Simon Dyson hearing

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So a sub-conscious deliberate action - bit like sleep-walking then

 

[Foxholer]

From what I hear on the grapevine it may not go well for him.

Apparently some players have come forward with some accusations of previous incidents ?

No its not different circumstances, theres players coming forward with all sorts of allegations against Dyson, the ET wouldnt be going to all this trouble for a one off incident.

I have been told by someone that works in the media department ( events ) of the ET that some players have given evidence

Now you can believe that or you can accuse me of "craving attention"

I'm just letting the forum know what I've been told by someone who is a lot closer to it than any of us are. How can you crave attention on an internet forum? The mind boggles.:thup:to you though Phil, receiving the info how it was meant.

The person I spoke to didn't say "You didn't hear it from me" it is all common knowledge stuff on tour, I just think it best to keep his name out of it. I'm sorry if I offended your obviously impeccable scruples. Any inside the tour info I get in future I will be sure to keep to myself for fear of offending anyone.

Have heard from someone who works on the ET that they are going to come down hard on him and there have been input from other players.

Does indeed seem that all the Hearsay, Fishwives stories etc were exactly that!

If any other players came forward, their evidence must have been positive for Dyson.

The size of the fine does seem as if they 'came down quite hard' though in terms of earnings....

I'm pleased he has been cleared of cheating.

CMAC appears to have been proven correct on this occasion! I'd suggest at least 2, maybe 3 apologies are due!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Lucky boy, he has got off lightly.
Reputation in tatters though.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

QUOTE=Wildrover;952947]From what I hear on the grapevine it may not go well for him.

Does indeed seem that all the Hearsay, Fishwives stories etc were exactly that!

If any other players came forward, their evidence must have been positive for Dyson.

The size of the fine does seem as if they 'came down quite hard' though in terms of earnings....

I'm pleased he has been cleared of cheating.

CMAC appears to have been proven correct on this occasion! I'd suggest at least 2, maybe 3 apologies are due![/QUOTE]

Actually not needed because we weren't throwing accusations at posters

We were just passing on information we had been passed.

 

[19thagain]

But this part of the judgement implies it wasn't a "mistake"

3. The Panel held that charge to have been made out by the Tour. In particular, it found that:
(a) Mr Dyson’s action in touching the line of his putt was a deliberate one;
(b) that act was committed by him in the knowledge of the Rule forbidding such an act; and
(c) his purpose in so acting was to improve his position on the green by pressing down a spike mark.

i.e. He deliberately did it, he knew he shouldn't have done and he did it to gain an advantage.

A) he did not dispute that he did that so he did deliberately do it.
B)agreed but when we make a mistage - I knew I should have hit the k key instead of the g - so I was aware just forget,
C) no argument but as in b) this was a result of his mistake.

If every forgetful mistake you have made in life makes you feel a cheat etc or you judge your friends/ playing partners in this way, I am truly sorry for you.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Lucky boy, he has got off lightly.
Reputation in tatters though.

Got off lightly ? How so when his reputation is in tatters ?

Believe he has been hung out it dry by the ET and think the whole thing is a disgrace.

We are supposed to trust golfers - they are saying they don't.

 

[Foxholer]

But this part of the judgement implies it wasn't a "mistake"

3. The Panel held that charge to have been made out by the Tour. In particular, it found that:
(a) Mr Dyson’s action in touching the line of his putt was a deliberate one;
(b) that act was committed by him in the knowledge of the Rule forbidding such an act; and
(c) his purpose in so acting was to improve his position on the green by pressing down a spike mark.

i.e. He deliberately did it, he knew he shouldn't have done and he did it to gain an advantage.

As ever, quoting out of context can be misleading!

4 (ii) the fact, as the Panel found, that Mr Dyson’s conduct on the occasion in question involved a momentary aberration on his part, not a premeditated act of cheating; and....

Is rather important!

What Point 3 is actually stating, imo, is simply establishing the facts of the offence. He broke a Rule (c). It was a conscious act - rather than to avoid injury etc. (a). It was his responsibility to know that it was against the Rules (b).

To me, 4(ii) is the actual Decision/Judgement.

Seems to me that they concluded that he's NOT a cheater.

 

[Tommo21]

I certainly do, and so should you if your marking a competition card. You are acting on behalf of every other competitor and it's your responsibility or ensure that the score returned is within the rules. None of this "what did you get on the 18th" stuff.

Total tosh.............

 

[Fish]

As ever, quoting out of context can be misleading!

4 (ii) the fact, as the Panel found, that Mr Dyson’s conduct on the occasion in question involved a momentary aberration on his part, not a premeditated act of cheating; and....

in other words, a brain fart

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Can someone please post a link to the whole thing instead of misleading snippets ?

Why is the punishment so severe if they believe it was a mistake ?

 

[Foxholer]

Actually not needed because we weren't throwing accusations at posters

We were just passing on information we had been passed.

I have been told by someone that works in the media department ( events ) of the ET that some players have given evidence

Now you can believe that or you can accuse me of "craving attention"

So your, and the other Fishwife sources, were unreliable then!

@Fish.... Perfectly Put! I was trying to think of the appropriate expression, but obviously had one of those myself!

Here's the link! http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/news/newsid=213822.html

As I posted earlier, the 'severity' of the monetary punishment needs to be related to the earnings. Think along the lines of Footballing Fines! The expenses are high, but in line with the costs of the personnel involved - a QC and 2 'high powered' Sports Administrators.

 

[Fish]

Can someone please post a link to the whole thing instead of misleading snippets ?

Why is the punishment so severe if they believe it was a mistake ?

I think getting a 'suspended' ban is a result, so, I disagree that its severe in the grand scheme of things, it could have been much worse with an actual ban, and, will that amount of money affect him that much, I'm not sure of his earnings, so.....

 

[Tommo21]

Can someone please post a link to the whole thing instead of misleading snippets ?

Why is the punishment so severe if they believe it was a mistake ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/25221559

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So your, and the other Fishwife sources, were unreliable then!

@Fish.... Perfectly Put! I was trying to think of the appropriate expression, but obviously had one of those myself!

Here's the link! http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/news/newsid=213822.html

Yes they were unreliable in this occasion - i said when I posted what I did it was up to people to believe it or not . What idi don't like was people making judgements and suggesting I was craving attention.

Certainly don't feel I have anything to apologise for.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think getting a 'suspended' ban is a result, so, I disagree that its severe in the grand scheme of things, it could have been much worse with an actual ban, and, will that amount of money affect him that much, I'm not sure of his earnings, so.....

But he has now been punished twice for the same mistake ? If they believe it was a mistake then why the second punishment ?

 

[Fish]

But he has now been punished twice for the same mistake ? If they believe it was a mistake then why the second punishment ?

The DQ is an immediate act, they then have to investigate and review the incident and pass sentence, no different to being locked up overnight (or longer) and still going to court for sentencing, which may get thrown out!

I think its a result, he must have the money as he's only got 56 days to pay, I wonder if that's based on means testing

 

[Foxholer]

But he has now been punished twice for the same mistake ? If they believe it was a mistake then why the second punishment ?

No.

He was Penalised for the first mistake - actually technically his second - breaking the Rule. That Penalty was DQ from the comp.

He was Punished for being found guilty different offence - Breaking the Tour Disciplinary Code.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So any time someone breaks a rule or makes a mistake we shall expect them to follow the precedence they have now set for themselves.

Think the whole thing stinks and hope he challenges the verdict but I don't think he will.

The guy made a mistake and has been hung out to dry.

 

[Foxholer]

I think its a result, he must have the money as he's only got 56 days to pay, I wonder if that's based on means testing

indeed!

83k Euros won in 2 tournaments 'this year'

417k Euros won last year - though the DQ wrecked his chances of getting to the Dubai Final.

I'd figure he's probably good for it! And as their earnings go through the ET anyway, I'd figure they'll simply deduct it from his Player Account!

 

[Fish]

So any time someone breaks a rule or makes a mistake we shall expect them to follow the precedence they have now set for themselves.

Think the whole thing stinks and hope he challenges the verdict but I don't think he will.

The guy made a mistake and has been hung out to dry.

Does a red card stop there by simply being sent off, no, they made a mistake, their sent from the field and then its adjudicated more dependent on the seriousness of the offence, no different IMO.