I didn't intend for this to turn into a political thread. So please, keep your politics out of the discussion, no matter how related you may think they are. It just turns into a discussion that I personally didn't intend it to be.
And thanks in advance for honoring my wishes.
My underlying point was that all of this information about Patrick Reed was out there and published years ago. Yes, in college he had a checkered past by the sound of things. This was revealed when he turned pro. It had been revealed and touched upon early on in his career after he turned pro. But since nobody gave Patrick Reed a second thought, who really cared at the time? Yet once he becomes a Masters champion seven years later - much of the sports media decided to regurgitate the story again.
The next question I have is why? Why does the media bring it up again several years later, within hours of his career achievement?
My answer: To rain on a parade, to lessen someone's achievement over something that happened several years ago during his teenage years. To gain clicks, to discredit the achievement, to create a story that is designed to somehow discredit the individual.
And for those who can't rationalize the difference between youthful stupidity back in college, versus Tiger's situation when he was 33 years old when his scandal broke, at least 13 years older by comparison... well, there's just no need to debate you any further. If you can't understand those differences, and the time-sensitive aspect regarding when both of those stories broke, then there's no changing your opinion on the matter. Tiger's transgressions happened long after he'd become a star and settled down with a wife and children. When that news broke, he was 33 years old and he'd been several years into a marriage, starting a family, and well into his prolific career. It was real-time news.
The news about Patrick Reed's alleged college shenanigans was made public not long after he turned pro, several years prior.
I'll ask this question: if Patrick Reed finished second on Sunday and had not won the Masters, would the media have focused on his alleged college-days shortcomings his first two years at school?
No.
But since he did win, the media felt it necessary to remind everyone that Patrick Reed might not be the Masters champion that everybody thought him to be. Their goal was to discredit him, plain and simple, to rain on his parade, on what amounts to allegations and little more. Going back to how he behaved when he was still in his teens, no less.
If you don't like Patrick Reed, for whatever reasons, you're most likely in the majority. That's your opinion and you're entitled. And I don't have an issue with that. I'm not exactly a huge fan either, but for a different reason.
But I can't help but question why the media, who published his story several years ago after turning pro, felt the need Sunday evening to bring it up again. It's why a majority of us, in these current times we live, have every reason to question the agendas of those who have decided to make a career of reporting news, sports, etc.
Again, if Patrick Reed doesn't win the Masters - none of this stuff makes the headlines again. And maybe that's the worst part in all of this... that this "news" really isn't news. It's old news. Yet was republished in an effort to create controversy and sensationalism, an effort to discredit what they deem an unworthy champion.
Had Rory won, you think the media's bringing up allegations about how his father tried to cover up "fathering" a child out of wedlock with a young woman several years ago shortly after he won his first major? Or how his personal life with a superstar women's tennis player went from the penthouse to the shithouse because he couldn't deal with the sensationalism that typically accompanies such a popular athlete? Or the riff between he and his buddy Graham McDowell when it was learned that G-Mac's influence with bringing him into the Chubby Chandler management fold created friction when it was learned that G-Mac was being compensated for doing so, and how Rory was perceived in some corners for being ungrateful and greedy, despite earning life-changing money?
No. None of Rory's past would've been brought up. Because the media, deep down, wanted Rory to win. It would give them a story to talk about, how the young Irishman finally exorcized his demons at a course that had given him so much grief over the years, and finally achieved the career grand slam.
Patrick Reed winning, by comparison, is a much lesser story. Not much to write about. Not the favorite. Not expected to win going into the tournament, not expected to win on Sunday despite having played 54 holes of exceptional golf.
It wasn't the story they wanted to write about. And they took it out on Patrick Reed when he gave them no other choice.