"Tiger Woods Suspended for Failed Drug Test" Claims PGA Golfer Dan Olsen

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmac20

What do you mean by this?

My point is many people include on this thread have said Olson should be sued, he won't and he can't be sued.

Al Gore had an opinion and agenda about global warming, he made some harsh predictions and even profited from it...now affectionate refered to as climate change...".and now we know the rest of the story" -the late Paul Harvey

I think they were only stating this to voice their displeasure at Olson, and not seriously thinking that Tiger should take legal action against him.

[Ernest Jones]

[quote name="tmac20" url="/t/80477/tiger-woods-suspended-for-failed-drug-test-claims-pga-golfer-dan-olsen/54#post_1110962"]What do you mean by this?

My point is many people include on this thread have said Olson should be sued, he won't and he can't be sued. Al Gore had an opinion and agenda about global warming, he made some harsh predictions and even profited from it...now affectionate refered to as climate change...".and now we know the rest of the story" -the late Paul Harvey[/quote]If that was a clarification of your previous post's meaning, I still don't get it...

[skydog]

My point is many people include on this thread have said Olson should be sued, he won't and he can't be sued.

Al Gore had an opinion and agenda about global warming, he made some harsh predictions and even profited from it...now affectionate refered to as climate change...".and now we know the rest of the story" -the late Paul Harvey

::scratching head::. I'm no Al Gore fan by any means but I may question your understanding of slander. Who would sue Al Gore? The world?? Slander has to be based on false claims against an individual that are damaging to a reputation...Olsen's words appear to fit that bill.

[3putter]

My point is many people include on this thread have said Olson should be sued, he won't and he can't be sued.

Al Gore had an opinion and agenda about global warming, he made some harsh predictions and even profited from it...now affectionate refered to as climate change...".and now we know the rest of the story" -the late Paul Harvey

hmmm, huh? Are you trying to draw some type of clever inference?

[Spitfisher]

::scratching head::. I'm no Al Gore fan by any means but I may question your understanding of slander. Who would sue Al Gore? The world?? Slander has to be based on false claims against an individual that are damaging to a reputation...Olsen's words appear to fit that bill.

thank you for bolstering my point, no one sued Al, no one can sue Al, same with Olsen However....Great lets sue him...how much was Tiger damaged? Of course if Tiger does sue him, he'll have to prove Mr Olsen is 100% incorrect, not 99% likely to be incorrect, 100% incorrect. Remember a few months ago when Tiger opened up his mouth with Gold Digest? He didn't get an apology and he did get a lot of negative attention. Then again he's not sharpest knife in drawer.

[dkolo]

thank you for bolstering my point, no one sued Al, no one can sue Al, same with Olsen

However....Great lets sue him...how much was Tiger damaged?

Of course if Tiger does sue him, he'll have to prove Mr Olsen is 100% incorrect, not 99% likely to be incorrect, 100% incorrect.

Remember a few months ago when Tiger opened up his mouth with Gold Digest? He didn't get an apology and he did get a lot of negative attention. Then again he's not sharpest knife in drawer.

What are you talking about? No one sued Al Gore because... why would they sue Al Gore? Like, I'm guessing you're a climate change denier or whatever, but he presented science, for the most part. If you're wrong about something like that, it may hurt your reputation, but it doesn't create a cause of action. Specifically, it's not defamation because you're not defaming anyone. So Al Gore isn't relevant in any way to this.

Slander, libel, and the defamation torts are very well-defined, and these Tiger accusations fall within that sphere. Considering that these comments are arguably malicious, Tiger would probably have a decent case, depending on the law in whichever state he chose to sue.

[Spitfisher]

What are you talking about? No one sued Al Gore because... why would they sue Al Gore? Like, I'm guessing you're a climate change denier or whatever, but he presented science, for the most part. If you're wrong about something like that, it may hurt your reputation, but it doesn't create a cause of action. Specifically, it's not defamation because you're not defaming anyone. So Al Gore isn't relevant in any way to this. Slander, libel, and the defamation torts are very well-defined, and these Tiger accusations fall within that sphere. Considering that these comments are arguably malicious, Tiger would probably have a decent case, depending on the law in whichever state he chose to sue.

Great how much damage and how much $$ does tiger sue for? Lay it in the line, what damage was caused, how much hardship? That's my point you can not sue just for someone's opinion. people state their opinion about everything all the time. And not to go into the abyss of off topic, all of Al gores predictions and scientific proof have pretty much been debunked as much as chicken little's the sky ifs falling... Sorry I brought him up as an example.

[dkolo]

Great how much damage and how much $$ does tiger sue for? Lay it in the line, what damage was caused, how much hardship?

That's my point you can not sue just for someone's opinion. people state their opinion about everything all the time.

And not to go into the abyss of off topic, all of Al gores predictions and scientific proof have pretty much been debunked as much as chicken little's the sky ifs falling... Sorry I brought him up as an example.

If there's no statutory directive for damages, the plaintiff figures out his damages and argues them to the jury. It's pretty straightforward in that regard: your damages are whatever you can convince a jury of.

You can't sue someone for opinion, but you're misusing the word opinion. An opinion is something you say based on facts and you acknowledge you lack certainty. Olsen fabricated a story and presented his statements as fact. That's not opinion. It's not even speculation. It's malicious defamation when you know something is false or act like it's true with reckless disregard for the possibility it's false. He was making crap up and passing it off as fact, with apparent purpose to impeach Tiger's character. That's prima facie defamation.

As for Al Gore, you're welcome to bring up your unwillingness to believe climate science in a thread in the Grill Room forum. I'm sure it'll get a fair amount of discussion.

[Shorty]

Great how much damage and how much $$ does tiger sue for? Lay it in the line, what damage was caused, how much hardship?

That's my point you can not sue just for someone's opinion. people state their opinion about everything all the time.

And not to go into the abyss of off topic, all of Al gores predictions and scientific proof have pretty much been debunked as much as chicken little's the sky ifs falling... Sorry I brought him up as an example.

He wasn't stating an "opinion". He said that Tiger Woods had been suspended.

It was wilful and malicious defamation and he deserves to have his arse sued from beneath him.

[Patch]

Here's some more stuff about this topic, what ever it's worth; http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/25088924/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-alleged-tiger-woods-suspension?FTAG=YHF7e3228e

[Wally Fairway]

After pondering this for the last couple of days and I think that it is possible that Dan Olsen never thought that anyone would ever hear what he said in an interview with Dave Maddog DeMarco.

730 am, The Game, is a very low power station and DeMarco is a local morning host who is just horrible; I only hear his show when I've forgotten to change the channel the night before. It is entirely possible that Olsen figured he could say whatever he wanted, and low and behold a youtube rebroadcast and the internet has given him his 15 minutes of fame.

Lansing is the #127 ranked market and WVFN is ranked 9th out of 10 local radio stations (it is 500 watt/am, 50 watt/pm) - http://ratings.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/arb195

I think the true lesson in this is to be very aware of the power of the internet.

[Lihu]

Here's some more stuff about this topic, what ever it's worth;   http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/25088924/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-alleged-tiger-woods-suspension?FTAG=YHF7e3228e

This caught my eye!

[turtleback]

Quote:

"I'll be looked at as just some crazy f--- nobody making accusations about Tiger," Olsen told ESPN.com on Monday.

Only because that is exactly what he is.

[TJBam]

He wasn't stating an "opinion". He said that Tiger Woods had been suspended.

It was wilful and malicious defamation and he deserves to have his arse sued from beneath him.

Defamation is a gray area.  There is clear defamation, where a statement is made to be fact.  "Tiger Woods used PED's and is currently suspended."

Then, there is opinion, where the speaker clearly states he is making an opinion. "I think that Tiger Woods used PED's, and that's why he is suspended."

Olsen managed to straddle the extremes and find the gray area that lawyers, both prosecution and defense, love:  " I heard from someone credible that Tiger Woods used PED's."  This could very well be a fact:  Dan Olsen very well could've heard that Tiger Woods used PED's.  He could've heard it from a neighbor, his wife, or from another burned out former Tour player.  Now we have to define "someone credible."  See where this is going?  Who did you hear it from, Mr. Olsen?  "Uh, I don't recall."

Since Olsen prefaced most if not all of what he was saying with basically "someone credible told me that...", then he is not making a statement himself.  It could be argued, from a defense standpoint, that Olsen was passing along gossip.  Gossiping is not against the law if Olsen's defense can make a reasonable assertion that Olsen did indeed hear the rumor, and that Olsen had the slightest reason to believe that an athlete could very well be using PED's.

What we can draw from this is that Olsen is an idiot, Tiger should sue anyways, and I'm not allowed to call my lawyer buddy during office hours any more because he's "on billable hours, douche."

[JonMA1]

Defamation is a gray area.  There is clear defamation, where a statement is made to be fact.  "Tiger Woods used PED's and is currently suspended."

Then, there is opinion, where the speaker clearly states he is making an opinion. "I think that Tiger Woods used PED's, and that's why he is suspended."

Olsen managed to straddle the extremes and find the gray area that lawyers, both prosecution and defense, love:  "I heard from someone credible that Tiger Woods used PED's."  This could very well be a fact:  Dan Olsen very well could've heard that Tiger Woods used PED's.  He could've heard it from a neighbor, his wife, or from another burned out former Tour player.  Now we have to define "someone credible."  See where this is going?  Who did you hear it from, Mr. Olsen?  "Uh, I don't recall."

Since Olsen prefaced most if not all of what he was saying with basically "someone credible told me that...", then he is not making a statement himself.  It could be argued, from a defense standpoint, that Olsen was passing along gossip.  Gossiping is not against the law if Olsen's defense can make a reasonable assertion that Olsen did indeed hear the rumor, and that Olsen had the slightest reason to believe that an athlete could very well be using PED's.

What we can draw from this is that Olsen is an idiot, Tiger should sue anyways, and I'm not allowed to call my lawyer buddy during office hours any more because he's "on billable hours, douche."

I don't know that many jurors would buy into the notion that he heard it from someone credible, yet forget who that person was. How many people in our lives would we consider "credible"? Would we suddenly forget who that person was if they told us something like that?

I hate the law suit-crazy society we live in, but people should be held responsible when they pull crap like this.

[ScouseJohnny]

I imagine Mr. Olsen has had a letter or a phone call or an email....

But news stories like this remedy the situation far better than litigation:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/02/tiger-woods-drugs-suspension-claim-withdrawn

[turtleback]

What we can draw from this is that Olsen is an idiot, Tiger should sue anyways, and I'm not allowed to call my lawyer buddy during office hours any more because he's "on billable hours, douche."

He wouldn't even have to win.  Just the cost of defending the suit would probably break Olsen.  He would have to do a whole lot of his 3 lessons for $99 deals to be able to pay his lawyers.  I wouldn't want to see Tiger do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't pointed out to Olsen at some point - probably immediately preceding his about face and crawfish.

[TJBam]

He wouldn't even have to win.  Just the cost of defending the suit would probably break Olsen.  He would have to do a whole lot of his 3 lessons for $99 deals to be able to pay his lawyers.  I wouldn't want to see Tiger do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't pointed out to Olsen at some point - probably immediately preceding his about face and crawfish.

Step 1: Olsen files for freezing the case based on the anti-SLAPP statute (depending on his state).

Step 2: Once the anti-SLAPP is filed for, Woods' counsel can not demand any documents, etc.  Long story short, Olsen doesn't have to spend any additional $ on defending himself or be subject to legal harassment (subpoenas, request for documents, etc).

Step 3: Judge decides, after review, that Woods has no case.

Step 4: Woods is responsible for reimbursing Olsen's anti-SLAPP filing and any legal fees incurred.

Still hope Tiger takes him to court, that'd be hilarious and awesome.

PS I am not a lawyer, this is just how I am told it would probably play out.