Lorena Ochoa accused of being "on something" when she took the LPGA by storm in 2006
I enjoy searching the internet for interesting golf stories. Sometimes I check out the local newspapers online to see what staff writers are coming up with and other times I check the blogger rolls.
I just happened to be googling the name “LPGA” and came up with this news article.
I’m sure that we are all aware that the LPGA will be testing for performance-enhancing drugs as well as changing the format to a three-hole playoff at this year’s U.S. Women’s Open. No, I had no problem with that part of the commentary.
I take offense at the line, “…because clearly, Lorena Ochoa is on something…” after mentioning drug evaluation. Does the writer believe that the only reason Ochoa had such a great season was because she was pumped up on steroids? Opinionated views like this one do nothing but discredit the author.
Ochoa didn’t need to take any kind of drug to achieve her record-setting 2006 season. When she received the National Sports prize from her native Mexico Ochoa replied, “I was surprised, but at the same time happy, because I worked hard for many years and now to get the award is very nice".
Yes, Lorena has been a card-carrying member of the LPGA Tour since 2003 and no one ever mentioned steroid abuse when she made that snowman in the second round of the Mitchell Company Tournament of Champions (she came back from that Friday meltdown to win the event).
Although I am not Lorena Ochoa I am offended by this comment, but I guess it will take drug testing to show people like England that sometimes all you need is dedication to golf and a good work ethic in order to achieve your goals. On the flip side, if it is proven that Ochoa has been taking steroids, her career will have been ended in disgrace. I don’t think that will look good for either Ochoa, her sponsors, fans and especially, her homeland.
Thank goodness England didn’t read about Cristie Kerr’s response to the LPGA’s new drug-testing policy or it would have been Kerr’s head on her chopping block. “Well, as long as they don’t test for wine, I think I’m all right.”
Comments, Pingbacks:
Permalink
2007-02-07 @ 12:48 Natalie England seems to me to be rather a novice writer, and in my opinion, she was attempting to be facetious and somewhat flippant.
I hope for her sake that Lorena and her agents take that approach and ignore her comment.
If I were Natalie, I'd quickly offer an explanation and an apology, because Lorena, if absolved of any use of performance enhancing substances, could certainly sue and recover.
If false, that is a blatant bit of libel.
Permalink
2007-02-07 @ 14:05 Read the article slowly, take a deep breath....remember ...jokes, sense of humour, delicate touch of irony ??
Try this: "Tour commissioner Finchem asked Scotland Yard to investigate Tiger Wood, because he was clearly under hypnosis during his last victory in the British Open".
Permalink
2007-02-07 @ 15:25 After reading it a second time, I can see it being a joke, but I think the joke failed and she should really clarify herself in a future column.
Considering the number of people of Mexican decent living in San Antonio I'm surprised this hasn't come to a head already.
Permalink
2007-02-07 @ 16:14 Permalink
2007-02-07 @ 22:16 Folks,
Natalie England seems to me to be rather a novice writer, and in my opinion, she was attempting to be facetious and somewhat flippant.
I hope for her sake that Lorena and her agents take that approach and ignore her comment.
If I were Natalie, I'd quickly offer an explanation and an apology, because Lorena, if absolved of any use of performance enhancing substances, could certainly sue and recover.
If false, that is a blatant bit of libel. "
Gee Alex that is the pot calling the kettle black.
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 03:20 You obviously don't know the difference between sarcasm and libel.
If you need an explanation of the two terms, I'd be happy to oblige.
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 07:50 One-Putt,
You obviously don't know the difference between sarcasm and libel.
If you need an explanation of the two terms, I'd be happy to oblige. "
That is ok Alex I will just use my own explanation from Webster (before the lawyers got hold of it):
Libel: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression.
Sarcasm: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain.
Thanks Alex I can see the difference. As you sprinkle sarcasm amongst your libelous writings about Michelle and BJ it becomes an attempt at some form of sick humor coming from a tainted mind. This allows you to plead diminished capacity at any civil litigation proceeding and avoid liability for your disjointed tirades.
Is that about it in a nutshell?
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 14:08 Your lack of knowledge and understanding of law concerning libel is only exceeded by your abysmal ignorance of the harm being done to Lardbutt by her avaricious father.
Nothing I have ever posted about Bubbles or her panderer constitutes libel. But your posts concerning me quite probably would.
O-P,
This thread, believe it or not, concerns a misguided writer's allegations of Lorena using drugs. Get it? Back to the topic, if you please.
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 14:32 Lardbutt falls off barstool! Injures left wrist! Double Wide Wie puts in for Purple Heart!
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 20:46 "Comment from: Alex [Visitor] Email
Headlines in Bubbles Tribune:
Lardbutt falls off barstool! Injures left wrist! Double Wide Wie puts in for Purple Heart!"
I guess nobody would accuse you of being a "compassionate" conservative Alex.
Permalink
2007-02-09 @ 22:10 Leave a comment:
Golf for Beginners
...because we're always learning
WorldGolf.com's Golf for Beginners podcast features golf tips and advice from tour pros and experts. Hosts Stacy and Barry blend personal anecdotes with tips on equipment and instruction from tour professionals and magazines in this weekly podcast.
Feeds and archives
Add to:
 
|
Archives
|
