• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Simon Dyson hearing

Dave3498 said:
Dyson was disqualified from the competition for signing for an incorrect score. I respect what you say about the disciplinary code but I think that only came into question because of his disqualification. If he had penalised himself before he signed his card, he would not have had been called into question. You may know more than I about previous incidents and maybe the committee would have called him for these. If that's the case, then I agree with you.
Click to expand...

You miss - or maybe avoid - Hawkeye's point.

He was DQ-ed (Penalised) for signing for an incorrect score.

He was 'hauled over the coals' charged with a Serious Breach of the European Tour's Code of Behaviour.

I'm certain that, if he'd realised he'd broken a Rule and applied the appropriate penalty he a) wouldn't have been disqualified and b) Wouldn't have been charged.....

I'm also almost cetain that if he'd realised he'd broken a Rule, he would have applied the appropriate penalty.

Important to get the cause/effect and terms correct though! In this Trigger; Result; Consequence.
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
You miss - or maybe avoid - Hawkeye's point.

He was DQ-ed (Penalised) for signing for an incorrect score.

He was 'hauled over the coals' charged with a Serious Breach of the European Tour's Code of Behaviour.

I'm certain that, if he'd realised he'd broken a Rule and applied the appropriate penalty he a) wouldn't have been disqualified and b) Wouldn't have been charged.....

I'm also almost cetain that if he'd realised he'd broken a Rule, he would have applied the appropriate penalty.

Important to get the cause/effect and terms correct though! In this Trigger; Result; Consequence.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I misunderstood Hawkeye's point, but I agree with all the rest of what you say. It's much the same as my point, but perhaps better put.
 
Hobbit said:
I think the ruling makes it pretty clear what the ET believe - "... acted deliberately with full knowledge." They then give themselves an out, if Dyson decides to contest their wording, by saying "momentary abberation." I think the ruling is superbly worded.



There is a danger in blindly believing people that you then put the integrity of the game at risk. Do you know what was going through the heads of Woods, McIlroy and Dyson when they breached the rules? No you don't. Best leave beliefs out of rulings and apply the rules objectively.

Deliberate act = cheating.
Click to expand...

I don't know what was going through the minds hence why I chose to believe the players and put my faith and trust into their own personal integrity

I don't believe any of them were cheating - believe they all made a mistake and one got punished harshly compared to the others. If Dyson was a big star like Woods I would also wonder if any proceedings would have occurred.

At the end of the day the committee didn't find him guilty of cheating and I believe that is correct.
 
Foxholer said:
I favour the 'or the circumstances were different' reason.

I confess! It was me that shot JFK. He was about to release details of where I'd hidden Hitler and my plans for an air attack on New York and the Pentagon! :whistle:

You are simply conspiratorially (mis)interpreting Paragraph 3 of the Decision Summary imo!
Click to expand...


There is no conspiracy here, just a possible explanation based on probability.

The circumstances were different because in this case he cheated. This is clearly defined in point 3.

I think you are misinterpreting what it says.

But if as you and others think, they didn't conclude he cheated, why was he given a fine and suspension?
 
Pro Zach said:
There is no conspiracy here, just a possible explanation based on probability.

The circumstances were different because in this case he cheated. This is clearly defined in point 3.

I think you are misinterpreting what it says.

But if as you and others think, they didn't conclude he cheated, why was he given a fine and suspension?
Click to expand...

If they had concluded he had cheated, it wouldn't have been a suspended 2 month ban, it would have been an outright ban.
 
If they thought he cheated then why didn't they ban him like they did Saltman ? As opposed to giving him a suspended sentence for breaking their code

And do you keep missing the part where it says that they concluded that it wasn't premeditated cheating ( the only time in the whole conclusion they used the word "cheat" )
 
Pro Zach said:
There is no conspiracy here, just a possible explanation based on probability.

The circumstances were different because in this case he cheated. This is clearly defined in point 3.

I think you are misinterpreting what it says.

But if as you and others think, they didn't conclude he cheated, why was he given a fine and suspension?
Click to expand...

This discussion is going nowhere.

Paragraph 4 of clearly states 'Mr Dyson’s conduct on the occasion in question involved a momentary aberration on his part, not a premeditated act of cheating'!

Whatever interpretation you wish to take on Para 3 or any other part of the document, the above quote is unequivocal!

The Fine and (Suspended) Suspension are because the Charge was deemed Proven. The Charge, however, was not that he was a cheat, but 'that he intentionally tapped down a spike mark on the line of his putt on the 8th green at Lake Malaren Golf Club during the second round of the BMW Masters on 25th October 2013, and that in doing so he deliberately interfered with the line of his putt, contrary to Rule 16-1a of the Rules of Golf.'

Trying to think of an analogy. The only one that's anything near - and it's not all that close - involves Speeding and Dangerous Driving.

Yes, (objective) facts might show that someone was speeding, but that doesn't mean that it was (subjective) 'dangerous'.
 
Last edited:
Foxholer said:
This discussion is going nowhere.

Paragraph 4 of clearly states 'Mr Dyson’s conduct on the occasion in question involved a momentary aberration on his part, not a premeditated act of cheating'!

Whatever interpretation you wish to take on Para 3 or any other part of the document, the above quote is unequivocal!

The Fine and (Suspended) Suspension are because the Charge was deemed Proven. The Charge, however, was not that he was a cheat, but 'that he intentionally tapped down a spike mark on the line of his putt on the 8th green at Lake Malaren Golf Club during the second round of the BMW Masters on 25th October 2013, and that in doing so he deliberately interfered with the line of his putt, contrary to Rule 16-1a of the Rules of Golf.'

Trying to think of an analogy. The only one that's anything near - and it's not all that close - involves Speeding and Dangerous Driving.

Yes, (objective) facts might show that someone was speeding, but that doesn't mean that it was (subjective) 'dangerous'.
Click to expand...

It's not unequivocal as demonstrated by your misinterpretation.

Not an act of cheating, means he didn't cheat. Not a premeditated act of cheating means he didn't plan to cheat.

Point 3 states he cheated, this states it wasn't premeditated.

Aberration has several meanings, I suspect in this context they mean departure from the normal. i.e. he doesn't normally cheat.

If he was fined and suspended for what you say then he would have had the same punishment even if he had added a 2 stroke penalty. Which is ridiculous and therefore complete dangly bits.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
If they thought he cheated then why didn't they ban him like they did Saltman ? As opposed to giving him a suspended sentence for breaking their code

And do you keep missing the part where it says that they concluded that it wasn't premeditated cheating ( the only time in the whole conclusion they used the word "cheat" )
Click to expand...

They didn't use the word cheat they used the word cheating. It was preceded by the word premeditated. Perhaps they just like using big words or perhaps they meant he didn't plan to cheat.
 
Pro Zach said:
It's not unequivocal as demonstrated by your misinterpretation.

Not an act of cheating, means he didn't cheat. Not a premeditated act of cheating means he didn't plan to cheat.

Point 3 states he cheated, this states it wasn't premeditated.

Aberration has several meanings, I suspect in this context they mean departure from the normal. i.e. he doesn't normally cheat.

If he was fined and suspended for what you say then he would have had the same punishment even if he had added a 2 stroke penalty. Which is ridiculous and therefore complete dangly bits.
Click to expand...

G'rrr

To answer each point!

1. Unequivocal! There in Print! I quoted the text! No (possibility of) misinterpretation!

2. Correct! I cannot, and am not really interested in attempting to, alter your opinion, however badly considered and wrong I think it might be. I don't believe he's a cheat! And nowhere in the document does it state that 'he is a cheat' either!

3. Please show me where the document 'states he cheated'. It actually stated 'not a premeditated act of cheating'. Unequivocal! Take another 2 clouts of the 9-iron!

4. I agree! So what? What's your point?

5. Possibly. But speculation and, I believe, wrong! Consistent with McIlroy's aberration, there would not have been a DQ and, again as per McIlroy's incident, he would not have been charged with breaching the Code of Conduct - which no doubt states something along the lines of having to apply all suitable Penalties in the Rules before returning a Card.
 
Foxholer said:
G'rrr

To answer each point!

1. Unequivocal! There in Print! I quoted the text! No (possibility of) misinterpretation!

2. Correct! I cannot, and am not really interested in attempting to, alter your opinion, however badly considered and wrong I think it might be. I don't believe he's a cheat! And nowhere in the document does it state that 'he is a cheat' either!

3. Please show me where the document 'states he cheated'. It actually stated 'not a premeditated act of cheating'. Unequivocal! Take another 2 clouts of the 9-iron!

4. I agree! So what? What's your point?

5. Possibly. But speculation and, I believe, wrong! Consistent with McIlroy's aberration, there would not have been a DQ and, again as per McIlroy's incident, he would not have been charged with breaching the Code of Conduct - which no doubt states something along the lines of having to apply all suitable Penalties in the Rules before returning a Card.
Click to expand...

What is written is unequivocal the meaning is obviously not. You seem to think 'not a premeditated act of cheating' means he didn't cheat whereas it actually means he did. Why would they decide he didn't cheat, then in mitigation, point out it wasn't premeditated?

What would you make of this?

1. This is the Decision of the disciplinary panel in the matter of Fred Blogs.

2. Mr Blogs was charged with a serious breach of the code of behaviour, the facts being that he intentionally assaulted Mr Smith.

3. The panel found
(a) Mr Blogs action was a deliberate one
(b) the purpose in so acting was to cause Mr Smith harm.

4. The panel found that Mr Blogs action involved a momentary aberration on his part, not a premeditated act of (mod edit)

5. The panel fine him £1000.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is like a bad episode of Magic Roundabout with a few characters that need killing off :whistle:
 
I think what this thread highlights is the appalling lack of leadership from the tour.

They should have released an unequivocal statement that either cleared or convicted dyson. Instead we got this terrible obfuscation that can be interpreted either way.
 
Pro Zach said:
What is written is unequivocal the meaning is obviously not. You seem to think 'not a premeditated act of cheating' means he didn't cheat whereas it actually means he did. Why would they decide he didn't cheat, then in mitigation, point out it wasn't premeditated?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are being misled by the use of unpremeditated which is really redundant. Cheating has to be premeditated. The statement does not distinguish, as you are trying to make it do, between premeditated and unpremeditated cheating. The latter does not exist. Had the statement read "it was not an act of cheating" it would have meant exactly the same as it does with premeditated in it, but might have saved a deal of misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
House Price Outlook
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
KenL
KenL
Jacko_G
Rory - hmmmmmmm!
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
10K
Marshy77
M
1
West Coast Golf Trip
Replies
12
Views
7K
patricks148
patricks148
N
Surprise Result
Replies
7
Views
1K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
D
Simon Dyson
Replies
6
Views
1K
Hobbit
Hobbit
Top