a reasonable comment is that you don't see "anything" on the basis that no-one was hurt.

[iacas]

The issue here is whether he told the truth on this occasion - or perhaps on the 3 or 4 occasions this year where that's been questioned.

The other instances have nothing to do with telling the truth. They were simply penalties.

[MS256]

That's like being shown video footage by the police of your car swerving all over the road - and thinking that a reasonable comment is that you don't see "anything" on the basis that no-one was hurt.

More like a video of a car swerving slightly and touching the center line and the police watching the video with the subject and asking him if he should be given a ticket.

"I don't see anything" when looking for violations is a common expression. It doesn't mean that we literally don't see anything. Just that we don't see anything that constitutes a violation.

It doesn't make sense that you can't at least cede that, no matter how badly you hate Tiger.

[k-troop]

you're assuming that saying he sees "nothing" means he doesn't see the ball move at all.  That is your interpretation, and that is an unreasonable interpretation.

Why do you think that's an unreasonable interpretation? Aren't you (or some others) equating "I see nothing" to "I see an oscillation". Maybe I'm missing something but neither interpretation seems more reasonable than the other just on the plain meaning of the words used.

[Golfingdad]

That's like being shown video footage by the police of your car swerving all over the road - and thinking that a reasonable comment is that you don't see "anything" on the basis that no-one was hurt.

If the person showing you the footage also prepped the video by saying "we believe you injured somebody here" then I believe that would be a reasonable comment. Tiger was likely being shown the video as proof that he deserved a penalty, so I think that would be a fair analogy, and thus, his response wouldn't be totally unreasonable. If he was shown the same slow motion, zoomed in video we saw, then I don't know how he could think that, but maybe that cut hadn't been prepared yet. I don't know.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bplewis24

you're assuming that saying he sees "nothing" means he doesn't see the ball move at all.  That is your interpretation, and that is an unreasonable interpretation.

Why do you think that's an unreasonable interpretation? Aren't you (or some others) equating "I see nothing" to "I see an oscillation". Maybe I'm missing something but neither interpretation seems more reasonable than the other just on the plain meaning of the words used.

Like MS256, we are equating that with not seeing any breach.  Big difference, and perfectly reasonable.   As in " I see nothing to be penalized for."