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

[Lihu]

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?

Tiger makes so much money, that even something like a 0.1% reduction of income could be a million dollar plus liability for Brandel.

It would not take too much for a decent lawyer to convince some jury that Tiger lost 1/1000 his earning potential this year, due to "...these unfounded libelous comments from a famous sports writer...".

[k-troop]

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.

Not trying to be a twit, and in concept I agree, but that response sounds like a cop-out under these facts.  We're crucifying Brandel on this forum for alleging Tiger cheated because the quantum of evidence didn't meet the burden.  The burden is high because of the potential costs of just such an allegation.

We set the burden high because the costs of an allegation are high.  An allegation has now been made.  So, what are the costs of this allegation?

I think the answer is probably going to be "potentially held in lower esteem..." or even "might suffer even greater scrutiny under the rules..." blah blah blah.

But those answers are crap (IMO).  Why shouldn't Tiger be held to a high level of scrutiny for compliance with the rules of golf?  He's the GOAT--that's part of his burden.

Likewise, I'll posit that Brandel's allegation had ZERO impact on Tiger's esteem.  I would guess (and it's just a guess/opinion, but probably not a controversial one) that the people who agree that Tiger cheated is probably a subset of the people who already hold Tiger in low esteem as a result of his personal transgressions.  Your opinion on twig-gate probably correlates directly to your opinion of his character.  Brandel's allegation probably didn't add to that population by very much, if at all.

So if those two are taken out of the equation, then what are the costs??  If there are none (doubt that Tiger will lose any endorsements over this), then doesn't that say that Brandel's allegation has been taken for what it's worth?

[k-troop]

Tiger makes so much money, that even something like a 0.1% reduction of income could be a million dollar plus liability for Brandel.

It would not take too much for a decent lawyer to convince some jury that Tiger lost 1/1000 his earning potential this year, due to "...these unfounded libelous comments from a famous sports writer...".

Sorry, but speculative loss of earnings wouldn't be evidence on damages.  You'd have to point to something concrete.  A contract he lost, an endorsement fallen through, something.

[Golfingdad]

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.

Hang on a second there.  What does the LABEL have to do with those guys?  Their legacies aren't tainted because somebody called them a cheater, their legaices are tainted because they cheated.

There is an enormous difference there.

I think k-troop's point is valid.  We can certainly spout off how it's a "big deal" to call somebody a cheater in golf, but at the level of Tiger ... is it really a big deal?  I mean, if somebody called me a cheater, where 100% of my actions on the golf course are seen by nobody except my 3 playing partners, then yeah, it's a big deal.  But we all see everything Brandel's referring to, and so we all make our own conclusions based on what we saw, not based on what somebody else said.

Pretty sure the people who think Tiger is a cheater, believe that because they interpret what they saw the same way Brandel did.  But they don't think that Tiger is a cheater simply because Brandel told them so.  I don't think his words carry nearly as much weight as we sometimes pretend that they do.  And even less so now since the general consensus seems to be, for the most part, that Brandel is a Grade A jackass.

[k-troop]

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.

Problem is that all of the guys you listed ACTUALLY CHEATED.  Of course it cost them.  What are the costs of an allegation that everyone more or less agrees is baseless?

[Lihu]

Sorry, but speculative loss of earnings wouldn't be evidence on damages.  You'd have to point to something concrete.  A contract he lost, an endorsement fallen through, something.

Maybe, but deep pockets like the ones backing Tiger could easily pull lots of stuff out of the woodwork.

Even if Tiger doesn't file any formal charges, these multi-billion dollar companies could. Statistics based upon the diminished sales of Tiger endorsed products coincident with the Brandel commentaries, could easily be "determined".

I am sure Tiger's agent was "advised" to make a statement. Just look at what other famous golfer also made a statement? <<<---Oops.

Dollars and sense , that's how it really boils down.

PS- this is not a typo.

[k-troop]

Maybe, but deep pockets like the ones backing Tiger could easily pull lots of stuff out of the woodwork.

Even if Tiger doesn't file any formal charges, these multi-billion dollar companies could. Statistics based upon the diminished sales of Tiger endorsed products coincident with the Brandel commentaries, could easily be "determined".

I am sure Tiger's agent was "advised" to make a statement. Just look at what other famous golfer also made a statement? 

Dollars and sense, that's how it really boils down.

PS- this is not a typo.

I agree with you.  Again, in theory, there could be costs.  But have there been any?

I challenge anyone on this forum to list one person they know who decided not to purchase a Tiger-endorsed product because of the cheating allegation.

I'll start:  I'm not selling my Rolex collection.

[Lihu]

I challenge anyone on this forum to list one person they know who decided not to purchase a Tiger-endorsed product because of the cheating allegation.

I don't think there is one Tiger endorsed product that I actually own. I can't afford them

[newtogolf]

Problem is that all of the guys you listed ACTUALLY CHEATED.  Of course it cost them.  What are the costs of an allegation that everyone more or less agrees is baseless?

Last I checked, McGwire never failed a drug test.  He was effectively "banned" from baseball because he was labeled a cheater by reporters and Jose Canseco despite them not having any proof that he used steroids.   McGwire admitted to using steroids in 2010 because that was the only way he could get a job as a coach in baseball.  A court cleared

BC has made an allegation that Tiger cheated, we can't quantify the damages Tiger might incur any more than we could McGwire's in 2005 when Canseco wrote his book.  Clemons was also accused and taken to court for perjury before Congress twice and found not guilty, but the damage to his name is done and he'll likely never get into the HOF.

[turtleback]

Criticizing Obama doesn't make you a racist.

Criticizing Tiger doesn't make you a racist either.

Seriously? We have to resort to that??

Resort to what?  I didn't call him a racist.  I said that his obvious deep seated bias can be used to draw a conclusion.  I didn't draw that conclusion.  I equated calling him a racist with Brandel calling Tiger a cheater.  Since obviously in this thread I have made it clear that I do not think Brandel was justified in calling Tiger a cheater, neither would this guy's bias be justification for calling his a racist.  The point was though, that the situations are somewhat parallel.  He is fine with Brandel drawing the conclusion but doesn't like it if someone even points out a potential parallel.  IF I accepted his standard I COULD call him a racist but clearly I REJECT his standard and therefore did NOT call him a racist.

Just to review the bidding THIS is what I actually said:  " 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."

Now consider that I have opined that Brandel had NO justification for calling Tiger a cheater, and I have the same amount of justification (i.e., none) to call him a racist.  How that turns into me calling him a racist is beyond me, and the bounds of logic.

[Mr. Desmond]

Gosh, guys, maybe we're over-thinking this to death?

It happens.

[Golfingdad]

Last I checked, McGwire never failed a drug test.  He was effectively "banned" from baseball because he was labeled a cheater by reporters and Jose Canseco despite them not having any proof that he used steroids.   McGwire admitted to using steroids in 2010 because that was the only way he could get a job as a coach in baseball.  A court cleared

BC has made an allegation that Tiger cheated, we can't quantify the damages Tiger might incur any more than we could McGwire's in 2005 when Canseco wrote his book.  Clemons was also accused and taken to court for perjury before Congress twice and found not guilty, but the damage to his name is done and he'll likely never get into the HOF.

These are still bad examples.  McGwire didn't get in trouble because of Jose Canseco's book.  He DID use steroids, and although the book is what got the ball rolling, he was never falsely labeled as anything.  Besides, it was never the book, but rather his reaction to the book that really hurt him ... his "I'm not here to talk about the past" dance in front of congress.  He, Clemens, and Bonds all got what they got because they cheated, not because somebody falsely called them a cheater.  And I don't think anybody would argue that they didn't deserve every bit of what they got.

[k-troop]

Resort to what?  I didn't call him a racist.  I said that his obvious deep seated bias can be used to draw a conclusion.  I didn't draw that conclusion.  I equated calling him a racist with Brandel calling Tiger a cheater.  Since obviously in this thread I have made it clear that I do not think Brandel was justified in calling Tiger a cheater, neither would this guy's bias be justification for calling his a racist.  The point was though, that the situations are somewhat parallel.  He is fine with Brandel drawing the conclusion but doesn't like it if someone even points out a potential parallel.  IF I accepted his standard I COULD call him a racist but clearly I REJECT his standard and therefore did NOT call him a racist. Just to review the bidding THIS is what I actually said:  "[COLOR=181818] 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."[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]Now consider that I have opined that Brandel had NO justification for calling Tiger a cheater, and I have the same amount of justification (i.e., none) to call him a racist.  How that turns into me calling him a racist is beyond me, and the bounds of logic.[/COLOR]

All I'll say is that if you need 500 words to explain how you didn't call someone a racist...

[iacas]

We set the burden high because the costs of an allegation are high.  An allegation has now been made.  So, what are the costs of this allegation?

Kevin, what's the cost (or value) of your reputation? How much do you love your mother? How much do you dislike the taste of your least favorite food? Please quantify your opinion on George W. Bush and Obama - not just your vote total, but your opinion of them in summation, as parents, husbands, politicians, and everything else. I want an actual number, please. Quantify it.

Colin Montgomerie may not be able to prove in a court that he lost anything monetary, but he lost the respect of many fans and fellow players. Quantify that, please.

The answers are not crap. Suppose I allege (but I'm "clever" enough to avoid actually doing so) that you've beaten your wife and children. When you complain about how your friends no longer call as often, and your parent-teacher conferences are more awkward, or your in-laws give you the cold shoulder, I'm just going to tell you your complaints are crap.

So if those two are taken out of the equation, then what are the costs??  If there are none (doubt that Tiger will lose any endorsements over this), then doesn't that say that Brandel's allegation has been taken for what it's worth?

Weak. If I remove all of your arguments (for no real reason, just because I say so), what are you left with? Oh.

---

Brandel went too far. His apology didn't walk it back very much at all.

That's it. I've got no problem with others - even if they're wrong - being critical. But Brandel, particularly as a former player, knows how much weight the "cheater" allegation has, and he shouldn't have been anywhere close to levying it.

[iacas]

I was told in a PM that I suck at finding common ground on this issue. I'm certain that some will feel it's due to a bias in Tiger's favor. Since I can't prove a negative (I'd feel the same if we were talking about Bill Haas or Sean O'Hair or anyone), y'all can take me at my word (or not) on that.

But it takes two to find a common ground, and my opinions boil down to this:

• I don't think Brandel was justified in calling Tiger a cheat.
• I don't think Tiger "cheated" in any of the three instances. They were simply rules infractions.
• I don't think there were four instances of "rules issues." The TPC one is baseless.
• This likely isn't lawsuit-level stuff (let alone winning lawsuit-level stuff). That doesn't mean it hasn't "cost" Tiger anything.

Tiger is a pretty decent golfer. We can all agree on that, right? Or, how about this one: if this were any other golfer, there probably wouldn't be a column written about it in the first place. Just look at the Simon Dyson thread…

P.S. I'm still not sure why common ground needs to be found, but there you go - that's my opinion above, and if you can find common ground in there, good. If not, well… again, I don't know why it's important. :D

[Mr. Desmond]

Maybe a former player should not write a column until he's been briefed on slander and defamation, taught that words do matter and have consequences, and has taken a journalism ethics course.

[Lihu]

Maybe a former player should not write a column until he's been briefed on slander and defamation, taught that words do matter and have consequences, and has taken a journalism ethics course.

Agreed. In short he needs to be taught "Dollars and Sense."

[birlyshirly]

Maybe a former player should not write a column until he's been briefed on slander and defamation, taught that words do matter and have consequences, and has taken a journalism ethics course.

Why bother? Provided he's not tapping phones or bribing law enforcement officers - his editor can take care of the rest .

Actually, I do think that one of the worst jobs in the world must be that of the editor who finds himself between the celebrity pundit and their audience. I think it would be much more interesting to talk to BC's editor about this, than BC himself.