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

[Phil McGleno]

I know this guy-He's a big idiot. Huge idiot. Biggest idiot I know. Always acts like an idiot. Never says anything smart. Big, huge idiot. Such an idiot! phan52 reminds me of this guy. I Never called phan52 an idiot. I'm making a point like @mvmac . [quote name="mvmac" url="/t/70622/brandel-gives-tiger-an-f-tigers-agent-hints-at-legal-action-against-chamblee/72#post_911039"] No he didn't write the words "Tiger cheated" but strongly implied it via the "I cheated on a test" story. [/quote]

[phan52]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Come on, get real. You think that if Tiger knew the rule and still dropped where he did that he would have still gone on national TV and said what he said? That's ludicrous. Ignorant he may be, but stupid he is not.

Under normal circumstances, the rule about dropping "as near as possible" to the previous spot is regularly fudged because most of the time the player has gone forward, failed to find his ball, then returned and in that case the previous spot is often a bit of a guess. Thus it's common to miss the exact spot when proceeding under this rule. Tiger made a 2 clublength mistake, believing that it was an allowable stretch of the rule. Even though it was a conscious decision, it was still made in ignorance, not by deliberation of cheating. If you think otherwise, then you are seeing with blinders.

Originally Posted by phan52

I highly doubt that is true. I'm pretty sure that Tiger can recite 26-1 in his sleep. He knows the rules. He screwed up. He was careless. He was "cavalier". He didn't cheat.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

We will simply have to disagree.  You think Tiger is stupid.  I think you are wrong.

Wow. When did I ever say Tiger was stupid? There is a big difference between "stupid" and "careless". The guy had a brain fart and executed his option incorrectly. Do you seriously think that Tiger does not know  the correct application of 26-1 (a)? Does anybody else here think that?

[newtogolf]

Chamblee wrote a paragraph about how he cheated in school when he was younger.  He explained that his teacher caught him, and wrote "100" at the top of the page, then scratched it out, and wrote an "F."  Then he talked about all of Tiger's rules issues.  He then gave Tiger a "100", scratched it out, and gave him an "F."  If that's not clear enough for you, then you get an F for comprehension.

It's not libelous or actionable because you could never prove or disprove that Brandel intentionally and knowingly expressed a false fact with the specifc intent to wrongfully injure Tiger.  That's a very specific and difficult standard.  Did Tiger have 3 (or 4, depending on your persuasion) rules "issues"?  Yes, he did.  Did Brandel falsely describe those events?  No, he did not.  Did Tiger cheat?  Well, only Tiger really knows for sure whether he was trying to get away with anything--and we've argued to death what to conclude from the objective (but circumstancial) evidence on that point.  Brandel certainly characterized Tiger's actions as cheating, but it's very legally suspect whether that characterization was

(1) a factual assertion, and

(2) knowingly and intentionally false.

That's why a lawsuit would be pointless.

I'm not a lawyer and I believe you are so maybe I'm off target here but....

I agree based on this one isolated article it would be hard for Tiger to prove Brandel intended to injure Tiger, but if Tiger's legal team presented a series of articles and comments from Brandel then it's possible that the cumulative evidence would demonstrate Brandel's intent to do harm to Tigers reputation which could impact his sponsorship agreements.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Come on, get real. You think that if Tiger knew the rule and still dropped where he did that he would have still gone on national TV and said what he said? That's ludicrous. Ignorant he may be, but stupid he is not.

Under normal circumstances, the rule about dropping "as near as possible" to the previous spot is regularly fudged because most of the time the player has gone forward, failed to find his ball, then returned and in that case the previous spot is often a bit of a guess. Thus it's common to miss the exact spot when proceeding under this rule. Tiger made a 2 clublength mistake, believing that it was an allowable stretch of the rule. Even though it was a conscious decision, it was still made in ignorance, not by deliberation of cheating. If you think otherwise, then you are seeing with blinders.

Originally Posted by phan52

I highly doubt that is true. I'm pretty sure that Tiger can recite 26-1 in his sleep. He knows the rules. He screwed up. He was careless. He was "cavalier". He didn't cheat.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

We will simply have to disagree.  You think Tiger is stupid.  I think you are wrong.

Wow. When did I ever say Tiger was stupid? There is a big difference between "stupid" and "careless". The guy had a brain fart and executed his option incorrectly. Do you seriously think that Tiger does not know  the correct application of 26-1 (a)? Does anybody else here think that?

No, he was unaware that he took liberties with the phrase "as near as possible".  If he knew the rule, he would either have dropped correctly, or he never would have been stupid enough to admit it on TV.  If you believe what you say, then you believe that he is stupid.  Straight linear logic.

[phan52]

Originally Posted by phan52

Wow. When did I ever say Tiger was stupid? There is a big difference between "stupid" and "careless". The guy had a brain fart and executed his option incorrectly. Do you seriously think that Tiger does not know the correct application of 26-1 (a)? Does anybody else here think that?

Originally Posted by Fourputt

No, he was unaware that he took liberties with the phrase "as near as possible".  If he knew the rule or was deliberately cavalier, he would either have dropped correctly, or he never would have been stupid enough to admit it on TV.  If you believe what you say, then you believe that he is stupid.  Straight linear logic.

He screwed up. That is clear. And it is kind of hard to be "deliberately cavalier". That would in fact suggest that he cheated.

Answer my question. Do you seriously think that Tiger does not know the correct application of 26-1 (a)? Because if that is the case, you are the one who thinks Tiger is stupid.

Woods said he thought the penalty was fair: “Absolutely, I made a mistake.”

Woods said that after hitting the flagstick, he wasn’t even “really thinking.”

“I was still a little ticked at what happened, and I was just trying to figure out, OK, I need to take some yardage off this shot,” Woods said. “And that’s all I was thinking about ... trying to make sure I took some yardage off of it, and evidently, it was pretty obvious, I didn’t drop in the right spot.”

[Golfingdad]

I pretty much said the same thing when I said that Brandel Chamblee never said that Tiger cheated, but thanks for the clarification.

If this ended up in court, all the defense attorney would need to do is bring a Merriam-Webster dictionary and open it to "cavalier". Thank you very much, next case.

"Your honor, I object to this entire case and believe it should be withdrawn.  Not only did my client not slander the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is clearly a horseman, a mounted soldier, a knight, if you will."

[k-troop]

I'm not a lawyer and I believe you are so maybe I'm off target here but....

I agree based on this one isolated article it would be hard for Tiger to prove Brandel intended to injure Tiger, but if Tiger's legal team presented a series of articles and comments from Brandel then it's possible that the cumulative evidence would demonstrate Brandel's intent to do harm to Tigers reputation which could impact his sponsorship agreements.

That's the point of "public figure" doctrine.  If you're a public figure, I can intentionally injure your reputation.  In fact, it's encouraged in a fourth-estate system, so long as it's true.  Or at least you don't knowingly make stuff up.

Put another way, it's not enough just to injure his reputation.  You have to deliberately lie, and to prove that, the assertion has to be disprovable.  Chamblee's characterization of Tiger's actions (which he described more-or-less accurately) is not really an assertion of fact that can be disproven.

I pretty much said the same thing when I said that Brandel Chamblee never said that Tiger cheated, but thanks for the clarification.

[Lihu]

Why anyone would give Tiger an 'F' rating says a lot more about the person grading.

Tiger made quite a comeback. It's always great to hear about anyone in an emotional slump making a comeback. I'm sure he still really misses his dad. In Earl, was the essence of his existence. He lost his reason to live, and came back from that? He and his mom are all that are left of their dream.

I think he will be known as the greatest, someday.

Anyone giving him an 'F' just does not have a good grasp of life, in general.

[birlyshirly]

A lawsuit against Brandel would make for the most compelling story in golf since the Hogan slam. Given the threads already hyperventilating over Tiger's 2013 demeanours (I wouldn't want to call them misdemeanours, 'cause I'd like to be eligible as a juror) who wouldn't want to see that?

Tiger would try to show that prior to Brandel's remarks he had enjoyed a reputation with the public as someone for whom the concept of being "cavalier with the rules" would be unthinkable. I guess he would also try to show that Brandel's comments were more damaging to his reputation than the incidents themselves.

Brandel would be looking to provide even just 1 incident in which Tiger appeared to have knowingly, or carelessly, breached a rule with a view to gaining an advantage. Or he might want to try and show that Tiger's reputation isn't all that anyway.

In order to free up witnesses for both sides, I could live with the cancellation of the next Ryder Cup to make this happen.

[Golfingdad]

A lawsuit against Brandel would make for the most compelling story in golf since the Hogan slam. Given the threads already hyperventilating over Tiger's 2013 demeanours (I wouldn't want to call them misdemeanours, 'cause I'd like to be eligible as a juror) who wouldn't want to see that?

Tiger would try to show that prior to Brandel's remarks he had enjoyed a reputation with the public as someone for whom the concept of being "cavalier with the rules" would be unthinkable. I guess he would also try to show that Brandel's comments were more damaging to his reputation than the incidents themselves.

Brandel would be looking to provide even just 1 incident in which Tiger appeared to have knowingly, or carelessly, breached a rule with a view to gaining an advantage. Or he might want to try and show that Tiger's reputation isn't all that anyway.

In order to free up witnesses for both sides, I could live with the cancellation of the next Ryder Cup to make this happen.

I would have to think that the only person who would like to see a lawsuit in this case even less than Brandel would be Tiger.  I assume that his lawyer is just trying to get Brandel reprimanded or at least get some sort of apology from TGC.  I'd be surprised if Tiger or his people would really want to go through with a circus like that.

[Lihu]

A lawsuit against Brandel ... who wouldn't want to see that?

Yes, I can see a few people who would. Tiger might even be able to win a suit like that. (It only takes money and time, which he has plenty)

I would prefer that Tiger spend all his time making himself well, Tiger.

[3putter]

I suppose Chamblee is getting the attention he wanted. I'll be surprised if Tiger gives a crap what this guy said.

[newtogolf]

I'd like Tiger to respond that Brandel is just a jealous wanna be who would sell his soul to have half the career Tiger's had.  Since Brandel's career is a joke compared to Tiger's he's dedicated the remainder of his life to leeching off Tiger's name in order to remain relevant in a game that's long past him by.

[Fourputt]

I'd like Tiger to respond that Brandel is just a jealous wanna be who would sell his soul to have half the career Tiger's had.  Since Brandel's career is a joke compared to Tiger's he's dedicated the remainder of his life to leeching off Tiger's name in order to remain relevant in a game that's long past him by.

Best post in this entire discussion.

[nevets88]

I'm tired of people making a living by just stirring up sh&t; that brings nothing productive to the table - whether it's this, technology (Apple vs Android/Google vs Apple/Google vs Microsoft), politics,  the arts (movies, books, tv), this city vs that city, etc... If someone wove a magic wand that stopped people from clicking, reading and responding to linkbait for one month, so many people would lose their livelihoods, maybe they could do something productive rather than set people against one another to make a buck.

[caniac6]

I think Brandel goes to bed thinking about Tiger, and wakes up thinking about Tiger. Talk about a one trick pony! In each case of " cheating" Tiger accepted his penalty ,and moved on. I might be wrong, but I seem to remember another pro making a similar mistake in the same tourney in the middle east. I believe the one at the Masters just scrambled his brain, and I believe he didn't think his ball moved on his latest one. The only one I would question would be the one at TPC, but his playing partner agreed to the place the crossed the hazzard. I've said in the past that I don't like the way Tiger acts on the course, but I don't think he is a cheater.

[inthehole]

I'll be surprised if Tiger gives a crap what this guy said.

This !    And I'm convinced this is what irks Brandel most - Tiger couldn't care less what he says which irritates Brandel to no end.   Chamblee reminds me of my college professors - they all love to pontificate & hear themselves spout off at the mouth - gives them some sense of worth ...

[ghalfaire]

I'd like Tiger to respond that Brandel is just a jealous wanna be who would sell his soul to have half the career Tiger's had.  Since Brandel's career is a joke compared to Tiger's he's dedicated the remainder of his life to leeching off Tiger's name in order to remain relevant in a game that's long past him by.

That certainly would not make Brandel unique among sports' writers.