PGA Tour Pro Dahmen Accuses Fellow Tour Player Kang of Cheating

[arab_joe]

Calling another professional a cheat is pretty severe... it may well stay with Kang for the entirety of his career.  I'm not convinced that is a fair reaction, especially as he followed the decision made by the RO.

Dahmen seems to be suggesting that either he knew better than the RO or that the RO should have been ignored, both of which set a really dangerous precedent - if he the RO makes a decision that is not deemed "final" then what is the point in him at all?

[Moxley]

16 hours ago, BaconNEggs said:

What's the margin of error here between their two accounts of the ball flight, anyone know? Like, are they 5 yards off but that 5 yards is the difference between crossing the hazard and not (or whatever the exact situation was)? I know Dahmen said something along the lines of there was no way it crossed back, but that's... well, tbh, pretty meaningless to me. People say things like that all the time and turn out to be wrong.

I'm skeptical of any eyewitnesses here, particularly those who are coming out of the woodwork now to state definitively that they know XYZ happened. Even more so now that the accusation of him cheating is out there, which can definitely influence one's perception and recreation of the event in their memory.

I have a hard time discerning how big of a difference the accounts of the ball flight were.

Kang had the best angle on his shot. Even being a few yards off can give you a distorted perception of ball flight. Kang seemed pretty convinced of his flight. The people who had less than ideal views of his ball also seem pretty convinced. Without being there, I don't know that I'd take their word for it just because, particularly when we're talking about projecting ball flights. And I'm very hesitant to insist that he deliberately cheated.

I think the whole thing will be a relative non-issue in a few days. Kang might have cheated, Dahmen came off as a DB, both players are nobodies.

 

I really disagree with your approach here. Of course it is possible that Kang had a better view, and of course it's possible that he may be right and the others may be right, but the issue is about certainty. 'pretty convinced' is not certain,  95% sure isn't either. He isn't sure, and the testimony of the other players represents, at the very least, a reasonable doubt. 

It's not necessary to decide whether or he not he deliberately cheated - it's about whether he did the right thing. For me at least, if my playing partner and other witnesses are telling me that they saw different to what I think I saw, I'm going to go with their version unless I'm absolutely certain (to the point where I believe I can prove my version of events). Failing to do this is giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, and in a sport that relies on integrity, I don't think that's something any player should do when competing. 


 

[GolfLug]

I'm not sure why the RO is at fault one way or the other. He can't say something to the effect of "No Kang, you are wrong. Dahmen says it did not cross the has line. I believe him, not you". 

Unless there is overwhelming evidence -which in this case  would be someone seeing where the ball drop exactly, I think he HAS to side by the player. 

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, DeadMan said:

I'm just wondering why the RO took Kang at his word when everybody else is saying that it didn't cross twice.

What else is he going to do? Take a vote? The testimony of others weighs into the decision, but ultimately if the player says so…

1 hour ago, arab_joe said:

Dahmen seems to be suggesting that either he knew better than the RO or that the RO should have been ignored, both of which set a really dangerous precedent - if he the RO makes a decision that is not deemed "final" then what is the point in him at all?

Dahmen did know better than the RO. He was on the hole when the shot was played. The RO was somewhere else and was called in.

[Lihu]

23 hours ago, BamaWade said:

To me, Kang really doesn't look good here.

 

He looks like an idiot, but Dahmen looks like a jerk.

I'd guess that more people would be apt to want to play with Kang and correct him if he makes more mistakes than a rat who goes to public media and could potentially call them out for cheating when it's more of a disagreement. :-P

[Golfingdad]

3 hours ago, Moxley said:

 

I really disagree with your approach here. Of course it is possible that Kang had a better view, and of course it's possible that he may be right and the others may be right, but the issue is about certainty. 'pretty convinced' is not certain,  95% sure isn't either. He isn't sure, and the testimony of the other players represents, at the very least, a reasonable doubt. 

It's not necessary to decide whether or he not he deliberately cheated - it's about whether he did the right thing. For me at least, if my playing partner and other witnesses are telling me that they saw different to what I think I saw, I'm going to go with their version unless I'm absolutely certain (to the point where I believe I can prove my version of events). Failing to do this is giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, and in a sport that relies on integrity, I don't think that's something any player should do when competing. 


 

Well written. 🙂

[Jeremie Boop]

33 minutes ago, Lihu said:

He looks like an idiot, but Dahmen looks like a jerk.

I'd guess that more people would be apt to want to play with Kang and correct him if he makes more mistakes than a rat who goes to public media and could potentially call them out for cheating when it's more of a disagreement.

I don't know that he looks like a jerk. I think he looks like a guy who really believes someone got away with something on the course and doesn't like it. If he's not had a history of calling people out why would he suddenly be considered a rat?

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I don't know that he looks like a jerk. I think he looks like a guy who really believes someone got away with something on the course and doesn't like it. If he's not had a history of calling people out why would he suddenly be considered a rat?

I agree that Kang should have taken the drop somewhere else, but he did have an RO to confirm that's it was okay to take the drop where he perceived was correct. At that point, Kang was in the right. Both Kang and RO were very likely mistaken allowing it, but it was within the rules.

The issue is that it's all based upon their personal perceptions of what happened, and to attempt to ruin a person's career over that is a little bit overboard. Not a trustworthy thing, playing politics like that.

Dahman signed the card, because an RO allowed the shot to be made. A call by an RO is a call, and it's valid at that point right or wrong.

For example, the "Hand of God" was possibly the worst call in modern football, but was allowed. Maradona is still considered a national hero.

On top of all this, I doubt it would have changed the outcome. He hit the shot to about 17'. It wasn't like he chipped it in.

IMHO, Dahman just showed really poor sportsmanship. He might have been correct in his perception of where the drop should have been taken, but showed really poor sportsmanship in the end.

[BallStriker]

35 minutes ago, Lihu said:

and to attempt to ruin a person's career over that is a little bit overboard.

Great point......remember when Venturi claimed that Palmer cheated in the Masters and how it ruined Arnie's career.....oh wait....

Ridiculous conclusion here.....it is never wrong to do the right thing

Edited July 4, 2018 by BallStriker

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, BallStriker said:

Great point......remember when Venturi claimed that Palmer cheated in the Masters and how it ruined Arnie's career.....oh wait....

Ridiculous conclusion here.....it is never wrong to do the right thing

The right thing is to not say anything once the RO has made the ruling.

[turtleback]

6 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

Great point......remember when Venturi claimed that Palmer cheated in the Masters and how it ruined Arnie's career.....oh wait....

Ridiculous conclusion here.....it is never wrong to do the right thing

And Venturi went on to become one of the best, well liked, and well respected announcers in golf history.  It really IS a pretty analogous situation - other than the fact that in this case the players are relative unknowns.  I was thinking of this exact case when I read your post.

OTOH, we live in a very different world, now.  I hope outraged golf fans don't start chasing Kang out of restaurants.

[Rulesman]

On 7/3/2018 at 5:52 AM, MacDutch said:

Kang said himself he was 95% certain. Well thats just not enough, thats not how the rules work. If he really said that to the RO.....

The rule does not say that. It simply requires "his best judgment in determining the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin". 

On 7/3/2018 at 6:03 PM, Club Rat said:

there probably was no virtual certainly as described in the ROG.

Where is Virtual Certainty mentioned in relation to the last crossing point?

[Rulesman]

7 hours ago, Moxley said:

 but the issue is about certainty. 'pretty convinced' is not certain,  95% sure isn't either. He isn't sure, and the testimony of the other players represents, at the very least, a reasonable doubt.  
 

The issue is about the player's best estimate. That is what the rule requires. No more, no less

[BallStriker]

2 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The issue is about the player's best estimate. That is what the rule requires. No more, no less

The point that is being made is that Kang was "95%" certain that it crossed the into the hazard up by the green...at the same time, his playing competitor was certain it did not.....so, with that information, is it appropriate under the rules of golf to give his own belief of the situation more weight and determine that his perception is the "best estimate" based on all of the information he was given?   

[Lihu]

28 minutes ago, BallStriker said:

The point that is being made is that Kang was "95%" certain that it crossed the into the hazard up by the green...at the same time, his playing competitor was certain it did not.....so, with that information, is it appropriate under the rules of golf to give his own belief of the situation more weight and determine that his perception is the "best estimate" based on all of the information he was given?   

The issue is Dahman blabbing all over the internet his opinion that Kang purposely cheated and knew that he was absolutely wrong while deciding to give himself a better shot without consulting an RO.

Kang did his part discussing everything with the RO, and the RO did his part asking all the players in the vicinity. The RO left it to Kang to decide. Kang believed that it was where he decided, then made the shot under the guidance of an RO.

What more could he have done?

Dahman could not be 100% certain that Kang cheated, but blabbed it all over the internet that he did.

People are not perfect, and I’m guessing people around Dahman will not be comfortable playing with him in the future.

Edited July 4, 2018 by Lihu

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

The right thing is to not say anything once the RO has made the ruling.

The RO wasn't there. Dahmen was.

55 minutes ago, Lihu said:

People are not perfect, and I’m guessing people around Dahman will not be comfortable playing with him in the future.

For all you know Kang has a reputation already, and people will be glad that Dahmen stood up and called a spade a spade.

I'm not saying I know that to be the case. I haven't heard any such thing. I am only saying that you don't know it's not true.

[iacas]

 

[MacDutch]

We discuss here at this forum many times decisions made by RO’s. Why would it this time end with ‘RO decided, end of discussion’?

Why is the player the best source here? How many times did it occur that you were looking for your ball at the wrong spot? The other player(s) in the flight are the markers. If the marker says, that is the wrong place to drop, thats the wrong place to drop.

Should be interesting to know more about Kang’s golfing backgound.