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

[birlyshirly]

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.

Which is almost word for word the way that Lance Armstrong's camp tried to discredit the ex-cyclists and commentators who raised questions about LA's career. Just sayin'

[misty_mountainhop]

Which is almost word for word the way that Lance Armstrong's camp tried to discredit the ex-cyclists and commentators who raised questions about LA's career.

Just sayin'

Sorry. I don't really understand how that's relevant. For one thing, what TW did is out in the public domain for all to see. This isn't an accusation about whether he's using PEDs or not. It's Chamblee's pathetic assertion that he knew TW's thought processes at each of these moments. He doesn't know any such thing and yet he's claiming that TW actively cheated. He's trying to use a cowards approach to tarnish Woods. I don't even care that much for Woods but I hope he burns Chamblee for this.

Sorry Chamblee - this side of the pond we also have a 'U' classification for 'unclassified' which is pretty much where you're at. So bad, you're not even wrong.

[mvmac]

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.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

He def seems to be a guy that would rather ignore facts and go with his gut.

Seriously though, I think that is a fine analysis.  When you see his disdain for the more modern teaching methods, or his scoffing at ball flight laws, it comes through pretty clearly.

"Science???  Well, I guess that's one theory."  ;)

[birlyshirly]

Sorry. I don't really understand how that's relevant. For one thing, what TW did is out in the public domain for all to see. This isn't an accusation about whether he's using PEDs or not. It's Chamblee's pathetic assertion that he knew TW's thought processes at each of these moments. He doesn't know any such thing and yet he's claiming that TW actively cheated. He's trying to use a cowards approach to tarnish Woods. I don't even care that much for Woods but I hope he burns Chamblee for this.

Sorry Chamblee - this side of the pond we also have a 'U' classification for 'unclassified' which is pretty much where you're at. So bad, you're not even wrong.

I'm not saying it's relevant. I'm just sayin'. See?

My actual point is that smearing the personality of the accuser is a pretty poor argument to make about the truth of an allegation. Especially when , as you point out, the facts are largely in the public domain. All that's missing is Woods' intent.

I disagree that Chamblee is claiming to know Woods' train of thought in each instance. I do think he's drawing an inference from a series of unfortunate events - that could be said to be linked by a certain attitude on the part of the player towards the rules.

I think everyone here should be capable of drawing their own inferences - without bringing Chamblee's character into the mix.

[3putter]

I think everyone here should be capable of drawing their own inferences - without bringing Chamblee's character into the mix.

His character is very pertinent to the discussion, especially when you write an article drawing inference from the time you cheated in school to Tiger's situations. It's ok to be a Chamblee apologist just like it's ok to be a Tiger apologist, but let's at least be real

[k-troop]

My actual point is that smearing the personality of the accuser is a pretty poor argument to make about the truth of an allegation. I think everyone here should be capable of drawing their own inferences - without bringing Chamblee's character into the mix.

Except that the point of this thread is to discuss Chamblee's article in which Chamblee presents his characterization of Tiger's actions. Of course everyone can decide for themselves whether they think Tiger cheated. We have an entire thread on that subject. (Numerous, actually.) But in this thread the primary topic is Chamblee's opinion. And in judging Chamblee's opinion, it's certainly relevant that Chamblee has essentially dedicated a good portion of his career to slamming Tiger over just about anything.

[boogielicious]

I'm not saying it's relevant. I'm just sayin'. See?

My actual point is that smearing the personality of the accuser is a pretty poor argument to make about the truth of an allegation. Especially when, as you point out, the facts are largely in the public domain. All that's missing is Woods' intent.

I disagree that Chamblee is claiming to know Woods' train of thought in each instance. I do think he's drawing an inference from a series of unfortunate events - that could be said to be linked by a certain attitude on the part of the player towards the rules.

I think everyone here should be capable of drawing their own inferences - without bringing Chamblee's character into the mix.

But shit slingers have no character.   The only thing BC was ever good at, besides styling his hair, is slinging the ole feces.  Add the that that BC is also in the public domain, so we are also allowed to cast dispersion on his character, ability and intentions.

[birlyshirly]

Hey - I don't know the first thing about Chamblee, so don't mind me. Just pile right on him for all I care.

My point is that his character should be irrelevant to a discussion of his opinion in this case . It's not like anyone who happens to agree with him is relying on his judgement, expertise, or  character. That would be like arguing that just because Tiger is an established liar, philanderer and addict, he's also going to cheat at golf - wouldn't it?

I don't believe anyone is trusting Brandel to interpret the situation, they're just glad that he's said publicly what was already on their minds.

[phan52]

Chamblee firm on his opinion

Chamblee never says outright he thinks Woods cheated. That was by design.

"I think 'cavalier with the rules' allows for those with a dubious opinion of the BMW video," Chamblee said Tuesday in an email to the AP. "My teacher in the fourth grade did not have a dubious opinion of how I completed the test. But she was writing to one, and as I was writing to many, I felt it important to allow for the doubt some might have, so I chose my words accordingly.

"What people want to infer about that is up to them," he said. "I have my opinion, they can form theirs."

Video shows Woods' ball move as he tried to remove a small branch from in front of it at the BMW Championship. He maintained it only wobbled and returned to its original position. Woods watched the video in the rules trailer after the round, but still maintained it only oscillated. The tour docked him two shots.

"I don't feel I'm the one that needs to justify the 'F.' The BMW video does it for me, followed by Tiger's silence -- until confronted -- and then by his denials in the face of incontestable evidence to the contrary of his petitions," Chamblee said. "To say nothing of the fact that he was disrespecting his position in golf, the traditions of golf and his fellow competitors, in my opinion."

Chamblee, who has developed a reputation of being critical of Woods' swing and golf game, is a contributor to "SI Golf Plus," which is not affiliated with Golf Channel.

Golf Channel declined to comment.

"I suspected there would be the usual assortment of divisive banter about me giving Tiger an 'F,' but as it turns out, it was a slow week in golf, so with not much to do, my column got more attention than it should have," Chamblee said.

He was most surprised by Steinberg's comments to ESPN.com.

Woods' longtime agent told the website: "There's nothing you can call a golfer worse than a cheater. This is the most deplorable thing I have seen. I'm not one for hyperbole, but this is absolutely disgusting. Calling him a cheater? I'll be shocked, stunned, if something is not done about this. Something has to be done. There are certainly things that just don't go without response. It's atrocious. I'm not sure if there isn't legal action to be taken. I have to give some thought to legal action."

Asked if he was rattled by Steinberg's consideration of legal action, Chamblee replied, "No."

"I thought it incomprehensible that anyone with the slightest understanding of libel laws wouldn't know the definition of and the difference between libel and opinion," Chamblee said.

Woods was voted PGA Tour Player of the Year by his peers for the 11th time. He is not expected to play again until a European Tour event Nov. 7-10 in Turkey, followed by his Northwestern Mutual World Challenge on Dec. 5-8 in California.

Chamblee said he did not consider whether the column would jeopardize -- or enhance -- his position at Golf Channel.

"I'm paid to have and give an opinion, and I work hard to form those opinions based upon facts, not agenda," he said. "I don't always get it right but I'm always trying to get it right. And I know the people I work for know that."

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

Sorry. I don't really understand how that's relevant. For one thing, what TW did is out in the public domain for all to see. This isn't an accusation about whether he's using PEDs or not. It's Chamblee's pathetic assertion that he knew TW's thought processes at each of these moments. He doesn't know any such thing and yet he's claiming that TW actively cheated. He's trying to use a cowards approach to tarnish Woods. I don't even care that much for Woods but I hope he burns Chamblee for this.

Sorry Chamblee - this side of the pond we also have a 'U' classification for 'unclassified' which is pretty much where you're at. So bad, you're not even wrong.

I'm not saying it's relevant. I'm just sayin'. See?

My actual point is that smearing the personality of the accuser is a pretty poor argument to make about the truth of an allegation. Especially when, as you point out, the facts are largely in the public domain. All that's missing is Woods' intent.

I disagree that Chamblee is claiming to know Woods' train of thought in each instance. I do think he's drawing an inference from a series of unfortunate events - that could be said to be linked by a certain attitude on the part of the player towards the rules.

I think everyone here should be capable of drawing their own inferences - without bringing Chamblee's character into the mix.

I see noting wrong with attacking the accuser when he has a well documented past history of casting aspersions (sorry Boogie, it's not "dispersions") in Tiger's direction.  I still feel that much of Chamblee's ire comes from his own failures on the course and in my opinion , jealousy clouds and colors his comments.  I mean, he won't even admit that his article was a direct accusation, not because he used that word directly with Tiger's name, but because of the way he not so subtly connected his own cheating story with Tiger (which leads me to recall the adage "once a cheater, always a cheater).  His golf career was  a total flop except that it managed to put him in a position to spew vitriol against the current #1 and Player of the Year as voted by his actual peers (one of which Chamblee seems to still regret not being).  Not only was he a failure in his golf career, but he's a sniveling coward in his new one.

Just my opinion, by the way - I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was defaming him.

[Golfingdad]

I see noting wrong with attacking the accuser when he has a well documented past history of casting aspersions (sorry Boogie, it's not "dispersions") in Tiger's direction.  ......  I mean, he won't even admit that his article was a direct accusation, not because he used that word directly with Tiger's name, but because of the way he not so subtly connected his own cheating story with Tiger (which leads me to recall the adage "once a cheater, always a cheater).  ........   Not only was he a failure in his golf career, but he's a sniveling coward in his new one.

Agree.  Specifically about the bold.  It's very cowardly, to me, to say "What people want to infer about that is up to them."  He made it very clear what we are to "infer" from that story.

[phan52]

Agree.  Specifically about the bold.  It's very cowardly, to me, to say "What people want to infer about that is up to them."  He made it very clear what we are to "infer" from that story.

Sez you. Not everybody necessarily infers what you do.

[Golfingdad]

Sez you. Not everybody necessarily infers what you do.

OK.  I'll bite ... what do you infer from his comments?

[Ernest Jones]

Agree.  Specifically about the bold.  It's very cowardly, to me, to say "What people want to infer about that is up to them."  He made it very clear what we are to "infer" from that story.

Agreed.

Come out and say it with conviction or go home and look for your balls.

[dsc123]

Sez you. Not everybody necessarily infers what you do.

He didn't just call tiger "caviler" .. . he said something like "which.....let just call it ..... caviler."    That fake soft peddling isn't letting people infer what they want; its implying that Tiger cheated.

And if you read the articles about him "standing by his article" its clear that he only took that approach to avoid a libel suit.

[ghalfaire]

"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."

For whatever it is worth Brandel didn't say "Tiger was a Cavalier" he said he "was cavalier with the rules".  The un-capitalized word cavalier means showing disregard or acting with disregard for something that is important or serious.

[mvmac]

Sez you. Not everybody necessarily infers what you do.

So what was the point of Brandel's cheating story?