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

[birlyshirly]

So you are the only one any more on this forum who is allowed to put forth an opinion?

Where did I do that? I asked a question. If you don't have an answer, and you clearly don't, why not just move along and maybe we'll hear from someone who has a clue.

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.

You didn't make a logical deduction. Deductions involve facts and inferences - and you have neither. You stated an unfounded opinion that some sort of PGA sanction or censure would be an empty gesture, having no clue what such sanction or censure could amount to, or whether it could be applied.

If you have a problem with me pointing that out, rather than just throwing insults around when someone disagrees with me, then I don't know what can be done for you.

[phan52]

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

More like, uh-oh, better toe the line and not f*** with Tiger.

[iacas]

You have been a real pill since you joined, inhibiting rather than promoting healthy discussion.

Chill out Rick. Plus, he joined over a year ago, so your memory likely isn't even right in this case.

Now, back to the discussion, please.

[bplewis24]

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 :)

Unless GolfingDad started another NFL thread or something

More like, uh-oh, better toe the line and not f*** with Tiger.

If by "f*** with" you mean allege ethics violations that could impact his money and the Tour, you might be right.  Let's keep in mind if Tiger is known to be intentionally cheating then his wins, awards and monies earned can be called into question.  While I believe in this case it's not actionable, it's definitely not a road analysts want to head down.  It's similar to folks who, without any sort of evidence or sources, label some athlete a likely steroid user.  People may be thinking it, but to accuse somebody of it without anything to base it on is asking for trouble (mostly only if the person is innocent).

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

More like, uh-oh, better toe the line and not f*** with Tiger.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

If by "f*** with" you mean allege ethics violations that could impact his money and the Tour, you might be right.  Let's keep in mind if Tiger is known to be intentionally cheating then his wins, awards and monies earned can be called into question.  While I believe in this case it's not actionable, it's definitely not a road analysts want to head down.  It's similar to folks who, without any sort of evidence or sources, label some athlete a likely steroid user.  People may be thinking it, but to accuse somebody of it without anything to base it on is asking for trouble (mostly only if the person is innocent).

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

[newtogolf]

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

I don't consider practicing restraint by not calling a professional golfer a cheater to be walking on eggshells.  If BC can't do his job without making reckless, unsupported accusations then he needs to find another career, I'd suggest shock jock or politician.

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I don't consider practicing restraint by not calling a professional golfer a cheater to be walking on eggshells.  If BC can't do his job without making reckless, unsupported accusations then he needs to find another career, I'd suggest shock jock or politician.

You are completely missing my point, but I'll just leave it at that.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I don't consider practicing restraint by not calling a professional golfer a cheater to be walking on eggshells.  If BC can't do his job without making reckless, unsupported accusations then he needs to find another career, I'd suggest shock jock or politician.

You are completely missing my point, but I'll just leave it at that.

I think he addressed your statement exactly.

Quote:

From the legal dictionary:

Defamation

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

I think this is clearest explanation. Public figure or not, he has rights. Journalists need to realize their own "cavalier" behavior of the actual "law".

[Golfingdad]

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

I don't consider practicing restraint by not calling a professional golfer a cheater to be walking on eggshells.  If BC can't do his job without making reckless, unsupported accusations then he needs to find another career, I'd suggest shock jock or politician.

You are completely missing my point, but I'll just leave it at that.

I think he addressed your statement exactly.

Totally agree. @newtogolf addressed Phan's point perfectly.

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

Quote:

From the legal dictionary:

Defamation

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

I think this is clearest explanation. Public figure or not, he has rights. Journalists need to realize their own "cavalier" behavior of the actual "law".

That's fine. If it's that simple, then Tiger should enforce his rights. It's a straightforward business issue. People are getting themselves all worked up, calling for someone to be sacked, and the primary injured party doesn't want to take the redress available at law.

Of course Tiger would need to prove falsity and loss - that the comments decreased the respect, regard, or confidence in which he is held. Brandel would have the opportunity to establish the probable truth underlying his comment, or that his comments were otherwise fair in the circumstances.

[boogielicious]

Tiger just lost the EA Sports contract.  He could blame it on BC!

[phan52]

Totally agree.  @newtogolf  addressed Phan's point perfectly.

No, he missed my point because I was talking about an analyst's ability to do his job in general, not just concerning this particular issue. I think If a player has the ability to use his influence in what a network does with their analysts, it will give the analysts pause going forward in being critical in any regard. JMO.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Totally agree.  @newtogolf  addressed Phan's point perfectly.

No, he missed my point because I was talking about an analyst's ability to do his job in general, not just concerning this particular issue. I think If a player has the ability to use his influence in what a network does with their analysts, it will give the analysts pause going forward in being critical in any regard. JMO.

It is as simple as being in jail or not being in jail. You really have to try to be in "real" trouble as a journalist to be punished. Just as you have to put forth effort to break laws enough to land to in jail.

[newtogolf]

No, he missed my point because I was talking about an analyst's ability to do his job in general, not just concerning this particular issue. I think If a player has the ability to use his influence in what a network does with their analysts, it will give the analysts pause going forward in being critical in any regard. JMO.

phan, you constantly rope-a-dope the discussions you're in.  How do you see this impacting his ability to be an analyst?  Johnny Miller has questioned Tiger in the past and even questioned his interpretation of the rules when he was the analyst of the tournament.  To my knowledge Tiger didn't make any threats to Miller or his job.

An analyst can talk about a players swing, course management decisions, personal life (if public knowledge) even some questionable decisions, but he CAN"T outright call him a cheater or use an analogy to imply he's a cheater, which is what BC did.

[phan52]

phan, you constantly rope-a-dope the discussions you're in.  How do you see this impacting his ability to be an analyst?  Johnny Miller has questioned Tiger in the past and even questioned his interpretation of the rules when he was the analyst of the tournament.  To my knowledge Tiger didn't make any threats to Miller or his job.

An analyst can talk about a players swing, course management decisions, personal life (if public knowledge) even some questionable decisions, but he CAN"T outright call him a cheater or use an analogy to imply he's a cheater, which is what BC did.

Rope-a-dope? I have repeated three time what I said. You are interpreting what I am saying to fit your point. I said, and I quote, "I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst."

Read: generally. I am not talking about potential libelous statements. I am talking about their criticism in general. It is my opinion. Deal with it. And Johnny Miller is a poor example because if there is anybody in the golf media who can get away with anything (and who couldn't care less what a player thinks) it is Johnny Miller.

We obviously disagree. Should I wait while you re-interpret what I said again?

[bplewis24]

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

There are plenty of guys who are routinely critical of Tiger and are likely already on his "bad side."  Hell, Chamblee was probably already on that list.  Feinstein is another guy who Tiger probably doesn't like much.  This is the first time I know of that a lawsuit has been threatened.  I'm pretty sure there is a threshold here that was crossed that pokes a hole in your logic.

Read: generally. I am not talking about potential libelous statements. I am talking about their criticism in general.

Then it fails tests of logic and deduction.  People have been critical in the past.  No undue influence.  This time there is a potentially libelous statement.  Influence exerted or threatened.  You are now saying that him exerting or threatening influence due to a libelous statement is going to cause people who don't make libelous statements to be unable to do their job, even though they've been doing their job just fine before.

Does.  Not.  Compute.

[Golfingdad]

Rope-a-dope? I have repeated three time what I said. You are interpreting what I am saying to fit your point. I said, and I quote, "I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst."

Read: generally. I am not talking about potential libelous statements. I am talking about their criticism in general. It is my opinion. Deal with it. And Johnny Miller is a poor example because if there is anybody in the golf media who can get away with anything (and who couldn't care less what a player thinks) it is Johnny Miller.

We obviously disagree. Should I wait while you re-interpret what I said again?

Disagreeing is fine.  It's good.  It's fun.  That's why we do this.  But that's not what you said.  You said that "he missed your point," which he absolutely did not.  You think that Tiger's ability to influence the media stretches further than we do.  We think that a smart guy should be able to differentiate between "calling it like you see it" and flat-out calling somebody a cheater.

Further, you said "and I'll leave it at that," which is a bunch of passive-aggressive BS.  (And clearly a lie, since you didn't, you know, leave it at that.)

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

No, I mean more like don't get on his bad side because he can affect how you generally do your job as an analyst. Golf Channel would not be doing anybody any favors (including Tiger, IMO) by suspending Chamblee for doing what they pay him to do. If he has to walk on eggshells to do his job they may as well fire him instead of suspending him. Besides, it was not done under their watch, it was for a whole other entity (SI and Golf.com).

Originally Posted by bplewis24

There are plenty of guys who are routinely critical of Tiger and are likely already on his "bad side."  Hell, Chamblee was probably already on that list.  Feinstein is another guy who Tiger probably doesn't like much.  This is the first time I know of that a lawsuit has been threatened.  I'm pretty sure there is a threshold here that was crossed that pokes a hole in your logic.

Of course there are guys who are on his bad side. And why is that? Tiger is a little more senstitive to criticism than most, is he not? Fienstein in particular doesn't care if he never talks to Tiger again. But if one of them gets fired or suspended for something (primarily because of threats from the player, threats that he will never follow up on because he has no standing), that changes the landscape. Most of them have no balls anyway, and will become more passive in their assessmnents.