CharlieMoy
Well-known member
After they both hit the wrong ball, they both decided to keep quiet in order to make more money in the standings. Thats wrong.
LPGA Cheating Scandal -Two LPGA players involved in a disqualification turned fishy
JP, I know you are not saying that what the two players did is “right or wrong” but I think that is the issue people are having with your posts in this thread. It sounds like you are deciding to straddle the fence in what appears to be a pretty open and shut case at least to the initial offence of playing the wrong ball. It is certainly the issue I am having because if they played the wrong ball which it appears they did without doubt, that was wrong, the penalties should apply, end of story. It sounds like you want to say that you understand how they could have played the wrong ball. OK I get that but I think you then go on to leave me with the impression that you also “understand” how they were able to convince themselves that not immediately reporting the mistake upon discovering it was somehow something that they could legitimately consider and I for one don’t understand how they got themselves to that point if in fact that is what happened. I think there is specific language in the PGA rules about immediately reporting such an error if it occurs. As far as this second error is concerned there are also issues of obstruction and conspricy to obstruct in the criminal code and fraud in the civil code.
If they then decided to compound the first and second mistakes by cutting a deal between the two of them that they would in effect hide what had happened and simply keep the prize money associated with that decision that is again wrong. There is no possibility of it being right under any circumstances and I for one cannot bring myself to “understand” how they could have made such a decision under any circumstances other than conspiring between the two of them to commit a premeditated fraud. In fact if that is what they did, they would have stolen the prize money, points and other goodies associated with their positions at the end of the tourney from the rightful owners of that prize money, etc. If in fact they have committed this third offence then they will likely open themselves up to a very severe penalty along the lines of losing their cards for a year or something like that for conduct unbecoming and outside the spirit of competitive play and while I would think losing their cards for life would be too severe I think losing their cards for all of 2011 and maybe longer may be just about right presuming they did in fact commit this offence as well.
So, assuming they committed the third offence and if in fact you are saying that you can understand how two people can decide to commit a premeditated fraud, I am with you. I can also understand how people can commit what in effect are crimes or fraudulent acts although given the opportunities they have as professional golfers, risking the removal of all those privileges and all that opportunity as well as risking possible civil or criminal prosecution for the difference in prize money based on their positions at the end of a single tourney sounds like pretty bad judgment and I am straining myself to be kind under the circumstances. If you are saying that you can understand how they could have fiddled and diddled around with this thing ultimately committing the third offence, not understanding that they were committing a fraud, you have lost me. I have to seperate what are three distinct actions here, one of which appears to be an honest mistake that still includes penalties from the PGA. The honest mistake is having hit the wrong balls. The second mistake amounts to an obstruction and a possible conspiracy to obstruct if in fact they did not immediately report the first mistake and the third mistake amounts to a fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud if in fact they did agree to hide what had happened. I don't even think there has to be any specific rules in the PGA code of conduct as it relates to item three. They are likely in trouble based on the civil and criminal codes as it relates to that one. They may only be in trouble relative to the Code of Conduct for item two although they may also be in trouble with regard to the Civil and Criminal codes on that one as well. They are only in hot water for the first mistake as it relates to the PGA and its rules. While Justice Departments everywhere are often reluctant to step into situations like this, if the prize money and other prizes are significant in their eyes, and the issues are as cut and dried as they might be here there is nothing that prevents them from stepping into it with both feet.
I for one am not suggesting that there should be criminal or civil charges brought. I am only using the existing civil and criminal codes to make the point that just turning a blind eye to what may well have happened here, stuffing everything under an umbrella of honest mistake makes no sense at all, is clearly wrong and should be understood for what it is, not something else.
All of that being said, if at the end of this thing it turns out that they only committed the initial mistake of playing the wrong balls and did their best to report it as soon as they found the error, then they should just be punished for that initial mistake and nothing more as they will have done nothing else wrong either relative to the Code of Conduct or the Civil or Criminal Codes.
If they then decided to compound the first and second mistakes by cutting a deal between the two of them that they would in effect hide what had happened and simply keep the prize money associated with that decision that is again wrong. There is no possibility of it being right under any circumstances and I for one cannot bring myself to “understand” how they could have made such a decision under any circumstances other than conspiring between the two of them to commit a premeditated fraud. In fact if that is what they did, they would have stolen the prize money, points and other goodies associated with their positions at the end of the tourney from the rightful owners of that prize money, etc. If in fact they have committed this third offence then they will likely open themselves up to a very severe penalty along the lines of losing their cards for a year or something like that for conduct unbecoming and outside the spirit of competitive play and while I would think losing their cards for life would be too severe I think losing their cards for all of 2011 and maybe longer may be just about right presuming they did in fact commit this offence as well.
So, assuming they committed the third offence and if in fact you are saying that you can understand how two people can decide to commit a premeditated fraud, I am with you. I can also understand how people can commit what in effect are crimes or fraudulent acts although given the opportunities they have as professional golfers, risking the removal of all those privileges and all that opportunity as well as risking possible civil or criminal prosecution for the difference in prize money based on their positions at the end of a single tourney sounds like pretty bad judgment and I am straining myself to be kind under the circumstances. If you are saying that you can understand how they could have fiddled and diddled around with this thing ultimately committing the third offence, not understanding that they were committing a fraud, you have lost me. I have to seperate what are three distinct actions here, one of which appears to be an honest mistake that still includes penalties from the PGA. The honest mistake is having hit the wrong balls. The second mistake amounts to an obstruction and a possible conspiracy to obstruct if in fact they did not immediately report the first mistake and the third mistake amounts to a fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud if in fact they did agree to hide what had happened. I don't even think there has to be any specific rules in the PGA code of conduct as it relates to item three. They are likely in trouble based on the civil and criminal codes as it relates to that one. They may only be in trouble relative to the Code of Conduct for item two although they may also be in trouble with regard to the Civil and Criminal codes on that one as well. They are only in hot water for the first mistake as it relates to the PGA and its rules. While Justice Departments everywhere are often reluctant to step into situations like this, if the prize money and other prizes are significant in their eyes, and the issues are as cut and dried as they might be here there is nothing that prevents them from stepping into it with both feet.
I for one am not suggesting that there should be criminal or civil charges brought. I am only using the existing civil and criminal codes to make the point that just turning a blind eye to what may well have happened here, stuffing everything under an umbrella of honest mistake makes no sense at all, is clearly wrong and should be understood for what it is, not something else.
All of that being said, if at the end of this thing it turns out that they only committed the initial mistake of playing the wrong balls and did their best to report it as soon as they found the error, then they should just be punished for that initial mistake and nothing more as they will have done nothing else wrong either relative to the Code of Conduct or the Civil or Criminal Codes.
Awsi Dooger
New member
As a handicapper I'm certain it was a cover up, and that the players realized the mistake much sooner than anyone is allowing. The first shot is somewhat understandable. Once you get beyond that it's one exponentially unlikely oversight after another. A pro doesn't know his or her own golf ball? How hard am I allowed to laugh? Once you're on the green it's outright cheating. Every pro these days has a mechanical ritual of marking, cleaning and aligning. One of the women putted once, the other twice. It's preposterous to believe they weren't very well aware, and either conspiring with their caddies or hoping the caddie was oblivious. It would be very interesting to see if the caddies were tossed the ball after marking, or the players held onto it.
The aspect of using the native language to cloak the incident is what rings true to me. I experienced similar dozens of times in Las Vegas, on a particular type of advantage slot machine called the Vision series that used to be extremely profitable in the late '90s and well into the '00s. People were literally quitting high paying jobs to play the machines full time. Eventually the word spread and hundreds of foreigners hit town to play the machines. Abuse the machines, often jumping smack in front of locals at the last second, literally chuckling. When there were conflicts with slot floor leaders or others in charge, the native tongue quickly took over, instant strategy. A former poker dealer mentioned in this thread that one language was mandated on the tables. That was hardly applicable to the slot floor. Normally irrelevant but not in this case.
The caddie contacted Larry Smich, knowing he had a receptive vehicle. I have no idea how Smich is being ripped, given the way this unfolded. It's far more despicable than any recent example, the simple rules violations. BTW, there was a players meeting in 2003 between then-commissioner Ty Votaw and one group of players, concerning adherence to rules. A simple Google will provide more detail.
The aspect of using the native language to cloak the incident is what rings true to me. I experienced similar dozens of times in Las Vegas, on a particular type of advantage slot machine called the Vision series that used to be extremely profitable in the late '90s and well into the '00s. People were literally quitting high paying jobs to play the machines full time. Eventually the word spread and hundreds of foreigners hit town to play the machines. Abuse the machines, often jumping smack in front of locals at the last second, literally chuckling. When there were conflicts with slot floor leaders or others in charge, the native tongue quickly took over, instant strategy. A former poker dealer mentioned in this thread that one language was mandated on the tables. That was hardly applicable to the slot floor. Normally irrelevant but not in this case.
The caddie contacted Larry Smich, knowing he had a receptive vehicle. I have no idea how Smich is being ripped, given the way this unfolded. It's far more despicable than any recent example, the simple rules violations. BTW, there was a players meeting in 2003 between then-commissioner Ty Votaw and one group of players, concerning adherence to rules. A simple Google will provide more detail.
JPsuff
Banned
I don't.
This is all speculation just as everyone else's opinion has been.
There are, for example, many here who seem to think that these players deliberately cheated.
How do THEY know?
-JP
JPsuff
Banned
Yes they should. But I would submit that there are many professional golfers who know less about the Rules of Golf than many weekend players.
Yes, if they DELIBERATELY did so.
But as I've said, I'm not sure that they "deliberately" did anything.
And neither are you nor anyone else here can prove they did either.
Well Kevin, if people ask "direct" questions, I generally answer them (see question #1).
But most people seem to ask INdirect questions (see question #2) and so I cannot answer such queries in the desired "Black or White" format.
-JP
JPsuff
Banned
You raise some very good points and are also reaching a bit (a lot?) in terms of how you regard the severity or intent of this "crime".
In your opening sentence, you wrote, "I know you are not saying that what the two players did is “right or wrong” " but then go on to posit that the reason why people are having "issues" with what I write is because I've decided to "straddle the fence".
I'm not understanding this.
If I have already established that I'm not saying that what the players did is right or wrong, wouldn't that mean that I'm "straddling the fence" by default?
All I have done since my first post is to straddle the fence because I am not interested in passing judgment on the two players. All I'm interested in is speculating about what they may have been thinking and the reasons why.
What you and others here seem to want is a statement of guilt or innocence; neither of which interests me. My only interest in this issue is the dynamics and the "why" or "what were they thinking" aspect.
My opinions are just that: opinions. I do not seek closure nor am I seeking a verdict. I'm simply studying human nature - it's something I like to do. I like to know what makes people tick and I enjoy intellectual exercises to that end.
What of those who study the great tyrants of history like Hitler or the Caesars? Do they "agree or disagree" with what they did? Usually not. In most such cases, the historian is far more interested in understanding their motivations and dissecting their thoughts than they are in simple guilt or innocence.
That's all I'm doing here.
Harping on guilt or innocence is boring and it shuts down any intellectual or psychological aspect of a thing. I'm far more interested in how such things come to pass than whether or not the principles should or should not be flogged.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
-JP
- Admin
- #58
JP,
This line right here says otherwise to everything you have said.
This is your exact quote.
In other words, since they both expected to (and then did) par the hole, they figured "What's the difference?" and I can't say that I blame them for thinking that way especially when "Plan B" would quickly become a dog and pony show that would serve little purpose other than slowing things down.
This little line says that right or wrong does not matter as long as the end result was the same and that you dont blame them since anything different would slow things down. Disregarding the rules for the result of speeding things up may work for some, but not all...Sorry.
The idea that if the end result is the same, it should not matter is what this reads like, and sorry, most disagree. The end result should not matter. Fluffing a lie, finding a ball, penalty strokes, they can all end with two players getting the same score. But the rules are in place for a reason and playing the wrong ball is not some silly rule that most dont stand behind.
This one line is what I think once again, many are struggling with how you are wording things or NOT (again) understanding your point.
This line right here says otherwise to everything you have said.
This is your exact quote.
In other words, since they both expected to (and then did) par the hole, they figured "What's the difference?" and I can't say that I blame them for thinking that way especially when "Plan B" would quickly become a dog and pony show that would serve little purpose other than slowing things down.
This little line says that right or wrong does not matter as long as the end result was the same and that you dont blame them since anything different would slow things down. Disregarding the rules for the result of speeding things up may work for some, but not all...Sorry.
The idea that if the end result is the same, it should not matter is what this reads like, and sorry, most disagree. The end result should not matter. Fluffing a lie, finding a ball, penalty strokes, they can all end with two players getting the same score. But the rules are in place for a reason and playing the wrong ball is not some silly rule that most dont stand behind.
This one line is what I think once again, many are struggling with how you are wording things or NOT (again) understanding your point.
TC
Keg Thrower
umm, what's a serious golfer?
Esox
New member
TC
Keg Thrower
haha, yeah, i'm dancing around with that one huh?
CharlieMoy
Well-known member
They deliberately cheated after an honest mistake. Still Cheated. Still Wrong.
the_paulo
Euro target practice
Can't believe I've just read 5 pages of this.
They cheated. If they knew what they were doing, there's no excuse for not calling it while on the course.
They cheated. If they knew what they were doing, there's no excuse for not calling it while on the course.
Esox
New member
staticline
New member
- Thread starter
- #65
the_paulo
Euro target practice
I'm all about the quantity over quality. That's why I carry 14 clubs.
- Admin
- #67
LPGA: "We are not providing any details on our process of review"
JPsuff
Banned
And your point is what?
I was making an observation. I said that I can't say I blame them because, from a pragmatic point of view, that line of thought makes perfect sense.
I didn't say whether I agreed with them or not, nor did I pass judgment on whether it was right or wrong. All I did was comment on what I thought they might have been thinking.
It's not my fault that you can't or won't understand that.
-JP
- Admin
- #69
Nobody said you cannot make an observation. But you keep asking why people are not understanding it. The point was that that line is WHY PEOPLE are not understanding! But maybe your last line is right, perhaps Im just not smart enough to figure it out. I give up, and its clear so many others have too.
Esox
New member
How could risking your prize money, your spot on the tour, and possibly being labeled a cheater for all eternity be considered pragmatic in any way, shape, or form?
I'm not sure if that's a direct or indirect question.
Kevin
JPsuff
Banned
(It goes with the shovel) :thumb:
-JP
- Staff
- #72
Yea...
As a pro golfer, I would think that not breaking the rules would be the most pragmatic approach.
Esox
New member
You'd think, wouldn't you Hawk? Maybe we just lack JP's insight into human nature.
Kevin
JPsuff
Banned
Kevin, I know that you're an intelligent person, which is why it's so puzzling that you choose to act as if you aren't. I know that you understand what I've been writing and I know that you know the difference between a judgmental comment about a rules violation and an intellectual exercise examining the chain of events that led up to it.
So why do you insist on engaging in all of this mindless gainsaying and corrosive lampooning? What are you trying to accomplish?
I happen to enjoy looking at things from odd angles and in ways that some people may not understand, but I do so in such a way as to try to explore something beyond what it may appear to be at first glance.
Does it bother you that I do that? It must because you never seem to pass up an opportunity to offer up some churlish remark or sardonic comment.
I have no issue with you or anyone else here nor do I bear any ill will toward anyone so it's difficult to understand just what it is that I have done to you and to others that makes you react in the ways that you do.
I have opinions, some may seem a bit "out there" but they're just opinions and as far as I can tell there is no shortage of other opinions here, so what is it about mine that bother you so much? Do I call anyone names? Do I accuse people of things? Do I fill their "rep" files with sophomoric drivel?
No.
I just voice my opinions about things and try to look deeper into them.
Silly me. :confused2:
-JP
TC
Keg Thrower
i think he's just trying to get you to just straight up answer a question.....i've never seen anyone cloud one's own perspective as much as you do. i'm sure that esox enjoys making his "churlish remarks and sardonic comments" b/c you don't have the decency to answer the mans most simplistic questions.
you have an impressive knowledge of the game of golf, and an impressive vocabulary, yet you can't honestly answer the most elementary questions. quite frankly, it comes across with a highbrow tone. you keep saying that you're misunderstood or that we take your responses out of context, but it's just not the case. i completely saw your point concerning what may have gone down between these two young ladies, but you're the same guy that ridicules lift, clean and place. what are we suppose to think?