Tiger's Fatal Flaw

I hate myself for doing this but I can not resist. I’m being sucked in like a hairball to a Dyson. In about a thousand words and sixty minutes I will be, perhaps, the billionth person to share my opinion on this little news story of which you may be aware. It’s the biggest story in sports in a long time. Perhaps it is the largest story every to waltz the line between sports and celebrity but OJ might have something to say about that.

I don’t even have to introduce the story, I’ll just get right to it. Here’s thing, Tiger didn’t break a law. He broke a commandment and maybe, a Swedish heart. The fallout of the breaking news of his philandering has been incredible, I wonder if he had just admitted it, wholeheartedly from the start, would it have passed by now? Afterall, Letterman pulled it off. With Tiger’s money, you’d think he’d have better handlers. This should not have turned into the fiasco that it has. Bryon Bell, well done kid, you blew it and now you don't have a best man for your wedding.

I think Tiger made a huge mistake. I will say at the outset, I strongly feel what he did was a terrible thing, it really was. On that we can all agree. However, we may not agree fully on ever aspect of this story. Cheating (or getting caught) is not the mistake to which I was referring. I think his fatal flaw was getting married in the first place, much too early. Elin also made a mistake - she married a star pro athlete who had yet to peak.

Male pro athletes have no trouble finding partners who want to transgress with them. The bigger a star you are, the easier it is. You can transgress when you want, where you want and with whom you want. There are obviously exceptions, but, in general this is how it is, you can’t convince me otherwise.

I'll go out on a limb and say Tiger hadn’t done a whole lot of transgressing prior to meeting his wife to be. He was Urkel with nice follow through – he wasn’t Wilt Chamberlain or even Joba Chamberlain. Along came Cupid dressed in J. Lindeberg and the rest was history. I remember when this happened, Elin was the first woman romantically linked to Tiger so it was noteworthy. Emails were sent around with pictures of Tiger’s girlfriend and the world collectively gave a solid single ‘of course that’s Tiger’s girlfriend’ nod. I’m sure at this point, Tiger was very excited but knew not what was to come.

From all reports, it appears it was just months prior to his wedding day that Tiger first transgressed. Although, this seems to change daily as women come out of the woodwork telling of their exploits with the big cat. I could be wrong, but there’s a good chance that it was a little while before this that Tiger was first being put in the position to turn down offers to transgress constantly. I would also lay down some money that he did hit the reject button on many of the early offers. However, not that I can relate, but it must have begun to get difficult for him to be turning his head from so much Tiger bait. It seems that at some point he decided he was going to take a run at everything that came his way. Sad, really. Eventually, he reaches the point where he realizes that he isTiger Woods. For someone who is renowned to be the most mentally tough golfer of all time, his toughness clearly is left for golf.

At the point he gives in, he is the biggest star on the planet and still getting bigger. It was bound to happen.

With mistakes come penalties.

Tiger’s penalty when you break it all down is monetary. His image is forever tarnished. He made golf cool, which was no easy task. He got ripped, he looked good, he won everything, he reaped insane benefits. The bigger they are the harder they fall. Tiger is now going to lose a ton. Anyone who thinks he is going to make his way out of this is a few clubs short of a set. This putt is going to hang on the lip of the cup and not fall. If you’re expecting a fist pump, forget it. And once it’s gone, it won’t be easy to get back. Michael Jordan, I’m sure you’re reading this, get ready to take the throne back, even with the $170 million payment to your ex, you're back on top as the highest earning athlete of all time. Tiger’s endorsements are taking a hit from which he will not recover.

Elin’s penalty is losing Tiger and having to mend a broken heart, presumably. The interesting thing is that we’ve heard just one side of the story. I would be surprised, as would we all, if all of a sudden Elin admitted to transgressions. It would be high comedy if tmz.com starting revealing male mistresses of Elin. The point is, we only know what Tiger was doing. In any event, everyone has had a break-up, a lot of people with families and it can’t be easy. However, people bounce back and I expect in some time, maybe sooner than we think, Elin will as well. Why wouldn’t she? Not to mention, she should be sitting on a fine wad of cash. So, Elin’s penalty is bouncebackable.

So who is the big loser in all of this? It has to be Tiger, doesn't it?

I'm not defending Tiger Wood's actions by any means. I am simply saying that he made a massive error that other young athletes before him had also made. When every young athlete turns pro, advice on relations with the fairer sex should be mandatory. Rookie orientation 101 should include the following lesson "Marrying Before You Retire: Don't do it". Before you can turn pro, you have to get an A+ in this course. Tiger can be guest lecturer. If you just can't pass this course, perhaps you have to take a course in cheating. Tiger would get an F-minus in both.

In the end both Elin and Tiger are going to be fine, this much we all know. I just think Tiger has done too much damage to repair it with a Kobe.

Two Stroke Penalty For Negligence? The Happy Gilmore Decision.

I enjoy golf - for the most part. I was once decent but over the last few years my scores have increased more than K-Fat's appetite. While I used to be concerned with how things turned out after 18, I now care a lot less. If my 9-iron is reading this post he is shaking his dented head and wondering if not caring is why I snapped him over my knee. I did it because it made me feel better. The other thing that generally makes me feel better is having fun on the course and not taking the game too seriously. It is a work in progress, but, I've come a long way. The point is, the game should be fun and the older you get, the more apparent that should be. That is why I was appalled when I read the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal's decision in the case of Bezanson v. Hayter - as Encyclopedia Brown might call it, "The case of the Happy Gilmore shot".

I had been waiting for the perfect opportunity to write about sports and law and today, it's time. Before I continue, I should point out once again that I am from Canada. Our legal system differs somewhat from the United States, so for our purposes, here is a quick hit in the law of negligence. This is in no way to be taken as advice. My lesson in civil negligence in four steps:

1. There is a duty of care owed from one party to another. The standard of care varies on the situation.
2. There is a breach of that duty of care.
3. Injury results.
4. The injury is caused the breach of the duty.

Got it? Good. It's important.

So, I was saying, my approach to golf now is that I should be having fun. From time to time, I have been known to swing the wrong way, hit a ball off a beer can or, more importantly, do the "Happy Gilmore". But, after reading Bezanson v. Hayter, I may end up checking my swing as I walk into my next tee shot. Why? Because the "Happy Gilmore", in Canada, now can end up in a pretty stiff penalty and there's no mulligan.

The day started like any other day, four guys, one being the bachelor soon to be wed, a golf course and, as the Judge stated, "an inventory of Baja Rosa Tequila, marijuana and Wildcat beer." Boom! By the 16th hole, the factual record states that Hayter had consumed nine beer and half a pint of tequila. Hayter put his tee shot in the bush and hit a second in the fairway. Bezanson and the others proceeded to their balls. Hayter did not.

With the three other players ahead, Hayter teed up a third ball and stepped into it - the "Happy Gilmore" shot. The ball struck Bezanson in the wrist and ricocheted into his chest. One of my favourite things in the court decision is that the "defendant maintained that he can reliably hit a "Happy Gilmore" shot". I have no idea how good of a golfer Hayter is or was. But, I do know that he had put his first shot in the trees and had admitted to having consumed nine beers and half a pint of tequila over roughly three hours (so, probably had drank more). I doubt he could reliably fasten the velcro on his glove.

Bezanson was left with permanent damage to the radial nerve or to a branch of the radial nerve. The judge found that Bezanson's current complex regional pain syndrome was directly attributable to the golf ball injury and my never fully heal. Bezanson sued Hayter.

Immediately I have a problem with this, as most people would. If you don't, you should. Negligence is an unintentional tort and it was never considered whether Hayter intended to strike or to bring harm to Hayter. Nor should it have been considered in a strictly legal sense. However, it should have been considered at least somewhat in Bezanson's contemplation of suing one of his friends - presumably a good friend. The end result was an award of $227,500.00. To me, it seems to be a shrewd and cowardly move on Bezanson's part. That is my opinion on the facts as I know them.

Basically, we have a small group of guys playing a sport, inebriated, perhaps a little outside of the normal boundaries and one gets hurt. To hold one of them liable for the resulting injury to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars is a little harsh. I can't even type what I'm thinking - we have editors. Put it this way, I have a feeling with the holiday season upon us, Bezanson shouldn't hold his breath to see if Hayter drops off a bottle of scotch - or Baja Rosa Tequila as is the case.

You just don't sue a friend in this situation. You don't. I presume there no insurance meaning Hayter pays from his pocket. In any event, Bezanson did not see it this way, there was a civil trial (and an appeal) and Hayter was held liable in negligence and ordered to pay Bezanson. Some friend. It is worth pointing out too that Bezanson had a pre-existing wrist condition (carpal tunnel syndrome) that limited him from his employment as a wood cutter.

So, my first issue was with a court action being initiated by one friend against another. That's just terrible friend etiquette. My second issue is with the Courts' decision itself.

"I am convinced that the 'Happy Gilmore' shot would have been less controllable than a normal tee shot," the trial judge wrote in his decision.

Back to my lesson on negligence. I will consider just the first two steps. I don't doubt Bezanson was injured. I don't doubt it was caused by a 100mph golf ball.

Step one - Is there a duty of care? According to the Court - Yes. In this case, I can accept and agree that there is a duty of care owed from one golfer to another on the course. However, I feel that the possibility of getting hit is an inherent risk of being on the course - not only from your playing partners, but, from everyone. The bottom line though, there is a duty of reasonable care to your playing partners.

Step two - Was there a breach? According to the Court - Yes. However, it appears the judge would have decided differently had Hayter not taken a Happy Gilmore shot. Does this make any sense? I think it sets a dangerous precedent. The breach has its roots in the danger or carelessness in taking a Happy Gilmore shot and hitting it poorly. The assumption is that hitting a Happy Gilmore shot is less controllable than a regular shot. This is not always the case. Regular shots are often hit just as poorly. I know.

Here's the thing, I have a hunch that Tiger Woods can control a Happy Gilmore shot. Picture this, I'm playing a round with Tiger, or better yet, Adam Sandler (we know he can control a "Happy Gilmore" shot!) and they take one, and strike me. Based upon the Nova Scotia precedent, am I precluded from suing them based upon their ability to 'control' the shot? What about if I get struck by just some hacker who can't control a stationary shot? Are they breaching the standard by taking a regular shot when they know there is a possibility they hit a wayward flier and strike a me? If that's the case, and right now it appears that it is, you can find my clubs on craigslist (http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/tor/spo/1484324136.html). I clearly need to hang them up before I'm held liable for hitting somebody.

I simply think that the precedent now is too loose. In order to establish the proper standard of care, the Court will have to hear evidence on golf ability, or, more specifically, ability to hit a "Happy Gilmore" shot. Hayter tried to use his generally poor golf skills as a defence, to no avail. Happy wasn't a great 'stationary' golfer but he was a great golfer with his method. What if Happy hit somebody?

Hayter also argued the Bezanson consented implicitly to the risks of being on the golf course. The trial judge accepted this argument but stated further, "Mr. Hayter's behavior was not among the natural risks of golf to which the plaintiff can be said to have consented." The Court of Appeal judge agreed saying "Mr. Hayter's running whack, toward his playing partners ahead, deliberately abdicated control and was not an ordinary feature of the game."

I think it's pretty simple. Hitting a wayward shot is an ordinary feature of the game. No matter what stance or method was used to hit the ball, it happens. A lot. I cannot come to terms with why the method of hitting the ball or type of swing has anything to do with negligence - at least in this case. And the method of hitting ball really seems to be why the Courts found negligence. If Hayter had taken a normal swing, I cannot say with complete certainty, but it appears, the Court's would have found that getting hit was now among the "natural risks of golf".

So what are we left with? Regular swing, no negligence. Happy Gilmore swing, negligence.

Really?


Note:
Link to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision.
http://www.courts.ns.ca/decisions_recent/documents/2009nsca113.pdf

Pulling the Plug on Your Season. When?

A month ago I wrote an article about DeAngelo Williams and surmised that I would land him on my fantasy team before the end of the season. My plan was to get him in time for the playoffs and to get him on the cheap – from an expansion team that inevitably would be looking to next season. Since then, my team meltdown has become epic. I first starting thinking about shutting it down when I was 0-4.

It was tough, whenever I was amongst other managers in my pool all I could talk about was how I was hoping to get the first overall pick next year. My record eventually got to 0-10. Every week I talked about quitting, yet, every week I found it so hard to do. Then in week 11, something funny happened. I won a game. Then I won another. My record is 2-10 right now and I still have a chance to make the playoffs (I am blessed to be in an awful division). I need a few things to go my way, but, if I get in, anything can happen. My team is clearly on a roll. Right?

So, I’m no longer gunning for DeAngelo and my mind wonders about other things. Right now, I’m wondering when is too early to bail on a season?

If I had started throwing games six weeks ago, I wouldn't be in the position I am right now with those big two wins. I wouldn't be wondering about what might happen in the playoffs. Not to mention, I wouldn't have had the fun I have over that time either. Being a loveable loser is a lot of fun. Trust me.

However, it still would have been a shrewd move to put myself in a better position for that draft pick that I really want next year. But, right now, none of that matters. It is proper to look ahead, but I don't think it is proper to throw games. Until you are mathematically eliminated, I don't think it makes sense to lose games on purpose.

If you believe in karma, losing games on purpose may be the worst thing you can do in sport/competition. A few years ago, we saw this in the NBA. Teams were sitting players for no apparent reason other than some fake injury they created. A few teams were in bad positions are really wanted that top pick. The media had a field day at the time and many writers surmised new ways to determine the first overall pick in the NBA (some of the ideas were quite good). In that case, losing games on purpose did not work.

In real world sports, fans seemed divided on the issue. Some felt it made sense to look toward the next season while others felt the team had a duty to do the best each game. In fantasy sports, it is a little different. As a fantasy manager, your only duty is to other managers in your league. But that is still important. The karma gods might still take notice if your actions threw off the balance of your league. Maybe you believe this and maybe you do not. That doesn't matter. There is an understanding that managers will try to win every game.

So to answer the question I posed. It is always too early to bail on a season. Extrinsically, to bail throws the rest of the league in an imbalance. Intrinsically, it takes the fun out of it, afterall, managers are in the league for fun. I think. And finally, there's that karma thing.

It is remarkable that I am not out of the playoffs. I'm just stubborn enough to still think I'm going to win the pool. Truth is, I am just lucky enough to be in a terrible division, but if I can get into the playoffs, anything can happen.

Why So Naive "Leafs Nation"?

I live in Toronto but I am not from Toronto. I’ve been here for three years and it is my first time living in a hockey town. The fact that I now roam in the land of the Leafs has brought mixed emotions. I grew up loving the Montreal Canadiens and I still do. When it comes down to it, I am not a fan of the Leafs – I grew up hating them. But, living in a city like Toronto that lives and breathes hockey, there is now something fun about when the local team does well. That is not happening this year.

The Leafs were terrible last year too. To be completely fair, they haven’t been good enough since 1967. Either way, after some shake-up in the front office the Maple Leafs ended up signing Brian Burke at the helm, Mr. Congeniality himself. This is the point where the expectations for the 2009-2010 NHL season started to swell (coincidentally also when Leafs fans inexplicably started calling themselves “Leafs Nation”, my rant on this will come another day).

The praise for Brian Burke was unheralded and a shocking amount of faith was put in a guy, who when you really dissect his track record, had not achieved that much success. However, the media had a field day. Burke ended up making what seemed like decent moves bolstering the blue line significantly. Of most significance, he got Francois Beauchemin (Stanley Cup winner), Mike Komisarek (All-Star) and he kept Tomas Kaberle (All-Star).

Also, he signed “The Monster”, Jonas Gustavsson, “the best goalie in the world not in the NHL”. I have a problem with this tagline. To me, that means, once in the NHL, he could be “the worst goalie in the NHL”. I realize that is a stretch, but it stands to reason. Every local paper, every website, every television and radio show, everywhere, all that was heard or read was “The Monster… The Monster…” It was sickening really, I had no idea a backup goalie could turn a franchise around. I also felt bad for “The Monster” as his nickname (with help from the media) set the expectations upon him unreasonably high. The funny thing is, his nickname comes from his stature, not his record – he is 6’3”.

Alas, the big move was yet to come. When Brian Burke traded the future for Phil Kessel, you could see people in the streets of Toronto pouring champagne over their heads. I think a parade was even scheduled but it interfered with a protest (in Toronto, it’s chic for protesters to randomly block streets). I would not have been surprised at all if at the introductory press conference they had Kessel part Lake Ontario, just because he could.

So there we had it, the major pieces of the overhaul from the top-down were in place. Then the media took over. And not to blame the media entirely, it had been a while since Toronto fans had anything to be excited about. The Leafs have amazing fans and knowledgeable fans. Why were they so naïve?

I went to my first game last week, against the, surprising, Colorado Avalanche. The Leafs lost and were badly outplayed. It put the record to 0-5-1 (after last night's loss, 0-6-1). The worst start in franchise history. I heard many boos and saw many empty seats well before we heard the final horn.

So what is happening in “Leafs Nation”, why so bad?? Well, Kessel is yet to play. Vesa Toskala is injured (his ego maybe) and was not good before the injury. “The Monster” is also injured. But, the answer is: what is happening is exactly what should be happening. The chalk Ron Wilson uses for the win column is still in the box, and perhaps, this is underachieving (for any NHL team), but, here’s the thing, the Toronto Maple Leafs just are not that good.

The defencemen have yet to get it going, but could and should turn it around, although it seems like Komisarek is desperately missing Andrei Markov, similarly Beauchemin may be longing for Scott Niedermayer. Up front, the Leafs are looking weak. The savior, Kessel, had 60 points in 70 games last season (his third) on a talented team in Boston, often playing alongside Marc Savard. There is no Savard in Toronto, the Leafs leading scorer last year had 63 points (Jason Blake).

Expectations this year swelled due to a few things: A new straight-shooting GM. A couple of solid defencemen. A backup net-minder with a cool nickname. Normally knowledgeable fans yearning for some playoff hockey. The media.

I read an article last week in the Toronto Star by Kevin McGran, the title was “Five Leaf failings and five solutions.” Here are McGran’s five “failings”:
1. Goaltending 2. Leadership 3. Toughness 4. Defense 5. Offense.

I’m not even joking. I took the liberty of using McGran’s idea and writing my own article, here it is:

“One Leaf Failing” by Peter Durant

1. Hockey

In 2008-2009, the final playoff spot in the East went to my beloved Montreal Canadiens with 93 points (in an 82 game NHL season). The Leafs now have 75 games remaining – they really have taken the fork in the road for the long way home.

Informed media have noted that Burke has had contact with other general managers about a trade to improve the Leafs this season, but nothing has been palatable. This is puzzling as it is difficult to fathom adding an NHL player to an AHL caliber team with an 0-6-1 record and not improving – but, we’ll trust Mr. Burke.

The salt on the wound is that there isn’t even a silver lining to this year’s poor start and season ahead. The Leafs shipped their first and second round draft pick in 2010 and a their first rounder in 2011 to the Boston Bruins to get Kessel. So finishing in the basement will net them nothing. It is also worth noting that Boston plays in the same division, so the big benefit of losing goes to a rival.

The good fans of Toronto deserve more, if any city on the planet deserves a Stanley Cup parade in June, it has to be Toronto. If there’s still some champagne left from the celebration for the Kessel trade, let us raise a glass and say “Here’s to hoping the fans are as patient as they are passionate”, there’s a long road ahead.

Too Rich For My Blood: DeAngelo Williams, Cash, and the Ethics of Fantasy Football

[Editor's Note: New columnist Peter Durant takes a look at the ethical implications of being an owner in fantasy football.]

I fell in love with DeAngelo Williams last year. He had just finished making the defense look like a house of cards for “The Adam Jones Experiment”, my opponent in the semi-finals of the NDFL (that’s the Newfoundland Dynasty Football League). I won that match in the end, but DeAngelo caused quite a stir, there was some tension on my couch.

It was towards the end of an incredible six week stretch where new DeAngelo outperformed old DeAngelo – kind of like the anti Seth Rogen. Trading for DeAngelo then became my number one off-season priority. The only issue being that there was only one year remaining on his fantasy contract and the asking price was a first round pick in 2009 and another in 2010. In the words of Poker Billy, “Too rich for my blood.” So what did I do to achieve my number one off-season goal? I offered one first round pick and real money – cold hard cash. Not a lot of dough in absolute terms, but I offered 1/5 of the pool entry fee, so relatively speaking, a considerable amount.

My proposal was considered and rejected on its terms, but here is the issue: What are my ethical obligations in fantasy world? I felt like I was doing something wrong and you could tell this is what I was thinking as I looked over my shoulder for other NDFL owners within earshot before tabling the offer at a pub over a few sips of lager.

Fantasy sports are inherently fantasy. We make believe. We act like real general managers. We talk like real owners. But we are not.

Ethical decisions are grounded in morality. But are fantasy sports real and do real morals apply? The answer has to be yes – afterall, the money is not fake. Fantasy sports are games but the stakes are real. We have to make decisions considering right and wrong even though the only outcomes are win or lose.

With pools being labeled fantasy, there is a natural tendency to approach decision making as though it is without consequence. Presumably, pools are played with friends (at least acquaintances). These are people for whom we normally make decisions ethically. In the real world, presumably, we do not make a decision to immorally move money from our friend’s pocket into our own.

Some of the pitfalls are unavoidable; there will never be an even playing field and somebody has to win, much like real sports and that is how it should be. There will always be uncontrollable factors like injuries versus controllable factors like informational asymmetry.

So, while it is fantasy, when you break it down, it is not fantasy. We are simply using real performance statistics as a medium to gamble. It is gambling with your friends. We are trying to take our friends money and people can easily lose sight of that. It is fair game as we all know the stakes and the boundaries of the ‘competition’.

I spoke to our league commissioner about the real money offer for DeAngelo, (after reminding me that it was him to whom I made the offer), we discussed it at length. We talked about how to categorize this type of trade. We called it ‘under the table’, ‘off the book’, ‘tangible’, and ultimately, agreed, it is wrong, no matter what we call it.

My offer of real money was outside the margins of what it takes to move players in our league, but, I didn’t see it that way until I made that offer and thought about it. It was not an ethical offer made by me. I was attempting to alter the playing field in my favour without notice to the other owners. Essentially, I was using coercion in the form of real money to alter the fantasy market value of DeAngelo Williams.

In the end, DeAngelo was traded to one of our expansion teams for two first round picks. The trade itself made no sense but it was certainly above board. I still think I have a shot at DeAngelo at our trading deadline when the expansion team is dumping expiring contracts for picks as his playoff chances fade. This time around, my offer will not include cash, maybe a gift certificate instead. Or not.

As long as there is real money, fantasy is real. Real world ethics apply to fantasy world sports.

- Peter Durant