Patrick Reed at it again (*** NO LIV DISCUSSIONS/REFERENCES ***)

[bscinstnct]

11 minutes ago, dhacker56 said:

Did he say he did it on purpose?

 

Here is JTs assessment of Reeds bunker technique 

 

 

[Konklifer]

11 hours ago, mitchl said:

Hey LIV has rankings now!    Gotta wonder if Reed had dropped this lawsuit last week if CPG would rank him further up the list.

 

 

I shouldn't love this as much as I do. And Perez deserves to be higher on the list.

[Konklifer]

2 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Here is JTs assessment of Reeds bunker technique 

 

 

 

 

https://forums.golfwrx.com/topic/1895077-patrick-reed-at-it-again/?do=findComment&comment=24384541

 

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

7 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Here is JTs assessment of Reeds bunker technique 

 

 

A repost but definitely worth posting again. Makes me like JT even more 🙂

 

Hopefully a certain someone isn't offended by this post 🤣

[Konklifer]

1 minute ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

A repost but definitely worth posting again. Makes me like JT even more 🙂

 

Hopefully a certain someone isn't offended by this post 🤣

 

Agreed. No offense to the re-poster.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

11 hours ago, mitchl said:

Hey LIV has rankings now!    Gotta wonder if Reed had dropped this lawsuit last week if CPG would rank him further up the list.

 

Lol that's seriously funny and well done. 

 

Hopefully a certain someone isn't offended by this post 🤣

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by BlackDiamondPar5

[DaddySwagMaster]

Brooks Koepka is wondering if he can testify against BOTH sides in this lawsuit, and if BOTH sides can lose?

[BlackDiamondPar5]

10 minutes ago, Konklifer said:

 

Agreed. No offense to the re-poster.

Yup Agreed. Somethings are just worth a repost. Just like the dbag ratings above 🙂

[bscinstnct]

7 minutes ago, DaddySwagMaster said:

Brooks Koepka is wondering if he can testify against BOTH sides in this lawsuit, and if BOTH sides can lose?

 

it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he could get his wish there. 

 

He affirmed that Reed cheated on that vid so it’s certainly plausible for Brandel to call him in to testify 

 

That would be epic! 🤣

[DaddySwagMaster]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he could get his wish there. 

 

He affirmed that Reed cheated on that vid so it’s certainly plausible for Brandel to call him in to testify 

 

That would be epic! 🤣

Well, Koepka has no love for Chamblee either.  They got into a twitter spat awhile ago, where Brooks simply replied to Chamblee with a 🤡 emoticon.

[Ghost of Snead]

1 minute ago, bscinstnct said:

 

it’s not out of the realm of possibility that he could get his wish there. 

 

He affirmed that Reed cheated on that vid so it’s certainly plausible for Brandel to call him in to testify 

 

That would be epic! 🤣

 

Would be even more entertaining to see Reed's college teammates brought in to testify

[DaddySwagMaster]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

Would be even more entertaining to see Reed's college teammates brought in to testify

or Kevin Kisner.

 

https://www.si.com/golf-archives/2018/12/12/kevin-kisner-patrick-reed-ryder-cup-georgia

[skyking]

On 8/16/2022 at 9:15 PM, NJBigFish22 said:

It’s about time someone sued Chamblee, I think he is a blowhard and finally his big mouth may need to pay.  

1st Amendment, he’s a public figure. Like it or not…tons of caselaw.

[Wasted_Talent]

Not sure how the first amendment comes in to play here.  However, this is DOA.

[TwistedSister]

1 hour ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Here is JTs assessment of Reeds bunker technique 

 

 

JT's opinion.  And he was in a waste bunker where one can ground the club behind the ball.

[2bGood]

47 minutes ago, Ghost of Snead said:

 

Would be even more entertaining to see Reed's college teammates brought in to testify

 

Or high school teammates

Or Parents

 

 

[Wasted_Talent]

6 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

JT's opinion.  And he was in a waste bunker where one can ground the club behind the ball.

 

 

Are you insinuating that P Reed did not cheat by improving his lie in the bunker?  Please say it ain't so.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Beware of someone's sudden name change 🤣

Edited August 18, 2022 by BlackDiamondPar5

[Bye]

He must have now killed off the saying, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

Patrick "the sponsors dream" Reed

 

[TwistedSister]

24 minutes ago, Gawbage_man said:

 

 

Are you insinuating that P Reed did not cheat by improving his lie in the bunker?  Please say it ain't so.

Not at all.  My point was he may not have been aware thats what he was doing.  Kind of like Cam Smith last weekend?  Why is Smith's word any better than Reed's or anyone else's.

[idrive]

PR:  Now knowing some of the requirements, restrictions of their contracts, we can now be quite certain this lawsuit has full approval of his employer.

 

4 minutes ago, Bye said:

He must have now killed off the saying, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

Patrick "the sponsors dream" Reed

 

 

Will be interesting to see if any of his sponsors run or even worse if any new ones pick him up. 

[Wasted_Talent]

2 minutes ago, TwistedSister said:

Not at all.  My point was he may not have been aware thats what he was doing.  Kind of like Cam Smith last weekend?  Why is Smith's word any better than Reed's or anyone else's.

 

Well, if he would have just done it once that argument could be made.  He did it twice and quite blatantly I may add.  As for Cam Smith other than having no history he did himself a disservice.  If he doesn't hit that shot he drops again and it probably goes in to the hazard again.  Then he would get to place the ball in an absolute perfect lie.  

[Krt22]

51 minutes ago, Gawbage_man said:

Not sure how the first amendment comes in to play here.  However, this is DOA.

Because muhhhh rights. 'Merica

[Robby_Hughey]

Man, this thread turned sideways real quick. Now we have members boasting about their friendships gained through golf and integrity versus one another? Gotta love confidence on the internet!

[woodriff]

I was mildly surprised when I saw the story. Then I said to myself, par for the course. 
I just pray to God that Justine’s messages and tweets go public in the suit. This is just a flaming garbage bin of dying egos. 
No wonder there was source reporting of Team Reed being the biggest headache on the pga tour. 
Another sad ending of talent ending up in court. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by woodriff

[aus10KC]

2 hours ago, woodriff said:

I was mildly surprised when I saw the story. Then I said to myself, par for the course. 
I just pray to God that Justine’s messages and tweets go public in the suit. This is just a flaming garbage bin of dying egos. 
No wonder there was source reporting of Team Reed being the biggest headache on the pga tour. 
Another sad ending of talent ending up in court. 

 

I'd love to see what she would send the PGAT, I guess they had someone dedicated to her complaints/issues.  Nothing could satisfy them.

[ray9898]

5 hours ago, Gawbage_man said:

Not sure how the first amendment comes in to play here.  However, this is DOA.

 

It's a 1st amendment issue because Chamblee is a member of the press and Reed is is a Public Figure.  The USSC Constitutionalized the issue in 1964 in a NY Times lawsuit.

[Krt22]

13 minutes ago, ray9898 said:

 

It's a 1st amendment issue because Chamblee is a member of the press and Reed is is a Public Figure.  The USSC Constitutionalized the issue in 1964 in a NY Times lawsuit.

That decision protected the press.

 

And there is a big difference between a "Public Figure" and a public official

[betarhoalphadelta]

18 minutes ago, ray9898 said:

 

It's a 1st amendment issue because Chamblee is a member of the press and Reed is is a Public Figure.  The USSC Constitutionalized the issue in 1964 in a NY Times lawsuit.

 

Well, I'd argue the 1st Amendment is a canard, because the 1st Amendment protects the right to free speech and freedom of the press...

 

...but the 1st Amendment does not protect your right to defame. 

 

That Court issue (and subsequent) significantly increased the burden of proof to show that a public figure is being defamed by adding the "actual malice" requirement, but it doesn't mean Reed can't win. It only means he has to clear a much higher bar to proof defamation.  

 

I believe he won't get close to that bar, of course. Many of Chamblee's statements about LIV were opinion or hyperbole, i.e. the idea that he's playing for "blood money" or that by his actions he is supporting MBS can be argued that the PIF, as a sovereign wealth fund, is partially or wholly controlled by MBS and therefore MBS and the Saudi regime are ultimately the source of the funds. It is Chamblee's opinion that taking funds that come from that regime is unethical. That's not a factual issue; it's a moral statement, an opinion. The allegations of Reed cheating are going to be hard for Reed to prove those actions weren't either cheating or that a reasonable person couldn't accuse them of being cheating based on the totality of his history and the evidence. 

 

But this case will hinge on whether Chamblee's statements meet the legal standard of defamation. If they do, he had no 1st Amendment rights making those statements in the matter and the Court can enforce a punishment upon him for making them. I just don't think it comes CLOSE to meeting the legal standard of defamation.

[ahenderX]

25 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

That decision protected the press.

 

And there is a big difference between a "Public Figure" and a public official

Based on what I just read, there really is no difference if the public figure is well known. Reed is clearly well known. There are different standards based on who the public figure is, compared to say a politician. A different standard also applies to a private person. For a person like Reed, “actual malice” has to be proved.