Jump to content


Lefty Boomers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. But I think you're not considering how much he has grown the game, which is actually one step above "potential impairment" on the post crash analysis checklist.
  2. All I know is this, it’s totally acceptable to speculate that he had a medical event, an animal encounter, or a critical failure of vehicle systems in his late model car. It’s just not ok to speculate that he may have been impaired. Carry on...
  3. Like he should have been in 2009 and 2017? People can spin it however they want, but we have seen this fact pattern with him TWO prior times. It's just reality...it is documented and admitted by him...it happened whether you choose to acknowledge it.
  4. No signs of impairment...but what exactly was the crowd swayed by this thinking would be found? Nobody was saying they expected the cops to roll up and find him with a bottle of Jack Daniels and a bong in his hands. If it's pills (which would be the most likely culprit based on prior behavior), then that would only be found in an after the fact toxicology screen...which I am guessing they will take regardless of what the sheriff said today. Keep in mind at the time they find him, they are focusing on administering life saving medical care and not evaluating toxicology. And by the way, that
  5. Surprised he wouldn't just come right out with the "oh he looked totally blitzed." "No signs of impairment" is basically one step removed from "no comment."
  6. 1997, 2004, and 2019 Masters are basically the most memorable sporting events of my life, and Tiger was at the helm of two of them. I worry for his legacy that the "what could have been" will overshadow that "what was," especially after today. I have blown a lot of hot air in this thread, but mostly am just sad to see all this.
  7. It took me through this afternoon to really think this over, but I'm going to go with Brady.
  8. Let me go check my con law outline...been a while but I do recall something like that in there. Let's just see if he asserts the First Amendment against these golfwrx claims though (guessing only other lawyers will truly get the humor of that one).
  9. Ok everyone, I am convinced now. Let's definitely not rush to judgment here. Probably just missed a turn or something.
  10. I actually do not mean to bash. I wish nothing but the best for him, and I hope my skepticism is proven wrong...I truly do. I just think people saying it's "gross" or the like to speak frankly about the matter is a little overboard. He is not beyond reproach because of his golfing prowess and is not free from speculation in a circumstance that looks awfully familiar to the two before it.
  11. But I'm sure he "doesn't need that" in his eyes... And as for comments on the "gross" nature of these posts...where there is smoke there is usually fire. This is a person who has had similar incidents two times in the prior decade - it is not exactly like this would be unheard of for him. You're just ignoring reality if you can't admit that. I would love to be wrong, but the speculation is probably fair in this case.
  12. It would take admitting a number of things he probably doesn't care to admit.
  13. There is a fairly obvious way that the "defenders" refuse to acknowledge. Sure it's sad, but I texted my friends within two seconds of him showing up on screen on Sunday that he was clearly back on back pills. It wasn't exactly a "subtle" scene. He was clearly out of sorts, and I think people are entitled to speculate.
  • Create New...