Simon Dyson hearing

[Pro Zach]

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.

Indeed. My first post on this thread said the decision was ambiguous. One of the reasons was exactly your point. All cheating is premeditated i.e. you can't accidentally cheat.

I then read it as I would read a legal document, or how I believe you would read the rules of golf. That is, they don't just add words to make it more interesting, as we might in a forum discussion. This means the word must have meaning. I believe if they had meant 'it was not an act of cheating' that is what they would have written.

Looking at the legal term premeditated murder the same thing applies. All murder is premeditated i.e. you can't accidentally murder someone.

The term is used to distinguish between planned and impulsive actions. This means the statement says he did cheat but it was an impulsive, spur of the moment decision.

Of course I could be wrong. I can see how Foxholer and others are interpreting it differently and they could be right. I just think it is less probable. One of the main reasons is because if they are saying he didn't cheat then they punished him for breaking rule 16-1a. This means they consider breaking that rule (but seemingly not others) a serious breach of the code. I find that very improbable. Not quite as improbable as them punishing him for not being very famous, but still unlikely.

 

[Colin L]

Look at the structure which is very straightforward:

The statement says Dyson did A; he did not do B.
It does not allow for the reading, Dyson did A; he did not do B; but what we are really trying to say is that he did C.


In general, not directed at Zach, it is amazing how many people seem to want a player who has breached the rules to be hung up by his Pro v1s and flogged as a "cheat". Since the first objective of cheating is not to be found out, the ideal way of achieving that is obviously to tap down a spike mark in full view of other players, caddies, gallery and TV cameras. Which has been said before, and conveniently ignored by the hang 'em and flog 'em group. If Dyson is a cheat, he is an outstandingly inept one.

Anyway, unless you have played, as I did last night, an unfamiliar board game with your 5 year old grandson who takes winning as his right, you have no idea what real cheating is about.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Look at the structure which is very straightforward:

The statement says Dyson did A; he did not do B.
It does not allow for the reading, Dyson did A; he did not do B; but what we are really trying to say is that he did C.


In general, not directed at Zach, it is amazing, how many people seem to want a player who has breached the rules to be hung up by his Pro v1s and flogged as a "cheat". Since the first objective of cheating is not to be found out, the ideal way of achieving that is obviously to tap down a spike mark in full view of other players, caddies, gallery and TV cameras. Which has been said before, and conveniently ignored by the hang 'em and flog 'em group. If Dyson is a cheat, he is an outstandingly inept one.

Anyway, unless you have played, as I did last night, an unfamiliar board game with your 5 year old grandson who takes winning as his right, you have no idea what real cheating is about.

My thoughts exactly, it seems some people are desperate for him to be outed as a cheat, I'm not sure why, but as you say,and I said earlier in the thread, if you were going to cheat, right next to the hole when in contention in the first of the R2D Final Series events shown live on TV is not the place to be doing it.

 

[CMAC]

Look at the structure which is very straightforward:

The statement says Dyson did A; he did not do B.
It does not allow for the reading, Dyson did A; he did not do B; but what we are really trying to say is that he did C.


In general, not directed at Zach, it is amazing how many people seem to want a player who has breached the rules to be hung up by his Pro v1s and flogged as a "cheat". Since the first objective of cheating is not to be found out, the ideal way of achieving that is obviously to tap down a spike mark in full view of other players, caddies, gallery and TV cameras. Which has been said before, and conveniently ignored by the hang 'em and flog 'em group. If Dyson is a cheat, he is an outstandingly inept one.

Anyway, unless you have played, as I did last night, an unfamiliar board game with your 5 year old grandson who takes winning as his right, you have no idea what real cheating is about.

well said, not only do you get the 'hang em high' gang, you get the Chinese whispers crowd pre and post decision who base all their statements on assumption, hearsay and gossip. Wonder how they would feel if it happened to them at their own club by similar people

 

[Pro Zach]

Look at the structure which is very straightforward:

The statement says Dyson did A; he did not do B.
It does not allow for the reading, Dyson did A; he did not do B; but what we are really trying to say is that he did C.


In general, not directed at Zach, it is amazing how many people seem to want a player who has breached the rules to be hung up by his Pro v1s and flogged as a "cheat". Since the first objective of cheating is not to be found out, the ideal way of achieving that is obviously to tap down a spike mark in full view of other players, caddies, gallery and TV cameras. Which has been said before, and conveniently ignored by the hang 'em and flog 'em group. If Dyson is a cheat, he is an outstandingly inept one.

Anyway, unless you have played, as I did last night, an unfamiliar board game with your 5 year old grandson who takes winning as his right, you have no idea what real cheating is about.

In response to the A,B,Cs I can only say; What?

Does it not amaze you that people want a player who has breached the rules to 'be caused and continue to be caused detriment', pay £37500 and have a 2 month suspension (suspended)?

Your argument on cheating is why being obvious is often the best way. People are less likely to spot it because they don't expect blatant cheating. If they do spot it then they are unlikely to believe you did it deliberately. A defence stating “I'd have to be a complete idiot to do that”, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

For clarity, I am not advocating cheating. There is no honour in cheating, only guilt and self loathing. I often wonder how I sleep at night. I suspect the trophies and money help. Gilt diminishes guilt.

For clearer clarity the above is a joke. Only a complete idiot would come on the forum and admit to cheating.....err.......back to topic.

My opinion of whether he cheated or not is irrelevant, even to me. My argument has been about whether the document says he cheated or not. I think it does, others think it doesn't.

At the end of the day I could be right and they could be complete idiots or they could be right and I have made a small mistake. If, as I say, they have luckily stumbled across the correct meaning and I have made a small unavoidable error then it is clearly the fault of the ET for producing such a misleading report.

I can live with that.

 

[Foxholer]

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.

Never saw this post, so missed the original un-modded version.

But the analogy is wrong!

You simply don't seem to be able to accept what appears quite plain to me! So for the record, I think you are a complete idiot!

And that is the last I plan to say on this topic.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Quite amused by the entrenched views and name calling on this thread.

In my opinion........

The statement says that dyson cheated, and then goes on to say that he didn't cheat.

Glad to able to clear that up for you all!

 

[Pro Zach]

Too late to edit but the last paragraph in my previous post was tongue in cheek. I thought it seemed obvious. Perhaps this thread should have taught me not to make such assumptions. So I am, as someone kindly pointed out, a complete idiot or I made a mistake and should have used smilies.

To be clear, I do not think people are idiots because they have a different opinion.

Unless they opine that golf lessons are a good idea.

That should be good for another 40 pages.

 

[shivas irons]

Seems Mr Dysons woes have stirred people up here,when I started this thread I just thought there would be a handfull of replies, theres been nearly 500 and almost 4000 views.........Was thinking the armchair referees are going to be watching Dyson like a hawk when he tee's it up again and Dy himself is going to have to be so vigilant with everything he does as one more slip up and not only will he incure the ban but he's reputation will be ruined, hope this doesent kill the guys game.