12/21/24
March 01, 2010
Tiger May Have More to Apologize For: The story actually began last September, before the walls came tumbling down, when the doctor who helped Woods recover from his 2008 knee surgery came under suspicion for possessing performance enhancing drugs.
Prove something! That's the problem. No one seems to need any proof to blurt out PEDs (and I don't mean Viagra) in connection with any athlete's name. Unfortunately, in so many cases, it seems that the connection later is proved by the athlete himself 'fessing up.
posted by graymatters at 06:57 PM on March 01, 2010
You know, I don't really care if Woods ever plays golf again.
posted by irunfromclones at 07:45 PM on March 01, 2010
If Woods has a plausible reason to have gone to Canada to seek treatment from Dr. Anthony Galea, then I don't think we should assume he was cheating in golf just because he cheated on his spouse. Even horndogs can compartmentalize.
A story from the New York Times in December establishes that Galea had a rep as the go-to guy for platelet-rich plasma therapy, a treatment to help athletes recover from injuries. It looks bad that Galea is also suspected of smuggling HGH and another drug across the border, but Woods had a legitimate reason to seek him out that had zero to do with performance enhancers.
posted by rcade at 08:17 PM on March 01, 2010
I can certainly follow the logic that just because others have issued denials and then been proven to be using PED's, doesn't mean that Tiger used them. Likewise, just because he lied about his other behavioral issues doesn't mean that he's lying about PED's. That's just basic logic.
However, when you have a man that has been proven to have lied, and has issued statements like "I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself the normal rules didn't apply.", why should I give him the normal benefit of the doubt? When you marginalize your reputation you no longer get the full benefit of the innocent until proven guilty mindset.
Has anyone contacted Jose Canseco about this?
posted by dviking at 08:55 PM on March 01, 2010
I'm fed up with members of the sports media who forget that Tiger is their steady meal ticket. The asinine griping that Tiger apologized on his own terms is the worst. On whose terms should he apologize? Perhaps he should have requested a nationwide ESPN poll on the correct way to apologize. I don't care that he read from a script. He doesn't do improv, he swings a stick for a living.
Tiger owes his wife, his sponsors (the remaining ones), and his inner circle but owes NOTHING to the media or golf fans. They didn't make him. They just flocked to him.
Rcade, as you seem to be the SportsFilter go-to guy for reliable information, can you recommend any articles that have an objective handle on the Tiger story?
posted by bluesdog at 09:00 PM on March 01, 2010
Rcade, as you seem to be the SportsFilter go-to guy for reliable information
Ha ha ha ha ha. That's great!
(Sorry, couldn't help myself. Please don't ban me. I'll be good.)
*snicker*
posted by BoKnows at 09:09 PM on March 01, 2010
Yankees star Alex Rodriguez has been contacted by federal investigators regarding a Canadian doctor accused of selling an unapproved drug....
posted by irunfromclones at 09:18 PM on March 01, 2010
Oh good grief ENOUGH about this douchebag already!
Performance enhancers? So in golf that'd be what? Pills to keep you awake?
posted by Drood at 10:45 PM on March 01, 2010
Oh good grief ENOUGH about this douchebag already!
I didn't realize someone had a gun to your head and forced you to read this.
posted by grum@work at 12:38 AM on March 02, 2010
You know, I don't really care if Woods ever plays golf again.
You know, I don't really need to hear about your disregard for the sport within a sports lovers blog. If you have something intelligent or humorous to add, go for it. If not, move on.
You typically add good insights here, but that just really rubs me wrong.
posted by bobfoot at 03:43 AM on March 02, 2010
How does disregard for Tiger Woods equate to disregard for the entire sport?
posted by rcade at 08:31 AM on March 02, 2010
He is the very best there is. How could you care about sport and not want to see the best the sport has to offer? And, not because he has done anything bad to his sport, but because he has been a really bad husband.
posted by bperk at 08:40 AM on March 02, 2010
bperk, the bad husband thing I'm willing to overlook, if it turns out he was using PED's too, then I reserve my right to not overlook it.
posted by dviking at 09:53 AM on March 02, 2010
"Pills to keep you awake" equates to disregard for the entire sport.
posted by Hugh Janus at 10:25 AM on March 02, 2010
True. But Bobfoot wasn't responding to Drood.
posted by rcade at 10:57 AM on March 02, 2010
Holy crap, you're right! I am a big ass, sorry.
posted by Hugh Janus at 11:25 AM on March 02, 2010
The National Inquirer is reporting Tiger may actually be an alien and has fathered an illegitimate child with an unwilling panda bear. Or I may have misread it ... not sure.
posted by Ricardo at 03:39 PM on March 02, 2010
I didn't realize someone had a gun to your head and forced you to read this.
True. But try avoiding this story and still living your life as you would. Seriously. Try it. I imagine you couldn't watch TV, listen to any kind of sports radio (let alone being careful on regular ol' music radio what with their topical DJs and such), read large sections of the newspaper, not go to any major publication websites, or even look at a magazine rack in any public place.
Also - don't go to any parties or social gatherings where there are more than three people, or more than two people if they're identified as casual acquaintances.
Basically, if you don't like the Tiger Woods story, feel free to live alone in a room.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:46 PM on March 02, 2010
You know, I don't really care if Woods ever plays golf again. irunfromclones
How does disregard for Tiger Woods equate to disregard for the entire sport? rcade
Disregard for the sport's greatest active practitioner, and arguably the greatest ever, is disregard for the sport, unless that disregard involves something that actively involves the practice of the sport, eg cheating, betting, etc. . Woods' infidelities in no way affect his play on the course. The only reasons irunfromclones could make that statement, that I can make out, involve the aforesaid infidelities or a disregard for the sport. If the former, the statement has no basis in a sports discussion, if the latter, ditto.
posted by bobfoot at 04:24 AM on March 03, 2010
And, rcade, you're correct, I won't respond to anything Drood says.
posted by bobfoot at 04:25 AM on March 03, 2010
Disregard for the sport's greatest active practitioner, and arguably the greatest ever, is disregard for the sport ...
I couldn't disagree more. The sport of golf is bigger than Tiger Woods. The contempt I have for the guy because of his ridiculous personal behavior and his weird apology doesn't reflect on my feelings for the sport in any way.
Your position is like saying that disregard for Mike Tyson was disregard for boxing. There's no athlete who is bigger than the game.
posted by rcade at 08:06 AM on March 03, 2010
There's no athlete who is bigger than the game.
It depends on how you define "the game."
As sport itself, I would agree. But the game for many people is what the media feeds us. Since 1996, Tiger Woods has been the only reason the vast majority of Americans follow golf. If Tiger never returned, some die-hard golf fans may not care. The sport of golf would go on. But who would notice? Tournament viewership would drop off the map.
Until someone else stepped up. And where is that guy?
posted by bluesdog at 11:11 AM on March 03, 2010
But the game for many people is what the media feeds us.
We're not helpless consumers of media. Considering the media now available to us on the web, we don't have to be spoonfed. We can rely on media that's less stupid than the big networks, the cable channels and places like TMZ.
posted by rcade at 11:42 AM on March 03, 2010
Actually sad as it may seem, I think when Tiger Woods returns to golf, because of what has happened, he will draw even bigger audiences. Then of course sponsors will come back although he may have to replace Gatorade with Viagara, Accenture with Trojan, and Buick with Toyota (since they both fell from grace so fast) finally Gillette can be replaced with KY Jelly. He is still a perfect match for some sponsors.
posted by Atheist at 04:22 PM on March 03, 2010
rcade, I stand by my statement. If Ali had been driven out after declining the draft, we wouldn't have been party to some of the classic boxing matches in history. I couldn't care less if one likes or dislikes the attributes of an individual, in this venue it is the sport that counts. If irunfromclones had said something like "I dislike Tiger Woods", that would be different, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the inference was that Tiger, because of his infidelities, was unworthy of continuing his sport. This is analogous to Clinton's impeachment due to his inability to control his zipper. Has absolutely nought to do with the subject at hand (as it were).
posted by bobfoot at 03:28 AM on March 04, 2010
If Ali had been driven out after declining the draft, we wouldn't have been party to some of the classic boxing matches in history.
Or some other boxer would have thrived in his absence and achieved more memorable feats. Nature abhors a vacuum.
posted by rcade at 07:38 AM on March 04, 2010
One, nature does abhor a vacuum, so any one player's departure really doesn't change much. Obviously, someone esle would had fought those fights in Ali's place, and who knows, they might have been just as classic, perhaps even more so.
Two, I believe irunfromclones statement was "You know, I don't really care if Woods ever plays golf again". He never said that Woods was unworthy of continuing his sport, just that he didn't care if Woods never came back. I'm good with that opinion.
posted by dviking at 10:56 AM on March 04, 2010
Tiger Woods is bigger than the sport.
His personal life should be of NO concern to anyone outside his family. There is no argument that can prove otherwise.
posted by JButton at 09:18 PM on March 04, 2010
Well that's settled. Thanks as always Judge J. Executioner. We're going to have to retire the "Nuff Said" badge in your honor.
posted by yerfatma at 07:53 AM on March 05, 2010
I can't stand vacuuming, so if Tiger never plays again, can I be world number one?
Did Tiger use PEDs? I doubt it, but it's not impossible. In my experience, anything that would allow you to practice for longer or recover from niggling injuries more quickly than others would provide a significant advantage, so while it obviously wouldn't help to be juiced up on horse steroids on the first tee, in the long hours where you're building up your strength and refining your technique, being able to do it for longer than others would help.
So Drood's true argument (leaving aside the amusing - or so I thought - quip he suggested as an asnwer) isn't really valid. There are plenty of PEDs that would help in golf.
As for him never playing again, irunfromclones merely said that he didn't care whether he played again or not. I have no problem with that. The guy has an opinion and he stated it. Feel free to disagree with his opinion, but saying it disrespects the game as a whole is just daft.
If Tiger never played again, someone else will still win the majors every year. There will still be exciting finishes and enthralling sport to watch in all of them - as there will week-in week-out on the regular tour. Let's face it, Tiger may be the greatest player to ever pick up a club, but he's far from the most exciting. The vast majority of his wins (in all tournaments) have come from a third round lead and been about as exciting as watching the grass grow. Even just looking at the majors, I've listed them below and given them a score out of ten (1 being Tiger wins at Pebble by 78,000 shots, 10 being Nicklaus winning the Masters in '86) on the JJ Scale of Exciting Finishes:
1997 Masters - 5 - Exciting as a spectacle/statement, but not as a contest.
1999 USPGA - 8 - I'll give him that one. How can Sergio still not have won a major a decade later?
2000 US Open - 1 - After each round he lead by 1, then by 6, then by 10 and finally won a complete yawnathon by 12.
2000 Open - 2 - Also dull. He was one behind after the first round, then lead by 3, by 6 and then won by 8.
2000 USPGA - 6 - Despite Bob May's best efforts, Tiger lead this one after every round too and then won a 3-hole playoff.
2001 Masters - 7 - Probably scores higher because of the Tiger Slam effect than it would have done in isolation, but in fairness it was a good final day with some nice ebb and flow, and Duval and Phil in the mix all the way (although arguably, they both rolled over and let the Tiger tickle their tummies in the end).
2002 Masters - 2 - Dull dull dull dull dull. Worse still because expectations for a ripping final day were high. With Goose, Phil, Ernie, Padraig, Vijay, Olazabal, Garcia and Cabrera all finishing in the top 8, not one of them could mount anything like a challenge, so intimidated were they by Tiger. He won by 3 in the end, but it was a done deal for most of the final day.
2002 US Open - 3 - He took a four shot lead into the last round and won by three. Phil was in a position to do something about it at one point, but failed to follow through. Bethpage was the real star.
2005 Masters - 3 - Same again, taking a four shot lead into the last round and winning by 3 with nothing much going on behind him.
2005 Open - 3 - Lead all the way and won by 5 from Monty. Absolute cake walk.
2006 Open - 3 - A technical masterclass of how to hit fairways and greens, but excitement didn't come into it. Every time someone tried (not that anyone other than DiMarco really seemed to) to come at him on the last day, he just swatted them back like flies hovering over his dinner. This one was so dull by the end that even Tiger was bored to tears.
2006 USPGA - 3 - So dull, I can hardly remember it. Tied with Donald (quack)going into the last round, he eased gently to a 5 shot win that was never a contest.
2007 USPGA - 3 - At the halfway stage he lead by 2, then by 3, then won by 2 from Woody Austin who never got closer than a single shot of the lead.
2008 US Open - 9 - OK, this one was pretty good, although it took Rocco to play his (incredible) part.
So from 14 major wins, I'm scoring him 3 or worse for excitement 9 times. Over that same period, there were numerous other major wins that were far more exciting. Perfection is great, but ultimately pretty boring. If he never plays again? I'm not bothered. I'd rather watch people rise and fall rather than rise and rise.
posted by JJ at 12:38 PM on March 05, 2010
You mean they'll still play 4 majors, even without Tiger? Ain't that the damndest thing.
Furthermore, irunfromclones, not caring about Tiger is un-American. I suppose you'd be happier if four different players won the majors each year. Cheer for Tiger or you're a socialist.
posted by tahoemoj at 02:36 PM on March 05, 2010
JJ, all I can say is, wow.
Jack is saying Tiger will be back for The Master's. A couple of months ago I would have agreed 100%, now I'm not too sure. A month away? At this point it would almost seem disingenuous to be playing the first week of April given what he's said recently. Oh, wait, it's Tiger we're talking about...he'll be there.
If he plays in The Master's, and I don't cheer for him, am I really a socialist??? I have a reputation to uphold, can't be letting my appearances down.
posted by dviking at 04:22 PM on March 05, 2010
and I don't cheer for him, am I really a socialist?
Of the worst kind. Joker face-paint, swastika, and everything. And I'll be organizing a march on Augusta with poorly-spelled signs that say so. They'll read "dviking, your a wellfair getting commy if you don't chear for Tigger."
posted by tahoemoj at 04:46 PM on March 05, 2010
Fine, I be sure to yell "get in the hole" after every one of his shots...even the drives on par 5's.
posted by dviking at 01:55 AM on March 06, 2010
If he plays in The Master's, and I don't cheer for him, am I really a socialist???
Damn commie!!
posted by BornIcon at 09:33 AM on March 09, 2010
I posted this article mainly to point out the weak logic applied to the argument that Tiger's been playing dirty.
One, pretty much every high-profile athlete who has issued similar denials under similar circumstances over the past few years has been proven to be lying. Period.
Two, and this would be the game-changer, we now know that Woods has been lying for years about matters of tremendous import on a personal level. He told us himself: He has lied habitually, repeatedly, with a complete understanding of the nature of his actions and without regard to the consequences.
Which is to suggest: 1) Others have lied about using performance enhancing drugs, therefore Tiger Woods -- albeit an entirely different person -- must be lying as well; and 2) Tiger has knowingly lied about one aspect of his life therefore Tiger must consistently lie about other aspects of his life.
I have no idea if he is dirty. But I've grown weary of all the "what if" articles floating theories for the sake of riding the Tiger Woods gravy train. Prove something!