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

[Phil McGleno]

The fact remains that Brandel doesnt exist in a vacuum where his words or opinions carry no weight.-I am awre of the legal differences, but surely Spitfishers gut would have reacted and hed get my meaning.[quote name="k-troop" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/648#post_918120"] No.  Assuming that the reporter has absolutely no factual basis for making such a claim, that would be libel. The difference is that Tiger is a "public figure" at least with respect to golf, so he has to expect to be subjected to reporting, analysis, and commentary about his golf.  And there was a factual basis for commenting on Tiger's compliance or noncompliance with the rules, and what that might mean about his intent to follow the rules. If Spitfisher was a Pop Warner football coach, and some parents found out that he insisted on showering with the kids after each practice, then that might be a different story.  That would be within the realm of a reporter or journalist sniffing out a story, gathering some facts, and presenting (at least one) option about what the facts might mean.  That's what journalists do.  They don't pull a name out of the phone book and write completely fictional stories about them for fun, and then publish them as opinion. Your analogy is trolling, BTW.  I should only hope that you understand the difference between what Brandel did and the example you gave. [/quote]

[Spitfisher]

I suspect y'all can make your points without using racism (earlier) or child molesting (now). C'mon. That's the end of that kind of talk.

1st thank you ktroop, 2nd lets use shop lifting rather than molestation. Well in all fairness of the posters example of using molestation, I would prefer to answer that. First its a rather poor example. However the writer of the alleged editorial absolutely is correct and within his bound of publishing the editorial, PROVIDED there was facts, history, examples, virtual certainty or likely due cause. There was such with Tiger and BC was/is able to write his editorial praising the attributes of players and yes expressing his opinion of Tiger accomplishments and down falls for last season. Bottom line, its his opinion based on facts if you disagree, so be it. Don't debate the opinion, debate the facts.

[Golfingdad]

1st thank you ktroop, 2nd lets use shop lifting rather than molestation.

Well in all fairness of the posters example of using molestation, I would prefer to answer that. First its a rather poor example. However the writer of the alleged editorial absolutely is correct and within his bound of publishing the editorial, PROVIDED there was facts, history, examples, virtual certainty or likely due cause.

There was such with Tiger and BC was/is able to write his editorial praising the attributes of players and yes expressing his opinion of Tiger accomplishments and down falls for last season.

Bottom line, its his opinion based on facts if you disagree, so be it. Don't debate the opinion, debate the facts.

First of all, I'm unclear as to what you mean by "debate facts."  If they are facts, then by definition, they are indisputable, and thus, not debatable.  Secondly, you keep suggesting that we're not allowed to have a problem with "one small part" of the article.  Why not?  If the guy writes 9000 things, but only one of them is offensive, then that's OK, because, hey, he's 99.99% fair and accurate?  That makes no sense.  It doesn't matter if he graded every golfer in the history of time in that article and somewhere in the middle of the whole thing he sneaks in "Tiger Woods is a cheater," or if he writes an article that has a 5 word headline, and a 5 word body, both of which are "Tiger is a cheater."  It makes no difference ... one of the things he said was that Tiger was a cheater, and we have every right to discuss that.

[Spitfisher]

First of all, I'm unclear as to what you mean by "debate facts."  If they are facts, then by definition, they are indisputable, and thus, not debatable.  Secondly, you keep suggesting that we're not allowed to have a problem with "one small part" of the article.  Why not?  If the guy writes 9000 things, but only one of them is offensive, then that's OK, because, hey, he's 99.99% fair and accurate?  That makes no sense.  It doesn't matter if he graded every golfer in the history of time in that article and somewhere in the middle of the whole thing he sneaks in "Tiger Woods is a cheater," or if he writes an article that has a 5 word headline, and a 5 word body, both of which are "Tiger is a cheater."  It makes no difference ... one of the things he said was that Tiger was a cheater, and we have every right to discuss that.

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you. Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts. cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary? Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating? Go ahead you start......

[Golfingdad]

You are doing precisely what I wrote about, responding to only one small part of the article and now you are doing it again with my response here.

Once again you are missing the entire point,...

First of all, I'm unclear as to what you mean by "debate facts."  If they are facts, then by definition, they are indisputable, and thus, not debatable.  Secondly, you keep suggesting that we're not allowed to have a problem with "one small part" of the article.  Why not?  If the guy writes 9000 things, but only one of them is offensive, then that's OK, because, hey, he's 99.99% fair and accurate?  That makes no sense.  It doesn't matter if he graded every golfer in the history of time in that article and somewhere in the middle of the whole thing he sneaks in "Tiger Woods is a cheater," or if he writes an article that has a 5 word headline, and a 5 word body, both of which are "Tiger is a cheater."  It makes no difference ... one of the things he said was that Tiger was a cheater, and we have every right to discuss that.

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you.

Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts.

cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary?

Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating?

Go ahead you start......

LOL.  I will now cry uncle, as I realize that @Ernest Jones was correct when he said that "resistance was futile." :)

Good day.

[k-troop]

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you.

Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts.

cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary?

Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating?

Go ahead you start......

C'mon dude, you're the one who said let's debate the facts.  WTF does that mean?

It's pretty obvious what the "facts" are in this situation.  Tiger dropped in the incorrect place at the Masters.  At the BMW, he stood over his ball, pulled on a twig, saw the ball wiggle, and stopped pulling on the twig.  From there, he proceeded to play the ball as if it had not moved IAW the rules of golf.  Video evidence later showed that the ball did move IAW the rules of golf.

Those are the facts.  They're all more or less objectively verifiable by anyone who wants to look at the evidence for themselves.  Since they can be objectively verified, they're not really subject to debate.

What we're debating is what those facts mean.  What conclusions should be drawn from those facts?  Actually, what we're really debating is what conclusions is a sports analyst/commentator prohibited from drawing based on those facts.

I'm sure that's what you meant to say.

[Ernest Jones]

LOL.  I will now cry uncle, as I realize that @Ernest Jones was correct when he said that "resistance was futile." :)

Good day.

[phan52]

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you.

Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts.

cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary?

Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating?

Go ahead you start......

Don't conflate violations with intentional cheating.

The fact that there were violations is not debatable. But whether it was cheating certainly is. Hence, over 670 posts on this thread.

[Spitfisher]

Don't conflate violations with intentional cheating. The fact that there were violations is not debatable. But whether it was cheating certainly is. Hence, over 670 posts on this thread.

Look up what the word cheat means please, FWIW it does not exclusively mean premeditated, intentional or conniving Lets look at another way had BC said as a result of rules infractions Tiger was dumb, stupid and ignorant......would we have any less than 671 posts?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Don't conflate violations with intentional cheating.

The fact that there were violations is not debatable. But whether it was cheating certainly is. Hence, over 670 posts on this thread.

Originally Posted by Spitfisher

Look up what the word cheat means please,

FWIW it does not exclusively mean premeditated, intentional or conniving

Lets look at another way had BC said as a result of rules infractions Tiger was dumb, stupid and ignorant......would we have any less than 671 posts?

The first entry for "cheat" in Merriam-Websters reads - to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something.

"To gain advantage at something" speaks to intent and it has nothing to do with ignorance or stupidity. You are way off on this.

[k-troop]

Look up what the word cheat means please,

FWIW it does not exclusively mean premeditated, intentional or conniving

Lets look at another way had BC said as a result of rules infractions Tiger was dumb, stupid and ignorant......would we have any less than 671 posts?

I'm not sure why, but you seem to be trying to change the entire scope of this debate.

From Merriam-Webster's definition of cheat (in relevant part):   to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something; to violate rules dishonestly.

This isn't about whether Tiger was dumb or ignorant of the rules.  This is about whether Tiger knew the rule, knew he violated it, and played on in order to obtain an advantage or to avoid the punitive consequences of his rules violation.  This is what Brandel accused Tiger of, and this is what has been the subject of debate in this thread for 670ish posts.  You are

[Spitfisher]

I'm not sure why, but you seem to be trying to change the entire scope of this debate. From Merriam-Webster's definition of cheat (in relevant part):   to break a rule or law usually to gain an advantage at something; to violate rules dishonestly. This isn't about whether Tiger was dumb or ignorant of the rules.  This is about whether Tiger knew the rule, knew he violated it, and played on in order to obtain an advantage or to avoid the punitive consequences of his rules violation.  This is what Brandel accused Tiger of, and this is what has been the subject of debate in this thread for 670ish posts.  You are :offtopic:

I am off topic, I was attempting to prove a point that if you removed cheating or cheater from the article , for that seams to be the hot button & it appears that some have a problem with this word and meaning. So by removing the word an instead substituting in dumb, ignorant or stupid to describe tiger as a reason for his actions regarding the faults mentioned above. The faults occurred- no one denies this. What other reasons could BC used? So he was either stupid or ignorant of the rules or he cheated, either choice would have demonstrated 675 posts on it in my opinion. BTW I believe he did Cheat for an advantage of the ball moving, I base this on the video, but more so on the time, location & actions before and after the ball movement. My opinion!

[turtleback]

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you.

Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts.

cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary?

Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating?

Go ahead you start......

Failure to sign a correct scorecard?  At the time he signed it it WAS correct as the Committee had made an actual ruling that he had not broken a rule with the drop.  That IS a fact.  AND is the basis for the waiver of DQ.  And if by incorrect drop you mean the Players that is nonsense, not fact.

By your interpretation of cheating, every time I hit it OB I guess I am cheating.  And every golfer who ever played is a cheater because they have all at one time or another, broken a rule.  Or maybe you are taking a small part of the definition of cheat and elevating it beyond anyone's recognition.

[birlyshirly]

I am off topic, I was attempting to prove a point that if you removed cheating or cheater from the article , for that seams to be the hot button & it appears that some have a problem with this word and meaning. So by removing the word an instead substituting in dumb, ignorant or stupid to describe tiger as a reason for his actions regarding the faults mentioned above. The faults occurred- no one denies this. What other reasons could BC used?

So he was either stupid or ignorant of the rules or he cheated, either choice would have demonstrated 675 posts on it in my opinion. BTW I believe he did Cheat for an advantage of the ball moving, I base this on the video, but more so on the time, location & actions before and after the ball movement. My opinion!

I agree - with the last part based on what was shown in the video.

I think by using "cheat" BC certainly upped the ante. He could have used wording that allowed for an interpretation that TW had not "knowingly" or "intentionally" violated the rule - and still got his own interpretation of events fairly clear. Personally, I like that he took the more direct route, although it's fairly clear from this thread that a fuzzier commentary would have made some people here happier. We'd maybe still have upwards of 600 posts, on the apparent basis that BC hates TW so much that even a vague implication of impropriety could be taken as a screaming denunciation.

But BC obviously did think that TW cheated. So, on balance, do you and I.

I have no problem accepting that other people might view the video and draw a different conclusion - though I'd be happy to argue the toss.

I have a much harder time with the argument that a commentator, or anyone else, isn't entitled to or cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that on this occasion Tiger was at it.

If there are special rules for golf pros and the opinions they express, I'm going to have to take that on trust. The Queen is probably forbidden from calling Tiger a cheat too.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfisher

I am off topic, I was attempting to prove a point that if you removed cheating or cheater from the article , for that seams to be the hot button & it appears that some have a problem with this word and meaning. So by removing the word an instead substituting in dumb, ignorant or stupid to describe tiger as a reason for his actions regarding the faults mentioned above. The faults occurred- no one denies this. What other reasons could BC used?

So he was either stupid or ignorant of the rules or he cheated, either choice would have demonstrated 675 posts on it in my opinion. BTW I believe he did Cheat for an advantage of the ball moving, I base this on the video, but more so on the time, location & actions before and after the ball movement. My opinion!

I agree - with the last part based on what was shown in the video.

I think by using "cheat" BC certainly upped the ante. He could have used wording that allowed for an interpretation that TW had not "knowingly" or "intentionally" violated the rule - and still got his own interpretation of events fairly clear. Personally, I like that he took the more direct route, although it's fairly clear from this thread that a fuzzier commentary would have made some people here happier. We'd maybe still have upwards of 600 posts, on the apparent basis that BC hates TW so much that even a vague implication of impropriety could be taken as a screaming denunciation.

But BC obviously did think that TW cheated. So, on balance, do you and I.

I have no problem accepting that other people might view the video and draw a different conclusion - though I'd be happy to argue the toss.

I have a much harder time with the argument that a commentator, or anyone else, isn't entitled to or cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that on this occasion Tiger was at it.

If there are special rules for golf pros and the opinions they express, I'm going to have to take that on trust. The Queen is probably forbidden from calling Tiger a cheat too.

LOL.

[k-troop]

I am off topic, I was attempting to prove a point that if you removed cheating or cheater from the article , for that seams to be the hot button & it appears that some have a problem with this word and meaning. So by removing the word an instead substituting in dumb, ignorant or stupid to describe tiger as a reason for his actions regarding the faults mentioned above. The faults occurred- no one denies this. What other reasons could BC used?

So essentially you're saying if Brandel never called Tiger a cheater, we wouldn't have a super-long debate about whether it was okay for Brandel to call Tiger a cheater.

I will say that I agree.

[Spitfisher]

So essentially you're saying if Brandel never called Tiger a cheater, we wouldn't have a super-long debate about whether it was okay for Brandel to call Tiger a cheater. I will say that I agree.

Actually he never said said Tiger was a cheater ( fact) he said he was " cavalier with the rules" he tied his reasoning for the F to his own childhood of cheating on a math test. And the subsequent grade he was assessed. Funny how 38 pages of post and some, probably myself somewhere said Brandel called him a cheater, like plain as day.

[saevel25]

You're a big boy Im sure from reading the post you can figure out all your answers you wish, I am not here to educate you.

Failure to sign a correct score card, taking an incorrect drop, a ball that was moved by an outside agency or player are all violations of the rules of golf. Can we agree here?, of course we can here are all facts.

cheat = verb, violation of rules and regulations according to websters dictionary. Can we agree with the meaning of CHEAT based on websters dictionary?

Now how would you like to debate this? That the rules are wrong? That what tiger did was not a violation? that what Tiger did is not cheating?

Go ahead you start......

If you want to look at the definition more carefully, I would want to take the full definition right?

Full Definition of CHEAT

transitive verb

1

: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud

2

: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

3

: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting cheat death>

intransitive verb

1

a : to practice fraud or trickery

b : to violate rules dishonestly cheat at cards>  cheat ing on a test>

2

: to be sexually unfaithful —usually used with on cheat ing on his wife>

3

: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area cheat ing toward second base>

The definition of cheat means to do it with dishonesty. Meaning to knowingly break the rules and then hide the fact you did it to gain an advantage. To cheat, you must have intent. If not, then it is not cheating.

Look at Dustin Johnson. Would you consider his case cheating when he grounded his club in the US Open at Whistling Straights? He didn't read the local rules for the tournament that week. He did not know that grounding the club in any form of sand, waste bunker or not, would constitute a penalty. He had no intent to break the rules to gain an advantage.

It isn't black and white when it comes to breaking rules.

It is clear that Brandel is saying Tiger cheated. He linked Tiger's instances where he had issues with the golfing rules to his own time as a kid when he got caught cheating. That means Brandel is saying Tiger intently broke the rules. Yet Brandel does nothing to prove this. Just giving examples of were he might have broken the rules does not prove intent. It similar to why some murder cases has different levels in which you can charge someone, from first degree to involuntary manslaughter. You have to prove INTENT.