By Leonard Shapiro
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 14, 2006 1:23 PM

I got a call Tuesday from a reporter at BBC Radio, wondering if I'd go on the air to discuss the Tiger Woods controversy.

Having just returned from the Masters, and having spent four days watching Woods miss putt after make-able putt and finish tied for third in his quest for a fifth green jacket and 11th major championship, I assumed she wanted me to talk about his inexplicable inability to figure out the greens at Augusta National.

No, she said, people over here are very concerned about his language, particularly his comment that "as soon as I got on the green, I was a spaz."

I had heard Woods use that term after his final round, a day he needed 33 putts to get around the course, but in the interest of good taste, and yes, perhaps political correctness, and mostly knowing full well that my editors almost certainly would not allow "spaz" to appear, I decided not to use it.

My feeling then, and now, was that Woods had described his putting several different ways, all of them leading to the conclusion that he'd been awful.

At one point, he used the word "atrocious" in talking about his sloppy work on the greens, which certainly painted the proper picture and demonstrated his own obvious self-deprecating disgust with the state of putting. That's the quote I decided to use in my story.

Over in England, however, my friend Lewine Mair, the brilliant golf correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, wrote a follow-up piece in which she implied there had been a cover-up in a number of American newspapers trying to protect Woods from himself.

"America's leading newspapers," she wrote, naming the Washington Post, New York Times and Boston Globe, "helped Tiger Woods avoid controversy by ignoring his use of the word 'spaz' to describe his putting in the final round of the Masters at Augusta National.

"It was an extraordinary insensitive if impromptu comment from a player who usually shows nothing but compassion for his fellow men, other than when he is up against them in a golfing context," she added.

I would agree with Ms. Mair that it was an insensitive remark, even though I've also been told the word apparently has a far more offensive connotation over there than it does over here. But quite frankly, in no way, shape or form was my own decision not to use the word an attempt to help Woods "avoid controversy."

Woods does a fine job on that score himself. For the most part, he is unfailingly magnanimous in his praise of his opponents, avoids touchy or controversial subjects virtually at all costs and has always been thoroughly cognizant of saying and doing the right thing.

In February at the World Match Play championship at La Costa, for example, he clearly was perturbed with Stephen Ames when he read a comment by Ames implying that he'd have a chance to win their first-round match because Woods wasn't driving the ball especially well at that point.

Woods crushed him on the golf course the following day, and when asked about Ames' pre-match comment, he would only say "9 and 8," the overwhelming margin of his victory. No vitriolic name-calling, no public putdown. Simply "9 and 8," which spoke volumes in its own right about his fury toward his impertinent foe.

When Vijay Singh's caddy at the 2002 Presidents Cup wore a hat that said "Tiger Who?" before Singh played Woods in singles, Woods was asked about it after the match. His only response was "2 and 1," the score of his victory over Singh that day.

This is not to say Woods is always a choir boy in public. We've all seen and heard his expletive-laced reactions to lousy shots or missed putts up close and personal or on television over the years, and occasionally they've been picked up by microphones and aired around the globe.

He clearly would be wise to clean up his language, and I believe he's actually made an effort to do so. Woods use of the word "spaz" was obviously inappropriate, as well, but I can't imagine it was meant to denigrate or humiliate anyone.

Not from a guy who told "60 Minutes" he had a stuttering problem as a child. Not from a guy who has felt the sting of racial intolerance. Not from a guy who's own father is now physically incapacitated as he battles cancer. Not from a guy who's foundation has raised millions -- many of them from himself -- to reach out and help disadvantaged youngsters worldwide.

I believe Woods has a huge heart, great compassion and a genuine social consciousness, and I'd like to think his offhand comment in Augusta not long after being in the heat of competition ought not be held against him.

Another fine writer from the United Kingdom said it best. "Woods did not deliberately attempt to offend," wrote Mike Aitken in the Scotsman. "The world's most high-profile athlete is a man of integrity for whom this comment was out of character. He was wrong, but his track record suggests he deserves the benefit of the doubt."

Questions or comments? E-mail Len at Badgerlen@hotmail.com.