Skip

The allegations were Photoshopped
December 14, 2009 10:47 PM   Subscribe

We can't talk about Tiger Woods that way. No really, we can't. (PDF, via WikiLeaks and Boing Boing)
posted by twoleftfeet (82 comments total)

 
This thread is useless without pictures.
posted by davejay at 10:55 PM on December 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


Just Do It
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:58 PM on December 14, 2009


I bet National Enquirer will be all over this one.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:02 PM on December 14, 2009


Way to go, wikileaks. Keep cranking out that information that the man doesn't want you to see.
posted by orville sash at 11:04 PM on December 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


Wait, it's mister magical Justice Eady. The man who can make anything disappear!
posted by Sova at 11:06 PM on December 14, 2009


All right, I'll be the first person to ask: does the injunction cover information, or merely the publication of nude pictures of Tiger Woods? The .pdf is somewhat vague, at least to my non-UK-lawyer eyes, but other stories I've read have indicated that the injunction is only with respect to nude pics.
posted by UrineSoakedRube at 11:07 PM on December 14, 2009


does the injunction cover information, or merely the publication of nude pictures

Well, the BBC has decided it won't tell you that it's about nude pictures.
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:13 PM on December 14, 2009


I love this. "We're not saying such pictures exist, but if they do, they're not real!"
posted by autoclavicle at 11:13 PM on December 14, 2009


Anyway, I bet Tiger was sending those women cell phone pictures of his dick or recording the sex somehow.
posted by autoclavicle at 11:17 PM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Other UK media have reported that it's naked pictures, so the BBC are just being silly about it.
posted by Sova at 11:17 PM on December 14, 2009


Our pro-rich-man legal farce means we'll never see Tiger's wood.
That'd be fine by me but of course they're used to stifle far more significant information.
posted by Abiezer at 11:17 PM on December 14, 2009


Shit, yeah, that's terrible that he did that. It'd be a real shame if we had to talk about something that might actually be important.
posted by Caduceus at 11:18 PM on December 14, 2009 [5 favorites]


It'd be a real shame if we had to talk about something that might actually be important.

Well, actually, we're talking about a rotten legal system. So yeah, to me at least, this is pretty important.
posted by Sova at 11:22 PM on December 14, 2009 [3 favorites]


I think what's important here is that no one could ever get a court order like that in the US. It would be a huge violation of the First Amendment.

I think it's really a damned shame that the UK isn't as free in this regard.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 11:24 PM on December 14, 2009 [9 favorites]


Well, actually, we're talking about a rotten legal system. So yeah, to me at least, this is pretty important.

That's the first I've heard of it.
posted by Caduceus at 11:25 PM on December 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


On facebook, I have slept with Tiger Woods. Other than that small bit of humor, this whole Tiger Woods thing is fucking annoying.
posted by From Bklyn at 11:27 PM on December 14, 2009


Eldrick Tont Woods? Wow.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:31 PM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Well, actually, we're talking about a rotten legal system. So yeah, to me at least, this is pretty important.

The one where you get away with spousal battery, or the one with the gagging orders?
posted by rodgerd at 11:33 PM on December 14, 2009 [6 favorites]


Wait. A penal notice to prevent dissemination? From Mr. Woods? Shouldn't it be to Mr. Woods?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:33 PM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Did you guys hear he's changing his name to Cheetah?
posted by ORthey at 11:35 PM on December 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


Just four more majors. Is that too much to ask? No wait, five. Just five more. Can we just hold it together until then?
posted by TWinbrook8 at 11:36 PM on December 14, 2009


The one where you get away with spousal battery, or the one with the gagging orders?

I don't understand the reference. Please explain.
posted by Sova at 11:40 PM on December 14, 2009


that "news" broke december 10. were you on vacation or something?
posted by krautland at 11:44 PM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Actually, it all broke on November 28th. I remember because I spent all day in airports and it's the only freaking news they reported.
posted by sbutler at 11:49 PM on December 14, 2009


The UK's libel laws are really different from the United State's -- it is much easier to bring and win a defamation suit in the U.K. A rather diverse group has within the past week launched an effort to reform the UK libel laws.
posted by bearwife at 11:49 PM on December 14, 2009


What is this nonsense? It's a U.K. injunction, so whatever it is has probably been all over the U.S. media.

---

I had a dream about Tiger Woods the other day. In my dream, Tiger had bought a bunch of gold mines, and I remember this image of him, in a pit 5 or 10 meters deep, shuffling dry dirt around with a golf club. In the corner he'd gathered up this pile of dusty chunks of gold mixed in with the dirt, up to the size of a fist. probably, like, 20 million dollars worth.

A narrator or somebody was talking about he was quitting golf, endorsements, etc, and was just going to spend more time in his gold mines.
posted by delmoi at 11:53 PM on December 14, 2009 [10 favorites]


Wait, Tiger is fucking a woman named Ann Oying too ?
posted by iamabot at 11:53 PM on December 14, 2009 [2 favorites]


The one where you get away with spousal battery, or the one with the gagging orders?

I don't understand the reference. Please explain.


Coming from Canada, the UK justice system in this case seems be pretty fair. However, in the US (where, presumably, the existence of a "First Amendment" makes all the other shit, like high incarceration rates, child poverty, relative high infant morality, etc etc, acceptable), Tiger's wife may or may not have beat him with a golf club. We'll never know, because Tiger outright refused to talk to the local sheriff or whatever. How fair is that?
posted by KokuRyu at 11:55 PM on December 14, 2009 [1 favorite]


Tiger's wife may or may not have beat him with a golf club. We'll never know, because Tiger outright refused to talk to the local sheriff or whatever. How fair is that?

What do you mean? If a victim of domestic violence won't cooperate with the police, there's not much you can do. Whether they're a billionaire or not.
posted by delmoi at 12:01 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Where, presumably, the existence of a "First Amendment" makes all the other shit, like high incarceration rates, child poverty, relative high infant morality, etc etc, acceptable

Excuse me, but what does the First Amendment have to do with any of those things? And find me one person who justifies those things, as long as we have a First Amendment.

War on Drugs: nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Welfare: nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Universal Healthcare: nothing to do with the First Amendment.
posted by sbutler at 12:04 AM on December 15, 2009 [7 favorites]


What is this nonsense? It's a U.K. injunction, so whatever it is has probably been all over the U.S. media.

Well yeah, you guys are fine, but it's relevant to those of us in the UK because it illustrates the overly restrictive nature of the UK's libel laws, which act to stifle free speech.

See more serious examples here, including Carter-Ruck/Trafigura (previously). It also has an impact on the US, in that courts will enforce foreign judgments, according to agreed-upon rules. The US takes this seriously enough that several US states have passed laws saying that they will not enforce UK libel judgments (brief mention here).

So the Tiger thing itself, no big deal, and I'm sure we could find the information via a US news source. But the wider principle is quite serious, certainly for those in the UK.
posted by Infinite Jest at 12:05 AM on December 15, 2009 [5 favorites]


Wait. A penal notice to prevent dissemination? From Mr. Woods? Shouldn't it be to Mr. Woods?

I used to bartend at a college bar where each day we'd have an informal pun contest. I had a lot of liberal arts majors and graduates sitting at my bar ... Whoever came up with the most clever/awful pun got a drink. Or several. I don't remember, as we were all pretty drunk most of the time. Anyway, this right here would have won a drink.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:07 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Tiger's wife may or may not have beat him with a golf club. We'll never know, because Tiger outright refused to talk to the local sheriff or whatever. How fair is that?

Yeah, I kinda knew what he was referring to. Anyways...if the victim of an attack refuses to speak to police about it, it's often the end of the matter. Not always, of course, but it would be hard for any legal system to avoid that. The point is that the UK has a legal system which positively encourages the kind of shit being pulled here, and worse.
posted by Sova at 12:14 AM on December 15, 2009


Tiger's wife may or may not have beat him with a golf club. We'll never know, because Tiger outright refused to talk to the local sheriff or whatever. How fair is that?

So, what? They should have beat the truth out of him? Isn't this a case of the system actually working? I feel pretty confident Woods was abused but we shouldn't lock up his wife just because we think she attacked him.
posted by Justinian at 12:18 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


How much wood would Woods whiff if Woods could whiff wood?
posted by loquacious at 12:25 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


And now, the lamest Tiger Woods joke I've seen since the news broke:

He should change his name to Cheetah.
posted by bwg at 12:44 AM on December 15, 2009


Just worth noting that this is almost certainly nothing to do with English libel laws, disgraceful as they are; it's most likely a privacy matter.

And yeah, while the issues of courts that favour the wealthy, issue super-injunctions and gagging orders on a whim, and encourage every disreputable bastard from around the world to take libel holidays in our courts are all of vital importance here in the UK, I can think of rallying causes slightly more convincing than the right of tabloids to show us mucky pictures of sports stars 'romping' in their 'love nests'.
posted by flashboy at 12:52 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Anyways...if the victim of an attack refuses to speak to police about it, it's often the end of the matter. Not always, of course, but it would be hard for any legal system to avoid that.

New Zealand changed its laws years ago to make sure the police could charge without a victim statement in cases of domestic violence where they had adequate evidence otherwise; I'd be surprised if we're the only country where that's the case. It's designed specifically to avoid situations of intimidation and to avoid more... old-fashioned... policing attitudes allowing people to get away with domestic violence.

but we shouldn't lock up his wife just because we think she attacked him.

I don't know how they deal with suspected domestic abuse in your country, but, at a minimum here the police will (certainly in the more commonly reported male-beats-female) require the party apparently handing it out to leave the house for a period as a starting point.

(Of course, I also know someone who got told to piss off and stop wasting police time when he tried to report having been stabbed by his female partner, so perhaps it's a gender thing rather than a country thing.)

Regardless, I find it pretty appalling that it's considered amusing or attracts comments like "I think she's a great role model for young women. The I-don't-care-if-you're-the-greatest-golfer-in-history-if-you-cheat-on-me-I-will-beat-the-shit-out-of-you type of role model. Girl Power!". I do not doubt for a moment that many people who are very relaxed about this would have a very different view had the parties been switched and Tiger been chasing his wife with a golf club.

Seems like far more of a travesty than not being able to see naked pictures of people. Yes, yes, yes your precious right to free speech is harmed because you can't publish most likely illegitamtely obtained nude pictures of of someone. Oh the horror!
posted by rodgerd at 12:54 AM on December 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


I can think of rallying causes slightly more convincing than the right of tabloids to show us mucky pictures of sports stars 'romping' in their 'love nests'.

That's funny, because in America many of our most valued ideas regarding free speech come from protecting the rights of pornographers and hateful bigots.
posted by sbutler at 1:04 AM on December 15, 2009


Oh good. We can finally talk about Tiger Woods on MeFi.

:(.
posted by cavalier at 1:27 AM on December 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


New Zealand changed its laws years ago to make sure the police could charge without a victim statement in cases of domestic violence where they had adequate evidence otherwise; I'd be surprised if we're the only country where that's the case.

Of course the police can charge without a victim statement here in the United States. But it's significantly more difficult. Without cooperation from Tiger there was apparently not enough evidence that his injuries weren't all a result of his car crash. If the police had rolled up because there was report of a disturbance and came upon Tiger with the same injuries absent a car crash they would almost certainly have taken his wife down to the station.

But the police shouldn't be able to haul someone off to jail simply because they have a nagging suspicion that something hinky is going on. Particularly when the suspicion may not have crystallized until significantly later. As I said, the fact that Tiger was in a car crash undoubtedly deflected suspicion until it became clear that events just weren't adding up.
posted by Justinian at 1:30 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Xeni Jardin seems to think (based on this Guardian article it would seem) that the injunction "covers pretty much any and all reporting about Woods' personal life." But the injunction seems pretty limited to naughty pictures to me. Which is it?
posted by fleacircus at 1:40 AM on December 15, 2009


I think that the extraordinary level of attention devoted to this Tiger Woods imbroglio has much to do with Obama. Both men are half-Afro-American. Both men excel in a "sport" that requires calmness and direct action; a sport that previously had been dominated by rich old white men.

They'd like to knock Obama out on a "Clinton", they would. But might settle to knock out Tiger.
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:28 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Tiger Woods might be worth discussing if the news coverage is driven by a racial backlash related to black men entering what were formerly seen as the last bastions of the white America (see Obama, Barack). Alternatively, a more general post about the overreaching nature of UK anti-libel laws. The way you've framed this post seems to preclude any interesting discussion, and provoke the outrage of those who see this as yet another distraction from more substantive and newsworthy events, including myself. In short, GRAR!
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:34 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


OK, even at 2:30 AM always preview, check.
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:35 AM on December 15, 2009


I think it's really a damned shame that the UK isn't as free in this regard.

This is a case of wealthy multinationals making profitable sport of a man's private life and of course metafilter is in favour of it.
posted by atrazine at 3:06 AM on December 15, 2009 [3 favorites]


In other news: Jack Straw reveals plan to reform UK's 'chilling' libel laws
posted by caddis at 3:48 AM on December 15, 2009


The Tiger Woods Anthem (via Projects)
posted by gman at 3:50 AM on December 15, 2009


Tomorrow's tabloid:
Tiger Sex Pic Case: Women Gagged
Tiger tied our hands!
We are ready to reveal all but Tiger has bound us to silence.
posted by pracowity at 4:00 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


Just worth noting that this is almost certainly nothing to do with English libel laws, disgraceful as they are; it's most likely a privacy matter.

Good point, though there seems to be some confusion about this issue, see this Financial Times editorial, which discusses both libel and privacy.
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:02 AM on December 15, 2009


Tiger's wife may or may not have beat him with a golf club. We'll never know, because Tiger outright refused to talk to the local sheriff or whatever. How fair is that?

This confused the shit out of me when I read it in the UK papers. As far as I could tell police were unhappy and wanted to investigate further because he'd issued a mea culpa and wasn't pressing charges. What? Aren't you allowed to do that?
posted by stelas at 4:35 AM on December 15, 2009


Pictures or it didn't happen.
posted by unSane at 4:44 AM on December 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think that the extraordinary level of attention devoted to this Tiger Woods imbroglio has much to do with Obama. Both men are half-Afro-American. Both men excel in a "sport" that requires calmness and direct action; a sport that previously had been dominated by rich old white men.

I think this is pretty far off the mark. I live in an area that may be considered pretty backwards by most people, but there's a lot of golfers here. Even some of the most racist golfers I know pretty much idolize Tiger. It's almost as if they don't even remember that he's half-African-American because he's just that incredible at what he does.

The coverage is a media circus for a lot of reasons. His squeeky-clean image before this. His dominance in a massively popular-throughout-the-world sport. His unsurpassed (and possibly unsurpassable) earnings and therefore wealth. But I don't think race is really a major factor here.
posted by This Guy at 4:51 AM on December 15, 2009 [4 favorites]


Ha, there's a big Nike/Tiger Woods ad at the top of this thread when I'm not logged in.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:57 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wish I could tell you guys about all the cool things me and Tiger did on my summer vacation, but unfortunately, his lawyer says I can't post my scrapbook online. Sorry everybody :(

EXTRASUPERREVEAL: But I will say one thing: We did chill at Starbucks for a bit, even though I wanted to go to the indie shop. He was trying to save money and use a gift card his grandma gave him.
posted by mccarty.tim at 4:57 AM on December 15, 2009


Believe it or not, some conservatives are already comparing Tiger and Obama, and saying Obama is worse.

Frankly, it's dumb beyond belief. Obama's been generally staying in line with what he's promised on his campaign, while Tiger Woods has scandals on his hands because he broke the societal norm of monogamy. One man seriously broke a promise, the other didn't.

Yes, Obama has been slow on gay rights and downright disappointing on Guantanamo bay, but those aren't the things conservatives are complaining about. They're complaining about the promises Obama is keeping. Obama is essentially doing his job the way we hired him.

The editorial basically boils down to "Tiger did something wrong, but I really hate Obama and his policies so I'm going to say he's worse."
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:03 AM on December 15, 2009


By the way, the First Amendment isn't the only one in the US Bill of Rights. People find the Fifth Amendment handy, too.
posted by woodway at 5:07 AM on December 15, 2009


Tigergate Isn't a Black Thing -- Despite What Some Would Prefer [John McWhorter]

That should keep you guys wound up for awhile longer.
posted by billysumday at 5:13 AM on December 15, 2009


When the news broke it seemed as though Rachel Uchitel was cashing in to fulfill her dream of owning her own nightclub.

I thought the name should be

WOODIES

but my wife thought it would be better called

THE CLUB
posted by dragonsi55 at 5:15 AM on December 15, 2009


i actually started to read this thread. jesus.
posted by msconduct at 5:38 AM on December 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


The first rule of tiger woods is, we do not talk about tiger woods.
You wanna know what the second rule is?
posted by Chamunks at 5:43 AM on December 15, 2009


"The first rule of tiger woods is, we do not talk about tiger woods.
You wanna know what the second rule is?"


In match play the game is played by holes.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 5:58 AM on December 15, 2009


And so an irrelevant story finds a whole new angle from which to be irrelevant.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:25 AM on December 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


I think that the extraordinary level of attention devoted to this Tiger Woods imbroglio has much to do with Obama. Both men are half-Afro-American. Both men excel in a "sport" that requires calmness and direct action; a sport that previously had been dominated by rich old white men.

But unlike Tiger, Obama has had sex with a black woman.
posted by 445supermag at 6:35 AM on December 15, 2009 [2 favorites]


I hope the emerging - and relevant - stories will become the PR firewall that Tiger, his sponsors and handlers had set up and the elaborate contingency plans that were placed in case of breach.
posted by klarck at 6:54 AM on December 15, 2009


Believe it or not, some conservatives are already comparing Tiger and Obama, and saying Obama is worse.

You know who else they think Obama is worse than?
posted by blucevalo at 7:00 AM on December 15, 2009


This has nothing to do with the UK's draconian and absurdly slanted libel laws. The fact is, this was filed in the UK for the simple reason that everyone in the US has already seen Tiger's wang. It's a last-ditch effort to prevent this sexual Tyrannosaurus from crossing the pond.

Yeah, I hit it. Like you haven't.
posted by rusty at 7:11 AM on December 15, 2009


I'm so glad I've been missing most of this. I heard a little bit on the radio and was honestly surprised that everyone seems so shocked (or at least pretending to be in the media?). As far as I can tell a multi-millionaire, super famous athlete is having sex with women. Is that about right? Stop the presses!
posted by ODiV at 7:12 AM on December 15, 2009


where, presumably, the existence of a "First Amendment" makes all the other shit, like high incarceration rates, child poverty, relative high infant morality, etc etc, acceptable

Get back under your bridge, troll.
posted by brand-gnu at 7:14 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't want to be spending Christmas at the Woods' house this year. Doctor to the sports stars (incl. Woods) suspected of selling illegal sports 'supplements.'
posted by Hardcore Poser at 8:03 AM on December 15, 2009


Ho Ho Ho! Santa stops at three. Why couldn't Tiger?
posted by HyperBlue at 8:11 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm guessing he'll be on the next Tool Academy with Jamie Grubbs or Celebrity Rehab Sex Addiction.

I think Tiger should have gotten a clue that nothing good would have come with dating a contestant on Tool Academy, especially since she got dumped in the first 5 minutes.
posted by stormpooper at 8:19 AM on December 15, 2009


Yeah, as Hardcore Poser points out, the real story here now is the steroids, because this allows sports writers to get into this without looking like tabloid mouth-breathers. If a connection to steroids with Tiger can be proven or made to stick, it will be HUGE. Could even be the shock that finally ends the steroid era.
posted by spicynuts at 8:43 AM on December 15, 2009


It's a last-ditch effort to prevent this sexual Tyrannosaurus from crossing the pond.

Predator reference? How about "Soon the hunt will begin."

And so an irrelevant story finds a whole new angle from which to be irrelevant.

I disagree. In our new-millenia-post-postmodern world, the boundaries between identity and image and branding have become increasingly blurred. Geoffrey Miller believes that

marketing is "not just one of the most important ideas in business." It's become "the most dominant force in human culture" as well.

That may seem extreme, but at this point marketers know more about us (in some realms) than we know about ourselves. If they know what kind of beer you drink and where you live, there's a good chance they can tell you what kind of car you drive.

Woods is the worlds first billion-dollar athlete. He is his own brand, with more than one contract worth over a hundred-million dollars. That brand was seamless, 'flawless performance' extending beyond golf to cars, watches, whatever. If a company CEO risks pissing away those kinds of contracts, it is big news.

I have read that the PGA, while prepared for television ratings to continue to be down (minus 50% when he was out recently), says it won't impact their core demographic of serious golfers. Maybe he loses Buick but picks up Viagra, who knows, it's a whacky world. But as we start to know more about who we are, these true stories are relevant to how we are to be in this world.

I could go on, but I'll leave the final twist to the Chuckster.
posted by dragonsi55 at 8:59 AM on December 15, 2009


dragonsi55: Predator reference?

Ha. I knew that phrase came from somewhere. It's been lurking deep in my subconscious since fifth grade, just waiting for its opportunity.
posted by rusty at 9:27 AM on December 15, 2009


I'm still trying to figure out why we should care so much about Tiger Woods' personal transgressions to the point where the NBC network "news" ran 10 minutes on this "story" on Saturday, and still didn't have anything better to lead with, on Sunday, when they did another lead in to network news, only about 5 minutes.
Could the answer be:
a)Lazy journalists or non-existent journalism skills
b)Nothing more "newsworthy" occured this past weekend
c)It's no "news" it's "edutainment"!
d)Something else is going on that corporate/military/industrial complex government wants to distract us from noticing....
not that it would make much difference if anyone did notice.
Go Red Sox!!!!
posted by GreyFoxVT at 9:48 AM on December 15, 2009


I vote for 'e') it's a business and americans don't give a shit about complex news and so complex news doesn't sell. the collective we have only ourselves to blame
posted by spicynuts at 10:23 AM on December 15, 2009


Dear everyone bitching about the news convering this incessantly,

Hi! How've you been? Weather nice? Good. I heard you're getting fed up with all the coverage of this Tiger Woods thing, and I wanted to write to you about your news gathering habits.

Why in God's name are you watching news like that? Do they have to literally sit there at the anchor desk and say "Hey you! Numbnuts, on the couch there! Turn this shit off. It's nonsense. Literally anything else you could do would be a better way to spend your time, up to and including simply staring at a blank wall."?

Don't complain about it. Stop watching it. Get your news elsewhere. I have greatly enjoyed the amusing 30 seconds I've spent once a week or so catching up on this sideshow online. I can very well imagine that 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage would be tedious and infuriating. But so many other bullshit stories were already tedious and infuriating, long ago, so I stopped watching it.

NPR is a decent way to catch up on actual news. The BBC World Service supplements that with stories that get little or no play in the US at all. And Google News, the blogs, and many other aggregators will lead you to all sorts of interesting stuff, in half the time and ten times the depth.

When you sit down at the "out" end of the shit hose, don't be surprised to find yourself fed nothing but shit. If you're not sure whether you're bellied up to the shit hose or not, here's a useful way to tell: if it's on television, it is the shit hose. Shut it off.

Hope to see you and the family soon!

Love, Rusty
posted by rusty at 10:30 AM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]


War on Drugs: nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Welfare: nothing to do with the First Amendment.
Universal Healthcare: nothing to do with the First Amendment.


Says you.

I think that the extraordinary level of attention devoted to this Tiger Woods imbroglio has much to do with Obama.

And you are insane. Tiger Woods is the greatest golfer since Jack Nicklaus, and perhaps the most popular golfer in the history of the sport. Race is always a factor in every news story, but this scandal has zero to do with the president.

A much more interesting comparison would be Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan. It's well known that Jordan likely had as many sex partners as Woods, or more. Juanita filed for divorce a few times, I think. So why did the mistresses stay silent? (I guess one has spoken out.)

Also, does Michael get a free pass to cheat now that he's retired? Would people care as much about the Tiger Woods story if he was 55, retired, and had already set the record for most majors?

...

that everyone in the US has already seen Tiger's wang

Wait .. what? I feel left out. Link please? Honestly, if you don't watch TV news (and ignore the tabloids in the supermarket), this story has gotten about as much press as it deserves. (On preview, what rusty said. If you're upset this story is getting so much coverage ... why are you watching/reading/listening to those news sources ... ever?)

And I agree: This is not the best post to discuss "the Tiger Woods story." GRAR!
posted by mrgrimm at 10:37 AM on December 15, 2009


How much wood would Woods whiff if Woods could whiff wood?

I think you mean:

How much wood would a sports Woods sport if a Woods would sport wood (woo?)




I'll work on this.
posted by mazola at 12:13 PM on December 15, 2009


krautland : that "news" broke december 10. were you on vacation or something?

I was on vacation when this whole story broke; I basically barricaded myself in a room post Black Friday and did nothing but play video games for the better part of a week so this story had several days worth of reveals before I ever heard a word.

My only interaction with it was some sort of obscure comments from the twitter folk I follow which kept cryptically popping up referencing Woods, but nothing specific.

So I get back to work and every TV in the place is running his picture, pretty much non-stop, people are all abuzz with the urge to gossip, and I realize that all you have to not be a part of something like this is miss the initial infection.

I (happily) still have no clue what is going on.
posted by quin at 12:56 PM on December 15, 2009 [1 favorite]




« Older What's New, Congressman?   |   I want to tell you about the Transformers! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post