Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sightseek
They are pretty snuggly in the photo....
|
"[The source of the story] is not even a friend of mine. I've met her twice in my life. I've got some really horrible things that I can say about her and her past. I am toying around if I should go after her, because she's not a credible source.
"This girl was never around me for any of the time she was saying she was. If I was having some big, lurid affair, I would not tell this girl. It's just ridiculous.
"She got paid money to sell a story to the National Enquirer. I heard she got $25,000 and another girl got $25,000. The other magazines heard about it, but they turned it down because there was no hard evidence.
"She had a personal reason to make this up. She got herself invited on a trip that I went on [to Europe]. She conducted herself in a manner that was so embarrassing that the trip ended after a day. It was a total nightmare. I saw her again last week in Vegas. I was embarrassed by her behavior. She fell down the stairs at the restaurant because she was so wasted. She's a train wreck.
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...#ixzz0YTe5oSJO
also... and I'm not sure why this hasnt been brought up yet.. Since when does the general, intelligent, public EVER believe anything printed in the National Enquirer??? I mean are the next big media stories going to be Oprah is pregnant with octuplets and Jesus came back from the dead as French Toast?
Not one credible journalist would print the story about Tiger and Rachel. That means a lot IMO.