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

[birlyshirly]

Started off good. I gave him some credit for stating that he is "doing his job". Suddenly, I felt a chill as I read the end part of this transcript :no: Boy, I would say Brandon has a seriously over inflated ego.

What was the ego issue? All I can see is that he argued with his editor about including his high school cheating allegory. [quote name="bplewis24" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/324#post_914068"] [...]I don't believe The Golf Channel can force him to do it without threatening to fire him over it if he doesn't.  I don't believe he is obligated to. It is an interesting situation indeed.  I'm not in the camp that believes something should necessarily be done about him from a legal perspective.  But if they truly feel a lawsuit is imminent, they may feel like their hand is forced. [/quote] There is more chance of an hour long BC/TW hot tub interview than there is of Tiger suing the Golf Channel over this. [quote name="dsc123" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/342#post_914121"] I think its interesting that the best he'll do is say that he shouldn't have said Tiger cheated because he can't be 100% certain of his intent.  Basically he's still saying he thinks Tiger intentionally cheated. [/quote] Well - people are beating on BC for apologising, so that's a no-win situation too. Strictly speaking - he's been consistent. He clearly thinks, and has been pretty clear in everything he's said that I've read, that on balance he thinks Tiger has probably cheated. If you think BC had no reasonable justification for his comments, then yeah, fire on into him. But there's no rule that "fair comment" needs 100% certainty. I agree that "cheating" has a particular resonance in the golf world, but that doesn't change the rules of journalism.

[Valleygolfer]

[quote name="Lihu" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/342#post_914168"] Started off good. I gave him some credit for stating that he is "doing his job". Suddenly, I felt a chill as I read the end part of this transcript :no: Boy, I would say Brandon has a seriously over inflated ego.

What was the ego issue? All I can see is that he argued with his editor about including his high school cheating allegory. [quote name="bplewis24" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/324#post_914068"] [...]I don't believe The Golf Channel can force him to do it without threatening to fire him over it if he doesn't.  I don't believe he is obligated to. It is an interesting situation indeed.  I'm not in the camp that believes something should necessarily be done about him from a legal perspective.  But if they truly feel a lawsuit is imminent, they may feel like their hand is forced. [/quote] There is more chance of an hour long BC/TW hot tub interview than there is of Tiger suing the Golf Channel over this. [quote name="dsc123" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/342#post_914121"] I think its interesting that the best he'll do is say that he shouldn't have said Tiger cheated because he can't be 100% certain of his intent.  Basically he's still saying he thinks Tiger intentionally cheated. [/quote] Well - people are beating on BC for apologising, so that's a no-win situation too. Strictly speaking - he's been consistent. He clearly thinks, and has been pretty clear in everything he's said that I've read, that on balance he thinks Tiger has probably cheated. If you think BC had no reasonable justification for his comments, then yeah, fire on into him. But there's no rule that "fair comment" needs 100% certainty. I agree that "cheating" has a particular resonance in the golf world, but that doesn't change the rules of journalism.[/quote] More than likely not suing the Golf channel. They will just lose out on post round interviews. Over time a lot of revenue. Tiger will exercise his freedom of non speech.

[noro]

He have wars to manage or a federal deficit to eliminate?  Or can even he not take the time to have an opinion if everything in his life isn't 100% perfect?

C'mon guy, even the busiest among us should be allowed to "get involved" if that means just saying what we think.

^says most of America....not my problem

It's not like that, we should always help others out.

Chamblee has come out the worst from his stupid and childish article. Tiger and his team said they weren't happy but were moving on and the ball was now in the Golf Channel's court. So I see no point for Rory to get involved and say nobody would know who Chamblee was if it wasn't for Tiger and that the situation should be dealt with straight away.

It's not that Rory came out and supported Tiger that has irked me, it's his comments. Saw someone poking fun at him on twitter last night saying if it wasn't for Tiger, Rory wouldn't be getting the massive sponsorship money he gets from Nike!

If Chamblee had written a more balanced piece it might have created a healthier debate regarding cheating and being cavalier with the rules in golf especially since Simon Dyson has been charged and is facing a 3 month ban from the European Tour after being DQ for tapping a spike mark down with his ball at the BMW Masters at the weekend.

[newtogolf]

It's not like that, we should always help others out.

Chamblee has come out the worst from his stupid and childish article. Tiger and his team said they weren't happy but were moving on and the ball was now in the Golf Channel's court. So I see no point for Rory to get involved and say nobody would know who Chamblee was if it wasn't for Tiger and that the situation should be dealt with straight away.

It's not that Rory came out and supported Tiger that has irked me, it's his comments. Saw someone poking fun at him on twitter last night saying if it wasn't for Tiger, Rory wouldn't be getting the massive sponsorship money he gets from Nike!

If Chamblee had written a more balanced piece it might have created a healthier debate regarding cheating and being cavalier with the rules in golf especially since Simon Dyson has been charged and is facing a 3 month ban from the European Tour after being DQ for tapping a spike mark down with his ball at the BMW Masters at the weekend.

Chamblee wasn't interested in writing a more balanced piece, his editors at Golf.com asked him to reconsider the final paragraph of his piece and he refused.  His intent was to cheap shot Tiger and call him a cheater for BC's own personal gain and notoriety.

[dsc123]

What was the ego issue? All I can see is that he argued with his editor about including his high school cheating allegory. There is more chance of an hour long BC/TW hot tub interview than there is of Tiger suing the Golf Channel over this. Well - people are beating on BC for apologising, so that's a no-win situation too. Strictly speaking - he's been consistent. He clearly thinks, and has been pretty clear in everything he's said that I've read, that on balance he thinks Tiger has probably cheated. If you think BC had no reasonable justification for his comments, then yeah, fire on into him. But there's no rule that "fair comment" needs 100% certainty. I agree that "cheating" has a particular resonance in the golf world, but that doesn't change the rules of journalism.

People are beating up on him for what he said and for his non apology. The only thing he has taken back is the analogy. He maintains that tiger was cavalier, and that he thinks Tiger intended to cheat. He just said he can't be 100% certain. To me, his apology isn't much different than his original column.

[birlyshirly]

He maintains that tiger was cavalier, and that he thinks Tiger intended to cheat. He just said he can't be 100% certain. To me, his apology isn't much different than his original column .

I completely agree with that. Then again, I was fine (as should anyone in favour of a free press) with his original opinion being stated on less than 100% certainty - so I don't know that he really HAD to apologise. Lots of people make statements that they maintain were justifiable - but nevertheless subsequently regret the consequences.

[noro]

Chamblee wasn't interested in writing a more balanced piece, his editors at Golf.com asked him to reconsider the final paragraph of his piece and he refused.  His intent was to cheap shot Tiger and call him a cheater for BC's own personal gain and notoriety.

He's an idiot for not realising how badly it would blow up in his face.

[Mr. Desmond]

BC: " But there's no way that I could know with one hundred percent certainty what Tiger's intent was in any of those situations."

Brandel's Son: If you had been more diplomatic, we'd be talking about the issue rather than you.

What have we learned?

Brandel's son is a heckuva lot smarter than his dad.

Brandel maintains an edge and it hurts him ... in Texanese, I think he intends to say, "I don't know Tiger's intent."

But he repeatedly chooses the wrong words.

And apparently no one but his golf.com editor reviews his comments and offers advice. That shows the level of review is non-existent.

Surprising.

[Phil McGleno]

I call bullsheeeeeet on that there nonsense-You can support a free press and still think Brandle Chamble is a dope who went too far and behaved like a jackass. You can support his right to have written and published something without thinking it was right to do so.-Dumbest thing you may have said in this thread birly.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/360#post_914195"] Then again, I was fine (as should anyone in favour of a free press) with his original opinion being stated on less than 100% certainty - so I don't know that he really HAD to apologise. Lots of people make statements that they maintain were justifiable - but nevertheless subsequently regret the consequences.[/quote]

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noro

It's not like that, we should always help others out.

Chamblee has come out the worst from his stupid and childish article. Tiger and his team said they weren't happy but were moving on and the ball was now in the Golf Channel's court. So I see no point for Rory to get involved and say nobody would know who Chamblee was if it wasn't for Tiger and that the situation should be dealt with straight away.

It's not that Rory came out and supported Tiger that has irked me, it's his comments. Saw someone poking fun at him on twitter last night saying if it wasn't for Tiger, Rory wouldn't be getting the massive sponsorship money he gets from Nike!

If Chamblee had written a more balanced piece it might have created a healthier debate regarding cheating and being cavalier with the rules in golf especially since Simon Dyson has been charged and is facing a 3 month ban from the European Tour after being DQ for tapping a spike mark down with his ball at the BMW Masters at the weekend.

Chamblee wasn't interested in writing a more balanced piece, his editors at Golf.com asked him to reconsider the final paragraph of his piece and he refused.  His intent was to cheap shot Tiger and call him a cheater for BC's own personal gain and notoriety.

Absolutely.  Chamblee had two goals, to tear down Tiger and to promote Brandel Chamblee.  To that end, he is unable to see past his own ego.

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

What was the ego issue? All I can see is that he argued with his editor about including his high school cheating allegory.

There is more chance of an hour long BC/TW hot tub interview than there is of Tiger suing the Golf Channel over this.

Well - people are beating on BC for apologising, so that's a no-win situation too. Strictly speaking - he's been consistent. He clearly thinks, and has been pretty clear in everything he's said that I've read, that on balance he thinks Tiger has probably cheated.

If you think BC had no reasonable justification for his comments, then yeah, fire on into him. But there's no rule that "fair comment" needs 100% certainty. I agree that "cheating" has a particular resonance in the golf world, but that doesn't change the rules of journalism.

People are beating up on him for what he said and for his non apology. The only thing he has taken back is the analogy. He maintains that tiger was cavalier, and that he thinks Tiger intended to cheat. He just said he can't be 100% certain. To me, his apology isn't much different than his original column.

As I read it, he is actually using his so-called apology to further his own agenda of calling Tiger a cheater.  The innuendo is so thick that I get sticky just reading that interview.  He screwed up in a big way, yet he can't seem to stop beating the drum as he sinks into the quagmire he created.

[Ernest Jones]

Dumbest thing you may have said in this thread birly.

And that is quite the accomplishment. Way to dig down deep and find that extra gear Birly.

[ghalfaire]

At this point, he's probably been advised by his legal counsel to use the words he has so not to admit his intent to slander or directly accuse Tiger of being a cheater.  I'd guess this is the best you're going to get from BC with regards to an admittance of wrong doing on his part.

If he hasn't been so advised, he has some pretty poor attorneys.

[birlyshirly]

I call bullsheeeeeet on that there nonsense-You can support a free press and still think Brandle Chamble is a dope who went too far and behaved like a jackass.

Of course you can. [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/360#post_914210"] You can support his right to have written and published something without thinking it was right to do so [/quote] And I would - except that I'm happy for him to have written an opinion piece based on a reasonable interpretation of the information available to him. Happy to acknowledge that there's more than one reasonable interpretation available - and there could be perfectly reasonable people out there who have strongly opposing views. It's a funny old world. [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/360#post_914210"]Dumbest thing you may have said in this thread birly. [/quote] Thanks. Because I'm right on this, and if you have an even higher opinion of my other posts, that means a lot to me. [quote name="Ernest Jones" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/360#post_914214"] And that is quite the accomplishment. Way to dig down deep and find that extra gear Birly.[/quote] You too EJ.:-*

[k-troop]

I completely agree with that.

Then again, I was fine (as should anyone in favour of a free press) with his original opinion being stated on less than 100% certainty - so I don't know that he really HAD to apologise. Lots of people make statements that they maintain were justifiable - but nevertheless subsequently regret the consequences.

I call bullsheeeeeet on that there nonsense-You can support a free press and still think Brandle Chamble is a dope who went too far and behaved like a jackass. You can support his right to have written and published something without thinking it was right to do so.-Dumbest thing you may have said in this thread birly.

Well, you just called Chamblee a dope and a jackass, and said that Birly is dumb.  Those are all your opinions, and all based on very limited information about those people.  Do you think you have a right to post them?  Do you think that Birly and Chamblee are now entitled to an apology from you?

Chamblee was paid to write an opinion.  He wrote that opinion.  He believes in his opinion, and his opinion is based on his interpretation of facts which he did not misrepresent in any way.  He didn't make anything up.

We clearly have a difference of opinion on this forum about whether any reasonable person could conclude from the objective facts available that Tiger cheated.  I think there's enough evidence there to support that conclusion.  So does Brandel. I guess we are both lunatics and unqualified to sit on a jury.

So, I'll posit this:  what's the point of a free press if it's not okay for people to write opinions that you disagree with?  If the opinion is so far afield that it constitutes slander or libel, then the law will deal with this. If the opinion is so far afield that it alienates the readership, then the publisher will fire him.  There are consequences built into the system that should keep the lunatic opinions in check.  Other than that, the only person who can decide whether it was "right" for Chamblee to publish his opinion--i.e. do what he is paid to do--is Chamblee.

[dsc123]

As I read it, he is actually using his so-called apology to further his own agenda of calling Tiger a cheater.  The innuendo is so thick that I get sticky just reading that interview.  He screwed up in a big way, yet he can't seem to stop beating the drum as he sinks into the quagmire he created.

I agree with this completely.  He just keeps digging in his heels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by k-troop

So, I'll posit this:  what's the point of a free press if it's not okay for people to write opinions that you disagree with?  If the opinion is so far afield that it constitutes slander or libel, then the law will deal with this. If the opinion is so far afield that it alienates the readership, then the publisher will fire him.  There are consequences built into the system that should keep the lunatic opinions in check.  Other than that, the only person who can decide whether it was "right" for Chamblee to publish his opinion--i.e. do what he is paid to do--is Chamblee.

[newtogolf]

Chamblee was paid to write an opinion.  He wrote that opinion.  He believes in his opinion, and his opinion is based on his interpretation of facts which he did not misrepresent in any way.  He didn't make anything up.

We clearly have a difference of opinion on this forum about whether any reasonable person could conclude from the objective facts available that Tiger cheated.  I think there's enough evidence there to support that conclusion.  So does Brandel. I guess we are both lunatics and unqualified to sit on a jury.

So, I'll posit this:  what's the point of a free press if it's not okay for people to write opinions that you disagree with?  If the opinion is so far afield that it constitutes slander or libel, then the law will deal with this. If the opinion is so far afield that it alienates the readership, then the publisher will fire him.  There are consequences built into the system that should keep the lunatic opinions in check.  Other than that, the only person who can decide whether it was "right" for Chamblee to publish his opinion--i.e. do what he is paid to do--is Chamblee.

Tiger Woods: When I was in the fourth grade, I cheated on a math test and when I got the paper back it had "100" written at the top and just below the grade, was this quote, "Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!" It was an oft-quoted line from the epic poem "Marmion" by Sir Walter Scott, and my teacher's message was clear. Written once more beneath that quote was my grade of "100", but this time with a line drawn through it and beneath that an F. I never did ask my teacher how she knew I cheated and I certainly didn't protest the grade. I knew I had done the wrong thing and my teacher the right, but I never forgot the way I felt when I read that quote.

I remember when we only talked about Tiger's golf. I miss those days. He won five times and contended in majors and won the Vardon Trophy and ... how shall we say this ... was a little cavalier with the rules.*

100

F

It seems you are forgetting what BC wrote so I posted it here again.  Where in this piece does he claim it's his opinion?  I see BC making an accusation hidden in prose using BC's own experience from when he cheated as a child.  I don't see any words there to indicate this is his opinion or encouraging the reader to reach their own conclusions, do you?

A bit unrelated, I also find it interesting that BC uses the analogy where he equates himself to being a teacher of Tigers with the authority and right to grade or judge Tiger based on his perceived actions.

[birlyshirly]

It seems you are forgetting what BC wrote so I posted it here again.  Where in this piece does he claim it's his opinion?  I see BC making an accusation hidden in prose using BC's own experience from when he cheated as a child.  I don't see any words there to indicate this is his opinion or encouraging the reader to reach their own conclusions, do you?

Context. Does that really read to you more like a report of facts than as an expression of opinion?

[k-troop]

It seems you are forgetting what BC wrote so I posted it here again.  Where in this piece does he claim it's his opinion?  I see BC making an accusation hidden in prose using BC's own experience from when he cheated as a child.  I don't see any words there to indicate this is his opinion or encouraging the reader to reach their own conclusions, do you?

A bit unrelated, I also find it interesting that BC uses the analogy where he equates himself to being a teacher of Tigers with the authority and right to grade or judge Tiger based on his perceived actions.

Okay...then I'll follow your logic and say "where does it say that Tiger cheated?"

He's using a writing style.  When have you ever read an opinion piece that says "hey guys, this is just my opinion and I encourage you to reach your own, but I think the facts strongly suggest that...."  Or, even better:  "Members of the jury, you don't have to agree with me, but here's what I think the facts have shown..."

He also said that Dufner got an A++ for the season.  What event was that in?  I don't recall a scoring system on the PGA Tour where players get letter grades.  (He did say Duf's wife is hot, and that is clearly not opinion. )