The side bet — You and I are going out for a game of golf. The one with the lower stableford score will pay the one with the higher score 100 baht. The fine print clause “If either one of us has a really poor round (fails to score 30 points) then the bet is cancelled.”
Some SMAF members have been making that side bet for a long period of time. Suddenly the really poor round clause has been quietly dropped. If both members are trying to win what is the problem — why drop the clause? Was Andrew “dropping anchor” last week not the first time this happened?
If I hadn’t been playing with Andrew or if Andrew hadn’t been so foolish to boast that he was going to drop anchor then I would not have noticed and reported it. It is my opinion that the clause was dropped because I made an issue of it.
Why were those that had been participating in the side bet strongly defending Andrew’s behaviour as acceptable? Why has the group defended his misconduct with “we think it was one bad golf day for the SMAF participant that can be dismissed like the bad golf days we have all had – and an informal poll of other SMAF members closely corresponds with our views on the matter.”? If you have a bad golf day are you untitled to unsportsmanlike conduct?
I admit I did hijack this blog. I was shouted down at the lunch table and it was the one resource I had to make my points. I had fully intended to give the blog back to SMAF once my points had been addressed. I offered to post anything they wanted completely unedited and once they were given back the blog they would be free to do whatever they wanted with it including delete my post(s). When they came up with the “one bad golf day” excuse I took a stronger stance which was get Andrew to apologise or you don’t get the blog back. They considered that coercion (which it was) and they started a new blog. They told me I could do whatever I wanted with this one.
Why not force the member who certainly was guilty of misconduct (that’s a polite way of saying broke the rules) to apologise? Mea Culpa. It would have ended all of this.
The only possible answer for all the questions is perhaps one or two other members had been dropping anchor — would that not be a reason for the way they handled this? Those that dropped anchor or knew of other incidents and didn’t report it wouldn’t have been in a position to criticize Andrew would they? I now suspect that dropping anchor had been going on for a while.
Although I have no proof that this wasn’t a solitary incident it would certainly explain why other members went through extremely bad patches and their handicaps went up. They weren’t deliberately manipulating their handicaps but their handicaps could have gone up due to anchor dropping. I have always defended SMAF handicaps and the skins game as being fair. I can no longer say with 100% certainty that they were indeed fair. MY PROBLEM is that I now believe the integrity of the group has been compromised.
SMAF’s probable response to the above is here.
MY PROBLEM is that after doing the majority of the work for 3 years to promote and build SMAF I was shouted down in a most disrespectful way. This is not how we sorted things out in the past.
MY PROBLEM is that even if dropping anchor were acceptable that members would resort to such measures to get out of paying a 100 baht bet. I don’t accept poor sportsmanship. A bet is a bet.
I resigned but have been told that I am welcome back if I chose to do so. Their new blog (https://smaf310022724.wordpress.com/) says “come join us for a fun, friendly round of golf”. When I announced that I was permanently leaving one member shouted out “GOOD”. MY PROBLEM is that I don’t call that “friendly” or “welcoming”.
My PROBLEM is that I have too many problems with the way that SMAF has evolved over the past 6 months. I have no desire to go back any time soon.
It is very likely that I won’t have anything further to say on this subject and it is likely there will never be another post on this blog. Comments are open so feel free to say whatever is on your mind. Nothing will be deleted unless it contains foul language.