PGA Tour Pro Dahmen Accuses Fellow Tour Player Kang of Cheating

[Lihu]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:23 AM, Moxley said:

So no, I don't think the posts here are off topic, or that they equate to bashing. 

 

Just one post seemed to indicate habitual cheating by Kang and his fellow nationals, and there are seemingly supporting posts from others. I don't know if that's their intent, so I won't accuse them of supporting this statement.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 12:45 PM, Valleygolfer said:

I say it will not affect him on the PGA tour. Since Kang is a Korean golfer and in the minority of the PGA in America, no one will care. Besides only cheaters would have to worry. Korean golfers seem to get caught cheating more frequently than any other. They obviously need to get better at it or realize there are to many cameras to get away with it.

1

It's also possible that Korean golfers are under more scrutiny than others because they are a minority in the PGA America? Not saying there's racism or anything like that in play, but just because they are new to the sport.

And no, I take sides with anyone unjustly accused of something. I'd taken sides pro-Lexi pro-Tiger etc, when they were accused of cheating as well. There's a fine line in these rules that allows for some interpretation. Kang might just not have trusted any of the other's players intentions. For all we know, he might have thought they were conspiring against him or whatever which made him more adamant about his assertion?

Whatever the reasons, did Kang cheat? Possibly. On purpose and habitually? Probably not.

 

On 7/2/2018 at 12:45 PM, Valleygolfer said:

I applaud Dahmen for saying it but I really think he would not have if the offender was an American.

I disagree with this statement as well. We don't know this. I'd at least give Dahman that benefit of the doubt. In fact, I think he'd rat out on anyone he felt got an unfair advantage even if they followed the rules.

That's my problem with him. The issue was resolved by an RO. So, there was no cheating involved and in fact no habitual cheating.

[turtleback]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

In general, yes, but a few posts resonate as a habitual cheating by a specific nationality. In my experience, I have never seen any indication of that behavior.

 

Just a few posts that seem to "indicate" a habitual cheating nature of certain foreign nationals. 😂

 

If Dahman said he cheated on that play, I wouldn't have any argument at all. Unfortunately, he said that Kand is a cheater indicating a habitual nature. I know you agree with that statement, and I was just indicating that you are not correct regarding that particular Nationality. In my experience, Korean's are by far the most critical people of their own games.

I think your inference that calling someone a cheater indicates an habitual nature is wrong.

[Valleygolfer]

3 hours ago, Lihu said:

 

If Dahman said he cheated on that play, I wouldn't have any argument at all. Unfortunately, he said that Kand is a cheater indicating a habitual nature. I know you agree with that statement, and I was just indicating that you are not correct regarding that particular Nationality. In my experience, Korean's are by far the most critical people of their own games.

Which makes them not want to lose or protect their game at all costs. Regardless, you are defending something without merit regardless of my statement about the Korean golfers. Cheating, cheater... you are splitting hairs and justifying your already feeble argument. 

Chella Choi, the Ha Na Jang and Gee Chun controversy and now this, is why I mention the South Korean's. You just seem to be blindly picking Kang's side in some sort of personal defense.

Edited July 7, 2018 by Valleygolfer

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

I think your inference that calling someone a cheater indicates an habitual nature is wrong.

Possibly just semantics then. I consider someone caught in the act of cheating as one thing, and calling someone a cheater or cheat as two different things.

OTOH, I really can’t profess to be an expert at English

I’ll take your word that they might be used interchangeably in this case then...

[rehmwa]

On 7/6/2018 at 12:29 AM, Golfingdad said:

I agree with your last sentence ... but I don’t really agree that this has become a Kang bashing thread.  To be honest, I’ve been kind of looking out for exactly that, but I think people have been pretty fair. 🙂

I agree - there's a pile of the typical "band wagon" comments, but it hasn't dominated like many threads.  But it does show there are always people that enjoy jumping on a player with little or no info (in the real world or a discussion forum).  The only conclusion that gives both players the benefit of the doubt is this is a difference of opinion, the result was the best we can expect.  One can probably infer that the interaction was a pissing match (Tuesday I played through a 4 some going through exactly that - we've all seen them and also know those guys that seem to participate in an unusual amount of them) and that's why the following post was over the top.

I really enjoy the character assessment of Dahmen by a guy nicknamed (self chosen) "Stoner".

Edited July 7, 2018 by rehmwa

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I agree - there's a pile of the typical "band wagon" comments, but it hasn't dominated like many threads.  But it does show there are always people that enjoy jumping on a player with little or no info (in the real world or a discussion forum).  The only conclusion that gives both players the benefit of the doubt is this is a difference of opinion, the result was the best we can expect.  One can probably infer that the interaction was a pissing match and that's why the following post was over the top.

I really enjoy the character assessment of Dahmen by a guy nicknamed (self chosen) "Stoner".

Agree, this makes the most sense to me now.

BTW, what does “Stoner” mean in this case? Someone who’s obstinate? Looked it up and that definition didn’t really fit in this case? I mean, if he was high during play how could he know for sure where the ball crossed? Plus, isn’t it, albeit incorrectly, a PED?

[colin007]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

That's my problem with him. The issue was resolved by an RO. So, there was no cheating involved and in fact no habitual cheating.

Uhh......

[sofingaw]

On 7/7/2018 at 10:16 PM, Lihu said:

If Dahman said he cheated on that play, I wouldn't have any argument at all. Unfortunately, he said that Kand is a cheater indicating a habitual nature. I know you agree with that statement, and I was just indicating that you are not correct regarding that particular Nationality. In my experience, Korean's are by far the most critical people of their own games.

If I’m not mistaken, the tweet in question from Dahmen in fact said: ”Kang cheated.”, NOT ”Kang is a cheater.”

Did Dahmen anywhere else say that Kang was a cheater or that Koreans are cheaters? I haven’t seen that. 

As for whether he cheated or not, I don’t know and can’t say. But it seems likely that he did at best ‘get away’ with a major mistake, and at worst, possibly cheated intentionally. 

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, sofingaw said:

If I’m not mistaken, the tweet in question from Dahmen in fact said: ”Kang cheated.”, NOT ”Kang is a cheater.”

Yep. You are correct. It said he cheated, not that he was a cheater.

[turtleback]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Yep. You are correct. It said he cheated, not that he was a cheater.

Not that the distinction ever made a lick of sense in the first place.

[arab_joe]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 3:21 PM, iacas said:

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.

I admit that I am far from an expert on the Rules of Golf, but after a quick search I couldn't find any Rule that sets out how a judgment should be made in such a situation.  Surely, if there is a RO roaming the course then he should have a defined role and, importantly, defined limits.  Why was he making a decision (because, from the reports, he made the final call and approved Kang's drop location) when he had insufficient information to make that call?  At what point does he recuse himself and allow Kang/Dahmen to sort this out for themselves?

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:23 PM, Lihu said:

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.

I'm inclined to agree with this.  He followed a decision that was made by a RO who was, I assume, acting within the Rules and told Kang that.  By way of an analogy, if in a criminal court someone is found not guilty of a crime (because, for example, the prosecution messed up their case) should that person walk out of the court?  Or are they obligated to walk back in and declare themselves guilty?

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 2:09 AM, Golfingdad said:

The RO can only go off the information given to him because he didn’t see it happen.  And all he has is two guys both insisting they know where it last crossed.  It’s just a case of he said/he said.

Given that, how could he NOT go with the word of the player?

And, given that, how could Dahmen NOT go with the decision of the RO...

[iacas]

3 hours ago, arab_joe said:

I admit that I am far from an expert on the Rules of Golf, but after a quick search I couldn't find any Rule that sets out how a judgment should be made in such a situation.  Surely, if there is a RO roaming the course then he should have a defined role and, importantly, defined limits.  Why was he making a decision (because, from the reports, he made the final call and approved Kang's drop location) when he had insufficient information to make that call?  At what point does he recuse himself and allow Kang/Dahmen to sort this out for themselves?

He does have a defined role.

They were not going to agree, so what then? They weren't going to sort it out, so the RO made a determination and had them play on.

3 hours ago, arab_joe said:

I'm inclined to agree with this.  He followed a decision that was made by a RO who was, I assume, acting within the Rules and told Kang that.

The RO is not a player and thus doesn't "act within the Rules." They are just there as a representative of The Committee.

He took in all available information and made a ruling. Nothing more than that.

[Lihu]

14 hours ago, sofingaw said:

If I’m not mistaken, the tweet in question from Dahmen in fact said: ”Kang cheated.”, NOT ”Kang is a cheater.”

Did Dahmen anywhere else say that Kang was a cheater or that Koreans are cheaters? I haven’t seen that. 

As for whether he cheated or not, I don’t know and can’t say. But it seems likely that he did at best ‘get away’ with a major mistake, and at worst, possibly cheated intentionally. 

 

Just going by this statement in the article...

Quote

Oh wow! That is a bold statement. Publicly referring to another golfer as having “cheated” or as a “cheater” is rare in competitive golf, partly due to how much damage such an accusation can do to a competitor’s reputation.

But obviously, the words are used differently here, and @turtleback already corrected me...

[Wally Fairway]

Kang discusses the ruling and disagreement in his interview after the 1st round at The Open

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/british-open-2018-sung-kang-defends-his-actions-at-quicken-loans-after-being-accused-of-cheating?mbid=nl_072018_golfworld_AM&CNDID=25661097&spMailingID=13908683&spUserID=MTMyNjM1ODMxMDQ3S0&spJobID=1441696672&spReportId=MTQ0MTY5NjY3MgS2

Here is the last bit from the article

Quote

“I did not want to say anything bad about Joel,” Kang said. “Because there can be difference of opinions. But the way he just said it on Twitter was not right. There can be different opinions. And also, it was made a decision by the rules official. So nothing was wrong.”

If Kang was a guilty man, he didn’t necessarily show any signs of it. Asked if he might approach rules situations differently in the future, Kang answered swiftly and pointedly.

“No. Why? I did the right thing.”

 

[sofingaw]

What adds some intrigue to this whole thing is that his finish in the QL qualified him for the Open, and he is in the mix, as of now. 

If he wins, this incident will get even more attention. If he doesn’t end up contending on the weekend, this will probably be generally forgotten. Interesting stuff!