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

[Fourputt]

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.

This is the crux of our separation on this.  You think that BC has enough evidence against Tiger to justify his accusation, so by extrapolation, there is not enough evidence to warrant censure.  I feel that the "evidence" against Tiger is purely circumstantial and coincidental, and thus Chamblee had no just cause to make the parallels that he made in his article.  For that reason, I do feel that there is justification for some sort of wrist slapping to reinforce the reality that he is in the position of disseminating information, and he needs to place more emphasis on facts as he goes about that job, even when he is editorializing.

[iacas]

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.

That's your problem right there, and it demonstrates a severe lack of insight into the golf world. That's why the "proof" that Steinberg has only ever publicly threatened to sue Brandel and has let everything else said by everyone else go is relevant. It speaks to how far Brandel went in this. Way, way too far.

[saevel25]

That's your problem right there, and it demonstrates a severe lack of insight into the golf world. That's why the "proof" that Steinberg has only ever publicly threatened to sue Brandel and has let everything else said by everyone else go is relevant. It speaks to how far Brandel went in this. Way, way too far.

Correct, for Brandel to make such a claim he would need someone to come forward and actually say they hear Tiger say he was going to cheat, or did cheat. Or, something to the regard of hearing tiger mention he acknowledge that the ball moved and then proceeded to not take the penalty. Like if someone happened to be near Tiger when he picked up that twig and his ball moved, and then he heard Tiger say something like, "The ball moved". Then if Tiger proceeded to not take the penalty. That would imply he intently cheated. Until Brandel can get that solid evidence he has based his claims on circumstantial evidence. Its called being a GOOD journalist, not a crappy one.

[k-troop]

When would that standard of proof ever be achieved? When would a player ever say "oops--hope no one saw my ball move!" Or "I really got away with one today" in the locker room after the round. All you're ever going to have in this type of situation is circumstantial evidence, unless the ball moved six inches and it would be impossible for the player to not have seen the move.

[birlyshirly]

This is the crux of our separation on this.  You think that BC has enough evidence against Tiger to justify his accusation, so by extrapolation, there is not enough evidence to warrant censure.  I feel that the "evidence" against Tiger is purely circumstantial and coincidental, and thus Chamblee had no just cause to make the parallels that he made in his article.  For that reason, I do feel that there is justification for some sort of wrist slapping to reinforce the reality that he is in the position of disseminating information, and he needs to place more emphasis on facts as he goes about that job, even when he is editorializing.

Fair enough. I'm not opposed to BC being judged on his article. You are also right as to where we differ. What I would say is that I think you 're being hasty in discounting circumstantial evidence. Lots of much more important matters turn on circumstantial evidence - such as fingerprints, DNA, ballistics... [quote name="iacas" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/486#post_915485"] That's your problem right there, and it demonstrates either a severe lack of insight into the golf world. That's why the "proof" that Steinberg has only ever publicly threatened to sue Brandel and has let everything else said by everyone else go is relevant. It speaks to how far Brandel went in this. Way, way too far. [/quote] So it proves that none of the previous, published, credible criticism has met the criteria for being potentially libellous, regardless of whether they were true, false, or fair journalistic comment. Does it prove anything more? If you want to argue that TW' s never been accused of cheating before, and should be presumed of previously good character, then OK. Still don't see anything more in it.

[iacas]

When would that standard of proof ever be achieved? When would a player ever say "oops--hope no one saw my ball move!" Or "I really got away with one today" in the locker room after the round. All you're ever going to have in this type of situation is circumstantial evidence, unless the ball moved six inches and it would be impossible for the player to not have seen the move.

The "cheater" allegation has a high standard of proof. Rightfully so, IMO. It's one of the worst things you can say in golf. Brandel did not meet that standard, but made the allegation nonetheless.

What I would say is that I think you 're being hasty in discounting circumstantial evidence. Lots of much more important matters turn on circumstantial evidence - such as fingerprints, DNA, ballistics...

I'm not being hasty. The strongest example in your case of three is the last, and that's easily argued away as being incredibly circumstantial and open to interpretation (indeed, many have interpreted it differently than you - that you continually interpret it one way is part of what speaks to your possible bias). The other two incidents don't even reach that low level.

No cases are won (or should be won) with only one or two pieces of circumstantial evidence. I own a red car and a red car was seen driving away, plus I argued with the guy earlier? Sorry, no conviction for you. Does not rise above "reasonable doubt."

So it proves that none of the previous, published, credible criticism has met the criteria for being potentially libellous, regardless of whether they were true, false, or fair journalistic comment. Does it prove anything more? If you want to argue that TW' s never been accused of cheating before, and should be presumed of previously good character, then OK. Still don't see anything more in it.

It speaks to how far beyond any previous criticism or critique Brandel went with his "cheat" stuff. That's all. Keep trying to twist away, but I've written it several times now in plain English, and I'm done again, as are you. Don't quote or respond, but please, for your sake, stop playing stupid. These are the points others are making against you, and the points which you have refused to see.

[newtogolf]

When would that standard of proof ever be achieved? When would a player ever say "oops--hope no one saw my ball move!" Or "I really got away with one today" in the locker room after the round. All you're ever going to have in this type of situation is circumstantial evidence, unless the ball moved six inches and it would be impossible for the player to not have seen the move.

The standard of proof is very high because the penalty of such an accusation can be so costly in the world of golf.  BC was within his right as a journalist to say Tiger was cavalier with the rules.  He crossed the line when he stopped just short of calling him a cheater by using a personal analogy to imply Tiger was a cheater without writing the words.

It's similar to someone writing a nationally published article about BC that states he no longer hits his wife, the implication of the statement is that he once did.  The writer might hide behind the words but the intent is clear just as it was with BC.

[Perfect Slicer]

The standard of proof is very high because the penalty of such an accusation can be so costly in the world of golf.  BC was within his right as a journalist to say Tiger was cavalier with the rules.  He crossed the line when he stopped just short of calling him a cheater by using a personal analogy to imply Tiger was a cheater without writing the words.

It's similar to someone writing a nationally published article about BC that states he no longer hits his wife, the implication of the statement is that he once did.  The writer might hide behind the words but the intent is clear just as it was with BC.

I'm still not so sure about this. To me, "cavalier" implies intent. It means that he intentionally disregarded rules with an arrogant attitude. Kind of like "Rules? What rules?". I can't get from cavalier to missing something unintentionally. I don't think he cheated, and I don't see any evidence that he intentionally broke any rules to gain any advantage. I just don't see 'cavalier'.

[Lihu]

So it proves that none of the previous, published, credible criticism has met the criteria for being potentially libellous, regardless of whether they were true, false, or fair journalistic comment. Does it prove anything more? If you want to argue that TW' s never been accused of cheating before, and should be presumed of previously good character, then OK. Still don't see anything more in it.

Quite honestly, it boils down to jury selection.

If the correct Jury is selected, anything goes. Tiger has a good financial base, and can wait for the right jury. First of all everyone knows him, secondly the number of people who still like him a lot are over 50%? Give or take?

Libel is actually quite easy to prove, especially with the small percentage numbers involved. Could we prove that Brandel's comments cost Tiger 0.1% of his total earnings this year?

I think so, and that would cover the million dollars or so that Tiger could spend on legal fees.

The real question is, will Brandel's employer be willing to finance the same million to his defense?

[Golfingdad]

I'm still not so sure about this. To me, "cavalier" implies intent. It means that he intentionally disregarded rules with an arrogant attitude. Kind of like "Rules? What rules?". I can't get from cavalier to missing something unintentionally. I don't think he cheated, and I don't see any evidence that he intentionally broke any rules to gain any advantage. I just don't see 'cavalier'.

Maybe.  But it's a vague enough word, and open to interpretation in this case, that he was fine in using it.  Had Brandel stopped his story at "cavalier with the rules" and left out his analagous chemistry test story then I don't think we're having this conversation.

If we are still having it, then I believe that everybody on the "Brandel didn't do anything wrong here" side of the ledger would have a valid point.

[mvmac]

I'm still not so sure about this. To me, "cavalier" implies intent. It means that he intentionally disregarded rules with an arrogant attitude. Kind of like "Rules? What rules?". I can't get from cavalier to missing something unintentionally. I don't think he cheated, and I don't see any evidence that he intentionally broke any rules to gain any advantage. I just don't see 'cavalier'.

I don't think Tiger was "cavalier" either, I think all newtogolf was saying was that Brandel could have gotten away with "cavalier" and the cheating analogy went too far.

I think so, and that would cover the million dollars or so that Tiger could spend on legal fees.

The real question is, will Brandel's employer be willing to finance the same million to his defense?

Probably not but Sergio might foot the bill

[Lihu]

Probably not but Sergio might foot the bill

If so, next time they get paired up, I can imagine an extra loud candy wrapper crinkling sound as Sergio sets up to make his shot.

[birlyshirly]

Quite honestly, it boils down to jury selection.

If the correct Jury is selected, anything goes. Tiger has a good financial base, and can wait for the right jury. First of all everyone knows him, secondly the number of people who still like him a lot are over 50%? Give or take?

Libel is actually quite easy to prove, especially with the small percentage numbers involved. Could we prove that Brandel's comments cost Tiger 0.1% of his total earnings this year?

I think so, and that would cover the million dollars or so that Tiger could spend on legal fees.

The real question is, will Brandel's employer be willing to finance the same million to his defense?

Well, that's a strategic argument - but not a very robust legal argument: to depend on the jurors being fans.

You're right about the costs though. Brandel's [former] employer would fund it, since they'd be a party to the libel, having printed it.

But, I still think a suit is incredibly far-fetched. Except in the cash sense, Tiger can't afford it.

[newtogolf]

I don't think Tiger was "cavalier" either, I think all newtogolf was saying was that Brandel could have gotten away with "cavalier" and the cheating analogy went too far.

That's correct Mike, my position is BC could have used "cavalier" and probably gotten away without all the heat he's taking.  I don't believe Tiger is cavalier with the rules and I certainly don't think he's a cheater.

[Lihu]

But, I still think a suit is incredibly far-fetched. Except in the cash sense, Tiger can't afford it.

I think it would be far fetched just because Tiger wouldn't want to perpetuate it further, thus giving the comments a hint of credibility.

As I stated in an earlier post, I would prefer to see Tiger be Tiger. I am still waiting for him to take a few more majors.

[k-troop]

The standard of proof is very high because the penalty of such an accusation can be so costly in the world of golf.

This is an oft-repeated justification for the backlash against Chamblee, so can we quantify this a bit? What are the costs? Has Tiger been affected in one single quantifiable way by this accusation?

[iacas]

This is an oft-repeated justification for the backlash against Chamblee, so can we quantify this a bit? What are the costs? Has Tiger been affected in one single quantifiable way by this accusation?

Costs don't have to be quantifiable to be a cost or to be real.

[newtogolf]

This is an oft-repeated justification for the backlash against Chamblee, so can we quantify this a bit? What are the costs? Has Tiger been affected in one single quantifiable way by this accusation?

I don't know, nor do you since we're not part of Tiger's team.  How would we or even his team know if the article cost him an endorsement deal because someone felt he was tainted.

What we can quantify is that being labeled a cheater in professional sports can be very costly to one's career and legacy, if you don't believe me, ask Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Lance Armstrong.