Should it be just about the golf?

After the Tiger Woods fiasco, which has been in news in the past, Accenture  removed the professional golfer, Tiger Woods as its Brand Ambassador. TAG Heuer continued its relationship with him. At this stage, TAG Heuer’s 2010 marketing plan remains unchanged “with modulated activation of Tiger Woods’ image according to geographies.” 
They say that they had Tiger Woods as Brand Ambassador because he was the best in Golf, not because that he was a family man or was not involved in any scandals.

All the ads always featured Tiger Woods playing Golf..it  was all about Golf.

But sometimes actually the Brand can take a beating due to the brand ambassador. Then problem then arises when there is a conflict as to  whether certain qualities of a celebrity should be associated with a brand or by default his/her  whole persona gets automatically associated with the brand.

So the question is does overall image of Brand Ambassador matter or is it only the talent that should matter?   We have to understand the company's point of view that the brand ambassador then has a responsibility , they do become the face of the brand. 

But, the other side of the argument, lets say in this case is that Accenture should look at the mileage that they  received till now because of Tiger Woods.  Tiger Woods has a right to privacy of his own life and this was a  personal and shall we say domestic issue? Then, does the company have a responsibility to the BA as well?

This incident also speaks volume about us.... the public. We put the Tiger Woods of the world up on pedestals and then drop them when they falter.Should it be just about the golf?