The Grantland Dr. V Transgender Controversy

[The Midnight]

I got the feeling the article is about Caleb Hannan almost as much as it is about Dr. V and her hold club.



But obviously I'm not a golfer.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

This.


Seems to me the article was more him explaining to the World why he's not responsible for her death.

 

[JimLes]

What bothers me is that Hannan goes after the person, right away. It's like an ad hominem attack. Claims of miracle putter, let's hunt down the maker. Because that somehow makes a difference. It reminds me of that A Million Little Pieces guy or Milli Vanilli. When it's a memoir, many people love and adore the book. When it's fiction, suddenly the book sucks, and that self-righteous, pretentious bitch Oprah has the gall to lord it over him like she knows anything about literature. Isn't it the same freaking book still? Did you not like it before? Did you not plug it on your show, despite the fact that its literary value all along was insignificant? If you like the song, does it matter if it's two attractive young men in dreadlocks or middle-aged men and women? If you like the song, you like the song. But no, one moment Milli Vanilli were selling millions of albums effortlessly, another moment no one would admit to ever liking them.

Maybe this is overly Barthesian of me, but why does it matter who the man behind the curtain is? Putters, books, songs. If you like them, who cares who made them and what the saucy details of their private life are. If you don't, move on. You don't need to spend a year investigating it.

 

[Hantlers]

The club either worked or it didn't. It has nothing to do with the background of the inventor.

If you're an investor, and the inventor is lying about their background, it certainly makes a difference and it certainly is fraud, especially if a large part of your selling point is your background.

C'mon Jim, be a little practical. This is real world stuff, not that difficult.

 

[Hantlers]

What bothers me is that Hannan goes after the person, right away. It's like an ad hominem attack. Claims of miracle putter, let's hunt down the maker. Because that somehow makes a difference. It reminds me of that A Million Little Pieces guy or Milli Vanilli. When it's a memoir, many people love and adore the book. When it's fiction, suddenly the book sucks, and that self-righteous, pretentious bitch Oprah has the gall to lord it over him like she knows anything about literature. Isn't it the same freaking book still? Did you not like it before? Did you not plug it on your show, despite the fact that its literary value all along was insignificant? If you like the song, does it matter if it's two attractive young men in dreadlocks or middle-aged men and women? If you like the song, you like the song. But no, one moment Milli Vanilli were selling millions of albums effortlessly, another moment no one would admit to ever liking them.

Maybe this is overly Barthesian of me, but why does it matter who the man behind the curtain is? Putters, books, songs. If you like them, who cares who made them and what the saucy details of their private life are. If you don't, move on. You don't need to spend a year investigating it.

A simple little story about a putter doesn't sell. The person who makes the putter is what sells.

This guy wanted to find out more about the putter, so he goes to the creator. He sees some things that don't fit together, and like any other sane person, tries to figure out why they don't fit together. Along the way, he deals with what seems to be an irrational woman, and he's trying to figure out why she acts the way she does. It was a good story, a compelling story. Look at how many people read it. I don't have a problem with him researching the maker of the putter or trying to figure out what made her tick...nobody would have wanted to read a piece on just the putter with no input from the creator.

 

[One Brow]

Of course it has no bearing. The product either works or it doesn't work. If it works, your credentials are irrelevant.

If this were really true, why present falsified credentials at all?

 

[moevillini]

Well, I don't think the story is all that well-told or well-written. It meanders a bit too much, and include people and background that is not really germane to the story the writer is trying to tell. I found it very confusing and wasn't certain where it was going or where it ended up. Maybe I skimmed over certain parts too quickly, I don't know.

Also, I'd like to see the author perhaps look a bit more into the McCord character. He seems to have been an integral part of the story and sort of the glue that tied all the other disparate characters together.

Finally, I don't see what the transgender issue has to do with any of this, the story really doesn't go into that aspect any more than it goes into the other questionable aspects of the central character. Seems to be not much more than hearsay - perhaps the bit about the lawsuit in Gilbert, AZ is the only truly verifiable factual part of the story.

Some questions in general:
Is transgender the same as transexual? Did Stephen Kroll have sexual reassignment surgery or just legally change his name to a woman's name? Was he legally a woman or was he a man posing as a woman? It's not at all clear from the story as far as I can tell. It mentioned that he petitioned a court to legally change his name because his original name "didn't fit anymore" - - is that all it takes to change one's gender or sexual identity? I know we've discussed these things before but I don't recall if there was a definitive answer.

 

[JimLes]

If this were really true, why present falsified credentials at all?

Because idiots fall for them, then turn around and complain they're being defrauded.

 

[sirkickyass]

Because idiots fall for them, then turn around and complain they're being defrauded.

Let me tell you, as someone who has done a lot of legal work related to fraud: the defense of "I only said that because I knew you'd fall for it" is the worst possible fraud defense ever conceived by any living creature in any known universe observable by any actual or spiritual entity.

Here's your certificate of participation for this unique achievement. Please put your real name and whatever you want to call this unique display of futility on the certificate and place wherever you think appropriate.

 

[JimLes]

Let me tell you, as someone who has done a lot of legal work related to fraud: the defense of "I only said that because I knew you'd fall for it" is the worst possible fraud defense ever conceived by any living creature in any known universe observable by any actual or spiritual entity.

Congratulations on helping perpetuate a system that rewards and protects the stupid.

 

[Hantlers]

Congratulations on helping perpetuate a system that rewards and protects the stupid.

You're not too good at life outside of a school book, are ya?

 

[One Brow]

Because idiots fall for them, then turn around and complain they're being defrauded.

So, you agree credentials do make a difference.

 

[One Brow]

You're not too good at life outside of a school book, are ya?

iawtp

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Congratulations on helping perpetuate a system that rewards and protects the stupid.

It's also, you know, United States law.

 

[Gameface]

I'm all for letting stupidity be painful, but tricking people with lies and deceit... That's on the liar, not the idiot believing them.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Because idiots fall for them, then turn around and complain they're being defrauded.

So your contention is that there's nothing wrong with falsifying credentials but there is something wrong with verifying whether credentials are falsified? You have a big problem with people who fall for falsified claims, but no problem with people who make them? Wow.

 

[moevillini]

I'd still like to know a bit more about Gary McCord's involvement in all of this...
that's something a good investigative reporter should take an interest in...

from the original story in the first post

...But it wasn’t just the science behind Dr. V’s putter that intrigued McCord. It was the scientist, too. For starters, she was a woman in the male-dominated golf industry. She also cut a striking figure, standing 6-foot-3 with a shock of red hair. What’s more, she was a Vanderbilt, some link in the long line descending from Cornelius, the original Commodore. All of this would have been more than enough to capture McCord’s attention, but what he found most remarkable about Dr. V was where she had been before she started making putters. She told him she had spent most of her career as a private contractor for the Department of Defense, working on projects so secretive — including the stealth bomber — that her name wasn’t listed on government records. “Isn’t that about as clandestine as you can get?” McCord asked me.

He had his own peculiar way of verifying this information. McCord said he was on friendly terms with a few retired four-star generals. He told me that they not only knew of Dr. V, but also that one had even called her “one of us.” ...


...The other question to consider was if any of the lies actually mattered. Yes, Dr. V had fabricated a résumé that helped sell the Oracle putter under false pretenses. But she was far from the first clubmaker to attach questionable scientific value to a piece of equipment just to make it more marketable. Sure, her lies were more audacious than the embellishments found in late-night infomercials. But her ultimate intent — to make a few bucks, or, maybe, to be known as a genius — remained the same. Whatever the answers, Gary McCord would not be able to help me find them. The man who had once been so willing to talk stopped responding to my emails. Finally, a spokesperson at CBS told me that McCord had “nothing more to add to the story.”

 

[moevillini]

AND - I know we have some golfers here, has anyone tried this putter? Anyone heard of it before this?

 

[Gameface]

My question is if she falsified her resume, did the putter do what she said it did and if so how was she able to design it without the background she claimed to have?

 

[nightmare3983]

My question is if she falsified her resume, did the putter do what she said it did and if so how was she able to design it without the background she claimed to have?

This is definitely a question I have after reading everything.

 

[sirkickyass]

My question is if she falsified her resume, did the putter do what she said it did and if so how was she able to design it without the background she claimed to have?

The author says the putter no longer worked for him after he knew the truth, which he attributes a placebo-like effect on believing he had a great putter.

That said, I simply don't know enough about what MOI means, especially in the context of putting, or how to measure it to have any knowledge about whether the putter did anything.