Tiger Woods - Car Accident Report

[3Jack]

None. Of. Our. Business. Jason Whitlock sums it up perfectly here.

[Chambokl]

Time to realize Tiger doesn't and will not talk about it. Time for some of you to find another story... This one is done.

As for his image, I don't think any of his sponsors really worry about it.

[Kilroy]

A Legal Analysis
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/tour-i...nalysis-34054/

We'll likely never know much more than we do now.

I agree that it's not our business just because some of us may be curious. He will be hounded about it so it will be interesting to see just how this plays out. It will likely provide the press and discussion groups with foder for a while yet. It's far from over.

[tmacgolf]

None. Of. Our. Business. Jason Whitlock sums it up perfectly here.

The point of my post is not to highlight the obvious hypocritical aspect of Jason Whitlock writing his own column all about how other media should just leave it alone (if he really believed this his column would have been about NFL or NBA which are his usual topics). Nor is it to comment on one of the sleeziest, most unprofessional writers in Sports (google what he writes about Serena for example). I'm responding because once again, this article highlights a disgusting assumption in our society. That domestic violence against men by women is not a big deal. He lists in his facts and I quote:

"Upset by the National Enquirer story, Tiger's wife scratched up his face. There isn't a hint that Tiger retaliated. He jumped in his SUV and tried to leave without escalating the physical confrontation."

If you are claiming this to be a fact, then you are admitting a crime took place. Not by Tiger, but against him. I won't get into the "if the shoe was on the other foot" argument again, as it was taken out of context the last time, but ignoring spousal abuse of any type is wrong and sends a horrible message. This is a high profile case because of the participants, but it certainly is not something that is only an issue of the wealthy. It should be taken seriously and investigated as any other suspected domestic violence case would be. Jason Whitlock is writing an article on the assumption that the police are only investigating a minor traffic accident, and if that were the case, then perhaps he has a point about it being a "tiger witch hunt", but if you substitute minor traffic accident investigation for domestic violence investigation, should the police still "drop it"? This doesn't make it any of or business as you said in you post, but we have certainly discussed all of Tiger's other accomplishments over the years. Celebrity's can't expect us/the media to discuss charitable contributions, product launches, field specific accomplishments and then just turn away when something else happens. Lots of articles and support poured in after the death of his father. Was it our business? Not really, but as fans we cared.

[jonf]

Is any of this any of our business? No.

Is Tiger handling it poorly? Very much so.

The reality is, he is in the public eye, and a large proportion of his income relies on his public image. He has no legal obligation to say anything, at all. However, for the sake of his public reputation, he needs to say something meaningful. He doesn't need to go into great detail about the incident, but simply refusing to comment makes him look like he's got something to hide. If nothing else, he should at least take the time to speak to police. He doesn't need to tell them all the details, as dhacker has mentioned, because it is none of their business why he was leaving the house (unless it was part of the incident). However, if he wants to have any hope of putting a stop to the rumourmongering, he needs to appear cooperative. At this point, he seems anything but, and that strikes people as suspicious.

[Hacker]

For all anyone "Knows" he has spoken to the police. Is it unreasonable to believe that he has given a confidential statement to police and just chooses to have that fact remain private?

[justsomeguy]

There is a cost to celebrity, and Tiger is realizing that cost now. For a long time, he's benefitted from his status, while maintaining a fairly decent level of privacy. The difference between making 40k and 40M is the number of stakeholders. If this incident happened to me, beyond my family and friends, no one is really affected. When this incident happens to a lucrative celebrity, the ramifications stretch much further. It's ideal to think that both ends of the spectrum are and should be treated equally, but that's just not reality. Look no further than Martha Stewart. If I participated in insider trading to increase my personal wealth by the same percentage as her circumstance, I would have paid a small fine and no one would have know. Meanwhile, she serves time and made an example of. That's the reality of being celebrity. It's a two way street, be it right or wrong.

Celebrity status is often not wanted by those that have it, and given Tiger's obsession with privacy and obvious disdain for the media I think we can safely say that is the case here. Most professional athletes don't really care about their public image - they are more concerned with what their friends and teammates think.

Celebrity status is manufactured by the media, and usually destroyed by the media too. They are going to write about him regardless, and I doubt that Tiger has very much say in the matter. I don't think you should assume that celebrities have more or less obligations than the rest of us.

[SGH]

I don't think you should assume that celebrities have more or less obligations than the rest of us.

I agree with most of your points, with the exception of your very last point.

I absolutely think that celebrities have more obligations than the rest of us. Tiger is paid by many stakeholders to, among other things, maintain a positive public image. He is obligated to the Tour, his sponsors, and his fans - all of whom have paid billions of dollars to his cause. His sponsors may choose to ignore this instance, and I hope they do (providing nothing more comes of this).

It's a near zero-sum game. With all the money and power he's accumulted, he also has immense responsibility to those who have helped him get to this point, and to those who continue to support him.

He may not openly asked for all this attention, but at the same time he didn't need to be a professional golfer either. To make celebrities out to be vicitims of the media is just rediculous to me. They inherantly ask for the attention by pursuing the lifestyle they've attained.

[sensfan63]

He may not openly asked for all this attention, but at the same time he didn't need to be a professional golfer either. To make celebrities out to be vicitims of the media is just rediculous to me. They inherantly ask for the attention by pursuing the lifestyle they've attained.

Believe me, there isn't a form that you sign when you become a professional golfer that says "I agree to let all kinds of people snoop into my private life and treat me unlike any other person of the general public."

As for your last point - that athletes inherently ASK for the attention by pursuing the lifestyle? Ridiculous. They "choose" that lifestyle because they happen to be good at whatever sport you speak of. Athletes understand that, yes, there will be a spotlight; however, to say that they have MORE of a responsibility to respond to the whims of the general public is patently absurd.

Bottom line, this continues to be a story because we, the general public, are selfish. We think that we have "the right to know" why Tiger was leaving his house at 230 AM. But we don't. The police MIGHT have the right to know, depending on whether they have probably cause to believe that a crime was committed. If this happens, information will be released and the public will know what happened. But at this point, we don't have the right to know anything.

[SGH]

How does that not make sense? You spend your life pursuing a career as a professional golfer, yet you never consider the circumstances of the fame that might result? You sign countless endorsement deals, yet never think that your actions might result in increased celebrity? He chose to put his life under the microscope. Not once, but many many times. Tiger was great at golf at a young age, yes, and it was an obvious path. Did he have to pursue it? No, he didn't. Given his dedictation, presumed intelligence and work ethic, he likely could've been successful in many fields. He happened to choose one which resulted in celebrity. He wasn't forced, he made a choice.

I don't think we have a right to know what's going on, but I don't feel sorry for Tiger in this scenario. There's not a dotted line where he signed away his privacy, but by choosing to be a professional golfer, he gave away his right to remain anonymous.

I never said Tiger has the responsibility to respond to the whims of the general public, just to clarify. He does have more obligations, many of which he's legally bound by through contracts. That was my point.

[tmacgolf]

I disagree with everyone saying it is none of our business. The points about stakeholders have been made, and are all valid, as are the points that even celebrities are entitled to a keeping their personal life private. I agree with all of that. However, that is not exactly the case here. Once the police become involved in something, it becomes public, thus our business. I know that at first glance this may be a simple traffic accident, but I think that anyone who believes there is not anything more to this is a bit naive (if she was rescuing him with the golf club, why are more than one window broken? How can an accident with not enough speed to deploy an airbag partially knock you out?). Police records become public for a reason. I want to know where grow-ops are in my neighbourhood, among other things that affect my community. I may not know the people who are involved in these crimes, but they are my business. If my neighbour hits his wife, it is my business. It is being said that Tiger is perhaps keeping quiet not necessarily to protect his reputation but perhaps to protect his wife. This is wrong. It sends the message that if you are a woman who suspects your husband of cheating, that it is acceptable to hit him. Even if this is not at all what happened, people are talking, thus, this message is being conveyed. If it was a simple argument, Tiger left to clear his head and had a small traffic accident, then why not just say that? Who doesn't argue with their spouse? If however, you have something to hide (wife hit you, an affair, driving while under the influence of pain killers, etc...) then perhaps it is not in your best interest to tell all details or cooperate with the police (see John McCain as a classic example of this). As for the point about a possible "secret" meeting with police for a statement, both Tiger's camp and the police are saying the meetings were cancelled, and the police department released this afternoon that they would like to complete their report, but because of some "gaps" because of the refusal by Tiger to talk, they have to look for information on a couple of questions they have elsewhere. If the meeting took place, statements like that would not be made.

[3Jack]

The point of my post is not to highlight the obvious hypocritical aspect of Jason Whitlock writing his own column all about how other media should just leave it alone (if he really believed this his column would have been about NFL or NBA which are his usual topics). Nor is it to comment on one of the sleeziest, most unprofessional writers in Sports (google what he writes about Serena for example). I'm responding because once again, this article highlights a disgusting assumption in our society. That domestic violence against men by women is not a big deal.

Just because Whitlock 'normally' only writes on the NFL or NBA doesn't mean he shouldn't write on this topic. I have read Whitlock many times before and I find him to have a balanced approach to his subjects.

He lists in his facts and I quote:

"Upset by the National Enquirer story, Tiger's wife scratched up his face. There isn't a hint that Tiger retaliated. He jumped in his SUV and tried to leave without escalating the physical confrontation."

You may need to reread Whitlock's article. This quote that you have pulled is not what Whitlock says are facts.

You have taken Whitlock's article out of context, and therefore unfortunately the rest of your post is based on this misinterpretation.

[sensfan63]

I disagree with everyone saying it is none of our business. The points about stakeholders have been made, and are all valid, as are the points that even celebrities are entitled to a keeping their personal life private. I agree with all of that. However, that is not exactly the case here. Once the police become involved in something, it becomes public, thus our business. I know that at first glance this may be a simple traffic accident, but I think that anyone who believes there is not anything more to this is a bit naive (if she was rescuing him with the golf club, why are more than one window broken? How can an accident with not enough speed to deploy an airbag partially knock you out?). Police records become public for a reason. I want to know where grow-ops are in my neighbourhood, among other things that affect my community. I may not know the people who are involved in these crimes, but they are my business. If my neighbour hits his wife, it is my business. It is being said that Tiger is perhaps keeping quiet not necessarily to protect his reputation but perhaps to protect his wife. This is wrong. It sends the message that if you are a woman who suspects your husband of cheating, that it is acceptable to hit him. Even if this is not at all what happened, people are talking, thus, this message is being conveyed. If it was a simple argument, Tiger left to clear his head and had a small traffic accident, then why not just say that? Who doesn't argue with their spouse? If however, you have something to hide (wife hit you, an affair, driving while under the influence of pain killers, etc...) then perhaps it is not in your best interest to tell all details or cooperate with the police (see John McCain as a classic example of this). As for the point about a possible "secret" meeting with police for a statement, both Tiger's camp and the police are saying the meetings were cancelled, and the police department released this afternoon that they would like to complete their report, but because of some "gaps" because of the refusal by Tiger to talk, they have to look for information on a couple of questions they have elsewhere. If the meeting took place, statements like that would not be made.

I'll say it again. We will know the truth if the police deem a crime took place. If they do not, too bad so sad. I'm sure life will go on.

[Grabster]

I do know this much....

With winter here and no more golf for me, its nice to have this news story to help fill the void till spring.

[3Jack]

I disagree with everyone saying it is none of our business. The points about stakeholders have been made, and are all valid, as are the points that even celebrities are entitled to a keeping their personal life private. I agree with all of that. However, that is not exactly the case here.

Once the police become involved in something, it becomes public, thus our business.

What manner of logic is this?

I know that at first glance this may be a simple traffic accident, but I think that anyone who believes there is not anything more to this is a bit naive (if she was rescuing him with the golf club, why are more than one window broken? How can an accident with not enough speed to deploy an airbag partially knock you out?).

This sort of speculation is why sites like TMZ.com and rags like the National Enquirer exist.

Police records become public for a reason. I want to know where grow-ops are in my neighbourhood, among other things that affect my community. I may not know the people who are involved in these crimes, but they are my business. If my neighbour hits his wife, it is my business.

Umm, no, it isn't. How exactly is someones domestic relationship impact you personally? You are comparing apples (in this case, the grow op), to oranges (a domestic situation).

It is being said that Tiger is perhaps keeping quiet not necessarily to protect his reputation but perhaps to protect his wife. This is wrong.

You are jumping to many assumptions here. All of this is moot unless you have inside information.

If it was a simple argument, Tiger left to clear his head and had a small traffic accident, then why not just say that?

Why say anything? To appease those who 'need to know'? None of use 'need' to know. You are foisting your version of events onto the situation. There could be any number of things that led to the accident.

[Kilroy]

With winter here and no more golf for me, its nice to have this news story to help fill the void till spring.

The only thing golfy about this story is the big unsanswered question... Did she use a 9 or a 7 iron to take out the window?

[sensfan63]

. He wasn't forced, he made a choice.

I don't think we have a right to know what's going on, but I don't feel sorry for Tiger in this scenario. There's not a dotted line where he signed away his privacy, but by choosing to be a professional golfer, he gave away his right to remain anonymous.

I never said Tiger has the responsibility to respond to the whims of the general public, just to clarify. He does have more obligations, many of which he's legally bound by through contracts. That was my point.

You're right, he made a choice. He also has made a choice to remain relatively silent, and it should be respected just like his choice to be a professional golfer.

[tmacgolf]

Just because Whitlock 'normally' only writes on the NFL or NBA doesn't mean he shouldn't write on this topic. I have read Whitlock many times before and I find him to have a balanced approach to his subjects.



You may need to reread Whitlock's article. This quote that you have pulled is not what Whitlock says are facts.

You have taken Whitlock's article out of context, and therefore unfortunately the rest of your post is based on this misinterpretation.

I don't know you personally, but have read many of your posts since joining this forum, and usually I agree with most of what you say, even if it doesn't match my personal oppinion. But this time I have to say that actually I didn't take it out of context at all, but wondered when only including that section of the article if you or someone else would have thought that. Here is an exact quote from his article:
But from what we know, Tiger was the lone victim. He had blood in his mouth and was bouncing in and out of consciousness. If he wants to concoct a story protecting the image of the mother of his kids, is that so bad?

My point is YES that is so bad. Would we accept if a woman lied to protect her abusing husband? NO. I think you missed the point of an article that spends most of the time justifying why Tiger should be allowed to cover up abuse. That is disgusting. Being a good athlete does not give you a free pass. I am a huge fan of Tiger Woods, but the fact that he entertained me with incredible golf talent is irrelavant here. All of my points that you dismissed in my previous email are still valid wether you misread the tone of Whitlocks article or I did, but I have to say I don't see what you are seeing, that he is not saying that it is ok for Tiger to dismiss if he was abused. That is written throughout the article and he states it directly in the quote I posted above. I'm affraid I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.

[mjf]

The only thing golfy about this story is the big unsanswered question... Did she use a 9 or a 7 iron to take out the window?

... and how many strokes did she take?

[tmacgolf]

I don't care what you think of the rest of my post, as it is just my oppinion on a chat board about golf and the topic happens to be about the worlds best and most known golfer. However for you to say it is not a neighbor's business if abuse is taking place next door is deplorable. If my neighbour hits his wife. I'll be involved. It is my oppinion that far too often people in our community stand idly by when people are in need. If more people were willing to get involved and make the going on in their community their business, I think we would be able to right a lot of wrongs

[Kilroy]

Please take it down a notch tmacgolf. You are entitled to express your opinion, but let's stay away from inferring cowardice or otherwise about those who don't share your opinion.

[jvincent]

Might as well weigh in here.

The really big question here is if there was any spousal violence. As has been pointed out, the authorities MUST intervene in these cases even if the victim of the violence does not wish to press charges.

If they change the rules for Tiger because of his status then the rules should be changed for every Joe schmoe out there. This is why it is such a big issue for some people.

[tmacgolf]

Umm, no, it isn't. How exactly is someones domestic relationship impact you personally? You are comparing apples (in this case, the grow op), to oranges (a domestic situation).




You are jumping to many assumptions here. All of this is moot unless you have inside information.

How is my oppinion, that I have based on recorded facts about this case moot? I'm not a police officer, judge or juror, I'm a participant in an online message board. Why would I need inside information to think that a 33 year old man hitting a fire hydrant and tree at 2 in the morning, who's bleeding and semi-concious but then won't explain himself to the police seems strange. If we always waited for all of the facts before voicing or forming an oppinion, we would be deafened by silence. I actually will argue that the assumptions that I am making based on fact are not that much of a stretch. I haven't said that he was trying to escape after she had already hit him with the club, thus causing the cuts and drowsiness, as that would perhaps be a bit far fetched. All I am stating, is that it would make sense to think that there is more to this than a simple traffic accident, we make assumption about news stories everyday. We should look at the media and stories critically and not take everything at face value, that is exactly what I am doing here.

[tmacgolf]

Please take it down a notch tmacgolf. You are entitled to express your opinion, but let's stay away from inferring cowardice or otherwise about those who don't share your opinion.

Sorry, I just went back and review my post. I would like to go on record here and state that I did not at all mean to imply that any specific person was a coward but absolutely see how that could be infered. My point was that I feel any neighbour, myself included should care about what is happening next door or in our community. If my neighbor is hungry and can't afford food, I should help for example. I honestly didn't mean it the way it came out in print. I just feel that sometimes some of our societal problems exist because we live in our own little boxes with not regard for those around us.

[Shivas Irons]

Reports now have Tiger pulling out of this weeks tournament due to injuries that were inflicted from...?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1382947/

Isn't this the same guy who won the US Open on a broken leg?

[Michael]

... and how many strokes did she take?

I heard she was 3 under by the time she reached the end of the driveway

[nokids]

Oh my, I was going to stop, but now feel I can't.....

i know how you feel. i purposely stayed away from this message board for a few days so i would stop saying stupid things on the internet i would later regret. so now i am just here to read.

[3Jack]

I don't know you personally, but have read many of your posts since joining this forum, and usually I agree with most of what you say, even if it doesn't match my personal oppinion. But this time I have to say that actually I didn't take it out of context at all, but wondered when only including that section of the article if you or someone else would have thought that. Here is an exact quote from his article:
But from what we know, Tiger was the lone victim. He had blood in his mouth and was bouncing in and out of consciousness. If he wants to concoct a story protecting the image of the mother of his kids, is that so bad?

My point is YES that is so bad. Would we accept if a woman lied to protect her abusing husband? NO. I think you missed the point of an article that spends most of the time justifying why Tiger should be allowed to cover up abuse. That is disgusting. Being a good athlete does not give you a free pass. I am a huge fan of Tiger Woods, but the fact that he entertained me with incredible golf talent is irrelavant here. All of my points that you dismissed in my previous email are still valid wether you misread the tone of Whitlocks article or I did, but I have to say I don't see what you are seeing, that he is not saying that it is ok for Tiger to dismiss if he was abused. That is written throughout the article and he states it directly in the quote I posted above. I'm affraid I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you on this one.

Here's the bit in Whitlock's article that I think needs to be in context... specifically, the pre- and post-amble that bookend the two tabloid 'facts'...

...this, in my opinion, is a TMZ-fueled pi$$ing match. There are dollars to be earned digging up dirt on Woods and his wife.

If anything, "Tigergate" is an example of Tiger's impeccably high character.Let's play this thing out like there are kernels of truth in the TMZ stories, which I believe are laced with kernels of lies


It's 2:25 a.m. on Thanksgiving night and Tiger got behind the wheel sober.
Upset by the National Enquirer story, Tiger's wife scratched up his face. There isn't a hint that Tiger retaliated. He jumped in his SUV and tried to leave without escalating the physical confrontation.

The man is sober and trying to avoid a fight. We're not talking about the next OJ Simpson. This isn't Teddy Kennedy covering up Chappaquiddick. It's not Tiger shacking up with a teenage waitress.

The line that is important here is:

Let's play this thing out like there are kernels of truth in the TMZ stories, which I believe are laced with kernels of lies

So, what Whitlock is doing is using the TMZ 'truths' and postulating that even if these TMZ 'truths' turn out to be fact, that Tiger still hasn't really done anything terribly immoral here.

I apologize for not taking the time to be more expansive in my previous post.

[3Jack]

Might as well weigh in here.

The really big question here is if there was any spousal violence. As has been pointed out, the authorities MUST intervene in these cases even if the victim of the violence does not wish to press charges.

If they change the rules for Tiger because of his status then the rules should be changed for every Joe schmoe out there. This is why it is such a big issue for some people.

I agree, 100 percent here. Until we hear it straight from the appropriate authorities, there isn't much of a story, but the entertainment level born from speculation is high.

[3Jack]

Sorry, I just went back and review my post. I would like to go on record here and state that I did not at all mean to imply that any specific person was a coward but absolutely see how that could be infered. My point was that I feel any neighbour, myself included should care about what is happening next door or in our community. If my neighbor is hungry and can't afford food, I should help for example. I honestly didn't mean it the way it came out in print. I just feel that sometimes some of our societal problems exist because we live in our own little boxes with not regard for those around us.

I think we are actually of the same general opinion on this... of course I would care about something as serious as spousal abuse, but my angle is that it isn't my legal right to know that it's going on.