Casey Martin: Cart or Not? - Page 18  

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubchamp 

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

 

It's an advantage to Martin, is what I'm saying. Martin's disability is being lessened by the use of the cart.

Right Martin has an advantage over him having to walk 18 holes but the court is saying he doesn't get an advantage on the field which I believe to be true.

Again, that may be true but isn't really the issue I have. Whether the courts got that right or not, they should not be in the business of leveling the playing field in pro sports for disabled persons. Either you can play the sport by the rules of the sport, or you can't. I see no sense in the courts getting involved trying to equalize things. As has been pointed out, the logical conclusion of that is that any disabled or injured golfers should be given similar advantages, up to but not exceeding the inherent advantage that non-injured non-disabled golfers have over them. Seems silly to me. Such things are impossible to quantify.

You can say the floodgates were never opened, that injured golfers didn't come out in droves trying to get carts, and yeah, maybe they never will. But that doesn't mean the decision was the correct one.

The guy has a useless leg that he has stated will probably have to be amputated one day. And here he is playing in a US open which must be the unlikeliest dream come true...and here we are arguing about an advantage he's going to have over others and rulings and and and. Can we just take a step back for a second and be human??? The guy has a leg he's probably going to lose. If he needs a cart let him use a cart. I cannot believe we're arguing over some damn ruling. Something has gone wrong somewhere in our nature if that's what we're arguing about and attempting to disallow a player from competing in a dream-come-true tournament against all the odds.

That s**t is messed up....

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossvanwyk 

The guy has a useless leg that he has stated will probably have to be amputated one day. And here he is playing in a US open which must be the unlikeliest dream come true...and here we are arguing about an advantage he's going to have over others and rulings and and and. Can we just take a step back for a second and be human??? The guy has a leg he's probably going to lose. If he needs a cart let him use a cart. I cannot believe we're arguing over some damn ruling. Something has gone wrong somewhere in our nature if that's what we're arguing about and attempting to disallow a player from competing in a dream-come-true tournament against all the odds.

 

That s**t is messed up....

This is crap.

It's appealing to the emotive argument, voiding itself of any rationality.

Your response pretty much supports my post in it's entireity. Absolutely all empathy gone, you just care about the fact that he uses a cart and its unfair blah blah blah. That is seriously messed up. Have a heart for God's sake..

Yeah, because being rational means being heartless.

The problem with emotional hogwash - one of many problems - is that not only is it inconsistent, it's asking others to value things the same way you do, for no good reason whatsoever.

Others see things different than you, and not because they have artificial blood pumps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill 

 

Picture a current top-flight golfer who's blown out his knee to the extent that he's exactly as disabled as Martin. He can swing but can't easily walk.

 

 

Glasson was not his example. His example was a hypothetical golfer who could still play but could not walk, just like Martin. Would you want the PGA Tour to let that hypothetical golfer use a cart? Simple question.

No, Glasson was my example based on his question. Was just pointing out that we didn't have to manufacture a hypothetical situation.

Here's the simple answer to your simple question. The SC set the precedent with the Martin ruling. Said hypothetical golfer gets to use a cart.

...and here comes the floodgates opening. Read thru the earlier pages before you reply. We've already been thru this.

It stops right where it is now. Casey Martin can use a cart to play in PGA Tour events. There's no slippery slope that bottoms out with a blind F1 driver. That's not 'pushing the boundaries' of your argument, that's jumping the freekin shark.

But since you threw it out there, I'll give it one sentence of thought: Obviously, eyesight is essential to driving a race car 200 miles an hour on a track with other race cars going 200 miles an hour.

This is not an argument of letting anyone with any kind of disability do anything they want. It's about a specific instance of a person who can obviously perform the task required, which in this instance is getting a golf ball in the hole with the fewest strokes possible. He just needs assistance getting from one shot to the next. Once again, Casey Martin qualified to play in the US Open - he wasn't handed a spot due to his disability. His play got him in the US Open. So your example of a blind F1 driver is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the19thhole 

Were does it stop then. Oh he's blind, but he really wants to drive F1. If the SC ruling was used here as surely a racing track is as public as a golf course then would you agree he should be allowed to if we can give him something which helps him drive. Ok I know I'm pushing the boundaries of my argument. That why the initial ruling should not have been with the heart, but with the head. Casey never asked us to feel sorry for him, but that is what we have ended up doing.

And how would the blind person in your example drive the race car? Would he invent a device that allowed him to do so - because I know of no current technology that allows blind people to drive.

But in the Casey Martin case, there is already a device in general use on almost every golf course in the country - it is a reasonable accommodation. I hold out that if this is such an unreasonable advantage then all the PGA tour has to do is allow players who wish the same advantage the ability to use a cart....just like shitty putters can choose to use the long putter, people with disable sight can use corrective lenses, etc.

Your example is unreasonable because the comparison is unreasonable.....as is the argument about changing all sports to allow access, the majority golf is already played with the use of a golf cart (sad, but true).

I think us Casey Martin advocates are missing the point.  Obviously the next logical jump from this golf cart accomodation is blind race car drivers and armless discuss throwers. 

<Sarcasm>

Quote:

Originally Posted by the19thhole 

So are you saying you are only disabled if it's a congenital defect. Wrong. If you are registered disabled for what ever reason you are LEGALLY as disabled, handicapped or at a disadvantage as much as Casey in the eyes of the law. You don't have to be born with something to have a disabilty. So in your arguement someone born with only one arm is more disabled that someone who looses an arm in some accident.

 

If you get injured you are not allowed to use a cart because they are not allowed under PGA comp rules, that is why you don't see it.

I never said just injured; I said injured to the point of being registered disabled. They will never be healthy. At that point they become Casey Martin.

You're twisting my words. I said that Martin wasn't injured but has a disability. The congenital comment was not the main point.

And later they said that the doubters needed to actually see him play a round of golf in person and then they'd understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo 

FWIW, on "Live From" Chamblee voted no, Feinstein voted yes.

Chamblee is a tool. Well thats not true, he just came across looking like an ass during that interview. There is no way you can knock Casey Martin. I agree that if you take any normal player with no disability and let him play in a cart, he would have an advantage over another player walking due to physical advantage. However, Casey's case is completely different. He is pretty much plain on one leg and I would also say that he would be better off with a prosthetic because he would have no pain. Pretty hard to come down on a guy like Casey Martin, his story is good for the game and some positive publicity would be great for the game. I sure hope he makes the cut and finishes well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuck 

Chamblee is a tool. Well thats not true, he just came across looking like an ass during that interview. There is no way you can knock Casey Martin. I agree that if you take any normal player with no disability and let him play in a cart, he would have an advantage over another player walking due to physical advantage. However, Casey's case is completely different. He is pretty much plain on one leg and I would also say that he would be better off with a prosthetic because he would have no pain. Pretty hard to come down on a guy like Casey Martin, his story is good for the game and some positive publicity would be great for the game. I sure hope he makes the cut and finishes well.

I wonder how Chamblee feels about a "one-legged man" having to spot him 2 a side just to make it a match.

I didn't know it was the job of professional sports organizations to make exceptions to their rules so that we could all feel good about individuals that have endured hardships.  I get he was born with a disease that could take his leg one day and for that I feel terrible for him and his family but that doesn't change my opinion on his using a cart while others playing against him cannot. 

It can't be both ways, either walking is integral to golf or it isn't.  We can't assess how much of a disability an individual claims and then balance that against the potential advantage using a cart against his competitors has.  If he had a disability that affected his arms would we allow him to play in the LPGA because he could qualify there but not at PGA distances?   Why wouldn't an injury qualify as a disability in golf but it does in the ADA? 

We all like Martin and want to see him do well, it isn't personal, it's about the rules and how they are enforced or in this case overlooked out of compassion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rossvanwyk 

Your response pretty much supports my post in it's entireity. Absolutely all empathy gone, you just care about the fact that he uses a cart and its unfair blah blah blah. That is seriously messed up. Have a heart for God's sake..