Brandel reappears on Golf Channel

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Pat_Irish' timestamp='1383227816' post='8083096']


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]
[/quote]

No.

Because---as far as I know---this is the THIRD TIME that Dyson has been caught tamping down spike marks on the green.

So this is not a situation where someone can claim not to know some arcane rule, or to have mixed up the options available to him on a drop....or a point-of-view issue on whether a ball moved enough to be penalized or it just "oscillated".

You have a player is his repeatedly violating one of the most basic rules of the game. Do it once, its a brain-fart. Do it twice....wait a minute.

Do the same thing a third time...it get pretty hard to argue that its not intentional.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1383228440' post='8083140']


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.
[/quote]
It's safe to assume I'll still love golf. Then again, I can only speak for myself.

[bobsuruncle]

Thank you kellygreen for making the best posts on this topic as opposed to the hyperbole "intentionally devious" commentary by BC and his incitement of the anti Tiger crowd. It would be a shame to see BC go should TGC decide to cut him loose as I genuinely like listening to his analysis when he's not trying to shock, but what he wrote was wrong and he knows it. He just wanted to be controversial. You would think from listening to BC that Tiger cheated his way to winning the Masters by 12, US Open by 15, etc. He deserves what's coming his way as he clearly crossed the line this time.

[cxx]

This story continues to move up the mainstream media charts. Here is an example http://golfweek.com/news/2013/oct/30/tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-golf-channel-pga-tour/ . It's already in the top stories section of some news aggregators. You know it will be big time when it breaks into the drudge report. This exposure can only be negative for Tiger. He can't really clear his name. I don't think Tiger could stand the scrutiny that would come from instigating a lawsuit, even if he had a chance of winning. Really I think the golf channel is doubling down on BC rather than punishing him.

Just out of curiosity, has Tiger ever called a penalty on himself? I don't mean incriminated himself, like at the Masters. I can't seem to recall an instance.

[eightiron]

What's your gut instinct on woods?

[puttingmatt]

As long as Tiger gets penalty strokes, he can be as cavalier with the rules all he wants.
Should next season bring a host of violations, then Chamblee may have proven his point.

[somaplr]

[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]

Referencing any article from Greg Doyle automatically reduces any credibility you are tyring to instill

[eagle1997]

[quote name='cxx' timestamp='1383230998' post='8083306']
This story continues to move up the mainstream media charts. Here is an example [url="http://golfweek.com/news/2013/oct/30/tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-golf-channel-pga-tour/"]http://golfweek.com/...annel-pga-tour/[/url] . It's already in the top stories section of some news aggregators. You know it will be big time when it breaks into the drudge report. This exposure can only be negative for Tiger. He can't really clear his name. I don't think Tiger could stand the scrutiny that would come from instigating a lawsuit, even if he had a chance of winning. Really I think the golf channel is doubling down on BC rather than punishing him.

Just out of curiosity, has Tiger ever called a penalty on himself? I don't mean incriminated himself, like at the Masters. I can't seem to recall an instance.
[/quote]

yep. referenced in the other BC vs Tiger thread. knocked a leaf off a tree during a practice swing.

as for the golf channel doubling down on BC, who do you think made him come in and 'apologize' on the air? who is taking away his ability to write for golf.com? i think they are trying to appease tiger with these moves, rather than doubling down. this is the response to 'it's up to the golf channel now' line.

does anyone have a video link of the lerner-chamblee interview?

[kemau]

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-central-brandel-chamblee-speaks-103013/

[stuckntx]

Look, the reason BC is getting hammered is because he called TW a cheater. In the golfing world, there isn't anything worse than being called a cheater. It is as far as you can go in attacking a player and a person. You can't be "cavalier" when throwing that assertion around. Unfortunately, for BC, he was and had to apologize.

As far as the media not being allowed to cross TW, give me a break. TW gets hammered tenfold over any other golfer. Attacking his swing, or his language or his off course activity is different than calling him a cheater. It is well within TW's right to dislike some of the media. Alex Michelli for instance.

Also, keep in mind that illegal drops happen every week on the PGA tour. They just aren't shown on TV in Hi-Def. TW gets air time, even when he is out of a tournament. That's how much he effects ratings. With that, we see and hear any perceived indiscretion and make character judgements as a result. What we don't see are the laundry list of other players doing things far worse than what we see TW doing. But, we don't see them, so they are perceived as good guys.

If you know players on tour, caddies or coaches for tour players, they will tell you stories about what really goes on out there.

In the meantime, you know what they say about people in glass houses.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1383226511' post='8082986']

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.
[/quote]

...and if you are trying to make you bones by walking the edge of acceptability as Chamblee has been deliberately doing with Woods these past few years, you had better be prepared for when the day comes that you fall over it.

Had this been a "one-off" by someone who had a reasonable relationship with Woods, odds are Tiger would have let it slide. Like he did when Tilghman stuck her foot in her mouth with the "lynching" remark. But then KT was also trying to offer a backhanded compliment to Woods' play, and showed genuine contrition for what she had done. Going and apologizing to Woods in person.

For Chamblee, OTOH, this is just another incident in a has become a pattern of deliberate rock-throwing at Woods. As he deliberately tried to position himself in the marketplace as "Miller Lite". But failing to realize that the allowances players make for Miller's abrasive style, don't translate to him.

So I'm not suprised that Woods finally said, "Enough's enough...." and went after him. As for TGC and GC, I'm also not suprised they went scrambling after the statements from Woods and Steinberg. Cold rage tends to frighten people more than someone goes ballistic. The person in the throes of a cold rage still has the ability to think about the situation rationally...and decide how best to take you apart.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383226354' post='8082974']


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.
[/quote]

Yes, Kelly...yes.

[Anchor44]

[quote name='Merlin50' timestamp='1383176856' post='8080836']
Brandel Chamblee is not good at his job. To me his analysis is so convoluted you can barely understand what he is saying. He attacks Tiger Woods swing mercilessly and again to me what he says is usually stupid. That said I believe Tiger Woods does bend the rules, is cavalier and is a win at all costs player who has never admitted any of his mistakes. So basically I can't stand either of them but I am siding with Chamblee here because Tiger is a bully who I do not like.
[/quote]

I'm not sure how Tiger will EVER get over the fact that you don't like him.
He must be devastated, since you obviously think he was put on this planet to meet your expectations.
Seriously?????

[deasy55]

The funniest thing is that he had to apologise for his comments about Tiger, when what he said about Vijay in it was far more out of line.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='cxx' timestamp='1383230998' post='8083306']
This story continues to move up the mainstream media charts. Here is an example [url="http://golfweek.com/news/2013/oct/30/tiger-woods-brandel-chamblee-golf-channel-pga-tour/"]http://golfweek.com/...annel-pga-tour/[/url] . It's already in the top stories section of some news aggregators. You know it will be big time when it breaks into the drudge report. This exposure can only be negative for Tiger. He can't really clear his name. I don't think Tiger could stand the scrutiny that would come from instigating a lawsuit, even if he had a chance of winning. Really I think the golf channel is doubling down on BC rather than punishing him.

Just out of curiosity, has Tiger ever called a penalty on himself? I don't mean incriminated himself, like at the Masters. I can't seem to recall an instance.
[/quote]

Thankfully you are not my attorney.

No One can "prove a negative" (When did you stop beating your wife?). Which is why it is one of the oldest smear tactics in the book...and why it is often the basis for most successful libel/slander suits.

As for Tiger not being able to withstand the scrutiny of a lawsuit? Please. This man has endured one the most public and widely-reported sex scandals in the HISTORY of sex scandals. Having withstood a degree of media attention and public ridicule that would make politicians cringe.

The media coverage and the discovery process that would result from a libel lawsuit is small potatoes compared to what he has already endured at the hands of the media...and the cost of legal fees would be little more than pocket change.

Whereas the legal fees that BC would likely rack up would likely devastate him financially...and make him untouchable professionally...even if Woods didn't win the suit. Which is why TGC made BC fall on his sword---trust me they aren't "doubling down"----in a very public way on this matter...and why Golf.com basically threw him under the bus.

TW might sustain some superficial damage in a lawsuit...but BC likely wouldn't survive it.

Which is why the normally arrogant Chamblee is looking so scared and so humbled about now.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1383233654' post='8083536']

Yes, Kelly...yes.
[/quote]

Rember you said that the next time someone insults your honor, and you decide not to just "take it."

[mrt99]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383233856' post='8083562']Thankfully you are not my attorney.[/quote]

And thankfully you're not mine. As an initial matter, Tiger was never going to file a lawsuit against BC, TGC or Golf Magazine. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows that. And let's say, just for the sake of argument here, that he had, it almost certainly would have been thrown out prior to any discovery taking place.

[Anchor44]

[quote name='sandy' timestamp='1383179810' post='8081038']
I guess Brandel only has to join Tigers enemies list along with others like Kostis, Norman, Fuzzy, Elin, VJ, Phil, Ames, Sharpton (who famously said [color=#666666]“Why is it that a man who calls himself black can’t bring himself to cheat on his wife with a black woman?” said Sharpton, speaking to a group of supporters in Harlem. “What does it say to young black girls everywhere when you pass them over? Shame on you, Tiger Woods. What would your daddy say?”)

[color=#666666]Since Tiger isn't as revered as Arnie Brandel doesn't have to join Peter Kessler in golf zombie land....[/color]

[color=#666666] [/color][color=#666666] [/color]
And the world knows Tiger never cheats on anything....[/color]
[/quote]

Obviously Tigers father wouldn't say anything about his son choosing a white woman since he also chose one to be his wife

[eagle1997]

[quote name='kemau' timestamp='1383232968' post='8083492']
[url="http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golf-central-brandel-chamblee-speaks-103013/"]http://www.golfchann...-speaks-103013/[/url]
[/quote]

thank you! interesting to see it vs. the transcript posted earlier. BC does appear to be more contrite in the video than his words may suggest in the transcript. again, thanks for the link.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='mrt99' timestamp='1383234283' post='8083602']


And thankfully you're not mine. As an initial matter, Tiger was never going to file a lawsuit against BC, TGC or Golf Magazine. Everyone with a lick of common sense knows that. And let's say, just for the sake of argument here, that he had, it almost certainly would have been thrown out prior to any discovery taking place.
[/quote]

Of course he wasn't.

1. BC doesn't have enough assets to make it worth the time and expense to go after.
2. BC wasn't working as an employee/agent of TGC when he made the comments in qustion....so any involvement of them in the suit is tenuous.
3. BC was working on a free-lance basis for Golf.com...so once again, any involvement inthe suit is tenuous.

So, as a purely RATIONAL pursuit, filing a lawsuit (at this point) has a poor risk-benefit ratio.

But as a BLUFF---to achieve other ends----it is a very effective weapon.

1. BC took a shot at Woods' honor...and tried undermine the legitimacy of his professional accomplishments. [b][i]Sometimes you go too far and p!ss off people to such a point where rational calculation goes out the window...and WAR simply gets declared.[/i][/b] At that point, people are willing to damage themselves in their determination to come after you. Neither BC, GC or TGC KNOWS for sure that they haven't provoked Woods to this point.

2. Woods may still lose endorsements behind this, so a lawsuit might become a better rational calculation at that point. Especially if the deeper pockets of GC and TGC can be entangled in the suit.

3. TGC and GC need access to Woods...more than Woods needs the media platform they can offer. So---even short of a lawsuit---Woods still has the ability to empose a boycott on these two that could seriously damage their business model.

4. That two pronged threat---Woods coolly implying the possibility of a boycott, and Steinberg angrily suggesting a libel suit----provides a great deal of leverage to get what it was Woods most likely wanted in the first place. To have BC's employers finally slap a muzzle on him, and stop letting the guy use him for target practice. Because---refusing to call him to heel---might cost them more, than BC's shock-jock tactics might gain them in ratings.

You might want to read Sun-tzu's "The Art of War". What Woods and Steinberg are doing is a classic case of manuevering your opponent into a position where they have to surrender without a fight....

Not to mention isolating BC to the point where he's (legitimately) scared for his professional life.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383234039' post='8083574']


Rember you said that the next time someone insults your honor, and you decide not to just "take it."
[/quote]

Kelly, you know I love ya, buddy ...but, come on.

I haven't had anyone "insult my honor" since 7th grade, because that is the last time I can remember that concept having any relevance. It is the old "actions speak louder..." philosophy; too bad Woods is more focused on the "words" part.

This doesn't present to me as an "honor" consideration. People with honor don't do to their wife, kids and sponsors what he did. People with honor don't throw public temper tantrums, use foul language in front of children, or play loose with the rules for millions in cash. I know everyone is tired of hearing it, but it is what it is. This is about someone being called on publicly for multiple instances of rules infractions, which is fair in any other arena of life. Welcome to equity, Tiger Woods.

I don't like Brandel either, but the point should have been fair game. The language should be open to criticism, but the point should not have ended up as a forced retraction.

[mr_divots]

Golf Channel "talent" wouldn't be defended as they are unless it involved Tiger is the irony in play.
This "journalism" people are defending is tantamount to something a kid would write. Report cards? Lazy hack piece at that. Even BC's kid sounds smarter and probably could have penned a better piece.

Maybe they just lose their minds at GC/NBC after being around Jimmy Roberts too long? I know I would...

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1383182069' post='8081254']


PGA Tour doesn't agree with you.

If he had "cheated" don't you think he would have been suspended? He broke the rules and was penalized. That is the truth. And that is a fact.
[/quote]

That's like saying a bad guy breaks into a home, gets caught, goes to court and there's not enough evidence to send him away, so he gets a slap on the hand penalty. Mind you, he was caught in the house. Just because someone doesn't realize the full brunt on the law, or in this case, breaking the ROG, doesn't mean it didn't happen. It sounds as though you're saying that because the burglar wasn't sent to prison, being caught in the house didn't happen either?

[cxx]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383233856' post='8083562']


Thankfully you are not my attorney.

No One can "prove a negative" (When did you stop beating your wife?). Which is why it is one of the oldest smear tactics in the book...and why it is often the basis for most successful libel/slander suits.

As for Tiger not being able to withstand the scrutiny of a lawsuit? Please. This man has endured one the most public and widely-reported sex scandals in the HISTORY of sex scandals. Having withstood a degree of media attention and public ridicule that would make politicians cringe.

The media coverage and the discovery process that would result from a libel lawsuit is small potatoes compared to what he has already endured at the hands of the media...and the cost of legal fees would be little more than pocket change.

Whereas the legal fees that BC would likely rack up would likely devastate him financially...and make him untouchable professionally...even if Woods didn't win the suit. Which is why TGC made BC fall on his sword---trust me they aren't "doubling down"----in a very public way on this matter...and why Golf.com basically threw him under the bus.

TW might sustain some superficial damage in a lawsuit...but BC likely wouldn't survive it.

Which is why the normally arrogant Chamblee is looking so scared and so humbled about now.
[/quote]

Sounds like you are quite proud of Tiger's smack down of Chamblee. I'm not sure it will play out well in the end.

[mrt99]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1383233856' post='8083562']Whereas the legal fees that BC would likely rack up would likely devastate him financially...
[/quote]

Oh, and another thing, BC almost certainly wouldn't have been paying for his own defense in any hypothetical lawsuit filed by TW...

[Jamboy72]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1383190995' post='8081914']


That is certainly a valid (albeit incorrect, IMO) opinion. But it has nothing to do with Madgolfer76's whine about a free press.

As to punishment fitting the crime? Maybe we should wait to see what if any punishment there is, since there hasn't been any so far. Personally I think a suspension of 2-4 weeks, including the next major, would be appropriate.
[/quote]

Why should BC be "punished" at all?? What exactly did he do wrong??

[eagle1997]

[quote name='MadGolfer76' timestamp='1383235339' post='8083692']
This doesn't present to me as an "honor" consideration. People with honor don't do to their wife, kids and sponsors what he did. People with honor don't throw public temper tantrums, use foul language in front of children, or play loose with the rules for millions in cash.
[/quote]

so, any golfer, or rather, any person who cheated on their wife doesn't have honor in your eyes? this is an honest question: i just want clarity on your statement.

[MadGolfer76]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1383236418' post='8083814']

so, any golfer, or rather, any person who cheated on their wife doesn't have honor in your eyes? this is an honest question: i just want clarity on your statement.
[/quote]

Before I answer, are you going to take it personally? I just want to clarify your question.

[cinnepa]

[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1383171374' post='8080356']


imo, he looks and sounds a bit weakened. i'm sure this incident took a lot out of him.
[/quote]

he needed it - it was out of control.

[cxx]

[quote name='eagle1997' timestamp='1383236418' post='8083814']

so, any golfer, or rather, any person who cheated on their wife doesn't have honor in your eyes? this is an honest question: i just want clarity on your statement.
[/quote]

I would think lying and deception to anyone other than your enemies is a character flaw. But others may have a different view.