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

[Phil McGleno]

Youre not in touch with the golf world where we still talk about Gary Player and Tom Watson or VJs cheating or Monty getting a better lie in the bunker after a rain delay.-Allegations of cheating at golf are HUGE.[quote name="birlyshirly" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/432#post_914976"]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. [/quote]

[iacas]

Important in world matters? No. In golf? Yes. We are still talking about it after all.

[birlyshirly]

Youre not in touch with the golf world where we still talk about Gary Player and Tom Watson or VJs cheating or Monty getting a better lie in the bunker after a rain delay.-Allegations of cheating at golf are HUGE.

If golf can survive Gary Player and Tom Watson, then I think it can survive Brandel and Tiger just fine.

Thanks Phil - but I got that already thanks. My point is that the sky didn't fall in when two fully-fledged legends of the game accused each other of "being cavalier with the rules", and I don't think it will over this. People talk about all sorts of stuff that doesn't really matter.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

There is no history of Tiger directly threatening anyone legally in the Journalism world of golf and a ton of disparaging remarks have been said about him.

Shirly, the fact that you take what people say here and create a "slightly" skewed opposite opinion that's weak and rather pathetic, seems antagonistic or is perpetual ignorance. I am going to assume that since you seem to know the English language well enough to articulate your bullshit in a manner that doesn't completely make you look like an idiot, these arguments are laced with ill content towards Tiger (and somewhat reeks of a type of racism or hate in a passive aggressive way) and purposeful ignorance to agitate the forum into continuing to try to show you logic.

I think I am done with listening to you on the forum, your credibility has been shot.

[birlyshirly]

There is no history of Tiger directly threatening anyone legally in the Journalism world of golf and a ton of disparaging remarks have been said about him.

So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed where I said:

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.

Shirly, the fact that you take what people say here and create a "slightly" skewed opposite opinion that's weak and rather pathetic, seems antagonistic or is perpetual ignorance. I am going to assume that since you seem to know the English language well enough to articulate your bullshit in a manner that doesn't completely make you look like an idiot, these arguments are laced with ill content towards Tiger (and somewhat reeks of a type of racism or hate in a passive aggressive way) and purposeful ignorance to agitate the forum into continuing to try to show you logic.

I think I am done with listening to you on the forum, your credibility has been shot.

Nice rhetoric. How about "Anyone who disagrees with me is either an idiot, a racist, or a hater." See? That would have made your point much clearer, in perhaps a quarter of the words.

When you ever find me stooping to that level of intellectually bankrupt argument, you can call me on it.

[iacas]

So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed where I said:

Nope. There aren't dozens. The fact that this is the only time a lawsuit's been publicly threatened is a relevant and telling fact.

When you ever find me stooping to that level of intellectually bankrupt argument, you can call me on it.

You've found an entirely different level.

[Valleygolfer]

Nice rhetoric. How about "Anyone who disagrees with me is either an idiot, a racist, or a hater." See? That would have made your point much clearer, in perhaps a quarter of the words. When you ever find me stooping to that level of intellectually bankrupt argument, you can call me on it.

We have supplied facts and reasonable arguments, there's something underlying here. Jealousy or hate, only you know. Furthermore in Brandel's honor I never directly said you were any of those things.... I am glad the irony of my comment wasn't lost on you however...

[birlyshirly]

We have supplied facts and reasonable arguments, there's something underlying here. Jealousy or hate, only you know.

Furthermore in Brandel's honor I never directly said you were any of those things....

Whoa there!

Out of sheer fatigue, I think I might have taken that from just about anyone else here - but you're the thread starter. What did you start the thread for if you're not prepared to hear the other side of the argument without taking umbrage?

This is about an issue between Brandel and Tiger. I happen to agree more with Brandel's side of this particular argument - that's all. What is so unfathomable about that, that you need to find some ulterior motive?

The offending article seemed like a good idea at the time to 1 experienced journalist - even if he now has reservations. It made it past his editor - who had reservations but not strongly enough to insist. And I'm pretty sure that it will have made it past in-house counsel. Every single one of those individuals had more at stake in assessing the rights and wrongs of it than you or me or anyone else on this thread - so dismissing that whole side of things as completely untenable just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

If you don't like the best arguments, whether from me or anyone else, on this side of the discussion - then just congratulate yourself on being right all along.

[bplewis24]

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.

If by "bitch" you mean point out holes in your logic, then sure, I do. But you're mistaken if you think I single you out or something.

It appears you are trying to weasel out of your original point with the "I never said those exact words" thing.  Here is the progression of the discussion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

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.

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).

In the bolded sentence above, you clearly acknowledge that you are suggesting that he [Tiger] can affect how an analyst does their job.  Your very clear implication was that Tiger's actions when somebody "f***s with" him or "gets on his bad side" has an influence on them doing their job correctly if the network or media outlet then silences or punishes the analyst.  The cause-and-effect here is clearly Tiger threatening lawsuit resulting in future analysts not being able to do their job.

If you want to pretend Tiger and his agents' comments are irrelevant to the hypothetical situation you are warning us of, go ahead.  But it's pretty clear it ignores what has actually happened now and in the past.

[iacas]

I should have just left this locked.

[newtogolf]

In the bolded sentence above, you clearly acknowledge that you are suggesting that he [Tiger] can affect how an analyst does their job.  Your very clear implication was that Tiger's actions when somebody "f***s with" him or "gets on his bad side" has an influence on them doing their job correctly if the network or media outlet then silences or punishes the analyst.  The cause-and-effect here is clearly Tiger threatening lawsuit resulting in future analysts not being able to do their job.

If you want to pretend Tiger and his agents' comments are irrelevant to the hypothetical situation you are warning us of, go ahead.  But it's pretty clear it ignores what has actually happened now and in the past.

I mentioned how Johnny Miller has criticized Tiger's swing and rules interpretations and Phan's response was Miller's not a good example, he doesn't care what anyone thinks.

Miller is an analyst and if he doesn't care then maybe Phan should give us the list of analysts he thinks this will affect.

[bplewis24]

I should have just left this locked.

I vote ValleyGolfer's "kickstarter of the month" award be revoked due to causing too much frustration and having to be locked .

Anyway, I should probably bow out of it now that it appears tension is ratcheting up a bit.

[Fourputt]

I should have just left this locked.

I think that it's a great discussion which may have run its course.  The few who side with Chamblee have run out of arguments, because there isn't much to support them.  He either overstepped the line mostly based on personal prejudice - or he just blew it - but his accusation has no real hard supporting evidence, only slight circumstantial support.  Tiger either cheated or he didn't but with the lack of real evidence on the negative side,  I feel that you can't go against a lifetime of closely documented play with never so much as a hint of impropriety. It seems to me that there almost has to be some underlying bias, most likely based on the off course dalliances which have nothing to do with his play.

You either believe Tiger cheated and Chamblee has the right to say so as a journalist despite the lack of evidence; or you feel that Chamblee has the right to say what he wants because he isn't a journalist; or you just don'l like Tiger and anything goes.  That's how it seems to boil down anyway.

[k-troop]

:doh: I should have just left this locked.

LOL.

[k-troop]

You either believe Tiger cheated and Chamblee has the right to say so as a journalist despite the lack of evidence; or you feel that Chamblee has the right to say what he wants because he isn't a journalist; or you just don'l like Tiger and anything goes.  That's how it seems to boil down anyway.

There is another option.  I'm not willing to say Tiger cheated.  To put it another way:  I'm not really sure whether he cheated or not.  I can't give him the benefit of the doubt based on character alone, and the objective evidence--circumstantial as it is--doesn't convince me either way.  So, as it lies, if I were asked to "judge" Tiger, I would err on the side of saying he's innocent.  However, I don't think Brandel is wrong for stating his opinion.  His job is to "comment" on sports.  He did that.  And his "comment" has prompted discussion.  That's what "commentary" is supposed to do, so he did his job well.

I think ...   I feel ... It seems to me ...

Fourputt, you and I have gone back and forth a lot in this thread.  I'm pointing out here what I know you recognize:  the weight of your conclusions is really summarized by the words in your post that I've left in above.  It's what YOU THINK, YOU FEEL, and what SEEMS to YOU.  I'm more than willing to accept your opinion, and I think your opinion is well supported by the facts.  But the facts themselves don't say anything.

You feel Tiger is innocent because you believe in him.  You base that on his entire career/record, but it's still your belief.

The world is not required to agree with you.  Based on the 3/4 incidents from 2013, the issue with Sergio, boulder-gate from several years ago, etc. some folks might think that Tiger is willing to push to the very limits of the rules to improve his position.  And, if he's willing to go to the very limits of the rules of golf to improve his position (i.e. boulder-gate), then is it that much of a stretch to think that he'll go that extra inch and cross the line?  The extra inch would take him to "well I know it wiggled, I'm not sure if it moved or not, but because I can't be sure I'm just going to play it as if it oscillated."  Some might call that cheating.

Again, I'm not one of those people who will say Tiger cheated.  But I can understand why some would believe that.  That's all.

[newtogolf]

There is another option.  I'm not willing to say Tiger cheated.  To put it another way:  I'm not really sure whether he cheated or not.  I can't give him the benefit of the doubt based on character alone, and the objective evidence--circumstantial as it is--doesn't convince me either way.  So, as it lies, if I were asked to "judge" Tiger, I would err on the side of saying he's innocent.  However, I don't think Brandel is wrong for stating his opinion.  His job is to "comment" on sports.  He did that.  And his "comment" has prompted discussion.  That's what "commentary" is supposed to do, so he did his job well.

Fourputt, you and I have gone back and forth a lot in this thread.  I'm pointing out here what I know you recognize:  the weight of your conclusions is really summarized by the words in your post that I've left in above.  It's what YOU THINK, YOU FEEL, and what SEEMS to YOU.  I'm more than willing to accept your opinion, and I think your opinion is well supported by the facts.  But the facts themselves don't say anything.

You feel Tiger is innocent because you believe in him.  You base that on his entire career/record, but it's still your belief.

The world is not required to agree with you.  Based on the 3/4 incidents from 2013, the issue with Sergio, boulder-gate from several years ago, etc. some folks might think that Tiger is willing to push to the very limits of the rules to improve his position.  And, if he's willing to go to the very limits of the rules of golf to improve his position (i.e. boulder-gate), then is it that much of a stretch to think that he'll go that extra inch and cross the line?  The extra inch would take him to "well I know it wiggled, I'm not sure if it moved or not, but because I can't be sure I'm just going to play it as if it oscillated."  Some might call that cheating.

Again, I'm not one of those people who will say Tiger cheated.  But I can understand why some would believe that.  That's all.

People outside the industry, like most of us here on the TST can probably get away with saying what we like, we could even call Tiger a cheater, that's not the issue.

BC is golf analyst and writer within the golf industry of which Tiger plays a huge role in generating revenue.  BC could have probably gotten away with saying Tiger was  bit too cavalier with the rules for his liking,  but he refused to stop there, despite the advice he got from golf.com editors.  BC wanted to call Tiger out as a cheater and he got as close to doing it as he could without actually writing the words and that's why he's feeling the heat now.

[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

In the bolded sentence above, you clearly acknowledge that you are suggesting that he [Tiger] can affect how an analyst does their job.  Your very clear implication was that Tiger's actions when somebody "f***s with" him or "gets on his bad side" has an influence on them doing their job correctly if the network or media outlet then silences or punishes the analyst.  The cause-and-effect here is clearly Tiger threatening lawsuit resulting in future analysts not being able to do their job.

If you want to pretend Tiger and his agents' comments are irrelevant to the hypothetical situation you are warning us of, go ahead.  But it's pretty clear it ignores what has actually happened now and in the past.

I know what I have said and I know what I meant. Read the sentence after the one you cherry picked and bolded. My point all along has been that suspending Chamblee may deter analysts from doing their job. It matters little how the Tiger camp tries to get that done. Do you think the publicly stated threat of a lawsuit is the only tack Steinberg is taking in this? You don't think he's using his powers of persuasion behind closed doors, probably even as we speak?

But go ahead and try to spin it to fit whatever your want. I'm done with this conversation.

[Perfect Slicer]

The world is not required to agree with you.  Based on the 3/4 incidents from 2013, the issue with Sergio, boulder-gate from several years ago, etc. some folks might think that Tiger is willing to push to the very limits of the rules to improve his position.  And, if he's willing to go to the very limits of the rules of golf to improve his position (i.e. boulder-gate), then is it that much of a stretch to think that he'll go that extra inch and cross the line?  The extra inch would take him to "well I know it wiggled, I'm not sure if it moved or not, but because I can't be sure I'm just going to play it as if it oscillated."  Some might call that cheating.

Every single player on the tour is willing to push to the very limits of the rules to improve his position. If he does not, he is not a very smart player. In my opinion, doing what is allowable under the rules, even "Up to the very limits of the rule" in no way leads me to believe that the player would go that extra inch and cross the line.

I'm not sure I understand how using the rules to your advantage makes you a kind of "pre-cheater".