Accenture marks 1st sponsor to cut ties with Tiger Woods

“Go on, be a Tiger”

Go on, be yourself.

“Go on, be a Tiger”

...and then face the consequences !

the golfer is “no longer the right representative” after the “circumstances of the last two weeks.”

That is an interesting quote. How much was their decision based on his secret lifestyle, and how much on he has handled things since the news broke. "When things go badly, hide in your house and quit your job", is not exactly the image Accenture is trying to project.

Well, it looks like those who thought the sponsorship deals were all going to evaporate instantly might need to reflect on their position...but they probably won't. Actually even I am surprised only one has left so far. But I was sure many would stick around.

And I see a joke posted here already. Let me tell you something fellas, every time you crack a joke about his infidelity you bolster your own image a teensy bit. It makes you look like a man who believes in fidelity. The question is, what does it get you? Tiger no longer has such an image, but I promise you he will get more girls, and they will the kind of girl you only dream of while you waste time propping up images of fidelity he won't even have. But the down-side to the jokes is huge. The more this circulates, the more women will mistrust men in general and won't believe you if you deny affairs. They will go through your cell phones, etc. Remember, this all got started with a rumor, a rumor the woman still denies. So if ever your wife hits you over the head with a golf club or other because of a rumor, I hope your jokes immediately spring to mind and you can laugh off the 9 iron..y.

But it the rumors are true, well just remember, you helped set the tone for what you receive. And don't say it won't happen. Your own wife may well start denying you sex one day, and then what will you do? In fact, that might be exactly what happened to Tiger. Yeah, even Swedish models can turn frigid after popping out a couple kids.

like he needs all those sponsors. Accenture? never even heard of them. goes to show how good their ads are.

dont believe the hype. go get'em tiger (regardless of how trashy they look), and keep playing golf, too

the guy's a billionaire. can't imagine any of this is hurting him financially. taking a hit on the "i'm da man " image, but that's about it.

jinjapan: taking a hit on the "i'm da man " image, but that's about it.

For crashing his car and running from his wife, yes. But the reports of his sexual adventures have actually increased his "I'm da man" image if you ask me. You know perfectly well that a lot of the moralizers posting here would love to spend some quality time with any of the women named, and would if they thought they could get away with it.

Well, it looks like those who thought the sponsorship deals were all going to evaporate instantly...

Well, if the product being sponsored is supposed to increase your sex or macho appeal, then the image of Tiger is probably not going to hurt sales in that regard.

But if your a consulting company whose relationships are built upon trust, the image of "I'll cheat you when your back is turned" is probably not going to help all that much.

numbskull,

darn good point! one thing though, with his popularity, i was quite surprised at the skanks he was sleeping with. could've done much much better ezily. if he had made better choices, i may have envied him as well ;-)

And this is from a company that helped with the racial discrimination of people entering japan by working on the finger print and facial recognition software that is ONLY used on forigners. What kind of image do are they promoting again?

Advertising is exploitation plain and simple by people who are not saints themselves. I find this whole "fallen idol" thing to be very hypocritical of a world where bleeding people dry and dropping them without mercy when they no longer fit your expedient needs.

Tiger screwed up. But 50% of marriages have incidents of infidelity, that people admit to. So he represents at least half the population.

This moralizing that companies do today is BS, plain and simple.

To Tiger. I am not one of your fans and I'd rather have the flu than play or be forced to watch golf, but... I hope you learn something from what happened and I hope you can salvage your relationship. You are human after all and it is time for you to admit that and take steps to correct your party.

I wish you and your family all the luck.

To the corporates who drop him or consider doing so. The world would be better off without the lot of you.

To the corporates

numbskull, you seem to have a lot of knowledge about this. Me thinks your post is somewhat autobiographical?

Anyway, I'm sure Frosted Flakes would mind taking on Tiger and having him say "They're grrrrrrreat!"

Frosted Flakes WOULDN'T mind...

Tiger Woods...The next big name in porn...Tiger Woods lol Tiger Woods

Lion Woods....Cheetah Woods... whatever, let him be ....

Tora Morii will bounce back in the golf world. His alignment of sponsors will change accordingly toward things connected with sports. Cars and financial advisors are out.

numbskull -- I agree with tarento, I think your predictable rants on this subject are possibly due to this situation hitting tooclose to home for you. But, let's deal with the objective, rather than the subjective. First off, I have never "moralized" regarding Tiger's actions, except as it pertains to his business dealings and the millions he earned off endorsements. IMO, what a person does relative to his marriage is his own business, except when that person has allowed companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote a clean image for that person, that was obviously false. (Have you even bothered looking at some of the campaigns? Do you think TAGHeuer is happy that their ads proclaim "What are you made of?" next to a big picture of Tiger? Folks are laughing at them, since 13 women are all over the place saying exactly what Tiger is made off.) Also, your statement regarding his sponsors support, is also way off. As of today, only Nike has offered their unconditional support of Tiger. All the others have either: refused comment, said they are "evaluating", or dropped him -- including Gatorade, Gillette, and Accenture -- although they may have tried to be polite by saying they were simply "minimizing his presence to respect his privacy". Finally, your comments about all this being caused by a single rumor, and possibly his actions being justified by his wife potentially being cold, is just rubbish, and the kind of ridiculous speculation you accuse the press of. You take the press to task for spreading rumors about Tiger, but then turn right around and create unfounded and wild rumors to defend him. That's rich.

Accenture spent millions on Tiger's clean image, but they're the bad guys somehow...too funny...

Junnama: Accenture spent millions on Tiger's clean image, but they're the bad guys somehow...too funny...

Millions you say? I doubt it. Whatever they spent they most certainly raked in more. Much more. Consider that.

I don't think Accenture is the bad guy though. In fact, I don't recall anyone saying Accenture is, not even Tiger. I think the what is funny is the number of fallacies you can fit into such a small post.

ads for Gillette Fusion Power razors with titles like “Phenom” and “Champions” with other stars including tennis great Roger Federer and soccer player Thierry Henry.

wow Gillette is also batting a 1000, Thierry handed the winning goal for France over Ireland, Woods is destroyed, only Federer left really. Should be a show for marketing disasters of 2009, Gillette for the win.

I don't think you know too much about marketing...

"In fact, I don't recall anyone saying Accenture is,"

Accenture? never even heard of them. goes to show how good their ads are. This moralizing that companies do today is BS, plain and simple.

Find me a billionaire who doesn't sleep around...except for Bill Gates, of course.

Find me a billionaire who doesn't sleep around

Warren Buffett

only Federer left really

Don't jinx the Rog!!

Losing an institution like Accenture makes sense given the need for consulting firms to project an image of honesty, integrity and transparency. But if brands like Gatorade, EA and Nike jump ship, that's when we'll know it's truly over for Tiger. (I personally don't think that will happen...)

herefornow:I agree with tarento, I think your predictable rants on this subject are possibly due to this situation hitting tooclose to home for you.

I suppose I earned that for pulling some ad hominems myself. But lets just say I never claimed to be anything I wasn't. And I also never backed up in any way the printing of rumors. I promote two simple choices: either society accepts that people will seek sex outside of marriage and stop making a big deal of it, or, society advocates fidelity but stops short of being so damned judgemental and presumptive. The current path is not good for society. Its not even moral. It hinders the capacity of the man and woman to save their marriage. It validates the rumor mill at lower levels. It is shooting all of us in the foot, whoever you are and whatever your creed.

Finally, your comments about all this being caused by a single rumor, and possibly his actions being justified by his wife potentially being cold, is just rubbish, and the kind of ridiculous speculation you accuse the press of.

No, its not the same. My speculation is not meant to hurt anyone, its to thwart the hurt that began with others. Its completely different. I did not let the cat out of the bag, but now that its out, running around hurting us all, I feel completely justified in explaining why the cat should have remained in the bag. Now that it is out, you better believe his wife's private behavior will also get scrutinized, including her DV episode which is actually worse than sexual affairs.

And I am not claiming she is frigid or even looking for proof. I am just saying we don't know that or the half of it. So this whole affair is not our business and I would be happy to never see such a thing printed ever again.

cactusJack -Find me a billionaire who doesn't sleep around...except for Bill Gates, of course. Junnama - Warren Buffett

You can't prove a negative fellas. Neither one sleeps around until we find out they do. Two months ago, if asked for an athlete that does not sleep around, you would have declared "Why, Tiger Woods!"

Losing an institution like Accenture makes sense given the need for consulting firms to project an image of honesty, integrity and transparency.

Accenture's competitor Bearing Point must be thrilled, their sponsorship of Mickleson is paying off now. Stuck by his wife when she comes down with cancer - real integrity guy.

herfornow: except when that person has allowed companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to promote a clean image for that person

You seem to be a victim of your own exaggerations and spin. Hundreds of millions spent? Please! Any sum you claim you know they made several times that. And they spent money to promote a clean image for Tiger? Lay off the hooch, buddy. They promoted a clean image for THEIR PRODUCT, and Tiger Woods is not their product.

If you sort out your exaggerations and spin, you just might be able to come to a logical conclusion. They made their money. They might not be happy with the situation today, but they knew the risks and despite them, profitted hansomely for years. But if you bet on the fidelity of a human male, or on the infidelity of a much scrutinized famous figure staying a secret, EVERYBODY knows the odds will catch up to you eventually. They knew the risks. They took them. They profitted.

After all I have I said, you still insist on sympathy for gamblers who won big, people who sell and make phoney images, and people not even sharing your whine about how things turned out. How can I not think you have the ulterior motive of seeing this whole thing as a giant scarlet letter "A" and being overjoyed and heel kickin' about that?

I have never "moralized" regarding Tiger's actions

In a roundabout way, I think you have, by both what you have said and what you haven't.

They made their money. They might not be happy with the situation today, but they knew the risks and despite them, profitted hansomely for years

Marketing campaigns take considerable time to come to fruition and once they do reach the goal of establishing an image, that image has to be maintained. It is a mistake to say "they profited handsomely for years". Most likely many of them had not reached that point yet. That will be a matter for the lawyers to sort out...

Child services visited Tiger's house over the weekend! Read it in The Mail. Reports are the rows he and his wife have sometimes get violent.

The violence must help his game! right numbskull?

Nike will probably be next...

Accenture is a company made up of people with no integrity or morals. Their offices are off-shore so they do not have to pay U.S. taxes. They take jobs away from hard working people and outsource them to poor countries where people will work for practically nothing. With morals like this it seems funny that they have judged someone like Tiger Woods.

Woods was hired by Gillette in 2007 and has been in ads for Gillette Fusion Power razors with titles like “Phenom” and “Champions” with other stars including tennis great Roger Federer and soccer player Thierry Henry.

Federer is next, everyone else has caused some problem or other. Thierry handballed the French into the World cup don't forget

numbskull at 09:20 AM JST - 14th December

You know perfectly well that a lot of the moralizers posting here would love to spend some quality time with any of the women named, and would if they thought they could get away with it.

I would guess that most readers of this site have little preference for blonds.

numbskull-- again, I'm not the only one finding flaws in your "logic". First off, what the companies paid Tiger in endorsements is only a fraction of what they invested in complete advertising and promotional campaigns. All told, these companies spend hundreds of millions, as I said, if not in the billions, on Tiger's ads. Now, did they get their money's worth, as you suggest? Possibly, although as Junnama states, it is quite possible that they didn't. What is clear is that he signed contracts that included morals clauses knowing full-well that he was likely in violation of them, and knowing that these companies would never have paid him the money if the truth was known. Also, your defense of your statements about his wife is pure nonesense. Just because she doesn't read JT it is OK for you to speculate wildly about her sexual activity level? Because she won't be harmed by it? Please, spreading an unfounded rumor/speculation is worse, because, as you state, you have no basis for it. The publication that broke this story had over 300 text messages, voice recordings, and travel documents to verify Tiger's activities. (And you can bet that given Tiger's history of suing publications, and the staggering amounts his sponsors have invested in him, that their lawyers were completely satisfied with the proof before they went to press.) How does that qualify as a rumor? Might not win a conviction, but would easily get you an indictment. Finally, let me again state that, IMO, Tiger's actions are not reason for me or anyone else to judge his moral character. However, IMO, they are more than enough reason for me to judge his trustworthiness when it comes to business dealings and the press. Totally different.

Who'd wanna endorse Accenture anyway? Another needless, crappy consultancy company with overpaid, slick-haried graduates in cheap pin-stripe suits with clown ties.

If I it were up to me, I'd run Accenture into the ground.

Junnama: Accenture's competitor Bearing Point must be thrilled, their sponsorship of Mickleson is paying off now. Stuck by his wife when she comes down with cancer - real integrity guy.

How many sponsors would stick around if Woods were getting chemotherapy? Would they have lasted the seven months Mickleson has? And are you completely sure that Mickleson has kept it in his pants? He does not get half the scrutiny Tiger does, and let me tell you, he will never generate one tenth the sponsorship money.

truthliberates: With morals like this it seems funny that they have judged someone like Tiger Woods.

They may be first in line, but they are far from the last. I think we have many similar posters here, taking the opportunity to say "Lookee over there!". A lot of Senator Craigs here I think. Its straight of the playbooks, and because people refuse to learn or listen, it works, again and again. Anway, a great perspective in your post there.

As I mentioned on another story, Tiger is gettign everything he deserves. How many mistresses is it now? 13? 14? 15? My heart breaks for his wife and children. But Tiger? I have no pity. He's made his bed (both literally and figuratively), now he has to sleep in it (again, literally and figuratively). His wife is hot, hot, HAWT, and what does he do? Sleep around on her with 13 (or ore) women who cannot hold a candle to her. My wife laughed out loud when she saw the kind of women that Tiger's been swinging with. None of them are nearly as beautiful as his wife.

It's sad for the wife, and for the children, but tiger is getting no pity from me. If he's stupid enough to do what he did in the first place with as beautiful a wife as he has, then he deserves both barrels (and he's getting them, too).

herefornow, for someone who claims to read so much its amazing that you got the facts so confused. The rumor printed in the Enquire was about a woman named Uchitel. She denies it. So OBVIOUSLY there is no text message proof about that. After that article came the fight and the crash. After the fight and the crash came the confession by the money grubbing harlot named Grubbs, and she is the one who provided all the evidence.

herefornow: again, I'm not the only one finding flaws in your "logic".

Again, I am so glad you don't have to stand on your own, dear boy. Who needs clarity of thought and accuracy if you think you got numbers on your side?

numbskull -- you are really beginning to make no sense at all. The fact is that Woods isn't taking time off due to injury or health reasons. He's doing it because he is in the midst of the biggest meltdown in the history of sports and/or celebrity. And trying to salvage his marriage is just the start. But, in answer to your question, if he were taking the time off to attend to his health, or his wife's, like Mickelson did, he sponsors would undoubtably stand by him. And they would be applauded for doing it. Also, the fact that Tiger made ten times the sponsorship money that Mickelson did, according to you, makes his complete lack of self-control even more bothersome. How does one rationalize taking huge sums of money from folks like AT&T, Accenture, and Gillette ("The best a man can be"), and then banging porn stars? Finally, if Mickelson doesn't "keep it in his pants" as you put it, then he deserves the same as Tiger. So what?

herefornow: Just because she doesn't read JT it is OK for you to speculate wildly about her sexual activity level?

Look, I know you are bitter about me squashing you over and over. But I would be nicer if you started having some sense. That might require calming down son. And again, I find myself having to dumb things down for you quite a bit. I never speculated on her sexual activity level. She could be an iceberg, she could be a wild cat, she could something in between. I don't know. I don't claim to know. I don't WANT to know. I am just saying that Tiger might have more reasons for his actions than what he is being given credit for and provided an easy example. There are many many more. And the example also shows clearly another aspect: By delving so deep into Tiger's privacy, it has jeopardized the privacy of his wife and kids too.

Above it says child services visited the Woods family. It might not have come to this if not for irresponsible journalism. If Woods was even immoral, his immorality was surpassed by the Enquirer, every person who buys it, every person that went on a fishing trip for more info, and especially that harlot Grubbs.

Entirely understandable. Accenture used to be the consulting arm of Arthur Andersen - the firm that helped deceive investors in the Global Crossing and Enron scandals - just to name a few. They can nigh afford further tarnishment of their image. As for Tiger - he's just suffering from polyamory syndrome. It's genetic just like alzheimers, epilepsy, etc. Society should be more open and accepting of those afflicted with PAS! It can strike anyone at any time! Ask former President Clinton.

herefornow: But, in answer to your question

You did not answer the question I asked. I asked about if Tiger were getting chemo and was no longer photogenic. Would sponsors dump him?

if he were taking the time off to attend to his health, or his wife's, like Mickelson did, he sponsors would undoubtably stand by him. And they would be applauded for doing it.

The tail wags the dog! Of course many would! But it would be for the applause! Can't you see that?

Also, the fact that Tiger made ten times the sponsorship money that Mickelson did, according to you, makes his complete lack of self-control even more bothersome.

It changes nothing. A fool and his money are soon parted. Life is risk. He who invests more thinks he will get that much more in returns. Big difference in amounts, no difference in percentages.

How does one rationalize taking huge sums of money from folks like AT&T, Accenture, and Gillette ("The best a man can be"), and then banging porn stars?

You cannot even name the porn star nor the proof of your allegation without doing a search first! Yet you speak! As if it matters! Remedy was provided in the contract Woods signed! If anybody bit off more than they can chew taking a BIG FAT GIANT AND WRECKLESS RISK on a man's image, that is their own stupidity.

You have to be one extremely deaf, blind, and gullible fool to think even a slim majority of men in that position would just walk away. These sex scandals break all the time. When are you going to learn to accept them? When are going to learn that they are par for the course? When are you going to learn that only a damn fool makes that bet and that a damn fool deserves no sympathy from you or anyone? Do you know nothing of human nature? I understand hoping for and striving for better, but were you born yesterday?

Just for your amusement:

According to a Sports Illustrated feature entitled "The Fortunate 50", Mickelson is the second-highest paid athlete in the world, behind Tiger Woods. In 2007, Mickelson earned $62 million, $53 million of it from endorsements.

He does not get half the scrutiny Tiger does.

Actually he has been subjected to a fair amount of scrutiny over the years - usually for choking away big chances.

I am amused that now that Tiger has been nailed for his "infidelities". Everyone else is fair target of suspicion.

If anybody bit off more than they can chew taking a BIG FAT GIANT AND WRECKLESS RISK on a man's image, that is their own stupidity.

I'm pretty sure that defense won't hold up in a lawsuit....

Junnama: I'm pretty sure that defense won't hold up in a lawsuit....

It does and it will. Its one of the reasons why no one will successfully sue Woods for breach of contract.

Mickelson is the second-highest paid athlete in the world, behind Tiger Woods. In 2007, Mickelson earned $62 million, $53 million of it from endorsements. *

I had no idea. You know what they say about number two...never heard of him till today. But I was wrong about that little point and I man up. Mickleson generates half of what Woods does, much more than the one-tenth I suggested.

Obviously @ above you dont follow the sport.

Tiger is now regretting his rabbity ways.

Perhaps.

But habits are hard to change as rabbits.

Then again, those casting the stones better check their heads first.

The log in my eye versus the cinder in your eye.

Anyway, this story is great diversionary stuff from more important issues like . . . uh . . . climate change, for example.

I noticed it was cooler today than yesterday!

OMG! Stop climate change now!

Accenture should go under for having such a wack name. How could anyone take such a company seriously? What a bunch of idiots.

TokyoXtreme:

Accenture should go under for having such a wack name. How could anyone take such a company seriously? What a bunch of idiots.

Well, now, let's take a look at this shall we? Accenture are the folks taking your fingerprints when you enter Japan. They "back-door" that info to the US DHS et al. This info also gets routed back to their shadow parent company in guess where? Israel, of course. And, no. I'm not demonizing Israel. They don't need my help for that. They can do that ALL by themselves, thank you very much. Tiger Woods is just an interesting goyim distraction to them.

Whack name? Maybe. Idiots? Most definitely not. Dangerous? Absolutely! Feel better now, TokyoXtreme?

I suppose everybody gets up to something once in a while but Tiger is a serial philanderer who was busy promoting himself as a model citizen. There's always a bigger mess with a longer fall. Especially when there's that much mess to start with.

ca1ic0cat: I suppose everybody gets up to something once in a while but Tiger is a serial philanderer who was busy promoting himself as a model citizen.

Its interesting the way these crazy statements come with pairs of fallacies. Its like one fallacy is covering for the other or something. Tiger did not promote himself. His sponsors promoted him. And dear GOD, promoted as a model citizen? What the hell are you talking about? They promoted him as a great athlete, the top of his game, and a man who used and uses their products to succeed. The never promoted him as a model citizen, or even a man who gets his wife off every evening and only his wife. Where do you get this crap? I will tell you: your own head, that's where. So stop blaming Tiger and his sponsors for your wild imagination.

Did Tiger really do anything wrong, or is this one big media sensation?

It does and it will. Its one of the reasons why no one will successfully sue Woods for breach of contract.

Ludicrious...there is nothing to prevent them from writing language like that in a contract. So why wouldn't they? Companies don't dish out huge contracts without covering themselves with many performance covenants.

I will agree it almost certainly won't go to lawsuit because it probably has a dispute resolution through arbitration to prevent it from getting into the news (which is of great interest to companies).

Junnama: Ludicrious...there is nothing to prevent them from writing language like that in a contract. So why wouldn't they?

Why wouldn't they what? Try to sue or succeed in suing?

Look, I am taking this down to the basics, which is directly where it will go if it went to court. I am not making wild guesses about this and there is nothing ludicrous in what I am saying. Language in a contract that tries to dictate private behavior is simply not useful for actually enforcing that behavior and not even valid. You cannot take away a person's rights by contract. It is a basic tenant of contract law. Companies do hope that contractees will just obey, and they often do out of a sense of loyalty (or a misplaced sense of it). But they cannot be made to obey per se.

Companies with such contracts have only one real recourse in law to enforce the behavior: threat of termination. (Other recourses would be non-legal such as screaming and pouting.) They will be able to get away with termination because if push comes to shove the contract was technically invalid anyway because you cannot take away a person's rights through the contract, and that is what a morality clause tries to do.

I say again: a morality clause allows the contracting party to terminate the contract. They can sue (bring the case to court), but they will not win the case if its based on that. If you know of anyone being successfully sued for breaking a morality clause on their own private time in modern times then prove me wrong. I don't know of any and I can't prove a negative. The ball is in your court. No more conjecture. Either prove me wrong or drop it.

You might start by looking at the case of Kate Moss. She did cocaine, violating morality clauses as clear as anybody could. Nobody even tried to sue her. They knew it was a lost cause and a waste of money.

Mike Borkowski (settled in arbitration) if you really need to know.

Of course no violation has been this egrigious in the past - Woods was over the life of the contract repeatedly violating the clause.

Language in a contract that tries to dictate private behavior is simply not useful for actually enforcing that behavior and not even valid.

This is the language that is ludicrious. A morality clasue does do this. The contract is not "invalid", it is valid and being violated.

Junnama: The contract is not "invalid", it is valid and being violated.

Please just stop this. We could theorize all day. If the morality clause were valid in that way and it was being violated, someone would have sued successfully by now. Until you show a case where that happened, you have no case. And the Tiger Woods case won't be the first so don't wait for it. Find a case or let it be.

Until you show a case where that happened, you have no case. And the Tiger Woods case won't be the first so don't wait for it. Find a case or let it be.

I did: Mike Borkowski.

Mike Borkowski.

You said "settled in arbitration. " I believe that means he was not successfully sued, and that was a key caveat I presented you. Another caveat I presented you was "on his own time". Surely you can see that Borkowski's problems were on the race track and Wood's behavior was off the golf course?

I said that no one will successfully sue Woods for breach of contract. I stand by that statement and all you have is conjecture against it. Without a neatly paralleled precedent, you are lost, and Borkowski isn't one on two clear counts.

Oh God, you are a trip numbskull. I thought since you were talking about Common Law and all you would know something about legal systems (in the US, anyway). The courts are overwhelmed and will frequently send small cases to arbitration because they don't want to waste taxpayer money. That doesn't mean that Borkowski couldn't have been sued. It meant the judge wanted this solution, recommended it all parties accepted. If any of the parties had not accepted it would have gone to suit.

If you want to score points on minute details go ahead and be happy, but if one loses money on a lawsuit or arbitration the result is still the same. The substance of what you are saying is false. There is precedent for clawing back endorsement money through legal means.

I'm not even going to go further into your argument that Common Law can't dictate conduct outside of the workplace as that is so obviously not true I don't know what to tell you.

That doesn't mean that Borkowski couldn't have been sued.

Look, if eveyone is thinking straight, its impossible. Up to now, the consensus has been one of people thinking straight. That might change in the future, but I doubt it. Until you have a case of a successful suing for breach of contract for violating a morals clause, you have not got a case.

There is precedent for clawing back endorsement money through legal means.

Through a morals clause? That is a caveat of what I said. What else can use to justify going after Woods? We are talking about Tiger Woods you know. If it does not parallel Woods case to the point it could be used against Woods, drop it.

I'm not even going to go further into your argument that Common Law can't dictate conduct outside of the workplace as that is so obviously not true I don't know what to tell you.

I am going to say this again: a contract cannot dictate private behavior outside of work. If you drop a caveat it changes what I said. STOP DROPPING MY CAVEATS AND TELLING ME I AM WRONG. Its ridiculous.

Until you have a case of a successful suing for breach of contract for violating a morals clause, you have not got a case.

You're reading but not understanding. Borkowski was sued but the judge requested it be settleed in arbitration. For legal purposes that IS precedent. The point of contention with Borkowski WAS the morality clause and it WAS irrelavant that the ruling that the incident occured on the track.

a contract cannot dictate private behavior outside of work

I suggest you look up Charlize Theron and Raymond Weil then for something a bit more clear. Sorry there are stacks of precedent on this. You don't think Theron argued "this wasn't at work". The judge looked specifically at the wording of the contract. He was unconcerned with the "workplace" concept.

The Borkowski case was not ruled upon, it was closed before it got to that point. Borkowski was not successfully sued. And neither Woods be if anyone tried to sue him.

You continue to drop caveats like hot potatoes. Please stop.

Moderator: All readers, please stay on topic. The subject is Tiger Woods.

The subject is: is there precedent for Tiger Woods to have to pay back his endorsement money. The answer is: yes. You can argue the cases weren't exactly the same all you want but the fact is that is for the arbiter or judge to determine, not you or me.

Junnama: The subject is: is there precedent for Tiger Woods to have to pay back his endorsement money. The answer is: yes. You can argue the cases weren't exactly the same all you want but the fact is that is for the arbiter or judge to determine, not you or me.

What I argue is that Tiger Woods will never have to pay back endorsement money based on a morality clause because he got caught having an extra-marital affair in a private setting. Every word and every caveat is important to what I am saying. If you drop one, you will miss the point. The only way to shorten it is this: Tiger Woods won't be forced to pay damages to any sponsor for this incident.

Accenture marks 1st sponsor to cut ties with Tiger Woods

That is the title of this article. Quick, all you grammarians out there, what is the subject of the sentence? (Hint: its not Tiger Woods!)

Accenture might end up not being the first exactly, but rather the only.