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

[Ernest Jones]

phan, you constantly rope-a-dope the discussions you're in.

I, for one, have seen no evidence of any rope whatsoever.

[newtogolf]

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?

This is rope-a-doping.  You make a statement, someone disputes it and provides backup to support their argument to which you arrogantly respond and add additional conditions to your statement to try to make yourself right.

So based on our last exchange, your quote now should read "...because he can affect how you (analysts not named Johnny Miller) generally do your job as an analyst."

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

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?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

This is rope-a-doping.  You make a statement, someone disputes it and provides backup to support their argument to which you arrogantly respond and add additional conditions to your statement to try to make yourself right.

So based on our last exchange, your quote now should read "...because he can affect how you (analysts not named Johnny Miller) generally do your job as an analyst."

The irony. You not only re-interpreted what I said, you actually replaced it. Good for you.

[birlyshirly]

This is rope-a-doping.  You make a statement, someone disputes it and provides backup to support their argument to which you arrogantly respond and add additional conditions to your statement to try to make yourself right.

So based on our last exchange, your quote now should read "...because he can affect how you (analysts not named Johnny Miller) generally do your job as an analyst."

Off topic I know, but in that case it's a dangerous metaphor. Because I would have interpreted it as taking a pummelling for 7 or 8 rounds, only to find a knock-out from (seemingly) nowhere, but really it was all part of the plan. As practiced by the GOAT.

[Golfingdad]

Off topic I know, but in that case it's a dangerous metaphor. Because I would have interpreted it as taking a pummelling for 7 or 8 rounds, only to find a knock-out from (seemingly) nowhere, but really it was all part of the plan. As practiced by the GOAT.

Yeah, I just went and looked it up.  You're right ... he used the wrong term.  However, I (and perhaps a few other, perhaps not) interpreted what he meant as if to say that he (phan) changes his argument as he goes along to better fit with the point he's trying to make.  So, at least in one persons case (myself) @newtogolf still managed to make his point, even if he used the wrong term. ;)

[bplewis24]

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?

Not sure how it pertains to this discussion or your point.  Bottom line is people are on his bad side for being critical and they still do their job and continue being critical.  It disproves your theory.

But if one of them gets fired or suspended for something libelous (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 libelous assessmnents.

I added two words which would make your argument hold up.  They are bolded for easy reference .

[k-troop]

Brandon, you (and others) seem to be hanging your hat on the potential for a libel suit. Aside from Steiny's initial outburst, has there been any further discussion of that? Tiger's subsequent statements even affirm that he's not taking any legal action (unless I missed something). We have some lawyers on the forum who have explained why these facts wouldn't give rise to a recoverable libel action, regardless of what Steiny might have initially said.

[phan52]

Quote:

But if one of them gets fired or suspended for something libelous (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 libelous assessmnents.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I added two words which would make your argument hold up.  They are bolded for easy reference .

Well, since there is pretty much of a consensus that it was not libelous....try again. Or don't. I really don't care.

I think that a suspension or firing would be the worst thing the GC could do. For everybody, including Tiger. Again, JMO.

[ghalfaire]

I don't think Golf.com or Golf Channel will publicly chastise Brandel Chamblee for the article.  They might make a statement indicating that the article expresses the opinion of Chamblee and are not necessarily the organization's opinion.  They can hardly permit Tiger to influence the unfiltered opinion their editorial/annalists staff.  If they did that they would lose a lot of viewers.  We should all be thankful that organizations allow their annalists to express their opinions, even when it is unpopular.  One would like to believe that the press would always behave responsibly, but they sometimes don't.  But that is a better imperfection than what would happen with a press that allowed Tiger to have the final say on what is published or expressed about Tiger.  I think that without question that is exactly what Tiger would like.   Before I get an "off topic" flag I would try to say that this comment is relative to the discussion here as so many posts seem to want to have Golf Channel fire Brandel Chamblee for the article and deprive him of making a living.  But I don't think you would like the results of a policy whereby all articles/opinions/etc had to have the express approval of any individual mentioned.

[Valleygolfer]

[QUOTE name="bplewis24" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/432#post_914737"] [QUOTE] But if one of them gets fired or suspended for something libelous (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 libelous assessmnents. [/QUOTE]   I added two words which would make your argument hold up.  They are bolded for easy reference ;-) . [/QUOTE] Well, since there is pretty much of a consensus that it was not libelous....try again. Or don't. I really don't care. I think that a suspension or firing would be the worst thing the GC could do. For everybody, including Tiger. Again, JMO.

Your opinion is that you hate Tiger and no one cares about Brandel. Watch what happens if he disappears. Plus if tiger could prove financial or personal loss, then a suit could be possible. I just don't think he'll do it but he can make brandel sweat about his livelyhood by making a couple of statements.

[bplewis24]

Brandon, you (and others) seem to be hanging your hat on the potential for a libel suit. Aside from Steiny's initial outburst, has there been any further discussion of that? Tiger's subsequent statements even affirm that he's not taking any legal action (unless I missed something).

We have some lawyers on the forum who have explained why these facts wouldn't give rise to a recoverable libel action, regardless of what Steiny might have initially said.

I'm actually not hanging my hat on it as I am one of the folks who don't think there is an actionable cause here.  But that is somewhat irrelevant to the particular point that Phan is making: Tiger threatening to sue somebody who claims he was cheating will disallow analysts to be critical of him going forward.

Do you disagree that claiming he cheated is an objective threshold past being critical of Tiger?  Do you disagree that people (including Chamblee) have been plenty critical of Tiger in the past without being threatened with lawsuits?

The point is that there is a differentiating factor here that should be acknowledged.  Suggesting that Tiger is a cheater whose season grade should reflect an "F"because of it is much more like accusing a person of taking steroids thereby diminishing their accomplishments, and further away from simply saying a person's swing change is stupid or they should leave their coach.  It may not be actionable, ultimately, but it is certainly within the purview of libel.

And yes, I went through a year of law school .

[k-troop]

Do you disagree that claiming he cheated is an objective threshold past being critical of Tiger?  Do you disagree that people (including Chamblee) have been plenty critical of Tiger in the past without being threatened with lawsuits? The point is that there is a differentiating factor here that should be acknowledged.  Suggesting that Tiger is a cheater whose season grade should reflect an "F"because of it is much more like accusing a person of taking steroids thereby diminishing their accomplishments, and further away from simply saying a person's swing change is stupid or they should leave their coach.  It may not be actionable, ultimately, but it is certainly within the purview of libel. And yes, I went through a year of law school ;-) .

IMO saying "I'll sue you" has no bearing on the validity of an injury. None. And if you went to one year of law school then you learned as much law as I did. My 2nd and 3rd years I just learned how to drink and play golf. :-)

[bplewis24]

And if you went to one year of law school then you learned as much law as I did. My 2nd and 3rd years I just learned how to drink and play golf.

Ha!

[phan52]

I'm actually not hanging my hat on it as I am one of the folks who don't think there is an actionable cause here.  But that is somewhat irrelevant to the particular point that Phan is making: Tiger threatening to sue somebody who claims he was cheating will disallow analysts to be critical of him going forward.

I know you like to bitch about practically everything I say, but at least get it right.  I never said that. I said that suspending or firing Chamblee at this point may deter some golf analysts from being critical of Tiger in the future.

Threatening to sue him is irrelevent. We all know that is not their intent and it is nothing but bluster (I am assuming Steinberg is a lawyer; he knows there's nothing there). The Tiger camp wants him out of his job at the GC, even though it had nothing to do with the GC.

[iacas]

Threatening to sue him is irrelevent.

No it's not.

It's telling that this is the first time that they've threatened to sue (a relatively empty threat I think we can all likely agree) because it's the first time a journalist has gone SO far in being critical. Tiger's given the cold shoulder to people - Feinstein, Miceli, etc. - but he's never been treated by something that has even a little merit as a potential lawsuit.

In other words, Brandel went farther than anyone has before.

[birlyshirly]

No it's not.

It's telling that this is the first time that they've threatened to sue (a relatively empty threat I think we can all likely agree) because it's the first time a journalist has gone SO far in being critical. Tiger's given the cold shoulder to people - Feinstein, Miceli, etc. - but he's never been treated by something that has even a little merit as a potential lawsuit.

In other words, Brandel went farther than anyone has before.

Well - that's not necessarily true, unless there's a strange law in the States that lawsuits can only be threatened by public announcement.

There's no way of knowing how many Tiger stories, or lines of inquiry, may have prompted a quiet threat of legal proceedings to try and cut them off.

For the sake of balance, there might be none. Or there could be dozens.

[iacas]

Well - that's not necessarily true, unless there's a strange law in the States that lawsuits can only be threatened by public announcement.

There's no way of knowing how many Tiger stories, or lines of inquiry, may have prompted a quiet threat of legal proceedings to try and cut them off.

For the sake of balance, there might be none. Or there could be dozens.

Fine. Add the word "publicly" to "threatened to sue" and my post remains accurate. Particularly " In other words, Brandel went farther than anyone has before." He did. Being critical is one thing. Going so far as to basically call Tiger a "cheater" (at golf) is a whole new level. What Johnny Miller does and what Brandel did are not the same level.

[birlyshirly]

Fine. Add the word "publicly" to "threatened to sue" and my post remains accurate. Particularly "In other words, Brandel went farther than anyone has before." He did. Being critical is one thing. Going so far as to basically call Tiger a "cheater" (at golf) is a whole new level. What Johnny Miller does and what Brandel did are not the same level.

Well - accurate perhaps, but with a loophole the size of every piece of research or potential story about Tiger that's been quashed by a private threat of litigation.

Obviously though - any criticism of his on-course performance, his demeanour, his swing changes, his choice of equipment - is NOT going to attract any credible threat of legal proceedings.

Brandel clearly went beyond that - I agree. I disagree with any assertion that it's earth-shatteringly important. Tiger's an athlete - not a public official or anyone in a position of trust. There are allegations of dishonesty that are much more important. If golf can survive Gary Player and Tom Watson, then I think it can survive Brandel and Tiger just fine.