"If Wie was lying, she’d be the one to have to look in the mirror when she puts on her makeup and know she did."

Thanks to reader Tom for John Vander Borght's follow-up to his original post on Michelle Wie and her questionable explanation for grounding her club, which he's apparently caught a little flak for defending. I think he makes a fair rebuttal point even though I find her explanation dubious.

Here is my question for those who don’t agree.  Lets assume that the most honest player you can think of (Bobby Jones in my case) did just what Wie did in the hazard and claimed the he/she thought he was falling.  Would you believe him or her?

If so, ask yourself why you don’t believe Wie.  Is she inherently less trustworthy (I’m sure some will say she is)?  Why doesn’t she deserve the same benefit of the doubt?  What has she really done that is worthy of being branded a liar or a least a fabricator of a story?

Many years ago at my first US Mid-Amateur, I had a case where a player denied doing what I know I saw him do from 150 yards away.  After a few minutes of discussion, the rover who was more senior than I was took me aside and let the player continue.  He said to me, “If he is lying, he is the one who will have to look in the mirror tomorrow morning when he shaves.”   If Wie was lying, she’d be the one to have to look in the mirror when she puts on her makeup and know she did.  But, who am I to judge that?

Update on 2010-03-30 22:27 by Geoff

Steve Elling was more impressed by the work of the LPGA officials:

Kudos to the LPGA for standing up to an outspoken and annoyed Michelle Wie, who believed she was unfairly assessed a two-shot penalty for grounding her club while inside a water hazard on Sunday at the tour's first domestic event of the season. Doug Brecht, who has seen and heard it all in his lengthy tenure as an LPGA rules official, never backed down, even as Wie appeared to torque the truth with an assertion that she was using the club to maintain her balance. The video fairly conclusively indicates otherwise. No matter whether the player is a princess or a pauper, the violation was self-evident, though it's a dumb rule and she was seeking to gain no competitive advantage. In essence, Brecht ruled that Wie was either wrong in claiming that she used her club to keep from falling -- which would exempt her from the penalty -- or not telling the truth. Either way, Wie's explanation looked a lot more wobbly than she did as she stood with one foot inside the water hazard.