The Golf Blog: Can Tiger Woods win a defamation lawsuit against Brandel Chamblee for “cheating” insinuation?
The Golf Blog says: Tiger Woods’ agent Mark Steinberg initially suggested legal action might be taken against Brandel Chamblee for insinuating that Tiger Woods cheated this past year during several rules controversies. Although Chamblee only directly said that Tiger “was a little cavalier with the rules,” Chamblee insinuated that Tiger had cheated by introducing the entire commentary about Tiger’s rules controversies with a personal incident in which Chamblee cheated on a math test in the fourth grade. Chamblee has now admitted that his analogy was wrong: “In comparing those incidents to my cheating episode in the fourth grade, I went too far. Cheating involves intent. I know what my intent was on that fourth-grade math test. But there’s no way I could know with 100 percent certainty what Tiger’s intent was in any of those situations. That was my mistake.”
Could Chamblee be liable for defamation as well? Because Tiger Woods is a public figure, a defamation or libel claim would be difficult to prove. Under NYT v. Sullivan, Tiger would have to prove that Chamblee made a false statement of fact with actual malice or “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.”
Yet Tiger probably could raise a claim that could at least get to trial. First, many states recognize that insinuation can constitute a false statement of fact. So Chamblee could be on the hook for his inartful insinuation, without even asserting explicitly that Tiger Woods cheated. Second, the issue of knowledge is a factual issue going to the state of mind of Chamblee. Tiger would have to prove that Chamblee knew of the falsity of his comments or acted in reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Chamblee’s later admissions provide some support that Chamblee acted at least in reckless disregard of the truth.
Chamblee admitted:
“Golf is a gentleman’s game and I’m not proud of this debate. My intention was to note Tiger’s rules infractions this year, but comparing that to cheating in grade school went too far.”
“In comparing those incidents to my cheating episode in the fourth grade, I went too far. Cheating involves intent. I know what my intent was on that fourth-grade math test. But there’s no way I could know with 100 percent certainty what Tiger’s intent was in any of those situations. That was my mistake.”
These admissions might support the claim that Chamblee at least acted in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of his insinuation. We’d need to know more about the process Chamblee used to write his article and whether he bothered to fact-check or vet his insinuation of cheating.
Tweet