Brandel reappears on Golf Channel

[mrt99]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383259809' post='8085732']


please read the twitter exchange that bc has deleted....there's your lawsuit

[url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/921893-chambleetiger-woods-controversy-merged/page__st__960#entry8047197"]http://www.golfwrx.c...60#entry8047197[/url]

[u]** question to bc[/u]

45]
Posted ImageMark H @Destingolfer23 Sep
[b]@chambleebrandel [/b]@OfficialNSS....[b]so u think he intentionally cheated.[/b]
Expand

[u]** answer from bc[/u]

45]
Posted Image[b]brandel chamblee @chambleebrandel[/b]23 Sep
@Destingolfer @OfficialNSS [b]yes I do.[/b]
[/quote]

Nope, doesn't come close to meeting the standard for libel. See, eg. [i]NY Times v. Sullivan[/i].

[playa]

I think this whole episode shows what a reasonable person Tiger is and what a classless bottom feeder Chamblee is. Tiger could have easily set his legall team onto Chamblee for his disgraceful defamation. Whether he won or lost there is enough grounds for the case that Chamblee would never get costs and be forced to foot the legal bill himself. In a battle of attrition there would only be one winner in that contest. Chamblee has tried to wriggle off the hook with a half hearted retraction after realising where he sits in the food chain. If I were tiger I wouldnt let it go so easily. I would demand a full and unreserved apology, with the threat of further action hanging over his head to make him sweat. But as I said, Tiger is a class act and is willing to let it pass.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='mrt99' timestamp='1383259956' post='8085744']


Nope, doesn't come close to meeting the standard for libel. See, eg. NY Times v. Sullivan.
[/quote]

There's a big difference between "thinking" someone cheated and calling them a cheat.

In particular, the difference is underscored with Brandel's more recent disclosure that he is not certain that Tiger cheated.

[rafal]

[quote name='Redhill' timestamp='1383258004' post='8085606']

Interesting comment about Eldrick(508) being afraid. Expand on that thought if you will.
[/quote]

He lives off an aura of legendary golfer, one that people simply don't challenge on the field. The off-the-field ship sailed with the Escalade, but on the course he felt he still was untouchable. Chamblee touched him, exposed his weak hand...I'd even go as far as LIMP hand...Tiger panicked and we can see the spasms this small Golf.com blog sent through him and his bodyguards.

Tiger is facing real crisis currently, the crisis that will rattle him more than being shanked with a 9-iron by his woman. Crisis of irrelevancy. As Surfin' pointed out, once Tiger is not bringing BIG BUCK$ to America INC....watch out....there will be more skeletons than during Dias de los Muertos in Oaxaca.

[Sean2]

Bashing Woods.
Bashing Chamblee.

Lots of vitriol here. Rational discussion is one thing, but...

It's nice to know there are still people in this world who have never done anything wrong their entire lives and are free to judge other so harshly and with complete high-mindedness.

[nbg352]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383260663' post='8085792']
Bashing Woods.
Bashing Chamblee.

Lots of vitriol here. Rational discussion is one thing, but...

It's nice to know there are still people in this world who have never done anything wrong their entire lives and are free to judge other so harshly and with complete high-mindedness.
[/quote]
I been trying to say this same darn thing........But the blinders are on, the ears are plugged, noses are in the air. Know what I mean?

[rafal]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383260663' post='8085792']
Bashing Woods.
Bashing Chamblee.

Lots of vitriol here. Rational discussion is one thing, but...

It's nice to know there are still people in this world who have never done anything wrong their entire lives and are free to judge other so harshly and with complete high-mindedness.
[/quote]

Not too mention riding oversized horses, right?

[kemau]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1383259188' post='8085686']


yes he has problems, as a lot of people have who are addicted to the bottle as you should well know and as for Wife and Drugs and prison, I am sure every wife is to blame for her husbands deeds and vis versa, you could have left that out, not relevent,,[b]That said not exactly what Golf wants, Just as I said earlier Sneds making a statement about people cheating,,,not what golf wants, and I would suspend him as well for bringing the game into disrepute, unless he names names[/b]
[/quote]

gary player has said the exact same thing numerous times about drugs in golf, which lest we forget is what sneds was talking about ("Snedeker says PGA Tour should eliminate drug testing")....therefore should gary player no longer be the World Golf Hall of Fame Global Ambassador for the golf hall of fame?

[Sean2]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1383260951' post='8085814']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383260663' post='8085792']
Bashing Woods.
Bashing Chamblee.

Lots of vitriol here. Rational discussion is one thing, but...

It's nice to know there are still people in this world who have never done anything wrong their entire lives and are free to judge other so harshly and with complete high-mindedness.
[/quote]
I been trying to say this same darn thing........But the blinders are on, the ears are plugged, noses are in the air. Know what I mean?
[/quote]

I do. You get the same kind of thing in other "polarizing" threads. It's human nature. Reminds me of the old Vietnam era bumper sticker I saw: Fighting for Peace is like F***ing for Virginity.

[Sean2]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383261066' post='8085822']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383260663' post='8085792']
Bashing Woods.
Bashing Chamblee.

Lots of vitriol here. Rational discussion is one thing, but...

It's nice to know there are still people in this world who have never done anything wrong their entire lives and are free to judge other so harshly and with complete high-mindedness.
[/quote]

Not too mention riding oversized horses, right?
[/quote]

Ha!

[kemau]

[quote name='mrt99' timestamp='1383259956' post='8085744']


Nope, doesn't come close to meeting the standard for libel. See, eg. [i]NY Times v. Sullivan[/i].
[/quote]

[url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml"]http://www.theindepe...gal/libel.shtml[/url]

"...public figures must prove that you either lied or that you didn't make any effort to back your statement up. It's a tough standard that favors journalists, but [b]the actual malice test doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want about famous folks. If you shoot your mouth off without solid facts, you're asking for trouble. Bottom line: Stick to the truth."[/b]

why is the exchange nowhere to be found on bc's twitter?

[rafer11]

While his appearances weren't in the 100's on TGC, I can't imagine TW ever appearing on TGC again. We are all aware of Tiger's 'feuds' with Stephan Ames, Sabbatini, etc. I'm surprised TGC is willing to take that risk.

Especially because they have plausible deniability to fire Chamblee from the network. The guy is your typical 14 year old, who thinks he knows everything about the world, and continually opens his mouth before thinking. TGC has the perfect opportunity, and they haven't pounced.

Don't expect TW to appear on Morning Drive ever again. I wonder if we will see TW doing press conferences and group post round interviews only, shunning 1 on 1's with Steve Sands.

Chamblee is treading very f****** lightly right now. Just wait til the first time Tiger comes back, and he ONLY gets 2nd. Chamblee will have to be very careful and tip toe around his Tiger hate about how he sucks as he'll be immediately jumped on.

[nbg352]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383261642' post='8085864']


[url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml"]http://www.theindepe...gal/libel.shtml[/url]

"...public figures must prove that you either lied or that you didn't make any effort to back your statement up. It's a tough standard that favors journalists, but [b]the actual malice test doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want about famous folks. If you shoot your mouth off without solid facts, you're asking for trouble. Bottom line: Stick to the truth."[/b]

why is the exchange nowhere to be found on bc's twitter?
[/quote]
It was used to fill the gaping bleeding hole in his foot......

[mrt99]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383261642' post='8085864']


[url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml"]http://www.theindepe...gal/libel.shtml[/url]

"...public figures must prove that you either lied or that you didn't make any effort to back your statement up. It's a tough standard that favors journalists, but [b]the actual malice test doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want about famous folks. If you shoot your mouth off without solid facts, you're asking for trouble. Bottom line: Stick to the truth."[/b]
[/quote]

Good advice, as a general rule. However, I'd hardly characterize this as an accurate or detailed summary of libel law.

Edit: If you're interested in learning a bit about how difficult it is to prove libel as a public figure, google "David Beckham libel case".

[kemau]

[quote name='mrt99' timestamp='1383262436' post='8085932']


Good advice, as a general rule. However, I'd hardly characterize this as an accurate or detailed summary of libel law.

Edit: If you're interested in learning a bit about how difficult it is to prove libel as a public figure, google "David Beckham libel case".
[/quote]

then read the entire summary. i'm only interested as to why you haven't answered the question posed....
why is the exchange nowhere to be found on bc's twitter? note the date of sept 23rd of that exchange and then move forward to the article being published oct 15th. still don't think the dots can be connected?

[b]The basics of Web libel[/b]
Since this is the legal section, a disclaimer seems pertinent.

What follows is a [i]basic[/i] overview of legal topics you might run into. It applies only to the laws of the United States, and you should be aware that guiding principles and legal tests vary from state to state. To be safe, it's best to familiarize yourself with your state's precedents. If your site is based in another country, be sure to learn that country's legal guidelines. They might be significantly different from what you read here.

With that out of the way, let's talk about libel.

Libel is "a false and defamatory attack on a person's reputation in print or electronic form" ([url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml#works_cited"]Gillmor, 147[/url]). In layman's terms, if your words cause significant harm to a person's standing in the community, you're in for a world of hurt.

The dangers of libel are smacked over journalists' heads from the first day on the job, so those of you with newsroom experience probably have a subconscious alarm that blares anytime you encounter a libelous sentence. This alarm provides a decent warning system, but it shouldn't be your only defense. The stakes are higher in the independent Web world. You don't have a legal department at your disposal, and if you do end up in court, the massive fees come directly out of [i]your[/i] pocket.

With this in mind, do yourself a favor and make sure your content passes a simple libel test. When you're writing something that aims a less-than-flattering comment, insinuation or description at an individual, pause for a moment and ask yourself the following questions:[list=1]
[*]Is this content potentially libelous?
[*]Can I prove what I'm saying?
[/list]
If you believe the content is suspicious, proceed directly to question number two. With libel, truth is the ultimate defense. When you call someone a thief, and it can be proven through court records or official documents that that person is, in fact, a thief, you don't have to worry about losing a libel suit. If, however, you have no firm evidence supporting your comment, go back and reevaluate what you've written.

As you're writing, keep in mind that there are different libel standards for public and private figures. For a public official or celebrity to win a libel case against a writer or media outlet, that person must show that the writer/outlet acted with actual malice. This concept, developed by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1964 case [url="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=376&invol=254"]New York Times v. Sullivan[/url], is defined as acting with "knowing falsehood or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity" ([url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml#works_cited"]Gillmor, 148[/url]). What this means is that public figures must prove that you either lied or that you didn't make any effort to back your statement up. It's a tough standard that favors journalists, but the actual malice test doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want about famous folks. If you shoot your mouth off without solid facts, you're asking for trouble. Bottom line: Stick to the truth.

When it comes to private figures, the libel standard is much lower. In most states, private individuals need to prove negligence to win a libel case. Negligence is both simple and broad because it "implies the failure to exercise ordinary care" ([url="http://www.theindependentpublisher.com/run/legal/libel.shtml#works_cited"]Pember, 167[/url]). That "ordinary care" bit is applied on a case by case basis, so it can be supported by a range of examples, including bad sources and lazy reporting. Fortunately, combating negligence is a simple task, requiring only diligence, balanced reporting and good, basic journalism. Hard work, it turns out, is both satisfying [i]and[/i] protective.

[mrt99]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383263439' post='8086004']then read the entire summary. i'm only interested as to why you haven't answered the question posed....why is the exchange nowhere to be found on bc's twitter?
[/quote]

I don't know. You'd have to ask BC. I can conceive of a number of reasons why he'd take it down unrelated to any potential legal action. And who knows, maybe he did take it down out of a fear of being sued. That wouldn't shock me, he's not a lawyer and likely wouldn't have realized that TW had no actionable claim against him.

And no, I think I'll pass on reading the "Libel Law for Dummies" you linked to in the rest of your post.

[TML]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383173682' post='8080552']
They really did want to make Brandel fired and hurt to the fullest. Amazing.

Given such reaction, I believe TW is afraid. Before I learned about it I thought he'd just laugh it off.

I mean....it was a blog article on a WEBSITE! Holy crap!
[/quote]
Kim Jong Un would be proud.

[eric42434224]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1383258099' post='8085618']
Reasonable people's petition:

We agree:

1) That the Tiger Woods Abu Dhabi and Masters Rules violations could not possibly have been cheating (intentionally violating the rules and hoping to get away with it) since in Abu Dhabi Woods openly discussed his conduct with a fellow competitor prior to putting his dropped ball in play and at the Masters openly discussed his conduct with the press after he had already temporatily escaped prosecution. No reasonable possibility of cheating here folks, move on.

2) That while the drop at 14 at TPC Sawgrass might or might not have been correct and might or might not have been devious -- neither we nor BC have any way of knowing. And none of the people who actually were there on the tee in a position to clearly observe have claimed that they know for sure that the drop was incorrect. And Tiger's fellow competitor, who is the only official voice on the matter, and who was there, says Tiger dropped correctly.

3) That the BMW ball move may or may not have been observed by Tiger. He said he didn't see it move. No one can say for sure that he did.

4) BC was playing fast and loose with "the rules of ethics" when he implied that based on the above Tiger was a cheat.

5) If BC wrote that Tiger did a bad job with the Rules this year, everyone would have agreed, probably even Tiger.

6) If in fact Tiger has not cheated, he has every reason to be very upset with BC.
[/quote]

Well written, logical, rational, and intelligent posts like this have no place in a TW thread.

[kemau]

[quote name='mrt99' timestamp='1383264106' post='8086052']


I don't know. You'd have to ask BC. I can conceive of a number of reasons why he'd take it down unrelated to any potential legal action. And who knows, maybe he did take it down out of a fear of being sued. That wouldn't shock me, he's not a lawyer and likely wouldn't have realized that TW had no actionable claim against him.

And no, I think I'll pass on reading the "Libel Law for Dummies" you linked to in the rest of your post.
[/quote]

just as i thought....you've got nothing so it resorts to name calling. your references are equally irrelevant so looks like we have common ground

[mrt99]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383265378' post='8086168']

just as i thought....you've got nothing so it resorts to name calling. your references are equally irrelevant so looks like we have common ground
[/quote]

I'm not calling anyone names. Simply pointing out that the piece you linked to provides at best a very facile summary of libel law. And I can speak from experience, as I've unfortunately had the displeasure of reading a lot of the relevant body of case law on the issue.

[PingAR]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383260427' post='8085774']

He lives off an aura of legendary golfer, one that people simply don't challenge on the field. The off-the-field ship sailed with the Escalade, but on the course he felt he still was untouchable. Chamblee touched him, exposed his weak hand...I'd even go as far as LIMP hand...Tiger panicked and we can see the spasms this small Golf.com blog sent through him and his bodyguards.

[b]Tiger is facing real crisis currently, the crisis that will rattle him more than being shanked with a 9-iron by his woman. Crisis of irrelevancy[/b]. As Surfin' pointed out, once Tiger is not bringing BIG BUCK$ to America INC....watch out....there will be more skeletons than during Dias de los Muertos in Oaxaca.
[/quote]

Dumbest post ever.

[Sean2]

[quote name='TML' timestamp='1383264137' post='8086056']

Kim Jong Un would be proud.
[/quote]

Nah, he'd just have everyone shot who was involved...including every employee of the website.

[nbg352]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383265972' post='8086214']

Nah, [b]he'd just have everyone shot [/b]who was involved...including every employee of the website.
[/quote]
Now that could be considered libelous.
Oh, wait.........

[Sean2]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1383266635' post='8086272']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1383265972' post='8086214']
[quote name='TML' timestamp='1383264137' post='8086056']
[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383173682' post='8080552']
They really did want to make Brandel fired and hurt to the fullest. Amazing.

Given such reaction, I believe TW is afraid. Before I learned about it I thought he'd just laugh it off.

I mean....it was a blog article on a WEBSITE! Holy crap!
[/quote]
Kim Jong Un would be proud.
[/quote]

Nah, [b]he'd just have everyone shot [/b]who was involved...including every employee of the website.
[/quote]
Now that could be considered libelous.
Oh, wait.........
[/quote]

Exactly.

[bscinstnct]

[quote name='PingAR' timestamp='1383265690' post='8086184']
[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383260427' post='8085774']
[quote name='Redhill' timestamp='1383258004' post='8085606']
[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383173682' post='8080552']
They really did want to make Brandel fired and hurt to the fullest. Amazing.

Given such reaction, I believe TW is afraid. Before I learned about it I thought he'd just laugh it off.

I mean....it was a blog article on a WEBSITE! Holy crap!
[/quote]

Interesting comment about Eldrick(508) being afraid. Expand on that thought if you will.
[/quote]

He lives off an aura of legendary golfer, one that people simply don't challenge on the field. The off-the-field ship sailed with the Escalade, but on the course he felt he still was untouchable. Chamblee touched him, exposed his weak hand...I'd even go as far as LIMP hand...Tiger panicked and we can see the spasms this small Golf.com blog sent through him and his bodyguards.

[b]Tiger is facing real crisis currently, the crisis that will rattle him more than being shanked with a 9-iron by his woman. Crisis of irrelevancy[/b]. As Surfin' pointed out, once Tiger is not bringing BIG BUCK$ to America INC....watch out....there will be more skeletons than during Dias de los Muertos in Oaxaca.
[/quote]

Dumbest post ever.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm81LSKJC2k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[xabia]

Where are some of you getting this idea that Tiger is now irrelevant? He is #1 by a considerable margin again and was voted POTY. Also HSBC was just crying a river because he wasn't playing! And even though I am sure some of you don't think these kinds of things matter, the bridgestone tournament weekend ratings were up 155% from the previous year even thought the tournament was effectively over after his 61 on Friday.

[drn92]

[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1383172768' post='8080482']
[url="http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24151540/tiger-leaning-on-golf-channel-to-fire-chamblee-a-dirty-move"]http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24151540/tiger-leaning-on-golf-channel-to-fire-chamblee-a-dirty-move[/url]

[url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/players/playerpage/149765/tiger-woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] plays dirty, but then, we already knew that. And Brandel Chamblee wrote it. And here comes Tiger, confirming it.
By passive-aggressively [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24151102/tiger-woods-on-chamblee-ball-is-in-court-of-golf-channel"]trying to get Chamblee fired[/url].
This is a bad-guy move Tiger is pulling, trying to use his power and influence -- let's be clear; his power and influence in golf are formidable -- to get a TV golf analyst fired for something the TV golf analyst didn't even say on TV. Chamblee wrote for Golf.com that Woods' grade for the 2013 season should be an 'F' for being [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24103071/golf-writer-rips-tiger-woods-gives-him-grade-of-f-for-2013"]"a little cavalier with the rules."[/url]
Woods was penalized two strokes each for rules violations at three different events this season -- the Masters, the BMW Championship and the Abu Dhabi Championship -- and had a questionable drop at the Players Championship. Chamblee noted those and drew an analogy to a fourth-grade math test in which he says "I cheated" and was given a "100" with a line drawn through it.
Tiger's agent freaked out. Mark Steinberg called Chamblee's written commentary "the most deplorable thing I have seen. I'm not one for hyperbole, but this is absolutely disgusting. Calling him a cheater? I'll be shocked, stunned if something is not done about this. Something has to be done."
So that was the first time someone in Tiger's camp passive-aggressively suggested Chamblee should pay for his comments, one way or another.
[i]Something has to be done.[/i]
Steinberg took it a step further when he suggested Tiger might sue Chamblee for libel or slander or maybe just for being a big fat meanie.
"I'm not sure if there isn't legal action to be taken," Steinberg said. "I have to [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24116655/tiger-woods-might-consider-legal-action-against-golf-writer"]give some thought to legal action."[/url]
That was a week ago. Then came Monday when Tiger and his agent, Steinberg, suggested someone else should punish Chamblee, presumably so Tiger and his people don't have to do it themselves.
This is what Tiger said on Monday:
"All I am going to say is that I know I am going forward. But then, I don't know what the Golf Channel is going to do or not. But then that's up to them. The whole issue has been very disappointing, as he didn't really apologize and he sort of reignited the whole situation. So the ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do."
Lest any of us think that whole "ball is in their court" thing was just a theory that popped out of Tiger's mouth, here's what Steinberg said on Monday:
"I'm all done talking about it, and it's now in the hands of the Golf Channel," Steinberg said. "That's Tiger's view and that's mine, and all we want to do is move forward. And whether the Golf Channel moves forward as well, then we'll have to wait and see."
Unbelievable. The most powerful golfer in the world, and his agent, are leaning on Golf Channel to fire Chamblee for something he wrote for Golf.com. They could try to get Chamblee fired from the website -- which would also be a bad-guy move -- but Chamblee's biggest gig, by far, is on the television side. So that's where Tiger wants to hurt him. On the TV side.
All because Chamblee pointed out -- in a creative way -- that Tiger was, shall we say, cavalier with the rules during the 2013 season.
But facts are facts, and the facts would be Chamblee's defense in a slander lawsuit, should Woods file one, which he won't. Because he has no case -- and if he doesn't know it, Steinberg does. So in lieu of a legal remedy that doesn't exist, they're trying to cut off Chamblee's biggest source of income. Why? Because they can.
Now we'll see what Golf Channel does. The ball truly is in their court. We'll see if the people who run that network are as scared of Tiger Woods as Tiger Woods hopes they are.
[/quote]

Nice to see an opposing view to the Tiger love fest. He was a bit loose with the rules this year and frankly, a lesser player would have been penalized much more than he was.

drn92

[kemau]

[quote name='xabia' timestamp='1383270902' post='8086610']
Where are some of you getting this idea that Tiger is now irrelevant? He is #1 by a considerable margin again and was voted POTY. Also HSBC was just crying a river because he wasn't playing! And even though I am sure some of you don't think these kinds of things matter, the bridgestone tournament weekend ratings were up 155% from the previous year even thought the tournament was effectively over after his 61 on Friday.
[/quote]

don't feed the trolls....facts are never a part of their comments

[kemau]

[quote name='drn92' timestamp='1383271036' post='8086620']

Nice to see an opposing view to the Tiger love fest. He was a bit loose with the rules this year and frankly, a lesser player would have been penalized much more than he was.

drn92
[/quote]

so now the usga, euro tour, pga tour and r&a are all a part of the conspiracy to make different rules for tiger while all others would be punished by the regular rules....good stuff

[nbg352]

[quote name='drn92' timestamp='1383271036' post='8086620']
[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1383172768' post='8080482']
[url="http://www.cbssports.com/general/writer/gregg-doyel/24151540/tiger-leaning-on-golf-channel-to-fire-chamblee-a-dirty-move"]http://www.cbssports...ee-a-dirty-move[/url]

[url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/players/playerpage/149765/tiger-woods"]Tiger Woods[/url] plays dirty, but then, we already knew that. And Brandel Chamblee wrote it. And here comes Tiger, confirming it.
By passive-aggressively [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24151102/tiger-woods-on-chamblee-ball-is-in-court-of-golf-channel"]trying to get Chamblee fired[/url].
This is a bad-guy move Tiger is pulling, trying to use his power and influence -- let's be clear; his power and influence in golf are formidable -- to get a TV golf analyst fired for something the TV golf analyst didn't even say on TV. Chamblee wrote for Golf.com that Woods' grade for the 2013 season should be an 'F' for being [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24103071/golf-writer-rips-tiger-woods-gives-him-grade-of-f-for-2013"]"a little cavalier with the rules."[/url]
Woods was penalized two strokes each for rules violations at three different events this season -- the Masters, the BMW Championship and the Abu Dhabi Championship -- and had a questionable drop at the Players Championship. Chamblee noted those and drew an analogy to a fourth-grade math test in which he says "I cheated" and was given a "100" with a line drawn through it.
Tiger's agent freaked out. Mark Steinberg called Chamblee's written commentary "the most deplorable thing I have seen. I'm not one for hyperbole, but this is absolutely disgusting. Calling him a cheater? I'll be shocked, stunned if something is not done about this. Something has to be done."
So that was the first time someone in Tiger's camp passive-aggressively suggested Chamblee should pay for his comments, one way or another.
[i]Something has to be done.[/i]
Steinberg took it a step further when he suggested Tiger might sue Chamblee for libel or slander or maybe just for being a big fat meanie.
"I'm not sure if there isn't legal action to be taken," Steinberg said. "I have to [url="http://www.cbssports.com/golf/eye-on-golf/24116655/tiger-woods-might-consider-legal-action-against-golf-writer"]give some thought to legal action."[/url]
That was a week ago. Then came Monday when Tiger and his agent, Steinberg, suggested someone else should punish Chamblee, presumably so Tiger and his people don't have to do it themselves.
This is what Tiger said on Monday:
"All I am going to say is that I know I am going forward. But then, I don't know what the Golf Channel is going to do or not. But then that's up to them. The whole issue has been very disappointing, as he didn't really apologize and he sort of reignited the whole situation. So the ball really is in the court of the Golf Channel and what they are prepared to do."
Lest any of us think that whole "ball is in their court" thing was just a theory that popped out of Tiger's mouth, here's what Steinberg said on Monday:
"I'm all done talking about it, and it's now in the hands of the Golf Channel," Steinberg said. "That's Tiger's view and that's mine, and all we want to do is move forward. And whether the Golf Channel moves forward as well, then we'll have to wait and see."
Unbelievable. The most powerful golfer in the world, and his agent, are leaning on Golf Channel to fire Chamblee for something he wrote for Golf.com. They could try to get Chamblee fired from the website -- which would also be a bad-guy move -- but Chamblee's biggest gig, by far, is on the television side. So that's where Tiger wants to hurt him. On the TV side.
All because Chamblee pointed out -- in a creative way -- that Tiger was, shall we say, cavalier with the rules during the 2013 season.
But facts are facts, and the facts would be Chamblee's defense in a slander lawsuit, should Woods file one, which he won't. Because he has no case -- and if he doesn't know it, Steinberg does. So in lieu of a legal remedy that doesn't exist, they're trying to cut off Chamblee's biggest source of income. Why? Because they can.
Now we'll see what Golf Channel does. The ball truly is in their court. We'll see if the people who run that network are as scared of Tiger Woods as Tiger Woods hopes they are.
[/quote]

Nice to see an opposing view to the Tiger love fest. He was a bit loose with the rules this year and frankly, a lesser player would have been penalized much more than he was.

drn92
[/quote]
You really believe that that is the image the PGA Tour would like to portray? That they pander to favoritism? They can't afford to do that and I think that deep in your heart of hearts you know it