Now This Tiger Thing Is Jumping The Shark: Citations, Hookers, and Fines
by Ryan Ballengee on Dec 1, 2009 3:22 PM EST
47 comments
The Tiger Woods accident/affair/fire hydrant saga has moved to the Jumping the Shark phase. Just moments ago, the Florida Highway Patrol conducted a press conference to notify the assembled that they're citing Tiger Woods for careless driving - which may result in a penalty of a fine up $164 and 4 points on his license.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
It was probably the dumbest press conference that I've ever seen. Even further, the FHP is charging to access public records of their investigation report and crash photos for nominal fees of $10 and $105 respectively. I guess that's just so I can get a hold of documents without the watermarks of other websites on them. No, thanks.
Rachel Uchitel, who first spoke with me before any reporter about the Enquirer report, had about a twenty minute interview with the NY Post transcribed in the paper today. Basically, she told her side of the story and made her case to refute the National Enquirer's supposedly airtight claims about her being in Melbourne to have a redenzvous with Tiger Woods.
I e-mailed Rachel and told her that she did a nice job. I enjoyed reading it, primarily for the curse words.
At the same time, they're just crawling out of the woodwork today.
TMZ.com - in an attempt to keep itself relevant on this story - has claimed that it has a woman who has come foward about her affair. Her name is Jaimee Grubbs, she's 31, she says she slept with Tiger on 20 occasions, and has texts and a voicemail from last week to prove it. (Sports by Brooks has pictures that you probably haven't seen yet of her.) Seeing as though she was on VH1's Tool Academy program, I'll hold off on judgment until I hear the proof.
Tiger, welcome to the world of celebrity gossip. That trip to the grocery store may never be the same. Who am I kidding? He doesn't do that.
And, finally, the fire hydrant that Tiger hit has been brought in for questioning by the FHP. Maybe it, too, has text messages from Tiger that say he is worried about an affair coming out. Or perhaps this whole incident was a hitjob on the fire hydrant because Woods' dog was having an affair with it.
They do say that Tiger is an excellent father.
0 recs |
47 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Have you forgotten that the FHP has been badgered by the media since Friday for anything they could get their hands on ? What were you expecting from the news conference ? A little song and dance for your entertainment ? Just about every county I have had to deal with for business over the years has charged for copies of records. That $10 fee is pretty common and so is the picture fee.
Personally, I’m waiting for the fire hydrant to come up on Ebay. :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 3:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
All in the same boat...
The FHP is in the same position as everyone else on this, scrambling to get a handle on a slippery Tiger! The only real news here is the new TMZ story. If this woman’s story holds up, the credibility of his denials go out the window. My advice to Tiger would be to hide the 8-iron!
by handicapismyswing on Dec 1, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
not sure what you mean. The FHP isn’t having any problems with Tiger. He is doing things as they are allowed by law. The FHP doesn’t care one way or another about any of these affair denials – they are concerned with the traffic incident.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two different thoughts.
The FHP is trying to get the real story on the accident and appear to feel he has not been forthcoming.(duh) If he refuses, as is his right, to grant them an interview, then their part in this is over as of the charges today. The other comments had nothing to do with the FHP, just the media circus. If this was a domestic violence case, I’m pretty sure the FHP would not be the investigating agency, so you are correct there.
by handicapismyswing on Dec 1, 2009 3:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know – sorry – bad attempt at humor. The only thing he did wrong was just the rudeness of asking them to come back the next day and then the next, then not letting them in.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t kid yourself….cops (my son is a cop) are only human too, they get offended when people don’t treat them with respect, and TW not talking to them is offensive, they see that as arrogance…now TW was well within his rights to do exactly what he did….in this case they did the right thing, they just charged him with the logical offense…but they could have, like 3-irons has said on multiple occasions in the past few days, become vindictive and ramped up the charges. For instance, they could have subpoenaed the med records and tried to prove a case of spousal abuse against Elin, and believe me, if she hit him with a golf club, they would be able to differentiate that from a wound from an auto accident. But you’re right that the FHP doesn’t care about the affair details.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But they would only do that if someone had indicated that a crime had occurred. If the neighbor claimed they were arguing before the crash, or there was something in the 911 call, or if someone mentioned an assault, then OK, but if everyone is sitting around twiddling their thumbs saying “nothing to see here” the police aren’t going to go out of bounds and play the vindictive card because they’re under the microscope too.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not true, Albatross….you do not need to have a complaintant(is that a word?) to file domestic abuse charges. If there was evidence that Elin hit TW on the head with a sand wedge, and the ER would know that, then they could file those charges, even if no one complained.
Now I agree, that the FHP would be very careful doing anything vindictive or out of the ordinary against TW, knowing the extreme media scrutiny this case is receiving.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that, but if there’s no evidence of domestic abuse occurring, then there’s no reason for police to pursue it. The police don’t just ride around looking for people with bruises that they can use to hunt down domestic abusers.
Typically, neighbors call the police, one of the participants calls the police, etc. Once that happens, then you’re right, no one needs to file a complaint for the police to act. But they need to have had a reason to suspect domestic abuse to start that ball rolling and given the fact that the central happening in this case was a car accident, there’s not much reason to look further.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 5:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t think so? Look at the accident…both back windows were broken out by Elin swinging a golf club. The FHP didn’t have a chance to even look at TW because he was already in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. So you take the fact that the car was viciously assaulted with a golf club by the wife, and the husband is injured, with unknown wounds, and now he won’t let you view the wounds.
I’m going to give you one more chance, and I’ll even make it easier for you…let’s say the driver of the car was the wife, and the husband was the one who broke both back windows with the golf club. Do you still think there is no reason to investigate this for domestic abuse? I’ll await your answer before giving your final grade fron the police academy.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
can you assault an inanimate object ?
no kidding on the double standard part – if a man raises his voice to a woman he can be accused of assault – but not the other way around. Women get to play the “emotional distress”, the “mental anguish”, as well as the “physical abuse” cards all to equal benefit.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No…I should have said battered…I stand, errr, lie corrected.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
niblic… Spot on. If the situation had been reversed they wouldn’t have been so quick to let it go and file today’s charges. Just because the laws have changed doesn’t mean societal norms have. Without both parties being in front of them at the time, they passed on any tough immediate investigatory tactics because the “little woman” didn’t have a mark on her.
by handicapismyswing on Dec 1, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, another chance. I’m so grateful.
I’m not saying a domestic situation might not have occurred. I’m saying that there’s no direct evidence that one did.
Tiger’s face was messed up. Well, he was in a car accident. Elin broke out the car windows. But, they both said she was trying to get him out. There was no neighbor saying they heard a fight. There was no witness to any kind of dispute. Neither of the people involved indicated any kind of domestic incident. There was no report that either of them acted in a suspicious way.
You tried to make the point that the police being fed up with his arrogance could choose to go down that road in a vindictive manner. All I’m saying is that they’re under the microscope too and vindictive behavior won’t go over well publicly. And if they actually suspected abuse, they would have pursued it immediately.
I suppose there might be a double standard if their roles were reversed, but does that make it right? And it doesn’t really apply to this situation because that’s a hypothetical and we’re dealing in reality. We’re not talking about what might have happened if another scenario were played out, we’re talking about what did happen in the scenario that actually played out.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 6:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
wait – aside from a wrecked SUV, a dented tree, and a mangled fire hydrant…what about this ISN’T hypothetical ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m debating what the actual facts might mean. As opposed to hypothetical facts not related to these events.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 6:49 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
the actual facts add up to a ticket for Tiger, a bill for repairs to the hydrant and maybe something for the tree, and probably a higher insurance rate…maybe some ribbing from some of the guys on Tour…but that’s hypothetical, too.
but these things don’t give xxx Golf Channel a half hour show full of speculation, TMZ, NE, and tons of other ridiculous articles and broadcasts swimming around a wrecked SUV.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right...
…and it muddles things up even more when we throw in things like what would happen if Elin’s and Tiger’s roles in this were reversed.
Hey, how about if Tiger had been serving 108 years in prison and Mike Huckabee had decided to commute his sentence before this happened?! What then??? It’s a conspiracy outrage!!!!!!
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well sorry, DE, you’ve been flunked out of the police academy…and surprisingly not because you flunked the test, but because you refused to even take it, ie. answer the damned question. Or maybe you’re from the courtgolf school of reading, ie. not being able to read? I asked you specifically….“Do you still think there is no reason to investigate this for domestic abuse?” You even alluded to the 2nd chance to answer the question, then you made self-incriminating remarks, made 3 posts, and never answered the question. No 3rd chance!
O, the self-incriminating remarks? You said…“Tiger’s face was messed up.”…really? But the FHP never saw his wounds; never got the warrant to see his ER medical records. Don’t you warch any TV cops shows? You can tell a lot from the wounds to determine whether they came from the accident of from a golf club wielding wife. The answer to my question, just knowing these two things(the 2 broken windows and TW’s facial wounds), is yes, there was a reason to investigate this incident further for domestic abuse. Now we also know the FHP went over to the hospital and they may have talked to the docs/nurses who treated TW and were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let me get this straight
You’re saying that we know the FHP is satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred, but you’re giving me a hard time for saying that there’s no evidence that domestic abuse occurred?
That makes perfect sense. What was I thinking?
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Missed the point, obviously. They are and were not satisfied, simply have run out of options within the scope of their jurisdiction.
by handicapismyswing on Dec 1, 2009 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did I say that we knew that the FHP is satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred?
And I’m giving you a hard time for saying this and I quote…“But they need to have had a reason to suspect domestic abuse to start that ball rolling and given the fact that the central happening in this case was a car accident, there’s not much reason to look further.”
…and then I went on to post the reasons why they should suspect domestic abuse and asked you a simple question which you have ignored now through about 6 posts. Sorry em66, cover your eyes and ears, but you sir, are no double eagle but instead a quadruple bogey(hey, I didn’t call him a fucking idiot afterall).
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 9:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well let me see...
Maybe from this sentence:
Now we also know the FHP went over to the hospital and they may have talked to the docs/nurses who treated TW and were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The FHP went to the hospital because the victim of a motor vehicle accident was there. How is that related to domestic abuse? You yourself said they “were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.” So where is there any evidence that they thought otherwise.
You have a lot of nerve treating others like idiots while you just ramble along not even paying attention to what you’re even saying. And in a highly abrasive fashion, I might add.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 10:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DE,
What language are you speaking/writing? Do you know what the word “may” means? It means I am speculating. I myself most certainly did NOT say that the FHP “were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred”.
Highly abrasive? You aint seen nothing yet….you deserve much worse, but you’re such a moron you wouldn’t even realize that you’re being treated like an idiot.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You might want to brush up on sentence construction a little so that you can effectively communicate your points without getting upset and angry at others.
That sentence I quoted above does not say what you think it does. Let me correct it for you so that it says what I think you intended it to say:
Now we also know the FHP went over to the hospital and they may have talked to the docs/nurses who treated TW and may have been satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The sentence I wrote and you quoted needs no correction. I said…
“Now we also know the FHP went over to the hospital and they may have talked to the docs/nurses who treated TW and were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.”
…we know the FHP went over to the hospital. That’s it, that’s all we know. They may have talked to the docs/nurses who treated TW…but we don’t know that. The subject “they” refers to the subject of the first clause, the FHP. And in the final clause there is no subject, as the subject is the same, ie. the FhP. “were satisfied that no domestic occurred”. Since we don’t “know” that they, the FHP, even met with the docs/nurses who treated TW, then there is no way that we could possible “know” that they, the FHP, were satisfied that no domestic abuse occurred.
The sentence I wrote and you quoted says exactly what I thought and meant it to say. I take no responsibility for any moron misconstruing what it clearly says.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m laughing out loud over here. Ok, you win. Your command of the English language was too much for me.
by Double Eagle on Dec 1, 2009 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, finally….that was like pulling teeth! So….“Do you still think there is no reason to investigate this for domestic abuse?”
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even as I’m sitting here, I’m watching sportscenter and the lawyer for the next door neighbor makes the statement that TW didn’t have wounds consistent with domestic abuse. Well, that’s all fine and dandy but how do the FHP know that? Remember, they didn’t see TW at the accident scene and TW refused to meet with them for 3 days in a row. Are they, the FHP, supposed to take the word of a lawyer that TW’s wounds are not consistent with domestic abuse?
I’m telling you, the FHP could have initiated an investigation into whether domestic abuse occurred in this case, just from the facts we “know”. The fact that they didn’t open a domestic abuse investigation means they either knew more than we know from the reports(probably from what they learned at the ER), or they were giving preferential treatment to TW.
Either way, I’m fine with the FHP not opening a domestic abuse case against Elin. I’m old school, and many of us believe that the woman has a right to beat the hell out of a cheating husband….and it doesn’t work the other way around. Maybe it’s because I have a married daughter and I just couldn’t accept my son-in-law cheating on my daughter. But if my daughter cheated on him, I wouldn’t accept him beating her up, divorcing her fine, but no beating her up. Funny, even as I’m writing this, it doesn’t sound fair, but that is truly how I feel.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone is obviously operating under the mistaken assumption that I am em66? He and I know each other from other blogs (TGC) but my opinions are my own. The FHP made a huge misttake by not actively pursuing an immediate investigation of spousal abuse. They “dithered” because Elin was unharmed and they assumed that she could not possibly have injured the mighty Tiger, even though he retreated from the home wearing no shoes and fled at a high rate of speed. Facial lacerations are an ambiguous result, and due diligence was not observed at the hospital. Personal observation of bodily injury is necessary in a case like this, something that FHP has been denied.
by handicapismyswing on Dec 1, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks handicapismyswing, I was busy writing my post when you posted….you get it…makes me feel somewhat justified after arguing with the albatross all day.
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 11:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow this keeps getting better. I willing to bet every Phil Mickelson fan is loving this. Boy cant wait till Tiger goes back to NY. Should be fun.
by golf-nut on Dec 1, 2009 3:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
“Jumping the Shark”? Since when did we start comparing Tiger with Fonzie? lol
Kevin
by IceCat on Dec 1, 2009 3:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
AAAAaayyyyyyyyyyyy !
LMAO – I had completely forgotten about that episode.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 1, 2009 4:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL…the things you learn here in the WaggleRoom…I’ve heard this expression many times but never knew where it came from…
“The phrase jump the shark refers to the climactic scene in “Hollywood,” a three-part episode opening the fifth season of the American TV series Happy Days in September 1977. In this story, the series’ central characters visit Los Angeles, where Fonzie (Henry Winkler), wearing swim trunks and his trademark leather jacket, jumps over a confined shark on water skis, answering a challenge to demonstrate his bravery."
…now we do!
by niblic on Dec 1, 2009 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Expanding on that, many TV critics at the time believe that “Happy Days” had outlived its relevance around the time of that episode, and the phrase “jumped the shark” has since come to refer to the point when any show, or in this case “news story”, has reached its peak.
Kevin
by IceCat on Dec 2, 2009 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
…and too bad, because at the time I had a major crush on Erin Moran (Joanie). “sigh”
Kevin
by IceCat on Dec 2, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I managed to get in touch with the fire hydrant. He told me everything. It doesnt look good for Tiger. lol :):):):)
by golf-nut on Dec 1, 2009 3:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Looks like TMZ was doing more than "keeping itself relevant"
Watch for RU to come clean soon so that she can leverage some sort of payday.
by I_miss_Switzer on Dec 2, 2009 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
you think ? she’s already made her headlines denying that she ever had anything to do with Tiger.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Dec 2, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I figured she was denying
until Allred could get her paid to spill the beans. Now she is second or third in line – her story has less value by the minute.
by I_miss_Switzer on Dec 2, 2009 12:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm soooooooooo sorry
Apology, ,hmmmmm better late than never as people sometimes say but it was obviously well scripted and word smithed by a publisist. Its always better to admit you set the fire and get help putting it out before it gets to big and the house burns down. I’m glad to see he ( somewhat apologized ) but he should have done the right thing and fessed up prior to others finding out the truth about the affair, (as yet to be proven) but most likely. Fooling around while your bride is pregnant, YIKES !!! bad bad bad….jumpn/progolf
by progolf on Dec 2, 2009 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Top - 10 beatdowns
Over the years TGC has always fawned, drooled and groveled over their Golden Goose Tiger. They did a top-10 segment entitled Tiger Woods top-10 beatdowns, ( played over and over and over again to make TW look like such a king and to belittle the players he beat. Maybe they should include this LATEST home wrecker fiasco in their Top-10 TW BEATDOWN’S…jumpn
by progolf on Dec 2, 2009 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
progolf/jumpn.
I won’t post over there anymore, the deletions are just too ridiculous….but I still read there and to be fair, Randall Mell has written 2 very honest and critical columns about TW in the last 2 days
by niblic on Dec 3, 2009 7:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
