Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[Sean2]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

[eagle1997]

Dead horse here, but these posts I quote are the two things that make it real easy for me to be against Kang in this. Kangs own words. 1. 95% and more importantly 2. his description of his own shot. He himself said it was straight. If it didn't hook, it's a no brainer. It didn't cross.

 

Everyone I play serious games with would never have taken the drop where he did under the circumstances he did, and one shot among us is worth nothing compared to what was on the line in this instance. We are however honorable men.

 

Link to this quote?

 

That's my point it's not a direct quote. I believe JD claims Kang said 95% sure to the rules official. Wish the rules official would confirm.

 

I meant about him saying it was a straight shot and not a hook or a big draw. To me that would be more of a head scratcher than 95%

 

 

the reason why no one can provide a link regarding Kang discussing the shot shape? no such quote exists.

 

it's one thing to believe that a guy is a cheater or dishonorable or whatever disparaging thing you want think.

 

it's quite another to MAKE SH*T UP to support your opinion/further your agenda.

[Sean2]

Dead horse here, but these posts I quote are the two things that make it real easy for me to be against Kang in this. Kangs own words. 1. 95% and more importantly 2. his description of his own shot. He himself said it was straight. If it didn't hook, it's a no brainer. It didn't cross.

 

Everyone I play serious games with would never have taken the drop where he did under the circumstances he did, and one shot among us is worth nothing compared to what was on the line in this instance. We are however honorable men.

 

Link to this quote?

 

That's my point it's not a direct quote. I believe JD claims Kang said 95% sure to the rules official. Wish the rules official would confirm.

 

I meant about him saying it was a straight shot and not a hook or a big draw. To me that would be more of a head scratcher than 95%

 

 

the reason why no one can provide a link regarding Kang discussing the shot shape? no such quote exists.

 

it's one thing to believe that a guy is a cheater or dishonorable or whatever disparaging thing you want think.

 

it's quite another to MAKE SH*T UP to support your opinion/further your agenda.

 

A lot of that going around today. It's becoming a pandemic.

[jonsnow]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

The presumption of innocence & social media cannot co-exist. It's like in Highlander: "There can be only one!"

[Sean2]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

The presumption of innocence & social media cannot co-exist. It's like in Highlander: "There can be only one!"

 

Lol! :hi:

 

Sad, but true.

[gretch]

Dead horse here, but these posts I quote are the two things that make it real easy for me to be against Kang in this. Kangs own words. 1. 95% and more importantly 2. his description of his own shot. He himself said it was straight. If it didn't hook, it's a no brainer. It didn't cross.

 

Everyone I play serious games with would never have taken the drop where he did under the circumstances he did, and one shot among us is worth nothing compared to what was on the line in this instance. We are however honorable men.

 

Link to this quote?

 

That's my point it's not a direct quote. I believe JD claims Kang said 95% sure to the rules official. Wish the rules official would confirm.

 

I meant about him saying it was a straight shot and not a hook or a big draw. To me that would be more of a head scratcher than 95%

 

 

the reason why no one can provide a link regarding Kang discussing the shot shape? no such quote exists.

 

it's one thing to believe that a guy is a cheater or dishonorable or whatever disparaging thing you want think.

 

it's quite another to MAKE SH*T UP to support your opinion/further your agenda.

 

Settle down there fella.

 

http://www.golf.com/...t-behind-scenes

 

fta- As the rules official arrived, Yosai and another onlooker each said they heard Kang describing his shot shape to the official as traveling straight.

 

 

I was mistaken. It wasn't the DIRECT quote I thought it was. Kang was just overheard saying his shot was straight, in the middle of everyone else saying it was a incorrect drop. Apparently, these were just eyewitnesses who weren't just content with claiming the drop was bad in order to persecute Kang. They also felt that to really sell it they should also blatantly fabricate what Kang said with his own mouth.

[eagle1997]

I was mistaken. It wasn't the DIRECT quote I thought it was.

 

glad you've seen the error of your ways, and can admit being wrong.

 

have a great day!

[gretch]

I was mistaken. It wasn't the DIRECT quote I thought it was.

 

glad you've seen the error of your ways, and can admit being wrong.

 

have a great day!

 

Cute snarky response, and nice editing out the context..........but does that mean you think they are lying abut what they said came out of Kangs mouth?

 

This is different than what anybody *thinks* they saw. He changed 95% to 100%, and said he hit his ball straight. That is unless they are simply part of the vast conspiracy against him and are lying in order to make their case.

[lowheel]

I was mistaken. It wasn't the DIRECT quote I thought it was.

 

glad you've seen the error of your ways, and can admit being wrong.

 

have a great day!

 

Cute snarky response, and nice editing out the context..........but does that mean you think they are lying abut what they said came out of Kangs mouth?

 

This is different than what anybody *thinks* they saw. He changed 95% to 100%, and said he hit his ball straight. That is unless they are simply part of the vast conspiracy against him and are lying in order to make their case.

 

Respectfully, dahmens people were 40 yards away. I take what they say with a grain of salt. Also Kangs english is decent but perhaps there is something lost in translation. There is no conspiracy. its one persons word against another and the rules officials sided with Kang.The rest is speculation and white noise.

[eagle1997]

Cute snarky response, and nice editing out the context

 

Your response was directly above mine, not big secret plan to obfuscate your point. I edit so people reading on here don’t have to deal with a wall of text.

 

This is different than what anybody *thinks* they saw. He changed 95% to 100%, and said he hit his ball straight. That is unless they are simply part of the vast conspiracy against him and are lying in order to make their case.

 

Even your eyewitness stops short of calling Kang a cheater after time to reflect.

 

From your link:

Yosai initially came out strong against Kang, but backed off from calling him a cheater a day later. "I'm hesitant to use the 'C' Word, because I don't know exactly what he was thinking," he said. "But in my mind he 100 percent took the wrong drop."

 

 

I’ve said all all along that JD et al could 100% think they were right.

 

As could Sung Kang.

 

As written, the rules use SK’s judgement as the determining factor, which makes sense as he has the best line of flight.

 

Could he have exaggerated/lied? Yes.

 

Did he? Maybe.

 

But when even one of the eyewitnesses won’t call him a cheater, even when he is 100% sure that the ball never crossed the hazard, how can you?

 

 

 

[sui generis]

An honorable man would have dropped based on input from the playing partner

 

Well, you'd be wrong.

[golfortennis]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

[johndagolfer]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

How do you know Kang's mindset? Has he publicly come out and said anything to that affect? It seems you have already made up your mind that his intention was to cheat due to the fact that something good came out of it. Just because he ended up with a spot in the Open doesn't prove he was thinking anything other than he wanted to play good golf, which he did

.

[DJGainer]

Eh, changed my mind about responding...

[MSUIRONDAWGS]

This argument is still being talked about?? Smh.

[Sean2]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

"If he did cheat". And there's the rub. We simply don't know.

[BottleCap]

All Kang has done is to stand behind the ruling that said "he can drop wherever he wants since the rule says he can"

[Ignatius Reilly]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

IF Kang believes his shot crossed where he thinks it did, and THEN dropped where Dahmen THOUGHT he saw it, THEN Kang MAY have dropped a shot and not gotten into the British. BUT IF Kang was actually right in what he saw, THEN the WRONG GUY would be in the British. THEN imagine if THAT GUY won, beating TIGER by a single stroke.

 

Is that really what you want to see?

[lowheel]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

IF Kang believes his shot crossed where he thinks it did, and THEN dropped where Dahmen THOUGHT he saw it, THEN Kang MAY have dropped a shot and not gotten into the British. BUT IF Kang was actually right in what he saw, THEN the WRONG GUY would be in the British. THEN imagine if THAT GUY won, beating TIGER by a single stroke.

 

Is that really what you want to see?

 

[soap1984]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

"If he did cheat". And there's the rub. We simply don't know.

 

This argument is so misguided; you have stated it 15 times.

 

We don't know for sure and we never will because ultimately the player himself made the call. We are using the facts to determine what the most likely outcome is with the facts in front of us, which to restate them are:

 

1) several uninterested parties heard Kang state his shot was straight;

2) Kang said he was 90% sure then changed his story to 100%

3) Dehman seems like a decent guy and for one tour player to call another player a cheater, it would almost certainly mean that Dehman was absolutely certain Kang cheated

4) I'm inclined to believe Dehman since he has absolutely no reason to lie and be so adamant that cheating took place.

5) no one else who stated the facts about the shot have any reason to lie, let alone speak out against the drop taken

6) there is no presumption of innocence since Kang ultimately made the determination on the drop. That would be like saying if I were accused of a crime and was my own judge, if I found myself not guilty because I have no integrity, you'd simply say "well you can't prove he did it".

 

The point is there is no proof that he cheated, but there is also no proof that he didn't cheat either. It is therefore about credibility and for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to believe Dehman's account. Also Kangs manufactured response leads me to believe he knows he did something wrong.

 

If I did not cheat, and I was accused, you had better believe I would come out strong and make it clear that I did not cheat. Kang just wants this story to go away.

[lowheel]

Our court system does operate this way. You don't need CSI level forensic evidence to come to a verdict of preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt. There's plenty of evidence here to reach a conclusion. I'm on mobile so please excuse any terseness.

 

But is there enough evidence to prove an infraction beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe preponderance of the evidence is used in civil cases. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in criminal cases...and some are treating Kang like a criminal.

 

I am not defending Kang...there is not enough evidence to indicate what he did one way or the other. What I am defending is the presumption of innocence, unless and until there is compelling enough evidence to remove that presumption.

 

But this isn't a court of law. And given that, if he did cheat, he prevented someone else from playing the Open Championship.

 

Recall a story from 1994. Davis Love couldn't recall if he had replaced his marker on the green after being asked to move it. He took a stroke penalty, which led to him missing the cut. That missed cut cost him getting in the Masters by way of the money list. Someone would ask him about missing the Masters when he may not have cheated, and he would always say, "How would I feel if I won the Masters knowing I may have gotten in by cheating?" Kang's view seems to be "however I get into the Open Championship is fine with me." No one has yet to say what Dahmen has to gain from this if he was wrong.

 

I know some like to say they are "open-minded", "see all sides", but a)it's golf, not the criminal justice system, and b)verdicts never stopped a lot of people from thinking OJ did it.

 

"If he did cheat". And there's the rub. We simply don't know.

 

This argument is so misguided; you have stated it 15 times.

 

We don't know for sure and we never will because ultimately the player himself made the call. We are using the facts to determine what the most likely outcome is with the facts in front of us, which to restate them are:

 

1) several uninterested parties heard Kang state his shot was straight;

2) Kang said he was 90% sure then changed his story to 100%

3) Dehman seems like a decent guy and for one tour player to call another player a cheater, it would almost certainly mean that Dehman was absolutely certain Kang cheated

4) I'm inclined to believe Dehman since he has absolutely no reason to lie and be so adamant that cheating took place.

5) no one else who stated the facts about the shot have any reason to lie, let alone speak out against the drop taken

6) there is no presumption of innocence since Kang ultimately made the determination on the drop. That would be like saying if I were accused of a crime and was my own judge, if I found myself not guilty because I have no integrity, you'd simply say "well you can't prove he did it".

 

The point is there is no proof that he cheated, but there is also no proof that he didn't cheat either. It is therefore about credibility and for the reasons stated above, I am inclined to believe Dehman's account. Also Kangs manufactured response leads me to believe he knows he did something wrong.

 

If I did not cheat, and I was accused, you had better believe I would come out strong and make it clear that I did not cheat. Kang just wants this story to go away.

 

FYI, none of your numbered "facts" are facts at all. Just opinions and mostly one sided ones at that. Kang said what he said and moved on because south koreans dont roll like that. they dont run to twitter to yell like dahmen did. PGA tour is good with it so theres no point in addressing a coward keyboard warrior

[BottleCap]

FYI, none of your numbered "facts" are facts at all. Just opinions and mostly one sided ones at that. Kang said what he said and moved on because south koreans dont roll like that. they dont run to twitter to yell like dahmen did. PGA tour is good with it so theres no point in addressing a coward keyboard warrior

 

Kang knows he can't defend his actions, so he's cowering knowing that this will all blow over once the Open Championship starts

[lowheel]

FYI, none of your numbered "facts" are facts at all. Just opinions and mostly one sided ones at that. Kang said what he said and moved on because south koreans dont roll like that. they dont run to twitter to yell like dahmen did. PGA tour is good with it so theres no point in addressing a coward keyboard warrior

 

Kang knows he can't defend his actions, so he's cowering knowing that this will all blow over once the Open Championship starts

 

LOL!!! You are the definition of "pot committed". Carry on. The PGA tour defended his actions, thats all that matters regardless of your objections and wild accusations.

[jdl]

Kang sticking to his guns:

 

Kang said he tried to clear the air with Dahmen before the first round of last week’s John Deere Classic, but they never had the opportunity to discuss their differences.

“I followed the rules official and I think I did the right thing,” Kang told a handful of reporters Thursday following his opening round at Carnoustie, where he shot a 2-under 69 to sit three shots off the early lead.

Kang said he was hesitant to discuss the incident with reporters, because he said there clearly was a difference in opinions. He said he’d already told his side to South Korean news outlets but that “whatever I say, some people are going to trust it and some people are not going to trust it. Then I’ve got to think about it more and more when it’s not going to help my golf game.”

“I really want to say a lot of things about it, the truth about what happened,” he added, “but I’m not going to say anything.”

Kang said that he wouldn’t alter his approach when dealing with rulings in the future.

“No. Why?” he said. “I did the right thing. There’s no point in changing.”

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/kang-cheating-allegation-i-did-right-thing/?utm_tags=golf1016

[DJGainer]

Kang sticking to his guns:

 

Kang said he tried to clear the air with Dahmen before the first round of last week’s John Deere Classic, but they never had the opportunity to discuss their differences.

“I followed the rules official and I think I did the right thing,” Kang told a handful of reporters Thursday following his opening round at Carnoustie, where he shot a 2-under 69 to sit three shots off the early lead.

Kang said he was hesitant to discuss the incident with reporters, because he said there clearly was a difference in opinions. He said he’d already told his side to South Korean news outlets but that “whatever I say, some people are going to trust it and some people are not going to trust it. Then I’ve got to think about it more and more when it’s not going to help my golf game.”

“I really want to say a lot of things about it, the truth about what happened,” he added, “but I’m not going to say anything.”

Kang said that he wouldn’t alter his approach when dealing with rulings in the future.

“No. Why?” he said. “I did the right thing. There’s no point in changing.”

 

https://www.golfchan...m_tags=golf1016

 

Sounds like we will get a fuller statement from him as time passes, maybe after he has the chance to talk to Dahmen or in the off season.

[BottleCap]

95 percent sure is the new threshold

[lowheel]

Kang sticking to his guns:

 

Kang said he tried to clear the air with Dahmen before the first round of last week’s John Deere Classic, but they never had the opportunity to discuss their differences.

“I followed the rules official and I think I did the right thing,” Kang told a handful of reporters Thursday following his opening round at Carnoustie, where he shot a 2-under 69 to sit three shots off the early lead.

Kang said he was hesitant to discuss the incident with reporters, because he said there clearly was a difference in opinions. He said he’d already told his side to South Korean news outlets but that “whatever I say, some people are going to trust it and some people are not going to trust it. Then I’ve got to think about it more and more when it’s not going to help my golf game.”

“I really want to say a lot of things about it, the truth about what happened,” he added, “but I’m not going to say anything.”

Kang said that he wouldn’t alter his approach when dealing with rulings in the future.

“No. Why?” he said. “I did the right thing. There’s no point in changing.”

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/kang-cheating-allegation-i-did-right-thing/?utm_tags=golf1016

 

He’s 100% right in that no matter what he says and the more it lingers certain people will believe what they want regardless. I think it was very diplomatic of him to say it was a difference of opinions which several people have said in this thread. They both believe they were correct but one handled it differently than the other. I respect that he’s taken the high road unlike dahmen who ran to Twitter.

[eagle1997]

95 percent sure is the new threshold

 

please, don't ever stop posting.

 

your words make me crack up every time. bravo sir!

[ClintDagger]

95 percent sure is the new threshold

“I think” I did the right thing. “95%”. He’s certainly leaving wiggle room there.

[MtlJeff]

I hope one day these guys make up, and can be a wisecracking duo...like in "rush hour" or "lethal weapon". Dahmen the by the book guy, and Kang the bend the rules to get a conviction risk taker

 

Golf Channel original program. It's can't miss!!!!