Brandel reappears on Golf Channel

[Frankensteins Monster]

This is unfortunate. Made Tillman stay off air for weeks and publicly tarred and feathered her for a wrong choice of words yet they let this buffoon back on air?

[tbowles411]

Wait, now Rory get abuse for defending Tiger? What's going on in golf? Have I been away too long?

[kemau]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1383221843' post='8082724']
Rory is being a little wuss, talking big. What is the "right way" to deal with him Rors? Either be a man and say what you think, or stay out of it and STFU.
[/quote]

if bc can't prove intent then HE'S the one who needs to stfu....and subsequently he has indeed done so with his whispering, humbled appearance yesterday on golf central

[kellygreen]

[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1383171665' post='8080390']
[i][b]What does "sincere" or "vendetta" have to do with a journalist stating the truth[/b][/i].

Tiger was cavalier with the rules. Won't be the last time either.
[/quote]

That's the problem.

Many people get a bit fuzzy about the difference between what is fact...and what is opinion.

The only "fact" here is that Tiger had four incidents where outside agencies called him on rules violations. (Given how much he is on camera, I'm frankly suprised it doesn't happen more often). He was penalized for all four of those infractions.

Everything else beyond that is OPINION. Whether Tiger should have called the penalty on himself in the last sitaution..."just to be sure" and "protect the field" is open to legitimate debate. Whether the Master's Rules Committee should have waved the DQ penalty for signing an incorrect score card is opent to legitimate debate.

But some of the stuff going on here is baseless character assassination. That is more about venting the irrational hostility that many feel towards Woods. Like the business about the drop at Sawgrass.

Chamblee was out of line, beacause there is no basis by which to reasonably accuse Woods of intentionally cheating...and levelling such an accusation has the possibility of doing permanent damage to Woods' repuation and his marketability in the endorsement arena.

Which is why Woods' camp has been putting out some not-very-subtle warnings to Chamblee---and those involved with him---that a libel suit was an option that was on-the-table, if the matter was not dealt with to their satisfaction.

Chamblee gets paid to be an on-course analyst. In accusing Woods of being a "cheater" he was out-of-bounds, and beyond the pale.

[kellygreen]

[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]

Just the kind of hatchet-job "journalism" that Chamblee got himself into trouble trying to emulate.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Chamblee---in calling Woods a "cheater"---decided to act in a way that could potentially f*** with Woods' livelihood.

Woods---and Steinberg---are simply responding in kind.

If Chamblee didn't have the stomach for this kind of a fight, then he shouldn't have thrown the first punch.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1383173301' post='8080522']
Is this really what we have been reduced to? Expecting a firing just because an editorial journalist says something about the wrong guy? There was no racial slur, no discriminatory comment at all.

Doesn't anyone else think this is sad? I sure as hell do.
[/quote]

Wrong yardstick.

You, BY LAW, do not have the right to say things that you:

1. Know not to be true.

2. Does harm to reputation, social standing, or ability to earn a living of the subject being spoken about.

If you do it verbally...you have committed slander. If you do it in writing (or other permanent medium) you have committed libel.


The laws regarding slander/libel are more lax for public figures, than they are for private citizens. This is so that public figures can't use the threat of lawsuits to suppress investigation and discussion of issues of legitimate public interest by a free press. (IOW, so a politician cannot intimidate the press into backing off the investigation of scandal or corruption....or a Lance Armstrong or an Alex Rodriguez can't to it to suppress investigation into allegations of using PEDs).

Despite that laxness, you can STILL libel a public figure and do unwarranted (and illegal) damage to them. Especially to someone like Woods, where a signfiicant amount of his income comes from endorsements....and damage to his reputation can severely damage his marketability.

Chamblee acted in a manner that had SERIOUS potential to damage Woods' marketability. He probably managed to stay a HAIRs breadth within the law---and only because Woods is a public figure, and the burden of proof Woods would have to meet to successfully sue Chamblee would be so high. But there is probably enough of a basis to go forward with such a suit anyway....and make Chamblee's life MISERABLE (and very expensive) for a number of years.

THAT was probably why he was looking so pale. Because he's finally realizing that he committed an act of economic warfare against an opponent that has the power to absolutely annihilate him.

Woods and Steinberg, OTOH, probably realize that they wouldn't win such a suit. But are willing to use the THREAT of such a suit to isolate and pressure Chamblee into surrendering...and The Golf Channel into jerking his tail into a knot. So that Chamblee stops trying to build his career by throwing rocks at Woods, while TGC stands back and tolerates it.

[Chief Illiniwek]

I was actually ok with Tiger's rules infractions until he insisted the ball oscillated, even after watching the tape. So much like Chamblee, I then questioned his intentions in the other incidents.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1383174378' post='8080608']
Thirst for revenge on Tiger's part tells me he's in a bit of panic mode. Whether it's his declining relevance in sports and marketing, or simply a voracious ego that must be fed, it's not a good sign.
[/quote]

Actually, he's drawing a line in the sand [b][i]against attitudes in the media like yours. [/i][/b]

Who think that the First Amendement gives them the right to use him as a punching bag...and the facts (and libel laws) be d*mned.

He's basically telling the golf press, "[i]If you want to criticize my game....have it.[/i]

[i]""But the moment you step outside the bounds, and try to assassinate my character, and interfere with my ability to earn a living....there will be h*ll to pay.[/i]

[i]"You might want to start the fight...but I will finish it.[/i]

[i]...and you won't like how it ends."[/i]

[kellygreen]

[quote name='matthewsiv' timestamp='1383176213' post='8080774']
Why should Brandel be thrown under the bus because he said what everyone else saw on TV .

Tiger Woods has APPEARED to bend the rules and does not like being questioned.

It is like when 20 men moved that small stone in Scottsdale !

No one person is bigger than the game or above its rules.

If he truly believed that the ball did not move , he should have still taken the penalty with the grace of a gentleman.

Tantrums and golf do not mix.

He is the greatest golfer that was ever born.

Brandel Chamblee has a job to critique the play of golfers and their actions.

So he was only doing his job.

In my opinion if Tiger Woods took legal action he would lose and also lose a lot of money.
[/quote]

No, he wasn't "doing his job".

Which is why Golf.com threw him under the bus....and The Golf Channel publicly jerked his tail in a knot.

He took a cheap shot at a player in a manner that the facts of the situation didn't support...and had the potential to severely (and unfairly) damange that player's repuation, and ability to earn a living with endorsements.

In short, Chamblee (arguably) committed LIBEL against Woods...and has legitimate grounds to sue Chamblee...and anyone involved with this incident.

Which is why they are all running so scared.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383223977' post='8082812']


Actually, he's drawing a line in the sand [b][i]against attitudes in the media like yours. [/i][/b]

Who think that the First Amendement gives them the right to use him as a punching bag...and the facts (and libel laws) be d*mned.

He's basically telling the golf press, "[i]If you want to criticize my game....have it.[/i]

[i]""But the moment you step outside the bounds, and try to assassinate my character, and interfere with my ability to earn a living....there will be h*ll to pay.[/i]

[i]"You might want to start the fight...but I will finish it.[/i]

[i]...and you won't like how it ends."[/i]
[/quote]
The very essence of the argument. That's why libel is so dangerous. The plaintiff may not win the suit, but the person usually making the charge does not have the means to defend themselves without being destroyed in the process, personally and financially.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1383179306' post='8081006']

Well Brandel implying Tigers intentions, But Tiger wasnt implying that the GC should fire Brandel. actually I think they were both implying exactly that, In fact I think if Woods had of ignored the whole thing it would probably have went away quick, not really in his mindset though,
[/quote]

Some things are matters of honor.

Chamblee committed the golf equivalent of accusing Woods of using PEDs.

In calling him a "cheater", he not only calls into question the legitimacy of what Woods accomplished this season, he call's into the question the legitimacy of ALL of Woods' professional accomplishments.

No way Woods was going to let that go unchallenged.

[Chief Illiniwek]

These Tiger threads are always pointless. The pro Tiger guys always defend his side, while the anti Tiger guys (admitingly including me) always argue the other side. No one EVER convinces the other side to see things their way, which is the whole point of debate. Is there any Tiger guys here who agree Tiger is out of bounds for trying to get BC fired? Or any anti Tiger guys here who feel BC should be fired (based on this incident of course)?

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1383223429' post='8082796']
I was actually ok with Tiger's rules infractions until he insisted the ball oscillated, even after watching the tape. So much like Chamblee, I then questioned his intentions in the other incidents.
[/quote]
I can use myself as an example with this one Chief. I think we all can. Something we thought we saw and would go to the death over what we thought we saw in our mind's eye. But when presented with evidence, we still insist what we saw and what our rationale was. Many here have an agenda to slander and fail to put ourselves in that situation if we were faced with that very same thing.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383224375' post='8082836']

Some things are matters of honor.

Chamblee committed the golf equivalent of accusing Woods of using PEDs.

In calling him a "cheater", he not only calls into question the legitimacy of what Woods accomplished this season, he call's into the question the legitimacy of ALL of Woods' professional accomplishments.

No way Woods was going to let that go unchallenged.
[/quote]
Anyone remember Phil Mickelson's threat to sue the person that accused him of cheating on his spouse and having a secret kid? His response was classic defense and threatened an immediate lawsuit. The person making the charge, disappeared because the obviously did not have the means to defend themselves without putting their finances at risk. Thus the charges went "poof."

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1383224595' post='8082856']

I can use myself as an example with this one Chief. I think we all can. Something we thought we saw and would go to the death over what we thought we saw in our mind's eye. But when presented with evidence, we still insist what we saw and what our rationale was. Many here have an agenda to slander and fail to put ourselves in that situation if we were faced with that very same thing.
[/quote]

Well said Bowles. I'll give you the point that if there is any argument for not acknowledging the ball moving, it's this one. But nonetheless, that ball moved and he was shown the evidence and still failed to acknowledge it. Therefore I at least question his intentions and motives in previous incidents, but acknowledge they may truly be innocent.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1383225399' post='8082914']


Well said Bowles. I'll give you the point that if there is any argument for not acknowledging the ball moving, it's this one. But nonetheless, that ball moved and he was shown the evidence and still failed to acknowledge it. Therefore I at least question his intentions and motives in previous incidents, but acknowledge they may truly be innocent.
[/quote]
See? Some of us can find some common ground and get the other to see their side.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1383224781' post='8082868']
Anyone remember Phil Mickelson's threat to sue the person that accused him of cheating on his spouse and having a secret kid? His response was classic defense and threatened an immediate lawsuit. The person making the charge, disappeared because the obviously did not have the means to defend themselves without putting their finances at risk. Thus the charges went "poof."
[/quote]

ah, but these philly mick rumors are still out there, years later. you just referenced them. which is why, regardless of what happened to BC, these vapid claims will stick to tiger. maybe not in the MSM, but in the minds of anti-tiger golfers. it's more ammo for their hatred.
just look at this thread.

chief has it right: the one side will never convince the other side of anything. everyone's dug in and will defend their position to the death. everything that happens in this thread is just the rabble of the separate camps.
can it be entertaining? sure. why do you think i'm reading/posting in it?


edit: i stand corrected. you two found some common ground. well done!

[jmvargas]

i am 100% sure that in the long run this will not end well for BC...

[kellygreen]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1383180162' post='8081074']

To attack someone who pointed out a truthful reality? Yeah, it is...
[/quote]

No.

He went after someone who baselessly attacked his honor and his character...and presented baseless opinion as if it were fact.

That is not a "character flaw". That's simply having a healthy self-image.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1383225939' post='8082930']

ah, but these philly mick rumors are still out there, years later. you just referenced them. which is why, regardless of what happened to BC, these vapid claims will stick to tiger. maybe not in the MSM, but in the minds of anti-tiger golfers. it's more ammo for their hatred.
just look at this thread.

chief has it right: the one side will never convince the other side of anything. everyone's dug in and will defend their position to the death. everything that happens in this thread is just the rabble of the separate camps.
can it be entertaining? sure. why do you think i'm reading/posting in it?


edit: i stand corrected. you two found some common ground. well done!
[/quote]
They COULD stick to him. And to many, regardless of the situation will find fault in whatever he does or doesn't do. Instead of trying to have a convo, they argue, and that's why I try to steer clear of many of these threads that involve TW. My take on it goes back to how I grew up. I'd rather be called an arse than a cheat. You do that, all of my buttons have been pressed at once and you have a fight on your hands. That's why I think the reaction was measured by TW because he knew, no matter what, people would be dug in and with one small quote in China, put folks on notice, that it wouldn't go unanswered if something wasn't done, and BC and GC would be in a really terrible position. I'm not saying I agree, but I am saying that slander and libel are serious accusations and if you're not ready to defend yourself, you're going to get run over regardless of the outcome. So when you attack based on an opinion, you have to know what's coming.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='J.W.' timestamp='1383186111' post='8081554']
The whole point is golf has a lot of rules that are policed by yourself-- so Brandel is saying Tiger knowingly cheated hoping not to get caught. I just don't see how this adds up... Tiger knows hes on camera for his entire 18 hole round. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit...

For what it's worth-- I am not calling for Brandel to be fired. I certainly dislike him as a golf commentator and would prefer to hear someone else but I don't the guy fired because of his article. If he gets fired because Golf Channel doesn't think he does a good job then that's up to them.
[/quote]

You aren't giving him "too much credit".

You simply don't have an AXE to grind...and therefore are able to look at the situation rationally and even-handedly.

Which some people clearly have no interest in doing.

[tw_focus]

The lesson here is "don't be a troll", especially if you're trolling one of the most popular sports figures in the world. No conspiracy here, the same thing would happen if someone in the media called Kobe or LeBron a cheater. People know the truth, they don't take kindly to trolling and abuse.

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383226582' post='8082990']


You aren't giving him "too much credit".

You simply don't have an AXE to grind...and therefore are able to look at the situation rationally and even-handedly.

Which some people clearly have no interest in doing.
[/quote]

Kelly, you're practically Golfwrx's resident blacksmith when it comes to axes! :-D

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Jamboy72' timestamp='1383190387' post='8081876']


Correct...no one is immune to the only player who actually might be bigger than the game itself.....and just b/c there are "consequences" doesn't necessarily suggest that the punishment fit the crime...
[/quote]

Actually, Chamblee is getting off light.

Despite the fact that Woods is a public figure, Chamblee is still subject to the libel laws....and calling someone a "cheater" who has a signficant portion of his income coming from endorsements...

...is an act of economic war. Not a "difference of opinion", or a matter of having a "fragile ego."

The last time Woods' character took a hit in the media, he lost several major endorsement deals. But since it was over something that was a matter of fact....he simply had to deal with it.

But this time, it was the baseless "opinion" of a wannabe "shock-jock" trying to build his career by throwing rocks at Woods, whenever the opportunity presents itself.

So this time---rightly----Woods decided to hit back, before any permanent damage was done.

Chamblee is just now starting to realize that his mouth wrote a check that his a** can't cash. Like the guy who thought it was "cool" to throw rocks at the Tiger in the cage at the zoo.

Until he finally hit the Big Cat in the head with a rock...and realized that the door to the cage was left open....

[kellygreen]

[quote name='dolfinack' timestamp='1383220328' post='8082650']
Tiger and his cult had no right to harass BC out of work. And I agree BC has a bit of a boner for criticising TW. The whole thing is pathetic.
[/quote]

Actually.

Tiger isn't BC's problem.

It's the LIBEL LAWS he decided to flirt with.

[Pat_Irish]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1383227130' post='8083038']


Kelly, you're practically Golfwrx's resident blacksmith when it comes to axes! :-D
[/quote]

Kelly do you reckon there is a double standard being applied on the Tours see below
[color=#000000]Meanwhile, a decision is expected today on the future of [/color][url="http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/Simon_Dyson"]Simon Dyson[/url][color=#000000], disqualified in last week's [/color][url="http://searchtopics.independent.ie/topic/BMW"]BMW[/url][color=#000000] Masters for tapping down a spike mark with his [url="http://viglink.pgpartner.com/mrdr.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviglink.pgpartner.com%2Fsearch.php%2Fform_keyword=golf%2Bball&mode="]golf ball[/url] during the third round at Lake Malaren. The Yorkshireman, who has won six times on tour, is likely to be punished severely, with up to a four-month ban after rules officials collected [b]evidence on other violations he has committed this year.[/b][/color][color=#282828] [/color]

[kellygreen]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1383222066' post='8082736']
Wait, now Rory get abuse for defending Tiger? What's going on in golf? Have I been away too long?
[/quote]

Just shows you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.....

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Chief Illiniwek' timestamp='1383223429' post='8082796']
I was actually ok with Tiger's rules infractions until he insisted the ball oscillated, even after watching the tape. So much like Chamblee, I then questioned his intentions in the other incidents.
[/quote]

Okay to do so privately.

But if you are going to it publicly, you'd better have some facts to back it up.

Otherwise, you leave yourself open to being sued for damages.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1383224369' post='8082834']

The very essence of the argument. That's why libel is so dangerous. The plaintiff may not win the suit, but the person usually making the charge does not have the means to defend themselves without being destroyed in the process, personally and financially.
[/quote]

Yep.

Which is why It think this situation is more about knocking some sense into Chamblee, than about the accusation, per se.

Tiger's simply had enough of being Chamblee's personal punching bag...and now that BC has crossed a line that brings a libel suit into play, he now has the leverage to get his employers to reign in his questionably-professional conduct, and (personally) "scare" Chamblee "straight".

Like my dad used to say. "If you are going to go after a giant, you had better make d*mn sure you kill it. Otherwise, all you're going to is make it MAD."

...and Chamblee is realizing, now, that he has one very angry giant on his hands...and a fight that he has no hope of winning should Tiger choose to press the matter.

[nochct1]

[quote name='SurfinTurf' timestamp='1383199027' post='8082234']

Let's forget the more blatant and egregious acts act of ignonimty. Rule 33-7 and in particular, the 2011-enacted Decision 33-7/4.5, which allows officials to waive a player’s disqualification if said player was "unaware" prior to signing a scorecard of any rules breach.

How was TW "unaware"?!?! He stated publicly what his illegal intensions were.

If you can't smell BS when it's right under your nose then your either too young or too stupid. I can forgive the younger members because the old guys tend to hold out due to some misguided sense of protectiveness. But If you love the game of golf then call out cheaters. Take an enthusiastic joy in said measures. It's called "Defending the Game". Then you can take pride in being a golfer.
[/quote]

Haha. If you love the game of golf, then play it an enjoy it.
I don't think the younger members need a lecture from someone who has a personal issue with a golfer that they have never met.
Get over it. There were rules violations. He was penalized. I'm pretty sure that people can take pride in being a golfer without having to take into account Tiger woods and an embedded ball.