PDA

View Full Version : Dr. D versus the WPBA



Sally
10-08-2002, 03:58 PM
InsidePOOL has an interesting article about this.

http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=

nAz
10-08-2002, 04:16 PM
http://216.40.241.68/ups/bounty_hunter_monkey/ani_0_o.gif
Wow first i heard of this! go get them Doc D! wonder if you will settle for a formal apologie or do want cash too. if you dontcomment on this i wll understand since you are now in a legal battle either way good luck to you.

http://216.40.241.68/contrib/xerx/smileythescream.gif

TomBrooklyn
10-08-2002, 04:17 PM
I was the first one to call that the day (or thereabouts) that the WPBA issued their statement. See the archives if it's still there.

Prediction:

The dismissal will be found to be justified. The WPBA statement will be found libelous and result in:

Scenario 1) The suit will be settled out of court with an apologetic statement and an undisclosed sum of money award.
Scenario 2) The case goes to trial. Numerouos posts from this forum authored by Dr. D and the regulars around that time will become documentary evidence in the biggest lawsuit to ever rock the pool world.

The Twist: Will any persons named be found individually libel?
=TB=

nAz
10-08-2002, 04:19 PM
so this will dominate CCB for a while huh lol

10-08-2002, 04:22 PM
Scenario #3) The case is dismissed in favor of the defendant(s).

jjinfla
10-08-2002, 06:48 PM
"Multi-million dollar lawsuit". That sure would grab me by the short hairs. Gonna be some sleepless nights for some people. Even if they are vindicated it will be very expensive. Can't say that they don't deserve it though. Jake

rackmup
10-08-2002, 09:26 PM
I think the WPBA is going to need the seven in this one.

Go get 'em Dr_D. Don't let 'em up.

Regards,

Ken

eg8r
10-08-2002, 10:40 PM
Good for you Dr. D for standing up. I remember when this was happening and wondering if you were going to take action.

The only question I have is the amount of the lawsuit. On the MNBilliard site it says you are seeking over $30 Million. I believe this might be a little steep. I am all for you getting paid, but in my opinion this is exactly what is wrong with people suing.

I hope the ladies in charge are removed from their positions and possibly thrown in jail, or whatever could possibly happen. On the other hand, when you win this money, I hope you use every last dime to start your own organization, set it up using the "right" people, and raise the purse for the tourneys. This way the WPBA players will be able to make a great living.

I am sure by raising the purse to higher amounts you will draw even stronger players from around the world to come here and compete for the prize. Who knows, this might even draw Allison back to the practice tables and we can really see what happens when she is focused and playing against Corr.

eg8r

10-09-2002, 08:17 AM
MNBilliards.com has the amount of the lawsuit listed on their site...$30M+

10-09-2002, 08:26 AM
Seems like a fair amount of compensation for a woman whose ego was bruised, don't you think? It will certainly result in positive changes within the WPBA as well, I'm sure. :P

SpiderMan
10-09-2002, 08:46 AM
Ken,

Sounds like you're going to wish you'd stayed married to this one! If she had $30M, you could just be a "Kept Man" and work on your stroke.

SpiderMan

10-09-2002, 09:09 AM
And the WPBA will come up with 30 mill from where?

Wally_in_Cincy
10-09-2002, 09:52 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Maharaji:</font><hr> And the WPBA will come up with 30 mill from where? <hr></blockquote>

They would be lucky to scrape together 30 grand /ccboard/images/icons/tongue.gif

Obviously she's not going to get $30M. She's just trying to put the fear o' God in 'em.

Back pay and/or a written apology and/or reinstatement are more likely.

rackmup
10-09-2002, 09:58 AM
"Umm...Diana...ummm...sweetie...ummm..I was wondering if...ummm...after this terrible travesty on behalf of the evil empire known as the WPBA, is behind you if...ummm...maybe we could get together and ummm...have dinner? I really miss you baby. I really believe in my heart we can work things out."

Love,

Your "Little Snookums"

jjinfla
10-09-2002, 10:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Maharaji:</font><hr> And the WPBA will come up with 30 mill from where? <hr></blockquote> From selling those pictures on their website, of course. Jake

10-09-2002, 10:59 AM
Back pay...


That's a good one!

--

Tom_In_Cincy
10-09-2002, 11:06 AM
I hope for the best result possible for both Dr. D and the WPBA..

Unfortunately.. I don't think that personal law suits against former employers have been too sucessful. Especially when it is with private organizations.

Here's hoping that this (the lawsuit) changes things for the better

Wally_in_Cincy
10-09-2002, 11:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> Back pay...


That's a good one!

-- <hr></blockquote>

Well I figured they're paid something for their time. I know it's probably nominal for anybody except the president. I would view back pay as more of a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive reparation.

Unless the above poster is Dr. D and in that case...never mind I really don't know what I'm talking about/ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif

Sid_Vicious
10-09-2002, 11:26 AM
"Scenario 2) The case goes to trial. Numerouos posts from this forum authored by Dr. D and the regulars around that time will become documentary evidence..."

Oh hell I can just hear it now, "And for my next witness I call Sid Vicious. Sir Rackmup, it's time to get off the stand defending one pocket against 9-ball and allow Mr. Vicious to be heard." sid

10-09-2002, 11:38 AM
This little piggy went to stroke it.
This little piggy went to court.
This little piggy had $30,000,000.
This little piggy had none.
And this little piggy, she went "It's my Mon-E-E-E" all the way home.

10-09-2002, 02:23 PM
anyone can file suit against anyone for any reason and for any amount. no big deal. does not mean they are right. carlo in ohio

10-09-2002, 03:51 PM
Without a doubt if Dr. D. had remained in office with the WPBA she would have been the popular choice of the members to run for president and, in my opinion, would have won in a run away. I believe that is the reason she had to go. Not because she was performing her job inadequately, but because she was a threat to the present president and her court. As president she would be courted by the industry, make appearances on TV, and make valuable contacts that would help the WPBA and her own business. Monetary loss? Probably quite a bit. If she was slandered and it caused her to lose one client that alone can amount to a nice sum. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens in court. But I am sure the members of the WPBA will be glad to pay the attorney fees of their president. I wonder which board member will cut a deal to be dropped from the case and tell what they know about the real reason that the good Dr. was fired. It is one thing to go along with the crowd and talk bravely, but when you are sitting in the hot seat, being deposed, under oath, realizing that you might lose your money, home, car, nice clothes is when realization sets in. My suggestion to the board members, if they think that perhaps they did make a mistake, is to run to Dr D's attorney and cut a deal. And keep in mind that only the first one there gets to cut the deal. I love it. Jake

10-09-2002, 04:44 PM
I think the folks over at MNBilliards should replace the batteries in their calculator. The amount is hovering around $18 mil, not that it matters. Anything over five grand probably depletes their liquid assets. Hope they've got good insurance! /ccboard/images/icons/wink.gif
Switzerland. Carefully neutral for centuries.

Chris Cass
10-09-2002, 08:23 PM
Hi Sally,

I personally hate to see something like this happen to the only thing pool has going for it right now. Although, I respect the feelings and the recourse Dr. D. had to make. This is a tough one for me.

On one hand you have the possible publicity, pool might get in general. On the other hand this might crush the WPBA. They were wrong in my eyes anyway for dismissing Dr.D however I don't know all the facts. She seems like a resonably smart person with all the qualifications the WPBA really needs.

Either way, it goes it's a bad deal. I hope the WPBA atleast admits they messed up and some good comes out of it. In todays world the companies or organizations only care about themselves. Kids today can't expect to put in 30 yrs and retire anywhere. Both spouses have to work. This sucks! I wish it was back in the day of 30 cents a gallon, 64 SS, and only the man had to work. The man would come home, dinner was waiting and you know what was next. They weren't tired, you know. Now it's like, "She walks in and says, "Man, my day was rough Turn on the tv and what's for dinner?" Life was so much better. Where ph's were ph's. Gotta go. Yes honey, I'm running your bath.

Regards,

C.C.

rackmup
10-09-2002, 11:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Carlo, Attorney at Law:</font><hr>anyone can file suit against anyone for any reason and for any amount. no big deal. does not mean they are right.<hr></blockquote>

There you have it, straight from the mind of our own resident legal genius.

Thanks Carlo for setting things straight. For a minute there, I was duped into believing Dr_D actually had a chance in court.

Regards,

Ken

Rich R.
10-10-2002, 05:06 AM
Go get them Dr. D.
I think it is no secret that the WPBA does not have multi-millions to pay, but the BOD will, at the very least, be held responsible for their actions.
After being voted on to the Board of Directors of the WPBA, Dr. D. was removed from her office with out any "due process" and was not allowed to defend herself, not that she had anything to defend. The WPBA president and BOD will learn that you just can't do things that way.
This train has been coming down the track for many months now and it has finally hit the outhouse door.
Good luck Dr. D.
Rich R.

10-10-2002, 06:14 AM
It is a next to impossible to win. Much harder then the counter suits that will be filed against her. If I were a betting man, I would say as soon as the counter suits are filed, the Dr. will back down. At least if she is smart she will. This law suit is frivolous and if a court agrees her next legal step will be bankruptcy.

10-10-2002, 06:48 AM
I am afraid you will have to start wearing a dress for that one. Or maybe go under the knife.

cheesemouse
10-10-2002, 06:50 AM
Any professional who has their integrity challenged by an organization w/o a good explaination of the actions taken by that organization can only get recourse by taking some action that will get the facts out in the open. A court case seemed to be the only way the Dr. could get these people on the record as to the action the WPBA board took against the DR...I reserve judgement till the public record is viewable to all. If this case is not thrown out at least some facts will see the light of day. It should be interesting to say the least.

Rich R.
10-10-2002, 06:59 AM
Wheather the WPBA had cause to remove Dr. D. from the BOD or not is yet to be seen. I believe a major part in the whole puzzle is that her removal was done without proper due process. To my knowledge, which is admittedly limited, Dr. D. was never fully advised of the specific reasons she was being removed and she was never given the opportunity to answer those charges. She was just removed. IMHO, that alone, gives her a legal basis for the law suite.
Rich R.~~~far from a lawyer.

bluewolf
10-10-2002, 07:28 AM
Post deleted by bluewolf

10-10-2002, 08:23 AM
It is a civil suit, what are her damages? All the burden is on her, in the mean time she is creating legal cost to the other parties. She is very exposed, even if she may be right, her damages are probably nothing. I doubt she has had diminished income, or suffered in any way in the last year due to this. Like I said when the suits are filed she may want to rethink her actions. Being right may not really be worth it in the real world. This does not belong in a court, it should be mediated privately to the benefit of both parties. She won't be the first to find out the reality of law suits. It is not a lottery or the way to prove a point. It will be dropped soon I am sure.

10-10-2002, 08:25 AM
It is very far from the only way. And that is what a judge is going to think if it ever gets that far.

10-10-2002, 08:27 AM
Why do you assume that Dr. D is right?

rackmup
10-10-2002, 08:31 AM
Comments like that, especially to a post that is intended as a joke between two friends, is uncalled for. While one may not approve of another's lifestyle, it isn't your place to ridicule and/or to judge the quality of that person's character or the manner by which they choose to defend it.

Remarks like yours, hateful at the very least, are the only reason I would advocate mandatory registration of posters.

You are truly "anonymous" in the grand scheme of things regarding Dr. Diane Sorrentino and fortunately, she is of such greater character than you, you don't even register a "blip" on her radar screen.

One day my anonymous friend, believe it or not, you too will be judged (Ecclesiastes 3:17). I suggest you prepare by reserving judgement of others for someone more "qualified.".

Regards,

Ken

10-10-2002, 08:37 AM
The WPBA should file a countersuit against Dr. D for impersonating a woman.

10-10-2002, 08:38 AM
Good point! Many are assuming that she was dismissed without cause because that cause has not been made public.How many people here have ever served on a board and dealt with egos and personal agendas in that context? I have and it disturbs me how quickly people here form judgements and express opinions in a public forum without the benefit of facts other than those expressed by the Dr. herself ( who, in all fairness, has been fairly discreet in her statements). We shouldn't be so eager to make a public display of our ignorance!

cheesemouse
10-10-2002, 08:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> It is very far from the only way. And that is what a judge is going to think if it ever gets that far. <hr></blockquote>
If you reread my post you will see that I did not say it was the 'only way'. How do we know what other steps were taken to avoid a court case?

10-10-2002, 08:46 AM
That was a hurtful, mean spirited statement that contributes nothing! It only says something about you. Why don't you and your hand go somewhere where you can be alone.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-10-2002, 09:09 AM
go f*** yourself.

10-10-2002, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Chris Cass:</font><hr>

In todays world the companies or organizations only care about themselves. Kids today can't expect to put in 30 yrs and retire anywhere. Both spouses have to work. This sucks! I wish it was back in the day of 30 cents a gallon, 64 SS, and only the man had to work. The man would come home, dinner was waiting and you know what was next. They weren't tired, you know. Now it's like, "She walks in and says, "Man, my day was rough Turn on the tv and what's for dinner?" Life was so much better. Where ph's were ph's. Gotta go. Yes honey, I'm running your bath.

Regards,

C.C. <hr></blockquote>


You ain't just wistlin' Dixie, Chris.

Regards,
Bob

10-10-2002, 10:40 AM
funny since your humbling experiences of late you regularly quote scripture. then you snipe. then you post a whiney boy holier than though sentence. then you snipe. amazing how people feel the need to purge in front of an audience. will response be a snipe or scripture. poor poor victim. table for a pity party of two? Carlo in Ohio

10-10-2002, 10:41 AM
She is open about it and would be the first to find what I wrote funny. Your comments actually exhibit the opposite view to what you outwardly say. A homosexual does not find it as insulting to be identified as one. A straight person that thinks the worst thing you could say, is to call someone gay shows their own real view of gays, regardless what they may say. Believe me Dr. D would be far more insulted by your post then mine.

rackmup
10-10-2002, 10:53 AM
No kidding. Wow (careful...this is going to be a "snipe"). So, because she is "open" about it, you think the comment, "I am afraid you will have to start wearing a dress for that one. Or maybe go under the knife." is one she would find humorous? More like "inane" and (here's another "snipe"), "idiotic".

As long as I am a Christian of this flesh, I will continue to commit the occasional foible (or "snipe").

Regards,

Ken

Rich R.
10-10-2002, 10:57 AM
I have met Dr. D and enjoyed her company on several occasions. I don't believe she is "impersonating" anybody but herself, a very personable and intelligent woman.
No other labels are needed, nor appreciated.
I believe you should learn that a person's personal life, is personal. In this particular case, it has nothing to do with the law suite.
Rich R.

10-10-2002, 10:57 AM
Hi Wally,
In the south,for the thing u mentioned,we say `` do the impossible``.That poster was very cruel.cheers
vagabond

rackmup
10-10-2002, 11:06 AM
Bravo Rich. Bravo.

Ken (sniping again)

10-10-2002, 05:45 PM
I guess that with some of the malice that's evident in a few of these posts, it's an indication of the kind of treatment Dr.D had to deal with.

Anyone who works in any professional occupation knows that it is standard practice for any professional company to make no comment on a person's dismissal other than a simple factual statement that the person is no longer with the company. The WPBA's statement, regardless of accuracy, was totally unprofessional, and if there are any grounds to state that the claims made were not wholly correct, then the statements were of such a nature that a lawsuit should be regarded as pretty much inevitable, and far from frivolous.

Having been in a situation where one of my previous employers slandered me, I can tell you that in such a situation, you have several options : to roll over and let them destroy your reputation and very possibly your livelihood, or to fight for your reputation. To fight is by far the tougher route, emotionally and financially, and I'm sure that Dr.D has thought long and hard about it. And if you fight, you'd better know you're right. Fortunately, I won, and from the few times I've met Dr.D, I reckon my money's on her. Forget the seven ball, I reckon the WPBA might need the five and out ... and the breaks.

Barbara
10-10-2002, 06:58 PM
"Anyone who works in any professional occupation knows that it is standard practice for any professional company to make no comment on a person's dismissal other than a simple factual statement that the person is no longer with the company. The WPBA's statement, regardless of accuracy, was totally unprofessional, and if there are any grounds to state that the claims made were not wholly correct, then the statements were of such a nature that a lawsuit should be regarded as pretty much inevitable, and far from frivolous. "

And I'd like to add that when an employee leaves a company, even on their own volition, the company is restricted to limiting their opinion of the former employee's skills and is only allowed to verify the former employee's dates of service to that company.

In other words, they can't say nay or yeah about the employee or they open themselves up to lawsuits in either case.

"You'd be very lucky to get this employee to work for you."

Barbara~~~kicking back with the popcorn...

Ken
10-10-2002, 09:08 PM
Rich, You may have a good point in a roundabout way. It seems that the Board of Directors has no mechanism for dismissing another board member. They cited Article V, Section 7 of the WPBA bylaws which states "Any one or more members of the Association may be removed with or without cause, at any time, by the vote of 2/3 of the members of the board of directors present and voting at that meeting called for that purpose." So it seems they can remove her from the WPBA ("the Association") but not from the BOD. The Board members appear to think that the bylaw allows them to remove her from the BOD but allow her to stay in the WPBA. That's not what the bylaw says.

Maybe it's not a lack of "due" process but a lack of any process at all. There doesn't seem to be any process for removing a board member other than the WPBA members voting in another person in the next election, or perhaps in a special election called for the purpose of dealing with that board member.

Without reading the rest of the bylaws I would say they got a problem. There always seemed that there was something fishy in what they did. Where's Howie when we need him?
KenCT

10-11-2002, 06:15 AM
Information on what was said by the wpba is still on the BD headstring news archives. Speculation aside, the wpba and the board have a major league problem on their hands.

Saddened &amp; Upset

Rich R.
10-11-2002, 07:30 AM
Ken, I am certainly not a lawyer and I have only limited experience dealing with bylaws of an organization, but it seems to me, that a member of any BOD, accused of any act that would justify removal, should have the opportunity to answer those charges. That could be done in a private meeting of the BOD or in a public forum in front of the membership. To me, it is just common sense. In this instance, it appears that the WPBA BOD just decided that Dr. D. was doing something they didn't like and they removed her. To my knowledge, she had no opportunity to answer any charges against her. I know the law doesn't always follow the simple rules of common sense, but I think the WPBA has a very large problem.
Rich R.

10-11-2002, 07:51 AM
You are discussing this like it is criminal law. She was a member of an organization maybe not even with pay and even if everything you and she says is true. Even if her ego has been bruised and she feels wronged. She must prove the gravity of her harm. The level is so low and should she even prevail the suit would still be frivolous due to it low momentary value. Any expense she puts the other parties through she may very well be held responsible for. Just being right does not mean you have a right to sue and you do so under great risk in many states today. Courts frown on these kinds of silly law suits. He called me a name, they took away my parking space and so forth. A civil case is weighed be it's damages. Nobody on this board in their right minds would expose themselves to the risk she is doing to win a point regardless of how much they may rally to her. In the real world all of you would pull the plug on this quick. It is a lot easier to talk bold when it is not you.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-11-2002, 07:59 AM
SORRENTINO VOTED OUT
Feb 8, 2002, 2:17 PM

In a Feb. 8 press release from Trifecta Entertainment, the Women's Professional Billiard Association announced that the Board of Directors had unanimously voted to dismiss newly elected board member Dr. Diana Sorrentino. Sorrentino, a New York business consultant, was dismissed with cause, according to the release. WPBA officials declined further comment on the dismissal, pending formal correspondence with Dr. Sorrentino. In the weeks leading up to the ouster, WPBA board members scrutinized Internet discussion forums where Sorrentino was an active participant.

WPBA bylaws provide for removal of members "with or without cause at any time, by the vote of two-thirds of the members of the board of directors present and voting at that meeting called for that purpose." At press time it was not known how many board members voted on the issue.

"This has been an unpleasant process for the entire board but we are committed to furthering the goals and objectives of the WPBA," said Jan McWorter, WPBA president, in the press release. "We would like to thank Dr. Sorrentino for her service and wish her well in her future endeavors." McWorter added that the Board is in discussion about how to fill the open position, which they hope to do immediately. "In the past we've gone to the next-highest vote getter [in the most recent election]," said WPBA vice-president Kelly Oyama.





WPBA EXPLAINS DISMISSAL
Feb 12, 2002, 6:56 PM

In a follow-up to a Feb. 8 press release from Trifecta Management, Women's Professional Billiard Association President Jan McWorter released an additional unsigned statement commenting on the dismissal of Board Member Dr. Diana Sorrentino. The statement cited "numerous major findings by the Board of impropriety in communications with WPBA sponsors and business partners, the pool industry, the billiards press, and numerous others with whom the WPBA interacts," and "Dr. Sorrentino's frequent violation of WPBA protocols for communication, and unwillingness to reform even after reprimand by the President of the organization," as the substantial reasons for Dr. Sorrentino's dismissal. The statement further stated, "the evidence of Dr. Sorrentino's impropriety is, almost entirely, hard documentary evidence."

Sorrentino had no comment on the dismissal, nor the controversy surrounding it.

In response to speculation within the billiards community that Sorrentino's dismissal was a result of statements made on the Billiards Digest Cue Chalk Board discussion forum, the statement distributed by McWorter emphasized that "the WPBA does not object, in principle, to Dr. Sorrentino's use of the Billiards Digest online forum," and "the WPBA recognizes that the online forum participants are among the most enthusiastic and most knowledgeable members of the pool community, and we understand and appreciate that they tend to give pool a good name."

The WPBA will not release any of the documentary evidence, according to the statement, out of respect for Sorrentino.

Rich R.
10-11-2002, 08:41 AM
You are measuring the value in dollars. In this case, I believe, the real value is Dr. D's good name.
If you insist on thinking dollars, please remember that away from pool, Dr. D is self empoloyed as a Financial and Business Management Consultant. It seems to me that she has to trade on her good name each and every day and any blemish on her record, including those from a lowly pool organization, will have a direct affect on her business and income. That could add up to a very large financial loss.
Rich R.

10-11-2002, 09:14 AM
I'll lay odds this is Karen Armstrong posting under "Anonymous".

She may be beligerent, but she's really a coward and a whiner.

10-11-2002, 09:58 AM
The future can't be proved and courts unless they have something to go by won't take any of that into account. She will have to show how she HAS been damaged. I bet she has not made one less dollar or had any missed opportunities as a result of what has happened. Monetary is how it is decided. Unless she is now unemployable as a result of this, she has little chance. Courts don't deal in speculation. You have to remember all the burden is on her. She is in a weak position. It will be dropped. Even if the court was to agree with her there will probably be no damages. They may even offer to settle for say, $100.00. If she refuses to settle and presses on she becomes completely exposed, again even if she was to win depending on the law in that state. In many states if the final award is a certain percentage of what was an earlier settlement offer. The other party has the right to try to recover their legal cost from the first party, because the court has shown their settlement offer was reasonable and there was no reason for the suit to have gone forward. These kinds of suits are often brought buy bums with on money and nothing to lose. Dr.D is no bum and can be a financial target because of who she is and has to be even more couscous then the average person. If it were not for insurance companies with deep pockets, very few law suits would be brought. They would all consist in trying to get blood from a stone. With all considered, Dr. D has the most to lose here if this goes forward. That is just the way it is. It may be fun for you guys to discuss but none of you would want to be involved in this. Especially just to prove a point. Cooler heads should prevail.

Rich R.
10-11-2002, 10:11 AM
I won't pretend to know all the legal angles of law suites. I hope I never have to learn them. I tend to look at things like this from a common sense point of view, which is not necessarily the legal point of view. However, knowing Dr. D, I have to believe she did not go into this blindly and she is certainly knowledgeable. I trust her judgement.
Due to my own lack of knowledge on this subject, I will not debate this further.
Rich R.

10-11-2002, 10:37 AM
One would wonder whether she has any business to lose. She spends all day Online or in the pool room and also takes to the road for every tournament. When I had a one person business that had business, I could not free up 2 hours a week for pool.

10-11-2002, 10:38 AM
Your comment is interesting, because sometimes a very smart client can't recognize futility and does not know when to fold the tent. They become to caught up in the right or wrong of something and don't know when it is time to just cut losses.

MikeM
10-11-2002, 10:43 AM
Could this be insight into the WPBA's planned defense?

MM

10-11-2002, 06:05 PM
One way to end the gossip and speculation is to request a copy of the suit from the court. All law suits are public information when filed so just call the court and ask for the papers.

nAz
10-11-2002, 06:59 PM
i ganrantee 7000+ hits on this thread by the end of next week.
move over wolfgang! this thread is gonna blow!


http://smilies.uniquehardware.co.uk/contrib/ed/muccawhore.gif

Rod
10-11-2002, 07:07 PM
naz, You might be right and I ain't betting against it. People are just curious, or maybe a better word is nosey. Oh and they all have opinions, it'll get setteled without any help from me or anyone else for that matter. And the beat goes on.

bluewolf
10-12-2002, 05:49 AM
Post deleted by bluewolf

TomBrooklyn
10-12-2002, 12:00 PM
Quote: Anonymous: It is a lot easier to talk bold when it is not you. <hr></blockquote>True. It is a also a lot easier to talk boldly when your IP Address is not visible and you don't put a name to your writing, isn't it? =TB=

10-12-2002, 12:33 PM
TomBrooklyn with your phoney poolgods email address. What an idiot.

TomBrooklyn
10-12-2002, 01:59 PM
It's also easy to call people names when you are anonymous and not in person too, isn't it? =TB=

10-12-2002, 02:21 PM
Wow are you ever wrong. Hahahahahahahahahahhaahahahhahahaa!

jjinfla
10-12-2002, 03:00 PM
BW, Because it happened to you does not necessarily mean that it was right. Either morally or legally. You may have had a justifiable cause of action when you were fired but you never exercised it. They may have just bluffed you. Now in Dr. D's case we do have to remember that she does possess a PHD which means she has spent some time in academia. She has also achieved some success in the business world. These accomplishments lead me to believe that she does have contacts who are both intelligent and influential. Contacts, who I believe, she has confided in before she went forward with her lawsuit. And contrary to what most people think, a reputable attorney will not waste his(her) time with a frivolous lawsuit. In the long run it just is not worth it for them. But I personally would rather be in Dr. D's position than in Jan's position. Jake

jjinfla
10-12-2002, 03:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Quote: Anonymous: It is a lot easier to talk bold when it is not you. &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;True. It is a also a lot easier to talk boldly when your IP Address is not visible and you don't put a name to your writing, isn't it? =TB= <hr></blockquote>And just what difference would it make if you knew who the person was Tom? I am beginning to realize that the anon posters are the intelligent ones and the rest of us are the dummies. Actually the opposite is true. The posters who use their names are trying to show allof us just how intelligent they are. All but me and you Tom. LOL Jake

rackmup
10-12-2002, 09:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: bluewolf:</font><hr>if their bylaws state a person can be removed 'with or without cause', they dont get due process. it is kind of like being in a probationary capacity in a job.<hr></blockquote>

This isn't even remotely close to being a correct statement. It's like comparing apples to oranges or perhaps Earl Strickland to bluewolf.

Regards,

Ken

rackmup
10-12-2002, 09:57 PM
Children! Don't make me stop this car!!!

10-12-2002, 10:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: rackmup:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: bluewolf:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt;if their bylaws state a person can be removed 'with or without cause', they dont get due process. it is kind of like being in a probationary capacity in a job.&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

This isn't even remotely close to being a correct statement. It's like comparing apples to oranges or perhaps Earl Strickland to bluewolf.

Regards,

Ken <hr></blockquote>

without dipping into any of the other issues swirling about here, that "with or without cause" language is pretty common these days. it simply means that one serves at the pleasure of the other and that they can be summarily diciplined. not too unlike being a serf in the service of a knight. boot smudged? kill the serf and get another. there's plenty.

none of this, however, trumps state and federal fair labor law. since the wpba is a tax-limited 501.c.6 membership organization, they have probably traded reduced taxes for oversight by the only true man-gods, the federal judiciary.

dan

10-12-2002, 10:26 PM
Sorry, Are we there yet?

10-12-2002, 10:52 PM
All depends on what's in the WPBA by-laws. If the way it happened was against those, then the WPBA is in trouble.

I read the real lawsuit, and the motions against the WPBA were very specifically worded. I think they're in a world of hurt.

spg

10-13-2002, 05:23 AM
What have I been missing. Alot it looks like

Go get em Doc! About time somone had the guts to take on this corrupt wpba administration. Docs dismissal, board members Fisher and Crimi and Shea resigning last year, Jan and Kelly paying themselves from the wpba, to much craps was taken place. And as Sylvester Stallone said, they drew first blood.

rackmup
10-13-2002, 07:31 AM
"Let's play the "quiet game". Now, be quiet and eat your Cheetos."

10-13-2002, 07:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Rich R.:</font><hr> Go get them Dr. D.
I think it is no secret that the WPBA does not have multi-millions to pay, but the BOD will, at the very least, be held responsible for their actions.
After being voted on to the Board of Directors of the WPBA, Dr. D. was removed from her office with out any "due process" and was not allowed to defend herself, not that she had anything to defend. The WPBA president and BOD will learn that you just can't do things that way.
This train has been coming down the track for many months now and it has finally hit the outhouse door.
Good luck Dr. D.
Rich R. <hr></blockquote>

Sounds like much time was spent planning the suit.

10-14-2002, 05:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Sally:</font><hr> InsidePOOL has an interesting article about this.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=>http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=</a> <hr></blockquote>

So who has some new news? Anyone get the papers yet?

Jackie in NJ

10-15-2002, 04:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> What have I been missing. Alot it looks like

Go get em Doc! About time somone had the guts to take on this corrupt wpba administration. Docs dismissal, board members Fisher and Crimi and Shea resigning last year, Jan and Kelly paying themselves from the wpba, to much craps was taken place. And as Sylvester Stallone said, they drew first blood. <hr></blockquote>

Maybe now is the time for Fisher, Crimi and Shea to take over the wpba.

Saddened &amp; Upset

10-15-2002, 04:46 AM
To all of my WPBA sisters, friends and newly acquired friends of the CCB:

I would like to express my deepest and most heartfelt appreciation for your support, encouragement, and good wishes. Rarely, as we travel down life&amp;#8217;s avenues, does one have the honor and privilege of not having to stand alone when faced with the challenge of confronting injustice and malice. I am deeply moved and touched by your responses and I wish to Thank-you from the bottom of my heart.

I was indeed shocked and appalled by the events that took place over this past week. In hindsight, I recognize now that WPBA President Jan McWorter&amp;#8217;s actions on December 28, 2001 would be prophetic of what was to come. On that date, approximately 3 weeks after my having been elected to the WPBA Board, Jan McWorter telephoned me and asked for my resignation from the WPBA Board citing that she was unable to work with me. This came without the approval, and at least in two cases that I know of, the previous knowledge of other board members. I did not discuss this issue with her at that time and informed her to submit her request in writing, at which time I would submit my decision to her. One week later I received her written request which included her reasons (which I will not disclose at this point in time other then to say that the content is substantially and materially different from all which has been publicized to date). I issued my response declining her request for my resignation stating that it was my intention to serve the membership who elected me for the duration of my term.

I am now in possession of a letter from the WPBA Board of Directors, signed by Jan McWorter, citing the reasons for my dismissal from my position on the WPBA Board. I find the contents of this letter, as well as the letter sent to the WPBA voting members and the second and most recent WPBA press release, to show a level of malice and intent to harm that is deplorable, unethical and inexcusable.

For the record, I have already received hard copy documentary evidence that allegations and/or charges as stated in the formal letter issued to me by the WPBA Board of Directors and signed by President Jan McWorter, as well as those alluded to and/or referenced in the letter issued by the WPBA Board of Directors to the membership of the WPBA and the two press releases issued to the media, are fabrications and a distortion of the true facts and circumstances as they exist. As additional research and inquiries continue, I am confident that additional findings and statements from involved parties will undeniably refute the credibility of the allegations and/or charges set forth by Jan McWorter and the Board of Directors of the WPBA.

This is all I am in a position to share with you at this time. Through advice and direction from my attorneys, I can not pursue any additional public discussions on this issue at this time. Once our investigations are complete, and the facts as they exist are in evidence, a decision will be made as to the nature and scope of the additional actions which will be taken.

Now, with all that having been said, I intend to rejoin my friends on the Billiards Digest Discussion Forum and get down to the business of discussing my favorite subject: Pool.

Sincerely; Dr. Diana Elaine Sorrentino


WOW found this in the archives. Lots of info in the archives on the wpba and the Doc.

Jackie in NJ

Wally_in_Cincy
10-15-2002, 06:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote: Sally:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr&gt; InsidePOOL has an interesting article about this.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=>http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=</a> &lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So who has some new news? Anyone get the papers yet?

Jackie in NJ <hr></blockquote>

St. Paul Gal at www.mnbilliards.com (http://www.mnbilliards.com) claims to have read the lawsuit. Maybe dr.d sent her a copy. Perhaps she will share soon.

10-15-2002, 05:28 PM
Fisher already tried. Left prematurely in disgust after 1 year.

Shea: Doubt she would get elected.

Crimi: Did it as a sophomore prez 20 years ago when she was 31 when WPBA was a fledgling and nobody else wanted the job.
Given her megalomania and those hot-flashing PMSes of hers lately, does anyone think she stands a chance at a fair election? And no, Carol and Barbara, you "guys" can't vote!

Linda in NJ

10-15-2002, 08:39 PM
Just go to a golf site, or the esteemed RSB (that would be the high-brow version of pool sites) with myriad physicists, rocket scientists, professors, mathematicians etc. as forum members and try finding one, just one soul, who would so foolishly insist on putting "Dr." in front of their monikers. To me, that tells me all I want to know about this Dr's fragile self-identity and her possible motives in moving in on the WPBA. I am just surprised she didn't list on her bio every 33rd-49th place finish in her many WPBA qualifiers as one of our other NEWT semi-pro used to do. Talk about filling out a resume and grasping at straws! LOL.....

As an unemployed consultant who has time on her hands this frivolous lawsuit from our Most High and Esteemed Business and Finance Doctorate would most likely backfire on her. It is a safe bet that she is angling for a settlement and a perfuntory apology - further fodder to put on her website and a tonic for a battered seld-esteem no doubt.



The Right Honorable Lord Farthing of Pennysville, B.Sc, EMBA, D.Litt(Hon), FRCSP, BCA Chief Master Initiator.
And teacher pet and hall monitor all through boarding school.

10-17-2002, 03:32 PM
Anyone have any news? Lots of guessing NO facts. BTW, where is BD on this one? Inside Pool has it. MN Billiards has it. BD is silent. Interesting.

Saddened &amp; Upset

10-17-2002, 03:43 PM
As of this morning.....
The WPBA has hired an NYC law firm and has tendered a settlement offer. The offer was decidedly lacking in heft and was rebuffed.

Barbara
10-17-2002, 04:09 PM
And just who the f*** are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?

Do you know Fran personally? Have you ever met her? Do you know what she's going through right now?

I wonder if you've ever stuck your chicken neck out on the line to run an organization or even a league for that matter. It's no piece of cake and a very thankless job to boot. You're probably one of those players that whine about stuff at tournaments without having a solution to offer. If you play at tournaments at all - you're not on my mailing list for NEWT.

Barbara

Doctor_D
10-17-2002, 04:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> As of this morning.....
The WPBA has hired an NYC law firm and has tendered a settlement offer. The offer was decidedly lacking in heft and was rebuffed. <hr></blockquote>

For the record!

Whoever posted the information quoted above is with-out a doubt pursuing some creative writing here on the CCB. While the documents filed with the court are available to the public, conversations and discussion between the litigants and their respective attorneys are not and will not be made public knowledge.

/ccboard/images/icons/mad.gif

Dr. D.

10-17-2002, 05:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Barbara:</font><hr> And just who the f*** are you to tell me what I can and cannot do?

ROTFLMAO!

Hey now, we are working on hiding our feelings now, aren't we? You crack me up, Babsy. Reminds me of the days post 9/11 when you, Carol, and Fran carried the vitriolic load on this forum. As the saying go, "You have come a long way, baby!" With classy, brassy broads like you backstopping our sport no wonder things are at an all time high! LOL......



If you play at tournaments at all - you're not on my mailing list for NEWT.


A desperate, blind roundhouse out of the dark? um....I could be wrong, but I doubt your antagonist would care to play under your aegis either, it seems to me. Meanwhile, perhaps you are showing just a lil' too much (thin) skin, my dear? You know what they say about skirt length this season, right?....LOL....
Barbara <hr></blockquote>

10-17-2002, 05:41 PM
So, is that an outright denial of the presence of a settlement offer or are you just blowing smoke? When the WPBA wins the countersuit you may have to go back to school for a post-doctoral fellowship (in gender or Sapphic studies no doubt) to pay for your insousciance.

Ken
10-17-2002, 06:47 PM
The media outlets that you have mentioned have published only the initial announcement of the lawsuit. I would think there is little need for BD to publish the same thing. I have been told that copies of the pleadings have been sent to the media but it seems that none of them want to touch this.

I called with the thought that they might e-mail me a copy and was told that someone would get back to me within two days. That was three days ago. I have to be in court tomorrow and will not be near the phone but my fax will be on.

I'd like a copy of the bylaws also so if anyone could tell me how to get a copy I would appreciate that.
KenCT

jjinfla
10-18-2002, 05:57 AM
Gee Ken, I would think that EVERY member of the WPBA would have her own copy of the By-laws so Dr. D should be able to fax you a copy. But I know that in reality most people who belong to organizations don't even know about by-laws, or what they are, let alone request a copy. Well, this thread made it past the 7K mark. I wonder how many different people that was? Jake

Wally_in_Cincy
10-18-2002, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> So, is that an outright denial of the presence of a settlement offer or are you just blowing smoke? When the WPBA wins the countersuit you may have to go back to school for a post-doctoral fellowship (in gender or Sapphic studies no doubt) to pay for your insousciance. <hr></blockquote>

Cool word but you spelled it wrong.

insouciance

\In`sou`ciance"\, n. [F.] Carelessness; heedlessness; thoughtlessness; unconcern.


Why are you so mean and insulting. Oh wait it's because you're anonymous. Congratulations to the gutless wonder.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-18-2002, 07:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: nAz:</font><hr> i ganrantee 7000+ hits on this thread by the end of next week.
<hr></blockquote>

10 days, 7100 hits, probably about #6 on the hit parade-good job /ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif

Rich R.
10-18-2002, 07:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr>Why are you so mean and insulting. Oh wait it's because you're anonymous. Congratulations to the gutless wonder. <hr></blockquote>
Could it be that this Anonymous "gutless wonder" has recently been named in a law suite?
Rich R.

nAz
10-18-2002, 09:34 AM
yeah it should hit 10,000 by the JFK's aniversity
Time to Get Blue wolf back here to beat it out!!!lol

TomBrooklyn
10-18-2002, 11:55 PM
Quote: Wally_in_Cincy: Cool word but you spelled it wrong: insouciance<hr></blockquote> True Wally,
but it's not the only mispelled word in this thread. I wish to avoid appearing pedantic, but I hope this discussion doesn't become sciolistic. Regards, =TB=

10-19-2002, 04:04 AM
i find it interesting that, in the end, you all fall back on this anonymous crap.

why do you bother reading anonymous posts if that's your attitude. you'd save 20% of your time by not doing so, and 80% of your time if you only read posters who are using their REAL name.

Ken
10-19-2002, 07:18 AM
There are good reasons to post as anonymous as well as to read those posts. One post of interest to the topic of this thread was the anonymous post of the letter that was sent to members of the WPBA in attempt to explain Dr. D's dismissal.

That letter was originally sent to a limited number of persons, none of whom was ever likely to avail themselves of Dr. D's services. The publishing of that letter on this board, however, reached a great many more people, some of whom might even have been interested in employing Dr. D. Thererfore the person making that post committed an actionable act of defamation far greater than the WPBA did. A good reason to remain unknown by an anonymous posting.

It's interesting to note that the post of that letter was repeated by one who is not anonymous. That is another actionable instance of defamation, in my opinion.

I don't suppose Dr. D is likely to go after any persons merely repeating defamatory comments on this board but it is something that she would be justified in doing. I would not like to spend the money it would take to defend such a lawsuit even if I were to win.
KenCT

Wally_in_Cincy
10-19-2002, 07:23 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Quote: Wally_in_Cincy: Cool word but you spelled it wrong: insouciance&lt;hr&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt; True Wally,
but it's not the only mispelled word in this thread. I wish to avoid appearing pedantic, but I hope this discussion doesn't become sciolistic. Regards, =TB= <hr></blockquote>

You're right Tom. You and I should refrain from correcting spelling errors lest our effulgence show through. LOL

Heck me and nAz are just hoping this thread breaks the heretofore unreachable 10,000 views.

My last post to this thread,

sciolistic as always, I remain,

10-19-2002, 08:58 AM
yes ken,,,but my reply was directed to the specific knee-jerk reaction that CCBers have to anonymous posters as if remaining anonymous invalidates a worthy reply.

it is downright laughable.

nAz
10-19-2002, 09:29 AM
Itll do it, then im gonna resurect the WPBA hottest just to see if it can catch this one lol
If not BW will come up with a good one to do it
hahaha im evil http://smilies.networkessence.net/ups/sabrinajellybean/face.gif

10-20-2002, 06:43 PM
Is this thread heading for 10,000 views and 150 posts?

Jackie in NJ

jjinfla
10-21-2002, 05:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Anonymous:</font><hr> Is this thread heading for 10,000 views and 150 posts?

Jackie in NJ <hr></blockquote>It appears that it is just about dead. Probably won't make 8500. Jake

10-21-2002, 06:06 AM
You might be right. This is now old news until the verdict is in.

Jackie in NJ

jjinfla
10-21-2002, 10:07 AM
But then maybe we can start the rumor that the "new" format for the WPBA was actually the brainchild of Dr. D. Afterall, she was instrumental in their going to the 64 player format. Jake~~~that should be good for a few more posts. LOL

nAz
10-21-2002, 12:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: jjinfla:</font><hr> But then maybe we can start the rumor that the "new" format for the WPBA was actually the brainchild of Dr. D. Afterall, she was instrumental in their going to the 64 player format. Jake~~~that should be good for a few more posts. LOL <hr></blockquote>

LOL that'll start a whole new wave or post

10-21-2002, 01:15 PM
HAHAHA! That's really funny, nAz! You are just too much! Now could you please stop cluttering this website with your ridiculous and childish one and two-liners? I for one am sick of you tying up the board and keeping long threads alive with your chat room crap.

Now let's see if any posters come to your rescue to defend you. I bet most posters agree with this statement (other than your one or two posting buddies) and will not say anything.

Your friend,
A sick and tired anonymous poster.

nAz
10-21-2002, 01:21 PM
LOL anony the day you post with your real name like me is the day ill shut up.
oh and your not my friend any more your my bitch Anonyhttp://smilies.networkessence.net/cwm/cwm/piss.gif hehe

10-21-2002, 05:45 PM
So where's all the people coming to your defense?

jjinfla
10-22-2002, 04:43 PM
They are hypnotized by his monkey. Jake

10-25-2002, 07:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Sally:</font><hr> InsidePOOL has an interesting article about this.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=>http://www.insidepool.com/cgi-bin/portal/wextra7.pl/p/content1/r/258?lang=</a> <hr></blockquote>

Doctor_D
10-25-2002, 01:41 PM
In response to numerous requests for information on this matter I would like to provide you with the Index Number for use in tracking the case through the Supreme Court of the State of New York in the County of New York.

The Index Number is

121543/2002


Information is available through the following website:

www.elaw.com (http://www.elaw.com)

10-31-2002, 03:38 PM
October 31, 2002
New York Times
Tour to Keep Its Recognition of the Masters
By CLIFTON BROWN



TLANTA, Oct. 30 &amp;#8212; Anyone waiting for the PGA Tour to alter its relationship with Augusta National Golf Club or the Masters should probably stop waiting.

Making his annual state of the Tour address today, Commissioner Tim Finchem said there were no plans to change its connection with the Masters or Augusta National, despite the controversy surrounding Augusta's all-male membership. Augusta National runs the Masters, and the Tour recognizes the tournament as a major championship and includes Masters winnings on the money list.

Martha Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations, urged the Tour on Monday not to recognize the Masters as a major anymore. Burk, who is pressing Augusta National to admit women as members, has noted that it is against the PGA Tour's policy to hold tournaments at golf clubs with exclusionary memberships.

Because the Tour does not run the Masters, set policy at Augusta National or have a contractual relationship with the Masters, Finchem said he did not feel compelled to dissociate the Tour from the event. Finchem expressed his views to Burk in a letter in August, and he restated them today at East Lake Golf Club, site of the season-ending Tour Championship, which begins Thursday.

"As far as I know, there's going to be a tournament at Augusta, the Masters, and it's going to be on CBS television, and our players are going to go play," Finchem said. "What else happens, I'm not going to speculate on that.

"I'm comfortable with the position the PGA Tour has taken. The PGA Tour has taken a position based on the evaluation of all the factors. The Masters has been a major championship since the mid-30's. It's an integral part of the structure of professional golf. Changing that is not a step we're prepared to take."

When told of Finchem's remarks, Burk was unimpressed.

"My reaction is that Tim Finchem's first loyalties are to Augusta and to its practice of discrimination, not to the Tour's own policies against discrimination," she said in a telephone interview. "By saying it's not an official Tour event, he has created his own loophole. He's allowing the Masters to benefit from the PGA Tour while Augusta practices discrimination. I don't understand how he justifies this."

While the official Tour season will end Sunday, the controversy surrounding next year's Masters obviously is far from over. Finchem wanted to focus on other issues today, and he made several significant announcements.

Next year the Buy.com Tour, which was developed for players trying to earn their way onto the PGA Tour, will become the Nationwide Tour, a result of a five-year deal with the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company.

The Senior Tour will be renamed the Champions Tour. Finchem hopes the new name will help make the 50-and-older circuit more popular.

"I think there is a realization by more and more companies, and I suppose by all of us, that unlike in the past, nobody considers themselves seniors anymore," he said. "When you turn 50, that's just the next step. The bigger question was a relevant way to reach the broader fan. We felt `champions' resonated better than `seniors.' "

Reporters, however, focused on Augusta National. Finchem consistently referred to his August letter to Burk, which said in part: "We understand and appreciate your position that women should be admitted to Augusta National as members. You suggest in your letter that the PGA Tour withhold its recognition of the Masters Tournament due to Augusta National's membership policies. After having considered this matter, we have concluded we must continue to recognize the Masters Tournament as one of professional golf's major championships."

Asked if he had heard from any sponsors concerned about the Tour's position regarding the Masters, Finchem said: "I'm not going to discuss what conversations I've had with sponsors. I know you're going to try and move me out of the confines of my statement. You're not going to be successful. But you can continue to try."

Burk had no trouble moving out of the confines of Finchem's statement.

"He's fighting a losing battle, and so is Augusta," she said. "If Augusta doesn't do the right thing, the prestige of the Masters tournament is going to fade. It may not be this year, it may not be next year, but if Augusta doesn't change, the Masters tournament will be less attractive for everyone to be associated with: sponsors, fans and the Tour."

So while the focus on the course this week will be on Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson and the rest of the elite 30-member field, the dispute concerning Augusta is sure to continue.