Tiger - 'Stevie is not a racist'

First topic message reminder :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/15620375.stm

WARNING: This story contains language some may find offensive.

Tiger Woods has revealed he was hurt by Steve Williams's race comment but insisted his former caddie "is certainly not a racist".

Woods added: "It was a wrong thing to say. We're moving forward. It was hurtful certainly, but life goes forward.

"It is a comment that shouldn't have been made and he certainly wishes he didn't make it."

Woods said he had spoken to Williams about the remark, but declined to reveal exactly what they discussed.

"We talked about it this morning, we met face-to-face, we talked it through and we have agreed it was the wrong thing to say," former world number one Woods said.

"He did apologise."

Woods said he had "no doubts" in his belief that Williams did not hold racist views.

The caddie has apologised for his remarks and European Tour chief George O'Grady and US PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem have decided to take no action.

Williams, who now carries Adam Scott's bag, made the comments when he was awarded a light-hearted accolade for "the best celebration of the year" in Shanghai on Friday.

When he was asked to elaborate on his celebration when Scott won a world championship in August Williams said the aim was "to shove it right up that black bumhole".

Williams, who was sacked by Woods in July, apologised on Saturday. He said: "I now realise how my comments could be construed as racist. That was not my intent. I apologise to Tiger and anyone else I have offended."

Williams later told Newstalk ZB radio station in his home country of New Zealand that his comment had been "blown out of all proportion".

He said: "It was kind of like a locker room environment, everyone was having a good time.

"My comments were by no means the worst that were passed. There were a lot of profanities and other kinds of remarks but just because I make a remark regarding my former employee (sic) it gets blown out of all proportion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

"You make one comment in a room, having a bit of fun, how does that make you a racist?

"It's making a mountain out of a molehill and I'm not worried about it one bit."

Williams caddied for Woods from 1999 until earlier this year and shared in 13 of the former world number one's 14 major victories. It is estimated he earned $12m (£7.5m) working for Woods.

Woods was speaking about the incident for the first time at a press conference to discuss this week's Australian Open.

McLaren wrote:Lets hope simba is not as stubborn as LJ and can make an apology allowing his hopefully peaceful return to the forum.

Problem is Mac, he always, always makes his points with a personal dig. It's really only a question of whether the dig is light or quite insulting. I freely admit he can make some valid points but that's lost in all the associated guff. The Beeb, IMO, totally abrogated their responsibilities in hammering those that tried to shoot him down but still allowed him to cause trouble. Doesn't look he'll get away with only doing that here but he's made his own bed to lie in.

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Digs, the time I clearly noticed it seemed a bit of both, the context and tone both changed. Other posts seemed different too but I couldn't tell you exactly what changed.

Fair enough Grumpy, its certainly not cricket really anyway.

Hibbz wrote:

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:So maybe Simba was quick enough to edit in this case but it was still seen by a few people that were discussing that thread at the time. So if I typed really fast and posted before he changed it, then the edit bar would have appeared?

I'm confused now, my opinion is you shouldn't be able to change the post, once published, without the edit bar appearing.

I agree with this and with what mustputtbetter said. It becomes impossible to "win" a debate if someone can just go back and change their original standpoint and that to me is a big part of the fun of a forum.

I'm also slightly concerned that PM's are being "bandied" about to all and sundry.

Just a note on this, I should say why I was privvy to the PM in question, the only reason I was included in this was to ask how Simba had responded in the past to moderation as a former moderater on the board who was online at the time so that it could be dealt with swiftly rather than retrospectively. To state all I did was answer in that I had found him reasonable before and that he had shown nothing of what he wrote in the PM previously. That said I cannot defend what was said in that PM and if the admin team felt the decision to ban him as a result of what he said then I can fully understand their reasoning

This is like when I used to go out a lot in the younger years and would always miss the fights in the night clubs etc. I always miss the good/bad stuff on here too.

"What about that fight last night Lairdy?"

"...fight?"

Lairdy, we could probably get you Simba's personal email address if you like?

ILoveTigerSoMuch@I'dDieWithoutHim.com

I know Lairdy, I feel a little cheated too. Is it just me or do others want to see Simba's PM that has been talked about so much? All the mystery and intrigue over it is making me feel like I've missed out.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Lairdy, we could probably get you Simba's personal email address if you like?

ILoveTigerSoMuch@I'dDieWithoutHim.com

I dont know if I could bring myself to type those letters!

Lairdy wrote:

MustPuttBetter wrote:Lairdy, we could probably get you Simba's personal email address if you like?

ILoveTigerSoMuch@I'dDieWithoutHim.com

I dont know if I could bring myself to type those letters!

agreed think i'd fail to get past I love tiger without having to rush off and talk to myself for even mentioning those words

Could you not get someone else to type it for you?

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Could you not get someone else to type it for you?

but then i'd have to speak them to tell them who to send it to

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:I know Lairdy, I feel a little cheated too. Is it just me or do others want to see Simba's PM that has been talked about so much? All the mystery and intrigue over it is making me feel like I've missed out.

It's not that interesting - I wouldn't credit him with that. It was short and it did have a few choice swear words in it. If it'd been aimed at me, I'd have considered it as, lets say, a letter of resignation.

Okay, thanks Navy. I'd imagined, how foolish, that it was a well written rant with some choice phrases and insults that would raise a smile and question whether some things were anatomically correct or physically possible.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Lairdy, we could probably get you Simba's personal email address if you like?

ILoveTigerSoMuch@I'dDieWithoutHim.com

NO. That's super realist's email address!

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Ray, I was a little late to the name calling thread and when I tried to catch up reading half of the posts didn't make sense when you read through them. I think this was down to two things: mods, rightly, getting involved and a poster somehow changing their posts without the post edited footer appearing.

I caught Simba over the weekend somehow altering his posts and made comments to that effect. Some of his comments were quite provocative or deliberately agitative, they drew a reaction and it wasn't just from me. When he was called out on this the provocative piece of the text was then modified to be more reasonable and so after the fact it would appear posters are attacking, bullying or out to get him.

He does have some reasonable points, at times, and brings a different viewpoint but to alter your statements to fit the facts does not fit in with good debate.

Interesting- thanks for clearing this up grumpy, makes more sense now.

It is ok guys, all stevie has to do is shake Tigers hand.

McLaren wrote:It is ok guys, all stevie has to do is shake Tigers hand.

The Sepp Blatter school of racism??

McLaren wrote:It is ok guys, all stevie has to do is shake Tigers hand.

Actually, in this case, why not? Whether you or I think what was said is out of order isn't that relevant is it? They've apparently had discussions between the two of them and TW states that he doesn't believe Williams is a racist. If TW is happy to shake hands, metaphorically and/or in reality, then who is anyone else to say they shouldn't settle it like that? Williams is (I guess) employed by Scott and he doesn't think it's a sacking offence either. Not sure that the ET etc can do much even if they want to. I hate the phrase but "End of" surely?

They shook hands on day 1 of the Presidents Cup and it was all pretty uneventful. Just how it should have been.

Tiger in showing a bit of class shocker!!

This was really a none issue, as soon as Woods said whta he did.

If Woods had deemed it racist then it would have been, and that is where it should end!

Kudos for Woods for not making a meal out of it, as I am sure other Black sportsmen would have done!

I dont think the issue was about how Woods reacted. It was about how Scott reacted to employing a caddy that made a statement like that.
Clearly Scott was fine with it.

Was it a sacking offence?

Depends where you stand on what was said and who you want to work with.

But let's be honest, while the remark was a little bit ill advised, it was not meant as a racist slur, had we heard it (or something similar on the after dinner circuit, we probably would have laughed) but since Woods has been man enough to draw a line under it, there is no longer an issue!

I think as no one from the forum was there in which to gauge the context and actual wording of how it was said then we should probably take Woods' stance on the subject. He's not got a problem with it, so why should anyone else?

Woods wasnt there either. I dont see why its his position to make any kind of call on the issue. The point is that you either believe Williams made a racist remark or you dont. Whether Woods has got a problem with it is irrelevant.

No he wasn't, but I'm sure he was privy to more details than we are, plus he know Williams.



If a black person had said of you "I wanted to shove that win up his skinny (or fat, delete as appropriate) white ar£ehole. "

Would you be duly upset? I think the Guardian like fake outrage response does more to try and make a situation out of something that probably wasn't even there.

Of course it is not irrelevant, it is the point!

IMO, since the remark, whatever it was, was aimed at or about him, then it is ONLY him (woods) who gets to make the call.

Go watch any comedy act, all material pokes fun at someone, and we are becoming to over sensative in this day and age, and I will not be told by anyone else what is or isn't offensive!

JDandfries wrote:Of course it is not irrelevant, it is the point!

IMO, since the remark, whatever it was, was aimed at or about him, then it is ONLY him (woods) who gets to make the call.

Go watch any comedy act, all material pokes fun at someone, and we are becoming to over sensative in this day and age, and I will not be told by anyone else what is or isn't offensive!

Exactly JD, It reminds me very much of local councils who at this time of year rename Christmas as "Winterval" for fear of offending minorities or non christian religions, despite those groups having no objection at all to Christmas.
Someone thinks someone is going to be offended by something, so everything has to become over-sanitised, which ends up being far more offensive than the thing that was changed in the first place.

Diggers wrote:Woods wasnt there either. I dont see why its his position to make any kind of call on the issue. The point is that you either believe Williams made a racist remark or you dont. Whether Woods has got a problem with it is irrelevant.

You and i have different (opposite) views on whether the comment was racist or not, but i absolutely agree that Woods's opinion is rather irrelevant. I don't really follow the view that if it feels racist to the person then it must be. Really? So i could essentially take anything i like and say it feels racist and it must therefore be. Or as a different example i could say something blatently racist to a fella who for one reason or another wasn't fussed and that would make it less racist? Of course not

JDandfries wrote:Of course it is not irrelevant, it is the point!

IMO, since the remark, whatever it was, was aimed at or about him, then it is ONLY him (woods) who gets to make the call.

Go watch any comedy act, all material pokes fun at someone, and we are becoming to over sensative in this day and age, and I will not be told by anyone else what is or isn't offensive!

You equally are not in a position to tell anyone else what is an offensive comment. I asked a few black people at work if they considered Wiliams comments to be a. racist and b. offensive. Yes to both was the answer from them.
So Scott has in his employ someone who made a racist comment in the eyes of many people. Its up to him to decide whether he wants to employ him, in the same way it would be up to me whether Id want to spend anytime with him if I knew him. You make a decision based on your own opinion of what he said.

Surely they are in no better position than anyone else to say whether it's racist or not? They weren't there either.

I asked them if someone referred to you as a black ahole how would you feel about it. I believe that is the crux of this debate, whether saying that constitutes making a racist remark.

I think youse two should settle this with "a handshake".

Yet the person who it was aimed at, who has more info to hand than anyone else, to make a decision, thinks it wasn't?

I really dont see why its up to Tiger Woods to decide whether a particular phrase is racist or not. Its very simple, as MPB said earlier, you either believe the vocabulary used is racially offensive or you dont.
It doesnt matter a jot to me whether Woods thinks Williams is a racist or not. It boils down to whether people in general find that kind of language acceptable.

Vocabularly and context are not the same thing.

Its perfectly possible for an individual to accept that certain vocabulary is not acceptable in any context.

They are usually reading The Guardian and chair of some unneccessary wishy washy think tank.

Diggers wrote:Its perfectly possible for an individual to accept that certain vocabulary is not acceptable in any context.

True and Williams' remark ticks that box.

super_realist wrote:They are usually reading The Guardian and chair of some unneccessary wishy washy think tank.

You actually think that? You know, the Gaurdirad actually make a good counterpoint for the rabidly right-wing rubbish that passes for newspapers in this Country. Better the Guardian than the closet xenophobes reading the Daily Mail etc.

We should do a new Godwins law just for you Super. How long can you go in at thread without mentioning Gaurdian readers or English football.

On this particular subject, surely Wodd's opinion counts more than anyone elses?

I am sick of people (do gooders with nothing else to do) telling the public what they should and shouldnt be offended by, and what is acceptable etc.

The 'slur' or whatever you want to call it, was aimed at Woods, who although not pleased by it, deemed that it wasn't racist, and that Williams is not a racist!

Labelling people as such, is a dangerous tactic IMO, simply because I have absoultely no idea, what actually constitutes racism.

Prince Phillip makes a few jibes about Indian electrician etc, and it is alright, yet Williams is a racist?

JDandfries wrote:...Prince Phillip makes a few jibes about Indian electrician etc, and it is alright, yet Williams is a racist?

But the DofE's comments are not 'alright' are they? I haven't heard anyone say they're appropriate really. I do agree we're in danger of becoming overly sensitive about what someone says but, in the case of racism, it has a pretty hideous history so you can understand the sensitivities I think. I don't think Williams is necessarily a racist but his comment was clearly a racist remark. If he had long term form for that sort of remark or, in his actions over time, it suggested more than just an ill-judged remark, that would be very different. I think his previous relationship with TW suggests this is unlikely. As I think I mentioned somewhere earlier on this thread, if nothing else he's come out of this looking even more of a plum than people thought he was before.

JD, cant really think of another way to explain why I dont think Woods view matters.
I could equally say Im sick of people (right wing xenophobics with nothing better to do) telling people what is offensive and what isnt.
It just comes down to what your view is and what my view is.
The fact is that nothing happened to either Williams or Prince Philip but that doesnt stop people taking a view on what was said.

My jibe at teh do gooder wasn't aimed at you, more the PC brigade etc, the same people who are trying to ban smoking in cars etc.

I don't think I can define racism, but you only have to look at TV shows from the 70's and 80's, which were hillarious IMO, Fawlty Towers, Rising Damp, the likes of which, will never be seen again, simply because aspects of the show would now be deemed racist.

Racism is deplorable, but I just think it is a word that is thrown about without much thought to where it originally stems from, thus trivialising it's roots!

I think what williams said was certainly offensive. However i think the way he said the word 'black' in the insult was more discriptive(limited vocabulary) rather than blatantely racist. Jeas we have been here before lol. not sure if i want to go back

JD, I know it was a general statement as was mine. Both representing extremes which I dont think eother of us remotely are.
Re TV shows though I remember Love Thy Neighbour and Mind Your Language which probably should never have been made in the first place.
Look whatever Super might think Im not offended on Tigers behalf but I am interested in what peoples views on here have been re the subject. Also in some ways I think the word prejudice might be better than racist in this case.
I think the smoking one is an interesting debate, got quite heated on Question Time last night. As an aside to that I walked past David Dimbleby on Wednesday at Victoria......taller than you'd imagine.

"Also in some ways I think the word prejudice might be better than racist in this case. "

i think this is a case of a disgruntled ex employee and not much more in fairness.

mystiroakey wrote:"Also in some ways I think the word prejudice might be better than racist in this case. "

i think this is a case of a disgruntled ex employee and not much more in fairness.

+

Yes, a disgruntled ex employee expressing his prejudice.