Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Note: This thread is 2286 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Nike marketing wet dream, hear me out on this commercial: Black screen with a Nike swoosh Olson's radio comments playing, audio only, focusing on the Nike "cheater ball" comments Pic

Right, every sportswriter in the world would love to get this story but some obscure guy who is apparently known only for giving out stupid quotes has the inside track on what is going on with Tiger.

A professional golfer with an unverified inside source. Sounds more like he's throwing darts. Everything he said is just vague enough to be plausible without actually being able to cite any specifics.

[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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

::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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 2286 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Ohio - Best Courses You Can Play 1. Manakiki, Willoughby (c) 2. Fowler’s Mill (Lake & River), Chesterland (m) 3. The Virtues, Nashport (m) - Played 4. Boulder Creek, Streetsboro (m) - Played 5. Sleepy Hollow, Brecksville (c) - Played 6. Stonelick Hills, Batavia (m) 7. The Quarry, Canton (m) - Played 8. Little Mountain, Painesville (m) 9. Cooks Creek, South Bloomfield (m) - Played 10. EagleSticks, Zanesville (m) - Played I need to played the last remaining 4 courses. Especially when 3 out of 4 are with in a 1-1.5 hour drive of me. Stonelick is almost the furthest you can get away from Akron in Ohio.   
    • Grade: B+ Likes: Simple, good drill that I use fairly often. Clear audio, picture. Good use of Tour players (well, at least one) to show this. Dislikes: I didn't love the explanation if you were struggling to get the drill right. He just kept telling you about the drill, and how it would improve contact. Could have used some slow-mo, but it would have shown him fighting off the wrists a bit more, I think. Would have loved to show advanced versions, like where you can manipulate the path a bit by how much the arms come off the chest, etc.
    • And in 2017 you can see parts of Mammoth Dunes still under construction.  That's about the same time as these photos and discussion: Sand Valley � An Early Look at Kidd�s Mammoth Dunes - All 18 pictured! Sand Valley � An Early Look at Kidd�s Mammoth Dunes - All 18 pictured!  
    • It's strange that Google Earth displays 2013 imagery as the base image. You can switch it to 2017. 
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. alkaman
      alkaman
      (37 years old)
    2. magnolia
      magnolia
      (29 years old)
    3. masoshe21
      masoshe21
      (25 years old)
    4. mp33man
      mp33man
      (35 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...