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

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

No you are reading me wrong.  I believe Tiger because there is absolutely no evidence to believe otherwise.  There is only supposition and  suspicion, and neither of those is evidence, nor in my opinion, justification for what Chamblee wrote.  I've never cared one way or the other about Chamblee before this incident.  He has always showed an apparent bias against Tiger, but that didn't matter to me.  I have personal biases for and against quite a few sports figures, sometimes without much justification.  That's just being human.  I just don't see it the same way in this instance.  Chamblee crossed a line that you aren't supposed to cross when you have a public soapbox.  That is all I see in this.  He made a serious accusation based on nothing more than his opinion, and that is simply bad journalism.

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valleygolfer

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.

The problem is that between you and phan, you had no "best" arguments. I have a problem with slander and defamation situations and defending them with the same torn apart weak facts at nausea.

[birlyshirly]

The problem is that between you and phan, you had no "best" arguments. I have a problem with slander and defamation situations and defending them with the same torn apart weak facts at nausea.

If that's your problem - then I think you're out on a limb.

I can see that I'm out of step with the majority opinion on a couple of issues here - but I don't think there's a consensus that this was actionable slander or defamation. I think I run with the crowd on that one

[iacas]

Meta arguments are… :offtopic:

[turtleback]

If that's your problem - then I think you're out on a limb.

I can see that I'm out of step with the majority opinion on a couple of issues here - but I don't think there's a consensus that this was actionable slander or defamation. I think I run with the crowd on that one

The fact that Brandel was clever enough to call Tiger a cheater without putting himself at risk of a lawsuit (and I don't recall ANYONE on this thread who has argued that a lawsuit could be sustained against Brandel, so in that respect you are arguing against a straw man).  So yes, you are right, as is everyone else, that there is no real justification or possibility of a lawsuit here.  But that is about the only thing you've been right about.

The rest of your nonsense comes across as being activated by deep seated bias.  I have just as much justification to use it as a basis for calling you a racist as Brandel had of calling Tiger a cheater.

[birlyshirly]

The fact that Brandel was clever enough to call Tiger a cheater without putting himself at risk of a lawsuit (and I don't recall ANYONE on this thread who has argued that a lawsuit could be sustained against Brandel, so in that respect you are arguing against a straw man).  So yes, you are right, as is everyone else, that there is no real justification or possibility of a lawsuit here.  But that is about the only thing you've been right about.

The rest of your nonsense comes across as being activated by deep seated bias.  I have just as much justification to use it as a basis for calling you a racist as Brandel had of calling Tiger a cheater.

I'm not a racist. I am however an imbecilist, and your post offended my worst prejudices as your logic disappeared up its own arse. Let me walk you through it.

You claim that you have as much justification for calling me a racist, as Brandel had of calling Tiger a cheater.

But recall, I'm the one who thinks that Brandel had some justification for what he wrote. You're the one who thinks he had no justification - can you remember that?

So, by the logic of your own post, you have ZERO justification for calling me a racist.

Way to prove a point turtleback.

[MS256]

I'm not a racist. I am however an imbecilist, and your post offended my worst prejudices as your logic disappeared up its own arse. Let me walk you through it.

You claim that you have as much justification for calling me a racist, as Brandel had of calling Tiger a cheater.

But recall, I'm the one who thinks that Brandel had some justification for what he wrote. You're the one who thinks he had no justification - can you remember that?

So, by the logic of your own post, you have ZERO justification for calling me a racist.

Way to prove a point turtleback.

I think ZERO justification was the point he was making...On both topics.

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

I think ZERO justification was the point he was making...On both topics.

That might have been a plausible interpretation - if he hadn't prefaced his point with:

Quote:

The rest of your nonsense comes across as being activated by deep seated bias.

I can (try to) rise above the insults. It's turtleneck's schoolboy logic that offends me.

[Valleygolfer]

I can (try to) rise above the insults. It's turtleneck's schoolboy logic that offends me.

I pretty much walked away from my own thread but I have to say your colors show regardless of how you lament about the suspicions against you.

[k-troop]

Criticizing Obama doesn't make you a racist. Criticizing Tiger doesn't make you a racist either. Seriously? We have to resort to that??

[birlyshirly]

I pretty much walked away from my own thread but I have to say your colors show regardless of how you lament about the suspicions against you.

Ok. here's a recap of the main points I've made here. 1. Suing for libel over a sporting commentary is not good PR. 2. Video, even if you need to watch it a few times, CLEARLY shows the ball move. Not oscillate. Move. 3. It's a reasonable interpretation of the video that TW saw it move. Sure, it's arguable both ways. 4. BC' s article was reasonable. You can disagree with his conclusions. You can think that he's wildly off the mark. That's not enough to show that his argument isn't reasonable. 5. I'm happy that he wrote the article, in part because I tend to agree with it, and in part because I think it's a good thing that he wasn't afraid to put it in print. 6. I don't think a libel action would succeed. The reasons why are important and relevant. BC would win because he would, IMO, show that his article was either PROBABLY accurate, or fair comment. If you don't agree, then why would you say that a libel action is a straw man? 7. I think all this hoo-ha over a cheating allegation is way OTT. I think some posters may be more concerned with the reputation of the game than with TW' s reputation. Laudable, but I think both the history of golf, and comparisons with other sports, show that golf can survive this just fine. Now, that list is off the top of my head - but I think it's fairly accurate as regards the main points I've argued. If I've missed off any heinously biased arguments to try and whitewash my reputation, then please quote them up. If you want to debate any of those points, then fire away. But let's try to get back on topic - without the hysterical accusations of bad faith.

[Valleygolfer]

Criticizing Obama doesn't make you a racist. Criticizing Tiger doesn't make you a racist either. Seriously? We have to resort to that??

No one has called anyone a racist. "Deep seated bias", yes and underlying motives, yes. I have been around forums long enough to know when an antagonist is in the room.

[iacas]

4. BC' s article was reasonable. You can disagree with his conclusions. You can think that he's wildly off the mark. That's not enough to show that his argument isn't reasonable.

7. I think all this hoo-ha over a cheating allegation is way OTT. I think some posters may be more concerned with the reputation of the game than with TW' s reputation. Laudable, but I think both the history of golf, and comparisons with other sports, show that golf can survive this just fine.

4. BC's article was not reasonable. There's a huge gap between rules infractions and outright cheating. The severity of alleging "cheat" in the golf world is incredibly high, and Brandel, as a former player, knows this. Saying his article was "reasonable" is about as close to being "wrong" as an opinion can get.

7. It's not over the top. It's only over the top if you believe #4.

[saevel25]

Did Tiger break the rules, yes. Did he get caught, yes. Did he do it on purpose to gain an advantage, can not be proven. It is nearly impossible to prove intent in this case. Doing so, as Brandel has done, is just stupid and reckless. Especially as a former player.

Is it Libel, I think it is borderline. The problem is, Brandel in his story intently cheated on his test. Thus he is assuming Tiger INTENTLY cheated in those cases he listed bellow. Here's the problem, it is hard to prove intent. You can say that Tiger Woods had many close cases with the rules in 2013. To say he intently did something is

defamation against Tiger Wood's character. Brandel is using his popularity as a golf writer as a way to express this opinion. He has hurt Tiger Wood's reputation with little examples of proving INTENT. Breaking the rules does not mean a person cheated in golf. The rules are weird like that. Did Dustin Johnson cheat when he hit his ball out of that sand area at Whistling Straights? He broke a rule, but he did not cheat. He was assessed a 2 stroke penalty. Tiger made an illegal drop at the Master's. We don't know if he did it on purpose to gain an advantage or cheat, but he was penalized. You can not go out there and claim Tiger cheated. That is a direct assault on Tiger's reputation with very little evidence in the way to prove INTENT.

[birlyshirly]

4. There's a huge gap between rules infractions and outright cheating.

I agree, at least that there's a gap. [quote name="iacas" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/468#post_915419"] The severity of alleging "cheat" in the golf world is incredibly high, and Brandel, as a former player, knows this.[/quote] I broadly agree with this too. But you're saying that there are "local rules" in the golf world that Brandel has infringed. I'd say that those rules don't necessarily apply in the world of journalism, even golf journalism. I'd be more in favour of your argument being applied to fellow (current) competitors, and rules officials. I think I said as much earlier in the thread. [quote name="iacas" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/468#post_915419"] Saying his article was "reasonable" is about as close to being "wrong" as an opinion can get.[/quote] Is your opinion. Fine, we disagree on this. Thankfully, neither of us gets to adjudicate on who is really right. [quote name="iacas" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/468#post_915419"] 7. It's not over the top. It's only over the top if you believe #4. [/quote] No. I do believe number 4, but that's not why I believe this episode is OTT. Lots of people have simply dismissed BC's argument on grounds that he's a pundit, a contrarian, a failed tour player, bitter or what have you. So I fail to see how much damage it can do, compared to Watson and Player calling each other out, or the more clear cut cases of cheating - whether that's VJ, or Dyson, or Montgomerie or whoever you wish to mention. But even that's not the main reason why I think this is a side issue. I look at cycling. What other sport has been more tainted by accusations (and proof) of cheating over such a sustained period of time? Not just marginal, occasional cheating - but systematic abuses that invalidated major professional titles. In some cases, you could strip the entire podium of their medals. Has that hurt cycling? There's been a recognised boom here in the UK. There's more interest in the elite level AND the grass roots participation than there's been in years. Golf clubs meanwhile are struggling to maintain their memberships and revenue streams. I think PEDs and betting scandals damage the credibility of any sport more than the sort of accusation at the centre of this.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

4. There's a huge gap between rules infractions and outright cheating.

I agree, at least that there's a gap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

The severity of alleging "cheat" in the golf world is incredibly high, and Brandel, as a former player, knows this.

I broadly agree with this too. But you're saying that there are "local rules" in the golf world that Brandel has infringed. I'd say that those rules don't necessarily apply in the world of journalism, even golf journalism. I'd be more in favour of your argument being applied to fellow (current) competitors, and rules officials. I think I said as much earlier in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Saying his article was "reasonable" is about as close to being "wrong" as an opinion can get.

Is your opinion. Fine, we disagree on this. Thankfully, neither of us gets to adjudicate on who is really right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

7. It's not over the top. It's only over the top if you believe #4.

No. I do believe number 4, but that's not why I believe this episode is OTT. Lots of people have simply dismissed BC's argument on grounds that he's a pundit, a contrarian, a failed tour player, bitter or what have you. So I fail to see how much damage it can do, compared to Watson and Player calling each other out, or the more clear cut cases of cheating - whether that's VJ, or Dyson, or Montgomerie or whoever you wish to mention. But even that's not the main reason why I think this is a side issue.

I look at cycling. What other sport has been more tainted by accusations (and proof) of cheating over such a sustained period of time? Not just marginal, occasional cheating - but systematic abuses that invalidated major professional titles. In some cases, you could strip the entire podium of their medals. Has that hurt cycling? There's been a recognised boom here in the UK. There's more interest in the elite level AND the grass roots participation than there's been in years. Golf clubs meanwhile are struggling to maintain their memberships and revenue streams.

I think PEDs and betting scandals damage the credibility of any sport more than the sort of accusation at the centre of this.

On the other hand, Chamblee is in a position of "expert commentator", and many are going to believe what he writes solely because he wrote it.  Honorable conduct is one of the very foundations of the game of golf, and impugning a player's honesty IS serious business.  The fact that you still point to instances which occurred in another age should make that very clear.  Such accusations aren't forgotten, even if they are proven to be untrue.  When no actual proof is possible, then that cloud hangs over the player for the rest of his career, and beyond.  Even the fact that you are apparently so passionate about it is an indicator of how serious the issue is.

For that reason, frivolous or careless or unproven accusations against a players honorable conduct should be grounds for some sort of penal action, if not legal then occupational.  Chamblee should at the very least be censured.

[saevel25]

On the other hand, Chamblee is in a position of "expert commentator", and many are going to believe what he writes solely because he wrote it.  Honorable conduct is one of the very foundations of the game of golf, and impugning a player's honesty IS serious business.  The fact that you still point to instances which occurred in another age should make that very clear.  Such accusations aren't forgotten, even if they are proven to be untrue.  When no actual proof is possible, then that cloud hangs over the player for the rest of his career, and beyond.  Even the fact that you are apparently so passionate about it is an indicator of how serious the issue is.

For that reason, frivolous or careless or unproven accusations against a players honorable conduct should be grounds for some sort of penal action, if not legal then occupational.  Chamblee should at the very least be censured.

Exactly, this is something I have issue with. It is such a problem on the internet. Were people can hide behind their screen names, and basically libel someone with out any consequences for their actions. Brandel was just stupid enough to put his name to the article.

[birlyshirly]

On the other hand, Chamblee is in a position of "expert commentator", and many are going to believe what he writes solely because he wrote it.  Honorable conduct is one of the very foundations of the game of golf, and impugning a player's honesty IS serious business.  The fact that you still point to instances which occurred in another age should make that very clear.  Such accusations aren't forgotten, even if they are proven to be untrue.  When no actual proof is possible, then that cloud hangs over the player for the rest of his career, and beyond.  Even the fact that you are apparently so passionate about it is an indicator of how serious the issue is.

Yes - we talk about it. It's contentious, and surely upsetting for the players involved. I still don't know that that's enough to make it quite so important as some people are saying. I think it would be very hard to show either that any of the examples that I mentioned were financially inconvenienced by the adverse comment or innuendo, or that the game of golf itself suffered. [quote name="Fourputt" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/468#post_915454"] For that reason, frivolous or careless or unproven accusations against a players honorable conduct should be grounds for some sort of penal action, if not legal then occupational.  [/quote] Believe it or not - I'm fine with that. This was my point about whether or not the PGA could get involved. If they don't have any jurisdiction (and I don't know) - then there's a vacuum, and I don't know what should take its place. I think a charge of "bringing the game into disrepute" would be quite appropriate. Members of the same professional association slinging unfounded accusations around isn't something you'd want to encourage. Make the punishment fit the crime. Where we probably differ is that I think the level of proof required to make that sort of charge stick against BC in this instance would likely be quite a bit higher than what's been brought to this thread. My opinion only.