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

[newtogolf]

And you know this...how? What did he gain from it? He is already the network's lead analyst. Be careful what you wish for.

Brandel Chamblee is a very good golf analyst, probably the best one the Golf Channel trots out there. Does he have an ego? Yes. But that is part of why they hired him in the first place, for the fact that he is outsploken. But his positions are based on a lot of study and scrutiny and I have to believe that he truly feels what he said is true, he just picked the wrong way to go about it. Saying Tiger was "cavalier with the rules" would have been controversial enough, but his half-baked apologies makes it pretty clear that he thinks it was more than that. So be it, that's his job. What would you have him do? Suck up to the players like the rest of the golf media?

We'll see how this works out and if the Golf Channel bows to the Tiger camp on this. Steinberg says he is "done talking aobut it" but who believes that? And how much leverage do they really have? Tiger drives ratings and he can say he won't do interviews with them, but the Golf Channel is also NBC and both networks have deals with the PGA through 2021. PGA rules mandate that Tiger has to do media at Tour events and both the Golf Channel and NBC will have cameras and microphones at those media events, so they will get plenty of Tiger on their shows. It's not like the stuff he says when he is coming off the course are all that revealing. Tiger as a personality is pretty bland.

I don't expect the Golf Channel to shoot themselves in the foot over this, but who knows. Steinberg is a pretty persistent person, although legal action doesn't appear to be an option, not that he won't continue to threaten that behind closed doors.

BC and Miceli are the Howard Stern's of golf, they make their career at saying outrageous things (usually about Tiger) in order to get attention for themselves.

[Lihu]

BC and Miceli are the Howard Stern's of golf, they make their career at saying outrageous things (usually about Tiger) in order to get attention for themselves.

Howard Stern? That's going too far.

[turtleback]

I don't know that I'd go quite that far.  He admitted that he couldn't possibly know what Tiger was thinking.  (That's a lot more than some people I know ;))

If he'd have come out with this one first ... I'd view it a pretty good (and seemingly sincere) apology.  But considering that his first comments were a defense of his column, and then his second comments were a weak attempt at a twitter apology, I'm with you ... this comes across as really fake and forced.

I think that when he says that he can't be 100% certain that is a very different statement than he couldn't possibly know what Tiger was thinking.  The former gives a pretty strong implication that he believes, but cannot prove to 100% certainty, that he was cheating.  It is definitely a non-apology apology to me.  I'm still in favor of a suspension by TGC.

As to the "favorable" drop that Brandel and others claim he took at the Players, they need to go back and look at what that next shot looked like.  If THAT is favorable then Tiger must just be stupid.  If you are going to take a favorable drop you wouldn't drop it in a place where you have to take that shot.

[Golfingdad]

I think that when he says that he can't be 100% certain that is a very different statement than he couldn't possibly know what Tiger was thinking.  The former gives a pretty strong implication that he believes, but cannot prove to 100% certainty, that he was cheating.  It is definitely a non-apology apology to me.  I'm still in favor of a suspension by TGC.

I don't think they are nearly as different as you do.  I would think that most people out there would be willing to venture a guess as to PART of what Tiger was thinking, let's say, at the moment that he grabbed then let go of the stick.  I'd be willing to bet that PART of what he was thinking was "oh crap, it looks like moving this is about to cause my ball to move, so I'll stop moving it."  Or some variation of that.  I think that is reasonable to assume based on what we could see.  (Assuming beyond that is where you start to get into trouble ... he saw it move and hoped nobody else did, and thinks of that ilk)  So, there is no reason to say that "I couldn't possibly know anything that Tiger was thinking."  "I couldn't know for certain what he was thinking" is admission enough that he acknowledges that he was making idiotic assumptions.  So, this is why, in a bubble, I would consider this one a fairly sincere apology.  (I do stipulate that I am in the minority here ... your objections are noted. ;))

However, it's not in a bubble, it came after two other really lame, forced attempts at an explanation (not apologies) so for that reason, I agree with you guys that it is not sincere.

I don't think he needs to be officially suspended though.  I don't know what that accomplishes.  It's not like he's going to change his opinion because he doesn't work for a few days or weeks.  He's still going to be a pompous jerk either way.

-----------------------

PS ... Congrats to Valleygolfer for certainly winning (I'm making a pretty safe guess here) this months kickstarter!  I enjoyed owning it for one month :)

[newtogolf]

I don't think he needs to be officially suspended though.  I don't know what that accomplishes.  It's not like he's going to change his opinion because he doesn't work for a few days or weeks.  He's still going to be a pompous jerk either way.

-----------------------

PS ... Congrats to Valleygolfer for certainly winning (I'm making a pretty safe guess here) this months kickstarter!  I enjoyed owning it for one month :)

I agree it won't change his opinion but the loss of income may encourage him to reconsider calling someone else a cheater in the future.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't think he needs to be officially suspended though.  I don't know what that accomplishes.  It's not like he's going to change his opinion because he doesn't work for a few days or weeks.  He's still going to be a pompous jerk either way.

-----------------------

PS ... Congrats to Valleygolfer for certainly winning (I'm making a pretty safe guess here) this months kickstarter!  I enjoyed owning it for one month :)

I agree it won't change his opinion but the loss of income may encourage him to reconsider calling someone else a cheater in the future.

Yes.  It's one thing if there is a smoking gun, but in this case they (haven't) even found a gun, smoking or otherwise, only a vague suspicion of a gun.  That is not sufficient evidence to besmirch a player's character.

[Golfingdad]

I agree it won't change his opinion but the loss of income may encourage him to reconsider calling someone else a cheater in the future.

Yes.  It's one thing if there is a smoking gun, but in this case they even found a gun, smoking or otherwise, only a vague suspicion of a gun.  That is not sufficient evidence to besmirch a player's character.

Fair point.  I guess when I think of suspensions (or fines) in pro sports, I always assume that they make so much money that any quantity of money or amount of time isn't going to make a dent.  And if it doesn't make a dent, it serves no purpose.  If somebody punished me by taking a nickel out of my pocket, that's not really doing anything.  But a commentator on the golf channel isn't necessarily a multi-millionaire, so maybe you guys are right and it would give him pause.

[Fourputt]

Yes.  It's one thing if there is a smoking gun, but in this case they even found a gun, smoking or otherwise, only a vague suspicion of a gun.  That is not sufficient evidence to besmirch a player's character.

Oops, that should be "... haven't even found a gun...."

[Lihu]

Fair point.  I guess when I think of suspensions (or fines) in pro sports, I always assume that they make so much money that any quantity of money or amount of time isn't going to make a dent.  And if it doesn't make a dent, it serves no purpose.  If somebody punished me by taking a nickel out of my pocket, that's not really doing anything.  But a commentator on the golf channel isn't necessarily a multi-millionaire, so maybe you guys are right and it would give him pause.

Plus, if anything, it would give other commentators who disagree with him in the future some ammunition?

[Golfingdad]

Oops, that should be "...haven't even found a gun...."

I knew what you meant. ;)

By the way, if suspending Chamblee means more air time for Charlie Rymer, I'm all for it.  I like that guy!  He's not pompous, he's not full of himself, he's just fun.

[birlyshirly]

[...]

...what about the PGA? Isn't Brandel a member? Is there no code of practice for the profession that covers this, or a sanction available for someone who brings the profession into disrepute? Soccer players and managers are routinely subject to fines and/or other sanction in the UK for unsportmanlike comments.

No takers on this point?

Assuming you think Brandel should be sanctioned - wouldn't it be better if it came from his professional body, rather than an employer looking like they've been leant on?

[ghalfaire]

No takers on this point?

Assuming you think Brandel should be sanctioned - wouldn't it be better if it came from his professional body, rather than an employer looking like they've been leant on?

I think it is a reasonable question and some professions do have rules about your conduct even off the job if it brings discredit on the organization.  I don't know if the PGA does or not and if it does what the rules are.  I also don't know if Golf Channel has such rules either as the conduct (the article) was produced for Golf.com and Golf.com apparently let the article be published over the objections of their editors.  But you would have to believe that any article like this has to be reviewed by the legal department at Golf.com.  So at least the attorneys there must have felt that the article didn't contain any libelous content.  For what ever that is worth.

[newtogolf]

I think it is a reasonable question and some professions do have rules about your conduct even off the job if it brings discredit on the organization.  I don't know if the PGA does or not and if it does what the rules are.  I also don't know if Golf Channel has such rules either as the conduct (the article) was produced for Golf.com and Golf.com apparently let the article be published over the objections of their editors.  But you would have to believe that any article like this has to be reviewed by the legal department at Golf.com.  So at least the attorneys there must have felt that the article didn't contain any libelous content.  For what ever that is worth.

I don't believe the PGA has any authority over the Golf Channel and I don't think writing controversial articles falls under their rules so I don't see how they could reprimand him.  They might have an opinion as they did when Sergio made his racial comment regarding Tiger, but I don't think  it would go beyond that.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

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.

And you know this...how? What did he gain from it? He is already the network's lead analyst. Be careful what you wish for.

Brandel Chamblee is a very good golf analyst, probably the best one the Golf Channel trots out there. Does he have an ego? Yes. But that is part of why they hired him in the first place, for the fact that he is outsploken. But his positions are based on a lot of study and scrutiny and I have to believe that he truly feels what he said is true, he just picked the wrong way to go about it. Saying Tiger was "cavalier with the rules" would have been controversial enough, but his half-baked apologies makes it pretty clear that he thinks it was more than that. So be it, that's his job. What would you have him do? Suck up to the players like the rest of the golf media?

We'll see how this works out and if the Golf Channel bows to the Tiger camp on this. Steinberg says he is "done talking aobut it" but who believes that? And how much leverage do they really have? Tiger drives ratings and he can say he won't do interviews with them, but the Golf Channel is also NBC and both networks have deals with the PGA through 2021. PGA rules mandate that Tiger has to do media at Tour events and both the Golf Channel and NBC will have cameras and microphones at those media events, so they will get plenty of Tiger on their shows. It's not like the stuff he says when he is coming off the course are all that revealing. Tiger as a personality is pretty bland.

I don't expect the Golf Channel to shoot themselves in the foot over this, but who knows. Steinberg is a pretty persistent person, although legal action doesn't appear to be an option, not that he won't continue to threaten that behind closed doors.

You have a persistent argument throughout this thread about how you know what Tiger was thinking but when someone assumes Bramble's thinking you are up in arms? Tiger may be dry personality wise but most of us want to hear his thoughts and comments on play....... or they would be interviewing Duf's wife....

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

[...]

...what about the PGA? Isn't Brandel a member? Is there no code of practice for the profession that covers this, or a sanction available for someone who brings the profession into disrepute? Soccer players and managers are routinely subject to fines and/or other sanction in the UK for unsportmanlike comments.

No takers on this point?

Assuming you think Brandel should be sanctioned - wouldn't it be better if it came from his professional body, rather than an employer looking like they've been leant on?

How is that going to accomplish anything when he isn't actively playing any more?  Talk about your empty gesture.

[birlyshirly]

How is that going to accomplish anything when he isn't actively playing any more?  Talk about your empty gesture.

well, first off, I raised a question about what, if any, action the pga could take. We've got professional members here, yes? So I thought maybe they could shed a little light. If this came up in my own field, I'd be able to.

No point in talking about an empty gesture until you know what the possible gestures, or actions, or sanctions are - right?

[Valleygolfer]

PS ... Congrats to Valleygolfer for certainly winning (I'm making a pretty safe guess here) this months kickstarter!  I enjoyed owning it for one month :) It is kinda like saying "first" in a comment section when it comes to this subject ;-)

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

How is that going to accomplish anything when he isn't actively playing any more?  Talk about your empty gesture.

well, first off, I raised a question about what, if any, action the pga could take. We've got professional members here, yes? So I thought maybe they could shed a little light. If this came up in my own field, I'd be able to.

No point in talking about an empty gesture until you know what the possible gestures, or actions, or sanctions are - right?

So you are the only one any more on this forum who is allowed to put forth an opinion? You have been a real pill since you joined, inhibiting rather than promoting healthy discussion.  I was simply making a logical deduction, which is how half the posts on a discussion forum are formulated.

We have some pros on board, but we don't have any PGA Tour pros that I know of. The only real punishment that the Tour can levy are fines or suspensions, and those are generally for on course issues during tournaments.  When a player isn't actively participating, the Tour isn't going to do much unless the gaff is a lot more serious than this.  You can't suspend a player who isn't playing.

I think that they will just leave it to Chamblee's current employer to deal with the situation.  I'd think that this has done enough damage to his journalistic integrity that it will affect his ability to be taken seriously, and that could have a direct effect on his employment.