Casey Martin: Cart or Not? - Page 19  

I totally agree.

That's the point I made early on in the thread. Martin was allowed to play in the U.S. Open with a cart 14 years ago. The Supreme Court decision was 11 years ago. If the floodgates were going to open, we would have seen it happen already.

Where does it stop? History has shown us that it stops at Casey Martin.

I still waffle on the actual decision, but to me that part is clear-cut. There is no slippery slope argument to be made.

Sports should not be in the business of accommodating people who cannot play them. The USGA (and the PGA Tour) say that part of their rules is "players will walk" and the supreme court overstepped their bounds when they regulated the arbitrary rules of a sport It should have had nothing to do with accommodating him.

Chamblee is a former player at least. He was still on the Tour when the Martin thing came up I believe. Funny how former players and so on feel so differently about this than a bunch of hacks on a forum who are happy to break 80 from 6100 yards.

So what if Casey is in pain? I feel for him as a person but the existence of a disability should not mean hes given an advantage (whether it makes up for his disability or not) in the realm of sports. Let him park closer at the mall. Make sure there are ramps if he is ever in a wheelchair so he can access buildings and public areas. You bet, all day, and my tax dollars help there, and I'm glad to help. But this is sports, and we dont or shouldn't artificially give advantages to some people and not others. They should compete with what they have, not what they have + extras because people feel bad.

NewToGolf continues to peg it.

Good one too. But if you have a shit voice you can still be a recording artist. Just get that app my grandkids showed me on their phone. Makes your voice auto-tuned or something. Anyway singing isn't a sport.

 

I have read through the entire thread. No one, including you, had answered my questions about whether a player with a temporary injury or non-congenital illness should have a cart at the time I asked those questions.

 

Flood gates = red herring, as I stated previously. The issue here is, "Was it the correct legal decision to provide Martin have a cart", not "Will there be a floodgate of golfers wanting a cart as a result of the ruling".

 

 

^^^ Yes, this.

I'll disagree. The fact that no one has fallen down the slope thus far, doesn't mean that it's not slippery.

Precedents can have consequences long after they're initially established.

Having said that, I'm not all that concerned about the "floodgate" issue. For me it's all about the sports organization providing as level playing field as possible for all competitors.

There sure seems to be a lot of arguments going both ways on this topic. I just can't see why it would be so bad to allow Casey to play in a cart. How many "disabled" players are good enough to play on the PGA tour? How many have even tried to qualify through Q-school or Opens etc....? If we were talking about multiple cases here and having "disabled" players winning and numerous "disabled" players qualifying for the PGA Tour we might have more to talk about here. Casey seems to be the only case of discussion. Even on the nationwide tour we don't have "disabled" players running away with wins or even playing on the nationwide tour. Maybe its just me but I don't have a problem with someone in Casey's position playing with a cart, maybe if we had 10+ people trying to do the same we would have a different discussion here but he is 1 player who has the talent to play on the PGA tour. 

 

Those are good points, but consider this: Every PGA tournament Casey plays in where he is granted a cart, he's taking a spot away from someone else who also has the talent to play on the Tour, and who may be disadvantaged in ways different than Casey but not in a way that affords him help from the Supreme Court. That someone else is being disadvantaged by the court's decision. If you think the court made the right decision, that's fine. Just wanted to point out that there are consequences to saying "Oh, just let him play".

 

And again, the number of people taking advantage of the court's decision, whether 1 or 100, is irrelevant to the discussion of "Was it the right decision".

Does this really matter, considering all the sponsor's exemptions given out?

i voted yes.  you don't write down "70" (or whatever number) on your scorecard at the end of the day by walking.  you do it by swinging the club and getting the ball in the hole, and martin has demonstrated he's capable of doing that at the top level.  he's a special case and deserves an exception.

 

I don't care if he is taking a spot away from someone else. Its all about playing the best you can. If someone is pissed off about losing a spot to Casey Martin, then they should play better. I play on a few different mini tours and I wouldn't care about losing to to someone like Casey. I would just have to play better and beat him. You are playing the course and you want to beat the course as best you can. If Casey can shoot a better score than another competitor then good on him. I think the term "sore loser" can come into effect when Casey's situation comes up. You don't see too many people complaining when they play better than Casey and you wouldn't see a lot of people complaining if he came in last about him taking a cart.

A list of players who, during stretches of good playing, suffered from injury or health issues where a power cart would have been a benefit.

 

Jose Maria Olazabel

 

Tiger Woods

 

Colin Montgomerie

 

Others?

 

Umm, it's pretty obvious that a temporary injury isn't the same as a permanent disability.  The ADA doesn't cover people with temporary injuries.  The USSCt ruled that Martin was a person with a disability, and that the use of a cart was a "reasonable accommodation" of that disability. 

 

So, on the Martin analogy, a temporary injury isn't a disability.

 

As far as an illness, again--if it's temporary in nature, then it's not a disability.  If it's lung cancer (even if you got it from smoking), then it is a disability.

 

Actually I did answer that. More importantly, the SC answered it. If a golfer cannot walk but can otherwise do what is required to play tour-level golf, meaning qualify and competitively play, then providing a cart is an allowable accommodation. So your answer is yes.

 

Re floodgates, there aren't any. As jamo posted earlier, it the ruling was 14 years ago. I haven't seen a bunch of tour players taking advantage of it. If there was any kind of slippery slope or floodgates it would have already occurred. That dog doesn't bark.

 

Not necessarily.  A temporary injury (even a major knee injury requiring surgery) isn't a disability covered by the ADA if it can be corrected with medical treatment and/or physical therapy.  If, after a period of recuperation, the person will no longer qualify as having a condition that limits a major life activity, then they are not "disabled" for purposes of the ADA.

 

Therefore, Tiger's 2008 knee injury was not a disability. 

 

Okay. Get that sacm3bill?

 

I assure you it matters to the golfer who doesn't get the spot he would've got. Now maybe that golfer is fine with Casey using a cart and taking his spot away. Maybe he's not. Point is, *someone* loses a spot, so there are consequences to the "Oh, just let Casey play" mentality.

 

It is obvious, indeed. And you're correct about what the ADA covers. But the ADA is not the only entity that provides assistance. You can get a handicap parking placard for a temporary injury, for example. So I think it's fair to ask you "Yes" voters what your thoughts would be on whether someone with a temporary injury should get a cart, and why or why not.

 

 

 

 

I'm genuinely curious, not trying to make a point on this: Would you be ok with John Daly using a cart if he developed trouble breathing from smoking-related lung cancer?

 

And a related question: What if a golfer developed arthritis to the extent he was exactly as disabled as Casey - cart or no?

 

 

 

The SC did not answer the question of whether an asthma or arthritis sufferer should be allowed a cart.  Can I assume from your wording above that *you* think they should be allowed a cart?

 

 

 

Not sure why you quoted me on that - as I've stated multiple times, I agree that the floodgates have not opened.  That has no bearing on the correctness of the court's decision however.

 

 

Not sure what I'm supposed to be getting. I don't believe I ever said Tiger's knee injury was a disability. But note that the ADA *would* cover Tiger if his knee injury ended up causing him permanent issues down the line.

 

What I've been trying to do is find out how you guys feel about whether golfers should be allowed carts for things other than disabilities.  I'm starting to get a sense that you think permanent disabilities should be given preferential treatment, but temporary ones should not. Am I correct?

If there are so many sponsor's exemptions given out then it matters even MORE who QUALIFIES to play in the events. The smaller the field the more another sponsor's exemption matters. If the field was 300 nobody would care about 10 sponsor's exemptions If it's 70 that's a good chunk of the field.

Why are we even talking about sponsors exemptions and the PGA tour?  This is a 40 year old golf coach who has overcome an extremely unique disability and has qualified for a USGA event, solely because he loves the golf course and it worked out in his schedule.

 

He didn't get a sponsors exemption, nor is he joining the PGA tour.  He's playing today, and if he does well, the weekend, and he'll go back to his day job and we'll probably never hear from him again.