Joel Dahmen accuses Kang of cheating

[Short Pete]

If you have a rules thing going, get the rules guy there. Let him make a decision, and then either accept it or don't sign the card. That's the way to do it. Dahmen had three opportunities to get his thing across: The two aforementioned plus direct conversation with Kang. He chose the twitter route. That's the route where nobody wins.

[johndagolfer]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

 

To me it doesn't matter if video evidence comes out showing that the drop was incorrect. People defending Kang aren't saying that he couldn't possibly be wrong. They are saying that based on the rules and his perception they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

It is quite possible, for the umpteenth time, that both players believe that what they saw is the truth. To call Kang a cheater without knowing what was in his mind is a big deal.

[new2g0lf]

You don't call someone a cheater unless you can prove it, Dahmen can believe what he wants but he can't prove it and the accusation borders on slander.

 

I'm sure a lot of guys on the Tours think Scott, Langer and others anchor their putter but they don't get accused of being a cheater because it can't be proven.

So if you visually see someone blatantly drop a ball when they've hit one that's not findable or when someone says they made a 6 when you clearly counted 7 strokes, you can't call them cheater because there's no video evidence? I wholeheartedly disagree with that. None of us know what Dahmen saw. It's entirely possible he saw enough to know that Kang cheated. I think it's fine to say "I hope Dahmen is absolutely sure and that what he saw was conclusive in order to justify what he said." But I think it's out of bounds to automatically reject any possibility and say he couldn't possibly know what happened. Just like we can't read Kang's mind to know if he blatantly cheated, we don't have the luxury of seeing what Dahmen saw and whether it was enough to have a conclusive opinion.

 

You can call them a cheater to their face, but when you make it public you better have some evidence to back it up.

And I'm sure in Dahmen's mind he thinks he has plenty in the form of multiple eyewitnesses that corroborate what he says happened. Others argue that those eyewitness accounts should automatically be discounted for whatever reason but the truth is those people have done nothing that we know of that makes them not credible.

 

Not all of the eyewitnesses are neutral parties, I wouldn't consider any accounts of Dahmens caddie or friends as unbiased. They can support his belief but again when you go from calling someone a cheater to their face versus making a public accusation the quality of the proof needs to be more substantial to support a public accusation.

 

Point is, Dahmen accused Kang of cheating to his face, unfortunately there was no evidence the officials on the ground or the PGA Tour in their offices could find to validate the claim and Dahmen did sign the scorecard so at that point Dahmen should have dropped it. I support what Dahmen did up to the point he went public on Twitter as he knew he was making a serious, career threatening accusation (for Kang) without any substantial proof.

[ClintDagger]

You don't call someone a cheater unless you can prove it, Dahmen can believe what he wants but he can't prove it and the accusation borders on slander.

 

I'm sure a lot of guys on the Tours think Scott, Langer and others anchor their putter but they don't get accused of being a cheater because it can't be proven.

So if you visually see someone blatantly drop a ball when they've hit one that's not findable or when someone says they made a 6 when you clearly counted 7 strokes, you can't call them cheater because there's no video evidence? I wholeheartedly disagree with that. None of us know what Dahmen saw. It's entirely possible he saw enough to know that Kang cheated. I think it's fine to say "I hope Dahmen is absolutely sure and that what he saw was conclusive in order to justify what he said." But I think it's out of bounds to automatically reject any possibility and say he couldn't possibly know what happened. Just like we can't read Kang's mind to know if he blatantly cheated, we don't have the luxury of seeing what Dahmen saw and whether it was enough to have a conclusive opinion.

 

You can call them a cheater to their face, but when you make it public you better have some evidence to back it up.

And I'm sure in Dahmen's mind he thinks he has plenty in the form of multiple eyewitnesses that corroborate what he says happened. Others argue that those eyewitness accounts should automatically be discounted for whatever reason but the truth is those people have done nothing that we know of that makes them not credible.

 

Serious question, why not disclose "whatever reason"? Because perhaps it wrecks the narrative youre attempting to create? 3 of the 4 witnesses in order are dahmens caddie, and 2 of dahmens friends. Not exactly bastions of unbiased opinion but hey thats enough for you but in the interest of full disclosure maybe not saying why some people are skeptical of the witnesses clear bias and the fact they were outside the ropes 60 yards away is kind of misleading on your part.Your mind is made up and thats cool. Agree to disagree but at least be honest about why there are doubts on the reliability of these "witnesses"

It doesn’t wreck any narrative. There is no reason to say those people are liars. My friends aren’t liars. Are yours?

[ClintDagger]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that’s what led to Dahmen’s anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people’s credibility. I’m not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is “until I see something clear cut I’m not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn’t look good for him based on what we know.”

[johndagolfer]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that's what led to Dahmen's anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people's credibility. I'm not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is "until I see something clear cut I'm not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn't look good for him based on what we know."

 

I still don't understand how you say it doesn't look good for him? It's still the word of Kang, his caddy and an anonymous spectator versus Dahmen, his Caddy and the shotlink guy (I am not sure if a connection has been established between this guy and JD). Why does Dahmen's viewpoint hold more weight than Kang's, especially since he was 20-30 yards to the right of Kang and might not have had the best view. Also the other part of cheating is mindset. Do you have proof Kang was intentionally lying versus possibly just mis-seeing what he thought he saw?

[bscinstnct]

[ClintDagger]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that's what led to Dahmen's anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people's credibility. I'm not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is "until I see something clear cut I'm not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn't look good for him based on what we know."

 

I still don't understand how you say it doesn't look good for him? It's still the word of Kang, his caddy and an anonymous spectator versus Dahmen, his Caddy and the shotlink guy (I am not sure if a connection has been established between this guy and JD). Why does Dahmen's viewpoint hold more weight than Kang's, especially since he was 20-30 yards to the right of Kang and might not have had the best view. Also the other part of cheating is mindset. Do you have proof Kang was intentionally lying versus possibly just mis-seeing what he thought he saw?

First, did Kang’s caddy go on the record? I hadn’t seen that but if so it changes my thinking a bit. As far as an anonymous eyewitness, I just can’t put any weight on that. If that person wants to put their name out there then again that changes my thinking.

 

Here’s the thing, are a few of the eyewitnesses not impartial? Absolutely, that’s undeniable. But their partiality really only comes into play if something arises that calls into question their account. For instance, if we had 3 or 4 on the record impartial eyewitnesses saying they saw it Kang’s way then I would absolutely wonder why we have such disparate accounts on the same situation. But we don’t have that. Is there a small chance that a handful of people are colluding against Kang just to make him look bad and prop up Dahmen? Sure, that can’t be totally ruled out but if we’re being honest that can’t be seen as a given or even a high probability. I just think the likelihood that people would put their reputations on the line just to bail out Dahmen for popping off on Twitter is pretty low. I don’t have any friends that would do that for me and I doubt you do either. That’s a pretty scumbag thing to do and to have a handful of scumbags that just happened to witness this shot just seems far fetched to me. Can’t rule it out, but I’m playing the percentages. Odds are in the favor that these people are just giving honest accounts. Doesn’t mean they can’t be honestly mistaken, but from what I’ve seen the only thing Kang has on his side of the equation is what he says he 95% saw. So based on that, I would say it doesn’t look good for Kang. But to be clear I have never said that Kang 100% cheated. I have always maintained that my best guess is that he took a bad drop but not being able to read his mind and not knowing what exactly what Dahmen saw I can’t say much more than that. I’ve only said that it is entirely within reason that Dahmen saw enough to definitively know in his mind that Kang cheated. He might not have saw enough, but that can’t be ruled out.

[ALIF]

Case closed!

[lowheel]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

 

No i wouldnt because im not emotionally attached to this situation.I also provided clear video of Tiger taking a terrible drop in 2013 at the players championship 120 yards ahead of where his ball "magically hooked out". Still didnt call him a cheater because hes not. if he thinks it crossed there then thats that. i never called anyone "accomplices" i merely pointed out inherent bias matters in a court room as it does in life so its completely unreliable at best, completely false at worse.Thats why you cant serve on a jury where your friend or family member is being tried...

[lowheel]

It doesn't wreck any narrative. There is no reason to say those people are liars. My friends aren't liars. Are yours?

 

Holy strawman batman!!! Point me to any post where i called these people liars. ill save you some time. I NEVER DID!! Is aid that their accounts are flawed by the simple fact of inherent bias. If youre not clear what that means look it up and get back to me. Not being snarky but i really believe youre purposely changing the narrative to suit your needs. Dahmens caddie and friends dont have higher authority or moral high ground than kang and his caddie. I didnt put words in your mouth i would appreciate you not doing the same. thanks

[lowheel]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that's what led to Dahmen's anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people's credibility. I'm not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is "until I see something clear cut I'm not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn't look good for him based on what we know."

 

2 words, inherent bias...

[lowheel]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that's what led to Dahmen's anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people's credibility. I'm not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is "until I see something clear cut I'm not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn't look good for him based on what we know."

 

I still don't understand how you say it doesn't look good for him? It's still the word of Kang, his caddy and an anonymous spectator versus Dahmen, his Caddy and the shotlink guy (I am not sure if a connection has been established between this guy and JD). Why does Dahmen's viewpoint hold more weight than Kang's, especially since he was 20-30 yards to the right of Kang and might not have had the best view. Also the other part of cheating is mindset. Do you have proof Kang was intentionally lying versus possibly just mis-seeing what he thought he saw?

First, did Kang's caddy go on the record? I hadn't seen that but if so it changes my thinking a bit. As far as an anonymous eyewitness, I just can't put any weight on that. If that person wants to put their name out there then again that changes my thinking.

 

Here's the thing, are a few of the eyewitnesses not impartial? Absolutely, that's undeniable. But their partiality really only comes into play if something arises that calls into question their account. For instance, if we had 3 or 4 on the record impartial eyewitnesses saying they saw it Kang's way then I would absolutely wonder why we have such disparate accounts on the same situation. But we don't have that. Is there a small chance that a handful of people are colluding against Kang just to make him look bad and prop up Dahmen? Sure, that can't be totally ruled out but if we're being honest that can't be seen as a given or even a high probability. I just think the likelihood that people would put their reputations on the line just to bail out Dahmen for popping off on Twitter is pretty low. I don't have any friends that would do that for me and I doubt you do either. That's a pretty scumbag thing to do and to have a handful of scumbags that just happened to witness this shot just seems far fetched to me. Can't rule it out, but I'm playing the percentages. Odds are in the favor that these people are just giving honest accounts. Doesn't mean they can't be honestly mistaken, but from what I've seen the only thing Kang has on his side of the equation is what he says he 95% saw. So based on that, I would say it doesn't look good for Kang. But to be clear I have never said that Kang 100% cheated. I have always maintained that my best guess is that he took a bad drop but not being able to read his mind and not knowing what exactly what Dahmen saw I can't say much more than that. I've only said that it is entirely within reason that Dahmen saw enough to definitively know in his mind that Kang cheated. He might not have saw enough, but that can't be ruled out.

 

Yes he did and rode on the Officials cart back to the spot to show him where he saw it hook. nobody is 100% sure where any ball crosses into a hazrd at all times. You are taking Dahmens account of things to be 100% indisputable and verbatim what went down. Kang is not a native english speaker as you can tell by his numerous interviews. he does pretty well but i doubt he gets idioms 100%. Nobody said anybody colluded to conspire against Kang, it was pointed out however that these people cant be trusted to provide reliable unbiased accounts especially considering that they were outside the ropes even further from dahmen. If dahmen were on trial these guys coulnt serve on his jury yet somehow they are 100% reliable in this case? i dont think so.its wolfpack mentality and human nature. They saw their guy upset about the drop and the rest is history. inherent bias is a real thing and cant be discounted. Why is it anybody whos giving the benefit of the doubt to Kang in this thread and cant believe that Dahmen would call him a cheater online are open to the idea of the possibility that maybe he took a bad drop but that it doesnt rise to cheating just because his playing partner threw a tantrum? Why arent you open to the idea that even if dahmen in his heart believed the drop was bad that he could possibly be wrong and overreacted? i recall you in the mickelson thread and correct me if im wrong stating you didnt like how mickelson answer questions after his round at the US open and so on yet are completely ok with a guy doing a 180 and calling his competitor a cheater when he didnt dare say it to his face? Why are you not addressing the fact that dahmen wont sit down and have a coffee with kang or a simple conversation at the range? if hes so confident about his allegation why not calmly explain his point of view to Kang? Who knows maybe Kang says something to Dahmen that clears the air about his reasoning or vice versa.There are no sides really.i have said from the get go and ill say it now for the umpteenth time its possible both believe they are right and both could be wrong.I simply dont understand how you cant fathom this possibility? Kang hasnt backed down and has said exactly what went into his reasoning. guy has won at every level except on tour, hes earned the benefit of the doubt in my book but perhaps not yours. Dahmens histrionics diminish his credibility in my eyes but i guess not yours. oh well...

[Arpeggi]

Dahmen is a disgrace to the sport.

[bscinstnct]

Dahmen is a disgrace to the sport.

 

Do you have witnesses?

 

; )

 

 

 

[Arpeggi]

Dahmen is a disgrace to the sport.

 

Do you have witnesses?

 

; )

 

Yeah. The shot tracker guy.

[DJGainer]

Too bad Dahmen wasn’t at The Open. No way the British media would’ve left him alone and we’d get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG’s response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn’t really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

[ClintDagger]

Lo, would you feel at all ridiculous with your 100 posts on this topic if you were to see clear video proving why Dahmen made such a beef about this both on the course at the time it happened, as well as on social media?

 

While I get why the word cheater is a big deal and where your problem with this is,and how he could have handled it a little better(little being the key word if he is right). I cannot understand why you so strongly think Dahmen and his "accomplices" just made this shiat up. That is so unlikely to me along with the hook required to make that drop anywhere near legitimate.

This started out as a he said (Kang) he said (Dahmen). People took sides, then eyewitness accounts came out that tips the scales towards Dahmen. Some people want to totally discount that because some of those witnesses know Dahmen. But at the end of the day until there is reason to suspect that these people are lying just to further some ax that Dahmen apparently has to grind with Kang I think those accounts have to be strongly considered. Because 1) there is no known ax to grind. Even Kang has never said that he and Dahmen had a personal beef and that's what led to Dahmen's anger. And 2) there is nothing we know of to doubt these people's credibility. I'm not saying that this definitively says Kang was wrong but anyone that totally throws out the eyewitness stuff is only doing it because it hurts their personal viewpoint. At this point I think the best you can say for Kang is "until I see something clear cut I'm not calling him a cheater but it admittedly doesn't look good for him based on what we know."

 

I still don't understand how you say it doesn't look good for him? It's still the word of Kang, his caddy and an anonymous spectator versus Dahmen, his Caddy and the shotlink guy (I am not sure if a connection has been established between this guy and JD). Why does Dahmen's viewpoint hold more weight than Kang's, especially since he was 20-30 yards to the right of Kang and might not have had the best view. Also the other part of cheating is mindset. Do you have proof Kang was intentionally lying versus possibly just mis-seeing what he thought he saw?

First, did Kang's caddy go on the record? I hadn't seen that but if so it changes my thinking a bit. As far as an anonymous eyewitness, I just can't put any weight on that. If that person wants to put their name out there then again that changes my thinking.

 

Here's the thing, are a few of the eyewitnesses not impartial? Absolutely, that's undeniable. But their partiality really only comes into play if something arises that calls into question their account. For instance, if we had 3 or 4 on the record impartial eyewitnesses saying they saw it Kang's way then I would absolutely wonder why we have such disparate accounts on the same situation. But we don't have that. Is there a small chance that a handful of people are colluding against Kang just to make him look bad and prop up Dahmen? Sure, that can't be totally ruled out but if we're being honest that can't be seen as a given or even a high probability. I just think the likelihood that people would put their reputations on the line just to bail out Dahmen for popping off on Twitter is pretty low. I don't have any friends that would do that for me and I doubt you do either. That's a pretty scumbag thing to do and to have a handful of scumbags that just happened to witness this shot just seems far fetched to me. Can't rule it out, but I'm playing the percentages. Odds are in the favor that these people are just giving honest accounts. Doesn't mean they can't be honestly mistaken, but from what I've seen the only thing Kang has on his side of the equation is what he says he 95% saw. So based on that, I would say it doesn't look good for Kang. But to be clear I have never said that Kang 100% cheated. I have always maintained that my best guess is that he took a bad drop but not being able to read his mind and not knowing what exactly what Dahmen saw I can't say much more than that. I've only said that it is entirely within reason that Dahmen saw enough to definitively know in his mind that Kang cheated. He might not have saw enough, but that can't be ruled out.

 

Yes he did and rode on the Officials cart back to the spot to show him where he saw it hook. nobody is 100% sure where any ball crosses into a hazrd at all times. You are taking Dahmens account of things to be 100% indisputable and verbatim what went down. Kang is not a native english speaker as you can tell by his numerous interviews. he does pretty well but i doubt he gets idioms 100%. Nobody said anybody colluded to conspire against Kang, it was pointed out however that these people cant be trusted to provide reliable unbiased accounts especially considering that they were outside the ropes even further from dahmen. If dahmen were on trial these guys coulnt serve on his jury yet somehow they are 100% reliable in this case? i dont think so.its wolfpack mentality and human nature. They saw their guy upset about the drop and the rest is history.inherit bias is a real thing and cant be discounted. Why is it anybody whos giving the benefit of the doubt to Kang in this thread and cant believe that Dahmen would call him a cheater online are open to the idea of the possibility that maybe he took a bad drop but that it doesnt rise to cheating just because his playing partner threw a tantrum? Why arent you open to the idea that even if dahmen in his heart believed the drop was bad that he could possibly be wrong and overreacted? i recall you in the mickelson thread and correct me if im wrong stating you didnt like how mickelson answer questions after his round at the US open and so on yet are completely ok with a guy doing a 180 and calling his competitor a cheater when he didnt dare say it to his face? Why are you not addressing the fact that dahmen wont sit down and have a coffee with kang or a simple conversation at the range? if hes so confident about his allegation why not calmly explain his point of view to Kang? Who knows maybe Kang says something to Dahmen that clears the air about his reasoning or vice versa.There are no sides really.i have said from the get go and ill say it now for the umpteenth time its possible both believe they are right and both could be wrong.I simply dont understand how you cant fathom this possibility? Kang hasnt backed down and has said exactly what went into his reasoning. guy has won at every level except on tour, hes earned the benefit of the doubt in my book but perhaps not yours. Dahmens histrionics diminish his credibility in my eyes but i guess not yours. oh well...

Let’s reset here. You said I’m saying Dahmen’s account is 100% indisputable when I’ve said the opposite over and over again yet you want to accuse me of putting words in your mouth. I apologize for misunderstanding you on the eyewitnesses because I honest to Jack thought you were accusing them of lying on behalf of Dahmen. It sounded like to me you were crafting a conspiracy theory that Dahmen’s friends were deliberately saying what they said only to defend Dahmen and not because they were just being honest. If you weren’t doing that then that’s on me. But again we are left at a lot more people that are on the record agreeing with Dahmen’s version including what I understand to be one impartial witness so in my mind that calls the drop Kang took into serious question. That’s really all I’ve said from the beginning.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Curious. I wonder why that could be . . .

[ClintDagger]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Curious. I wonder why that could be . . .

This is just my $0.02, but I think from reading the articles that are out there the rank & file on Tour seem to be in support of Dahmen. I’ve seen tidbits that indicate questionable drops are a bit of an epidemic on Tour and I’ve seen actual pros quoted as saying positive things about Dahmen’s character. Couple that with Kang saying he not only tried to talk with Dahmen about it but other Tour guys as well and it didn’t go well to the point that he’s going to stop trying. That’s admittedly not a mountain of evidence but all of it does seem to point to people not having an issue with Dahmen or what he did.

 

And none of the above says anything about who was wrong or right. It’s really just a comment of what the fallout seems to be as best I can tell. Hey Kang might have handled everything perfectly but the fallout seems to have been negative for him and not so negative for Dahmen.

[BottleCap]

Too bad Dahmen wasn’t at The Open. No way the British media would’ve left him alone and we’d get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG’s response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn’t really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Kang's response was that he could drop anywhere so he did, since the Marshall didn't see it.

[bscinstnct]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Kang's response was that he could drop anywhere so he did, since the Marshall didn't see it.

 

[chrisgilly09]

*inherent* bias

[new2g0lf]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Curious. I wonder why that could be . . .

This is just my $0.02, but I think from reading the articles that are out there the rank & file on Tour seem to be in support of Dahmen. I've seen tidbits that indicate questionable drops are a bit of an epidemic on Tour and I've seen actual pros quoted as saying positive things about Dahmen's character. Couple that with Kang saying he not only tried to talk with Dahmen about it but other Tour guys as well and it didn't go well to the point that he's going to stop trying. That's admittedly not a mountain of evidence but all of it does seem to point to people not having an issue with Dahmen or what he did.

 

And none of the above says anything about who was wrong or right. It's really just a comment of what the fallout seems to be as best I can tell. Hey Kang might have handled everything perfectly but the fallout seems to have been negative for him and not so negative for Dahmen.

 

It's difficult to shake a false accusation that is made publicly. Kang is now in the tough position to justify himself when there's no proof he even did anything wrong. Obviously it's not even close to the same level, but those falsely accused of rape and spousal abuse are often shunned even after their name is cleared because people have difficulty forgetting the accusation.

 

Kang has been labeled a cheater by a peer and he has no recourse to prove his innocence. His peers are going to be indifferent towards him for a while, I don't think their reaction is an indicator of his guilt it's just a normal reaction to the circumstances.

[lowheel]

*inherent* bias

 

I know bud, cut me some slack.Im on my phone and autocorrect is ruining my life... maybe find something to add to the thread.

[chrisgilly09]

Think I’ll stay out of this one but its been interesting so far. Have a good night sir

[lowheel]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Curious. I wonder why that could be . . .

This is just my $0.02, but I think from reading the articles that are out there the rank & file on Tour seem to be in support of Dahmen. I've seen tidbits that indicate questionable drops are a bit of an epidemic on Tour and I've seen actual pros quoted as saying positive things about Dahmen's character. Couple that with Kang saying he not only tried to talk with Dahmen about it but other Tour guys as well and it didn't go well to the point that he's going to stop trying. That's admittedly not a mountain of evidence but all of it does seem to point to people not having an issue with Dahmen or what he did.

 

And none of the above says anything about who was wrong or right. It's really just a comment of what the fallout seems to be as best I can tell. Hey Kang might have handled everything perfectly but the fallout seems to have been negative for him and not so negative for Dahmen.

 

Please post these because I havent seen anything on the record from anyone and doubt they exist. Dahmen doesnt have anymore credibility or rep than someone whos played 5+ full years on tour (Kang). Human nature is people usually stay away from these things to avoid getting involved. Dahmen didnt come out of this unscathed. Bottom line its all hearsay.its very damning that Dahmen wouldnt meet with Kang.

[lowheel]

Too bad Dahmen wasn't at The Open. No way the British media would've left him alone and we'd get more of his side of the story. I think, at this point, he needs to explain himself to the media the way Kang did. KANG's response was still pretty weak, but Dahmen hasn't really been put under scrutiny for his accusation. He answered a tweet and that was the end of it for him it seems.

 

Kang's response was that he could drop anywhere so he did, since the Marshall didn't see it.

 

[bscinstnct]

[MtlJeff]

Interview with Sung Kang