Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jwat381

If walking is so integral to the game, we should stop carting players back to the 18th for playoff holes, I guess. Make them walk from the 18th green to whichever designated tee, and tell them to suck it up. Forget the T.V. times that the networks have allotted; running an hour passed the scheduled end-time will show that golfers really are world class athletes once and for all.

Two things.

1) They don't "forget the TV times that the networks have allotted."

2) ALL players are given cart rides back to the 18th tee. So it's balanced.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if the USGA and the PGA Tour allowed everyone to have a cart in events during which Casey Martin plays. It'd go against the way golf has been played at that level for 100+ years, but at least it would be fairer than the situation we have now.

Again, Martin isn't playing by the same rules. Every other contestant is bound by the Conditions of the Competition, including the Transportation one cited above.

[jamo]

Again, didn't this go to the Supreme Court? And didn't the SC say that using a cart was not diminishing the spirit of the game? Why are you guys arguing about giving an advantage to a handicap? According to the SC, that's irrelevant.

Obviously not everyone agrees with the Supreme Court...

[Jwat381]

I wasn't addressing the question of balanced or not. I was addressing the argument that walking is integral to the game. If it is, then players shouldn't be carted back to the tee in a playoff, whether it be one or all. I get why they do it - late in the day, trying to keep the scheduled programming within the alloted time - which is why I made the comment I made. Why is sacrificing the integral part of walking the course okay when it's for T.V., but not ok when it's for an accomplished golfer who is unable to navigate the course under his own power, but can play the game very well? I understand all of the "survival of the fittest" arguments, and while I agree, I don't think it directly pertains the the way others do.

What I'm a little confused by is this: you say you voted "no", but only slightly; yet now that you have made a decision, you seem un-open to hearing any argument contrary to a "no" vote. If you were so on the fence, what lead you to the edge of that fence? Because every point made for Martin having a cart, you have shot down rather quickly and, what seems like, without question.

Originally Posted by iacas

Two things.

1) They don't "forget the TV times that the networks have allotted."

2) ALL players are given cart rides back to the 18th tee. So it's balanced.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if the USGA and the PGA Tour allowed everyone to have a cart in events during which Casey Martin plays. It'd go against the way golf has been played at that level for 100+ years, but at least it would be fairer than the situation we have now.

Again, Martin isn't playing by the same rules. Every other contestant is bound by the Conditions of the Competition, including the Transportation one cited above.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jwat381

I wasn't addressing the question of balanced or not. I was addressing the argument that walking is integral to the game. If it is, then players shouldn't be carted back to the tee in a playoff, whether it be one or all.

For 72 holes, it's integral to the game. But when it's going to be dark and your TV time is running out, they make concessions. Other things take priority, like being able to finish the competition instead of stretching it into Monday.

I think the two ideas - walking is integral to the game at the PGA Tour level and occasionally other things take priority - can stand together without conflict.

Plus I'm fairly certain Tiger and Rocco weren't carted anywhere in their U.S. Open playoff. They teed off on #1 IIRC and were going to play a three-hole loop of greens and tees near each other (1, 17, 18 I think). So the PGA Tour makes a concession to playing off on the 18th hole, typically, because that's where the fans are.

Additionally, it's fair - all players and caddies can take a cart. Not just one.

Originally Posted by Jwat381

What I'm a little confused by is this: you say you voted "no", but only slightly; yet now that you have made a decision, you seem un-open to hearing any argument contrary to a "no" vote. If you were so on the fence, what lead you to the edge of that fence? Because every point made for Martin having a cart, you have shot down rather quickly and, what seems like, without question.

If I was un-open to hearing an opinion I'd lock the thread and be done with it.

I haven't seen a compelling argument for "yes" and I'm playing devil's advocate a little bit too. Just because I can counter your arguments (I mean that the way a debater or lawyer does; I'm not insinuating that we're "arguing" in the colloquial sense of the word) doesn't mean I'm not listening.

I already shared what the 40% of me that said "yes" would argue: that it's an extremely rare case which stays well back of the slippery slope, largely because nobody else with his condition is likely to even be able to practice well enough to break 90.

I've also said that if Casey gets to take a cart, then to keep things fair, everyone should be allowed to take a cart. That isn't happening (and likely won't, again because it's an exception, and neither the PGA Tour nor the fans want to see Tiger and Phil driving around in golf carts at every event). That would be the "fairest" thing to do.

[Jwat381]

Ok, good enough for me. Gracias.

[Wally Fairway]

I haven't read all 6 pages, but I haven't changed my mind on this since it was debated & went to court the first time.

IMO - if you believe in the ADA, and that Casey Martin still has more of a challenge to deal with related to his disease - then he deserves to be allowed to ride in a cart. It doesn't help him with what I consider the fundamentals of playing the game of golf.

I could make my post much longer, but that pretty much summarizes where I am - so clearly I voted let him use a cart (which I've read is exactly what will happen this week at Olympic)

[newtogolf]

The Supreme Court isn't an expert on professional golf and how integral walking is within tournament play.  SC interprets laws and makes rulings based on existing law.  They ruled based on ADA not what was best, fair or right for golf.

It would be interesting to see one of the golfers who didn't make the cut or that lost to Martin challenge the decision that allows him to use a cart on the basis of unfailr advantage and reverse discrimination.  It would be a public relations nightmare for the person who does, but it would force the SC to address the walking versus riding issue instead of their focus which was to make accomodations for a disabled person.

The best solution I've seen so far is Erik's, when Martin is in a tournament all pro's have the option to ride in a cart, then it's a level playing ground.

Originally Posted by Kapanda

Again, didn't this go to the Supreme Court?

And didn't the SC say that using a cart was not diminishing the spirit of the game?

Why are you guys arguing about giving an advantage to a handicap? According to the SC, that's irrelevant.

[k-troop]

I'm not defending the Supremes as always right, but our system of law dictates that they get the final say.  Here is the district court ruling and findings of fact, summarized in the intro to the USSCt opinion:

After trial, the District Court entered a permanent injunction requiring petitioner to permit Martin to use a cart. Among its rulings, that court found that the walking rule’s purpose was to inject fatigue into the skill of shot-making, but that the fatigue injected by walking a golf course cannot be deemed significant under normal circumstances; determined that even with the use of a cart, the fatigue Martin suffers from coping with his disability is greater than the fatigue his able-bodied competitors endure from walking the course; and concluded that it would not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner’s game to accommodate Martin. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding, inter alia , that golf courses, including play areas, are places of public accommodation during professional tournaments and that permitting Martin to use a cart would not “fundamentally alter” the nature of those tournaments.

Note on the issue of "place of public accommodation."  The suit arose when Martin was not allowed to use a cart in the final stage of Q-school.  This is significant, I think, because Q-school is more or less "public".  All you need to register for Q-school is an entry fee.  Competitors were allowed to use a cart during the first two stages; the prohibition on carts in the third stage was only implemented in 1997.  Interesting also to note that this whole issue first exploded I believe in 1998.  I'm not sure what, if any, back story there is to the no-carts rule at stage 3 (i.e. was it implemented specifically to prohibit CM, a guy who can't walk, from earning his tour card?).

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by iacas

That's funny.

Quite honestly, it's puzzling to me why you'd try to make that kind of argument. It has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Zero, zip, zilch.

Sure I can. Really easily, in fact, and here's how: We are talking about sports at the highest level. They are survival of the fittest.

It's not even close to pertinent what happens on the club level or to you in your Tuesday night beer league.

No, we're talking about a sport when you mention that sports are "survival of the fittest" and thats the only way to be "fair".  Now that your'e going back to clarify that you what you REALLY meant was that the PGA tour was survival of the fittest, sure..it doesn't fit there.

Anyway, it had plenty of bearing on the discussion...people are against someone lesser getting help..but still support the "handicap" system.  Its very name is "handicap" for goodness sakes, lol.

And yeah..I don't know why you threw in the "tuesday night beer league" comment...but it was classy.

[k-troop]

And the Supremes did address the "integral part of the game" aspect of walking.  They have to as a threshold question under ADA.  (It seems to me that they're using the ADA standard as applied to job applicants moreso than that which applies to patrons of museums and stadiums.)  ADA, as it applies to employment, requires that the disabled person be able to perform all of the fundamental and necessary tasks of the job.  If their disability prohibits them from performing one of these fundamental aspects of the job, then they can be denied that job (i.e. someone with a spine disorder can't carry a fire hose up 10 flights of stairs, ergo, they can't be a fireman).  If their disability prohibits them from performing some peripheral task of the job (i.e. the desk is on the 4th floor of a building with no elevator, and the person is in a wheelchair), and a reasonable accommodation can be made (give them a desk on the 1st floor), then the employer must make that accommodation.

Regardless, determining whether an accommodation is reasonable necessarily requires examining which aspects are "fundamental" vs. "peripheral".

Here's what the Supremes had to say.

2. Allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner’s walking requirement, is not a modification that would “fundamentally alter the nature” of petitioner’s tours or the third stage of the Q-School. In theory, a modification of the tournaments might constitute a fundamental alteration in these ways: (1) It might alter such an essential aspect of golf, e.g., the diameter of the hole, that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally; or (2) a less significant change that has only a peripheral impact on the game itself might nevertheless give a disabled player, in addition to access to the competition as required by Title III, an advantage over others and therefore fundamentally alter the character of the competition. The Court is not persuaded that a waiver of the walking rule for Martin would work a fundamental alteration in either sense. The use of carts is not inconsistent with the fundamental character of golf, the essence of which has always been shot-making. The walking rule contained in petitioner’s hard cards is neither an essential attribute of the game itself nor an indispensable feature of tournament golf. The Court rejects petitioner’s attempt to distinguish golf as it is generally played from the game at the highest level, where, petitioner claims, the waiver of an “outcome-affecting” rule such as the walking rule would violate the governing principle that competitors must be subject to identical substantive rules, thereby fundamentally altering the nature of tournament events. That argument’s force is mitigated by the fact that it is impossible to guarantee that all golfers will play under exactly the same conditions or that an individual’s ability will be the sole determinant of the outcome. Further, the factual basis of petitioner’s argument–that the walking rule is “outcome affecting” because fatigue may adversely affect performance–is undermined by the District Court’s finding that the fatigue from walking during a tournament cannot be deemed significant.

[newtogolf]

They do get final say.  The only way this gets overturned is by someone without a disability challenging it as reverse discrimination.  As others have stated, professional sports rules cannot and should not be manipulated to accomodate disabled athletes where it provides the disabled athlete any special consideration or advantage.

Originally Posted by k-troop

I'm not defending the Supremes as always right, but our system of law dictates that they get the final say.  Here is the district court ruling and findings of fact, summarized in the intro to the USSCt opinion:

After trial, the District Court entered a permanent injunction requiring petitioner to permit Martin to use a cart. Among its rulings, that court found that the walking rule’s purpose was to inject fatigue into the skill of shot-making, but that the fatigue injected by walking a golf course cannot be deemed significant under normal circumstances; determined that even with the use of a cart, the fatigue Martin suffers from coping with his disability is greater than the fatigue his able-bodied competitors endure from walking the course; and concluded that it would not fundamentally alter the nature of petitioner’s game to accommodate Martin. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding, inter alia, that golf courses, including play areas, are places of public accommodation during professional tournaments and that permitting Martin to use a cart would not “fundamentally alter” the nature of those tournaments.

Note on the issue of "place of public accommodation."  The suit arose when Martin was not allowed to use a cart in the final stage of Q-school.  This is significant, I think, because Q-school is more or less "public".  All you need to register for Q-school is an entry fee.  Competitors were allowed to use a cart during the first two stages; the prohibition on carts in the third stage was only implemented in 1997.  Interesting also to note that this whole issue first exploded I believe in 1998.  I'm not sure what, if any, back story there is to the no-carts rule at stage 3 (i.e. was it implemented specifically to prohibit CM, a guy who can't walk, from earning his tour card?).

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Paradox

No, we're talking about a sport when you mention that sports are "survival of the fittest" and thats the only way to be "fair".  Now that your'e going back to clarify that you what you REALLY meant was that the PGA tour was survival of the fittest, sure..it doesn't fit there.

Anyway, it had plenty of bearing on the discussion...people are against someone lesser getting help..but still support the "handicap" system.  Its very name is "handicap" for goodness sakes, lol.

And yeah..I don't know why you threw in the "tuesday night beer league" comment...but it was classy.

Golf is an activity for the millions who play it on Saturday morning and Wednesday afternoon 9-hole scrambles.  At those events, you ride carts, drink beer, and switch out your ball when you putt.  You also get to use a handicap, so that the same guy doesn't win every tournament.  (You didn't notice the PGA Tour giving everyone else a handicap when Tiger was winning 40% of his events back in his prime.)  On the PGA Tour, it's a sport, and adherence to the rules is strict.  That's all he's saying.  It's the same as a local flag football league:  you can't compare the NFL's rules and restrictions to those of a weekend flag football league.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

The goal in the game is getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. How a player gets from one shot to the next is pretty much irrelevant. I know you disagree with that - that's the crux of your point, that the fatigue of walking is an integral part of the game. I don't agree, and they don't give out prize money for 'best walker' on the tour. It's get the ball in the hole with the fewest strokes. Therefore I believe walking is not an integral part of the game. And further, I do not believe a golfer with a birth defect that keeps him from being able to walk 18 holes, but can otherwise do the key part of the game - get the ball in the fewest strokes - should be excluded from the game. He is a professional golfer. His skill set says so. He just cannot walk 18 holes.

You, Jack, and the minority of posters disagree with that. That's okay!

This is basically spot-on with the facts and conclusions found by the legal system, all the way up to the USSCt.  Jack's and Arnie's opinions were more or less the equivalent of expert testimony on the issue:  they are certainly experts, they are certainly entitled to their opinion, and their opinions carry a considerable amount of weight.  However, the factfinder is free to reach their own conclusion, and they are not bound by the opinions of the experts.  We allow our factfinders (in the legal sense) great lattitude in using common sense and judgment.

(Sorry, felt the need to come to the defense of our legal system a bit.  I've been to a lot of places, and even helped build a judicial structure in Anbar Provence, Iraq--and I'll tell you that our legal system is a very, very big part of what makes us such a great nation.)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Paradox

No, we're talking about a sport when you mention that sports are "survival of the fittest" and thats the only way to be "fair".  Now that your'e going back to clarify that you what you REALLY meant was that the PGA tour was survival of the fittest, sure..it doesn't fit there.

Anyway, it had plenty of bearing on the discussion...people are against someone lesser getting help..but still support the "handicap" system.  Its very name is "handicap" for goodness sakes, lol.

And yeah..I don't know why you threw in the "tuesday night beer league" comment...but it was classy.

It wasn't an attempt to be "classy" or snide. It was relevant. The SPORT played at the PGA Tour level is NOT AT ALL LIKE the game played "with handicap strokes," which is the entire basis for your post(s). I didn't have to "go back to clarify" - I re-iterated. k-troop can take it from here:

Originally Posted by k-troop

Golf is an activity for the millions who play it on Saturday morning and Wednesday afternoon 9-hole scrambles.  At those events, you ride carts, drink beer, and switch out your ball when you putt.  You also get to use a handicap, so that the same guy doesn't win every tournament.  (You didn't notice the PGA Tour giving everyone else a handicap when Tiger was winning 40% of his events back in his prime.)  On the PGA Tour, it's a sport, and adherence to the rules is strict.  That's all he's saying.  It's the same as a local flag football league:  you can't compare the NFL's rules and restrictions to those of a weekend flag football league.

It's all I said all along in reference to the bizarre point you're trying to make, Paradox, about handicap strokes.

Originally Posted by k-troop

Note on the issue of "place of public accommodation."  The suit arose when Martin was not allowed to use a cart in the final stage of Q-school.  This is significant, I think, because Q-school is more or less "public".  All you need to register for Q-school is an entry fee.  Competitors were allowed to use a cart during the first two stages; the prohibition on carts in the third stage was only implemented in 1997.  Interesting also to note that this whole issue first exploded I believe in 1998.  I'm not sure what, if any, back story there is to the no-carts rule at stage 3 (i.e. was it implemented specifically to prohibit CM, a guy who can't walk, from earning his tour card?).

I disagree with the court on that. I don't think the playing area is "public" and the final stage of Q-School is anything but public. If you're talking about the first stage, then the court may have had a point. But for the final stages you need to qualify - you need to do a lot more than register and pay an entry fee.

I read that the no-carts rule as added in 1998 because they wanted to test players at this stage under conditions more consistent with those they'd face on the PGA Tour.

Originally Posted by k-troop

And the Supremes did address the "integral part of the game" aspect of walking.  They have to as a threshold question under ADA.  (It seems to me that they're using the ADA standard as applied to job applicants moreso than that which applies to patrons of museums and stadiums.)  ADA, as it applies to employment, requires that the disabled person be able to perform all of the fundamental and necessary tasks of the job.

That's another reason I disagree with the Supreme Court. There's no "employer." Casey Martin is not (and was not) employed by the PGA Tour.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

They do get final say. The only way this gets overturned is by someone without a disability challenging it as reverse discrimination. As others have stated, professional sports rules cannot and should not be manipulated to accomodate disabled athletes where it provides the disabled athlete any special consideration or advantage.

That's basically what it came down to for me. Well said, ntg.

[The Recreational Golfer]

I voted Yes.

Casey Martin is not a baseball player who wants to use a cart to run the bases and chase down fly balls. He is a golfer who hits golf balls. Being able to walk or run has nothing to do with that act. You stand there and hit the ball. He can do that. Then you go to where the ball is and hit it again. He can't do that by walking for very long or his leg gets ugly like you don't want to know. He probably couldn't make it through 18 holes, or if he did, he wouldn't be out there the next day.

Getting to where the ball is on foot is not an integral part of the game. It is in baseball, football, basketball, soccer. In golf it's just what you obviously have to do to hit your next shot, but how you get there is irrelevant to how the game is played. What difference would it make if tournament players used carts in competition instead of walking? We keep worrying about people chipping away at a rule. Well, it's a non-sensical rule.

Players still have to hit the shots. They still have to keep their head screwed on during the back nine on Sunday. Let everybody use a cart. Wouldn't bother me, and I doubt it would change the outcome of a tournament. It would look kind of funny, seeing healthy, robust athletes riding instead of walking, but that's about it. Maybe carts would be a solution to slow play, but that's another thread.

The one argument that doesn't hold up is the "level playing field" argument, that if Martin gets to use a cart, then everyone else is at a disadvantage. If everyone else had his debilitating condition, maybe so. But even with a cart, Martin is not level with the rest of the players. Even with a cart, the deeper he gets into the tournament, the harder it is for him, and there's nothing he can do about it.

[BallStriker]

If you accept the "survival of the fittest" premise, then why allow major medical exemptions?

Also, I don't buy the "it's an uneven playing field" because EVERY golfer in the same situation as Casey Martin would be allowed to use a cart.

[newtogolf]

Related to the decision that permits Martin to use a cart during tournament play, I wonder how the USGA and Martin would/will handle the following;

• Courses where carts are not permitted for use such as Bethpage Black
• On courses where carts are permitted how will he handle areas on these courses where carts aren't permitted (Cart path only), will he be given an exception or will he have to walk when required?
• How will slow play rules be managed to account for potential delays related to safe cart usage with the galleries.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

I've also said that if Casey gets to take a cart, then to keep things fair, everyone should be allowed to take a cart. That isn't happening (and likely won't, again because it's an exception, and neither the PGA Tour nor the fans want to see Tiger and Phil driving around in golf carts at every event). That would be the "fairest" thing to do.

This is correct.  I'm sure the logistics would be a nightmare, but the PGA Tour could (the first time) have fought like they did, then once they lost, allow everybody to use carts in the events he played.  Nobody could argue a lack of fairness on either side.

I'd also love to know how many guys would actually take one if given the option.  I would guess not many.