Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[k-troop]

I guess I never actually posted my opinion on the ruling.  I've got the mainstream opinion, which is basically the exact same as IACAS.  I think it is wrong to make an accomodation for someone to overcome a disability--if you can't compete on what God and hard work have given you, then you can't compete.  However, in this specific case, I can't really disagree with the result.  Casey is an extreme case of a truly gifted golfer who, because of a rare genetic disability, cannot perform one of the less critical tasks of the game:  walking.  I don't see this creating some gaping tunnel of precedent.

Change the facts.  Very talented golfer (maybe even someone who has competed and won on tour) who has a bad heart.  At some point, the condition deteriorates, and his body's inability to transport oxygen makes it impossible for him to walk 5 miles.  He can play golf from a cart, but if he tries to walk the course, he'll be basically passed out by the 7th or 8th hole.  I think I would (sympathetically) tell this player to find another line of work (easy to say when it's a hypothetical person).  Heart conditions are simply too common, and this would likely open the gates for aging pros who might want to ride a cart (i.e. Champions Tour guys who come back to play the Open every now and then).

[iacas]

Originally Posted by BallStriker

Disagree....with both the Casey Martin situation and the major medical exemptions, you are providing an accomodation due to a player's inability to play/compete within the normal rules....if the sport is truly to be ruled from a "survival of the fittest" perspective, then medical exemptions should not be granted and those who cannot make the top-125 during the year because of injury are simply out of luck.  To be clear, I did not make (or agree with) the 'survival of the fittest' statment, and am only pointing out the fact that the current PGA Tour rules are inconsistent with that position.

Keep saying it but those things are still not the same thing. A major medical exemption is, by definition, NOT competing despite previously proving (by qualifying) that you CAN compete on level terms. And when they return they have x events to earn $xxx,xxx in order to keep their card, or they lose their privilege, so they have to demonstrate again - like everyone else - that they can compete on level terms.

People taking a major medical aren't given an advantage. They simply prolong or defer their membership status.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I guess I never actually posted my opinion on the ruling.  I've got the mainstream opinion, which is basically the exact same as IACAS.  I think it is wrong to make an accomodation for someone to overcome a disability--if you can't compete on what God and hard work have given you, then you can't compete.  However, in this specific case, I can't really disagree with the result.  Casey is an extreme case of a truly gifted golfer who, because of a rare genetic disability, cannot perform one of the less critical tasks of the game:  walking.  I don't see this creating some gaping tunnel of precedent.

Change the facts.  Very talented golfer (maybe even someone who has competed and won on tour) who has a bad heart.  At some point, the condition deteriorates, and his body's inability to transport oxygen makes it impossible for him to walk 5 miles.  He can play golf from a cart, but if he tries to walk the course, he'll be basically passed out by the 7th or 8th hole.  I think I would (sympathetically) tell this player to find another line of work (easy to say when it's a hypothetical person).  Heart conditions are simply too common, and this would likely open the gates for aging pros who might want to ride a cart (i.e. Champions Tour guys who come back to play the Open every now and then).

I'd like to see what the Tour would do if I twisted your example only slightly....what if say the biggest name on tour hurt his knee so badly that he couldn't walk the course. Maybe he could still swing a club, and hobble around the green enough to putt - but there is no way that he could make it around a course (especially one with hills), and certainly not for 4 consecutive days.

What do you think the tour would do in that case?

And I will say that I agree with the Casey Martin decision and that until there is another instance that shows it is flatly wrong by allowing others to play then I think it is good law and good for golf.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Wally Fairway

I'd like to see what the Tour would do if I twisted your example only slightly....what if say the biggest name on tour hurt his knee so badly that he couldn't walk the course. Maybe he could still swing a club, and hobble around the green enough to putt - but there is no way that he could make it around a course (especially one with hills), and certainly not for 4 consecutive days.

What do you think the tour would do in that case?

Maybe the Tour (or the USGA) would do nothing.  And maybe this person would gut it out and win the tournament anyway in one of the most amazing feats in the history of golf.  Maybe he'd even have to play 19 extra holes to get it done.

And BTW this wouldn't qualify as a disability.  It's simply an injury.

[carrx]

I think a fair argument can be made for either answer.  I voted "yes".  If there is a golfer good enough to otherwise qualify for this great event on merit, but has some disability that prevents him from walking the course, I think accommodations should be made.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

People taking a major medical aren't given an advantage.

Well, assuming that you're actually injured and your initials aren't AK.

[x129]

Well the IAAF has gone back and forth a couple times on if he is legal. Last I checked he was. Oscar's legs are better than yours in a lot of ways. Personally I am favor of banning him but not Casey. To me Casey is the same as using contacts (or glasses or lasik) to see better. It is an aid but it isn't something essential to the golf game. No golfer becomes a pro because he can walk better than the average person. On the other hand Oscars legs might make him 10-30% more efficient. That is way to close to the core of the sport. Imagine a guy with an artifical hand that automatically squared up the club for the equivalent.

Personally I would allow you to ride a cart, but you have to play without a caddie.  Imagine seeing this at the masters

Originally Posted by joekelly

Have you seen  that runner from South Africa, Oscar Pistorius?  He lost both his legs, had some kind of carbon fiber fake 'legs' put on and now he runs like the wind. These carbon fiber legs are deeply compressible and generate tons of spring and leverage off the ground. I'll bet if he took up golf he could really get into the long drives. But would the PGA deny him a chance ?

[TourSpoon]

I guess I never actually posted my opinion on the ruling.  I've got the mainstream opinion, which is basically the exact same as IACAS.  I think it is wrong to make an accomodation for someone to overcome a disability--if you can't compete on what God and hard work have given you, then you can't compete.  However, in this specific case, I can't really disagree with the result.  Casey is an extreme case of a truly gifted golfer who, because of a rare genetic disability, cannot perform one of the less critical tasks of the game:  walking.  I don't see this creating some gaping tunnel of precedent. Change the facts.  Very talented golfer (maybe even someone who has competed and won on tour) who has a bad heart.  At some point, the condition deteriorates, and his body's inability to transmit oxygen makes it impossible for him to walk 5 miles.  He can play golf from a cart, but if he tries to walk the course, he'll be basically passed out by the 7th or 8th hole.  I think I would (sympathetically) tell this player to find another line of work (easy to say when it's a hypothetical person).  Heart conditions are simply too common, and this would likely open the gates for aging pros who might want to ride a cart (i.e. Champions Tour guys who come back to play the Open every now and then).

I don't think we will see a challenge like Casey's for a while. But since you brought up a "what if" I think it could work both ways. What if a Master's Champion went to visit troops oversees and stepped on a land mine and blew off his foot and it became difficult to walk? Or a soldier that took some shrapnel defending our freedom and wanted to compete? This is why "what ifs" don't work. This decision, if anything, forces all future accommodations to be an individual test, hence why the flood gates have not opened and the "what ifs" are just moot points.

[newtogolf]

While "what ifs" are currently a moot point related to Casey and the PGA, it's not in the real world.  Look at how handicap parking has been taken advantage of since it's inception.  NY State now considers pregnant women and the obese handicap parking eligible.  I'm also sure the designers of the welfare system didn't design it with the intent to be taken advantage of the way it is now in many states.

Golf is a bit different sport from most others, like football, where competitors look for every advantage they can get (spygate) to win.  It's the gentleman attitude which exists in golf today that is likely the reason no one has made this an issue yet, but I believe it's naive to think someone won't try at some point.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

I don't think we will see a challenge like Casey's for a while. But since you brought up a "what if" I think it could work both ways. What if a Master's Champion went to visit troops oversees and stepped on a land mine and blew off his foot and it became difficult to walk? Or a soldier that took some shrapnel defending our freedom and wanted to compete? This is why "what ifs" don't work. This decision, if anything, forces all future accommodations to be an individual test, hence why the flood gates have not opened and the "what ifs" are just moot points.

[TourSpoon]

While "what ifs" are currently a moot point related to Casey and the PGA, it's not in the real world.  Look at how handicap parking has been taken advantage of since it's inception.  NY State now considers pregnant women and the obese handicap parking eligible.  I'm also sure the designers of the welfare system didn't design it with the intent to be taken advantage of the way it is now in many states.  Golf is a bit different sport from most others, like football, where competitors look for every advantage they can get (spygate) to win.  It's the gentleman attitude which exists in golf today that is likely the reason no one has made this an issue yet, but I believe it's naive to think someone won't try at some point.

I suspect it will come up again, but the early arguements centered around how this would open the floodgates. In a decade there hasn't even been a trickle. Now someone suing McDonalds for being obese? I can see that one happening any day now!

[NuclearMike]

No floodgates will open.  I can't imagine that there will be that many people classified as disabled by the ADA trying to qualify for the open or the tour.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Maybe the Tour (or the USGA) would do nothing.  And maybe this person would gut it out and win the tournament anyway in one of the most amazing feats in the history of golf.  Maybe he'd even have to play 19 extra holes to get it done.

And BTW this wouldn't qualify as a disability.  It's simply an injury.

Now that would be an intriguing story if someone were to actually...ummm, nevermind.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by x129

Well the IAAF has gone back and forth a couple times on if he is legal. Last I checked he was. Oscar's legs are better than yours in a lot of ways. Personally I am favor of banning him but not Casey. To me Casey is the same as using contacts (or glasses or lasik) to see better. It is an aid but it isn't something essential to the golf game. No golfer becomes a pro because he can walk better than the average person. On the other hand Oscars legs might make him 10-30% more efficient. That is way to close to the core of the sport. Imagine a guy with an artifical hand that automatically squared up the club for the equivalent.

It isn't about being a better walker, or your skill in walking. It's about walking being central to the conditions of the competition. If you can't walk, then technically, you can't compete.

Personally, I agree with Iacas, if Casey can take a cart, all players in that event should be able to take a cart. Change the conditions of the competition for a level playing field from this aspect.

[chicagogolf]

sorry but this topic is kind of dumb. there is no way in hell a Professional Golfer should be allowed to use a cart in competition. we are trying to make an exception for a guy because he has talent.  i wish i had the talent to play on tour but i don't. sorry casey but if you can't walk, you shouldn't be allowed to compete on the PGA tour or in USGA event, but thankfully you can still enjoy the game with the rest of us average folks. and because golf is a "leisurely" sport, people think we should make exceptions. no other sports do this. no other sports provide assistance to handicap people. golf carts were introduced to the game to increase public play; they were not meant to be used in competition...simple as that. it's too bad he has this disease but he should respect the spirit of the game and just rebel in the fact that he can still play it, just not in competition riding a cart. and stop using the champions tour as an argument to let casey use a cart. the champions tour is a professional EXHIBITION tour. these guys earned the right to use carts if they so choose.

[chicagogolf]

and let's not forget about Erik Compton; he has a more life threatening disease than Casey Martin, and i don't see him petitioning for a cart... he walks like everyone else.

[neophytea]

Are we looking at this subject from a moral or a legal position?

I once took a course from community college for lay people.  The first night the lawyer teaching the course spent the whole class explaining that "Morality and the Law are not synonymous".  And that the objective of the law is to settle cases and not to do what is morally correct.  I also learned that the "Letter of the law" and "Past President" is what is used to determine how the law will be applied.  Intent of the law writers means nothing.

I wonder what our positions would be on Casey Martin driving a cart if he usually won most tournaments by 10 or more strokes?

[Kapanda]

Originally Posted by neophytea

Are we looking at this subject from a moral or a legal position?

I once took a course from community college for lay people.  The first night the lawyer teaching the course spent the whole class explaining that "Morality and the Law are not synonymous".  And that the objective of the law is to settle cases and not to do what is morally correct.  I also learned that the "Letter of the law" and "Past President" is what is used to determine how the law will be applied.  Intent of the law writers means nothing.

I wonder what our positions would be on Casey Martin driving a cart if he usually won most tournaments by 10 or more strokes?

You mean "past precedent", or was that a little quip?

[Rudyprimo]

The Supreme Court got it right with their ruling in the PGA Tour Inc. v. Casey Martin.   I've never seen so many arguments, most of them straw man arguments, that have nothing to do with the PGA taking Casey Martin to court.

For one thing, Casey Martin can't walk 18 holes of golf.  It's not like someone else wrote, that walking 18 holes would be a detriment to his game.  He can't walk that far, period.

The Supreme Court correctly ruled that golf courses are places of public accommodation.  They are specifically mentioned as such in the ADA.  Football fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, hockey rinks, etc. are not places of public accommodation.  You can't go to Soldier Field and pay a fee and play football there with your friends.  You can't go to Fenway Park, pay a fee and play baseball there.  You can't go to the Staples Center, pay a fee and play basketball there. The PGA leases  golf courses for a week to hold their tournaments there.  Otherwise, you can pay a greens fee or join a private course and play there.  The only way the PGA  could get around that is if they bought and or built all of their own courses to hold their tournaments on, and the course is closed to the public the rest of the year.  That's not going to happen.  Because a golf course is a place of public accommodation, it's covered by the ADA.

The Supreme Court also correctly ruled that walking and fatigue from it are not a significant part of the game.  The PGA didn't prove to the court that making an accommodation for Martin would fundamentally alter the game itself and the tournaments.  It also stated that concerning fatigue, Martin with his disability is more fatigued than any of the healthy golfers are.  Golfers and ex players who have played with Martin, even the ones who are against him using a cart, admit that Martin is extremely fatigued just from walking from the cart to his ball.  Martin has no advantage from using a cart over the healthy golfers.  He's probably more fatigued after 3-4 holes than any golfer is after 18.  The argument that he has any kind of advantage by using a cart doesn't fly.  He's at a disadvantage in every physical part of the game.

The PGA and USGA made golf to where fatigue isn't part of the game.  Caddies take fatigue out of the game.  The USGA has no rules banning carts or assisted devices for disabled golfers.  That's all the cart is to Martin, an assisted device.  I'm glad someone brought up Ken Venturi when he was delirious at the US Open because of the heat.  What did the PGA do after that?  They made changes to where they only played 18 holes per day instead of 36.  They didn't want their golfers fatigued like Venturi was.  They want them to be able to play their best without fatigue entering the equation.  They also wouldn't allow carts at qualifiers or the first two stages of the Q-School if fatigue was a significant part of the game.  They also wouldn't allow the use of carts in the limited use they have in some tournaments if they wanted fatigue to be a significant part of the game.

Besides Venturi, someone brought up Tom Watson at the 2009 Open at Jason Dufner at the Colonial.  That's it?  That's all the examples you can bring up over the past 50 years?  Tom Watson lost The Open for the same reason he had only won 3 PGA events after 1984, his putting.  He missed some short putts and made a bad attempt to sink an 8-footer on the 18th hole that would have won it for him.  He said his "legs didn't work" on the 3rd playoff hole, after Cink "already had it in hand".  Watson was tired, but that was because of his age, and age doesn't make you disabled. It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling on Martin.  The ruling is strictly about disabled people.

Jason Dufner never said his legs gave out at the Colonial.  That was funnyman David Feherty who brought it up.  He said "His brain is now on a stick. He's carrying it around.  Dufner's legs and concentration must be gone, after a month that went, in order, win-wedding-tie 68 (TPC)-win-second.  That's two wins, a runner-up and a night spent doing "The Electric Slide" with your best pals and new bride – all in a month. That'll wear anybody out, even a flat-liner like Dufner."

I disagree with you that Dufners legs really gave out.

There's no reason for a healthy golfer to get so fatigued that he can't make a good swing anymore.  That goes for amateurs too.  If you do, you must be in some pathetic shape.  If a chain smoking, fat alcoholic like John Daly can walk 18 holes with no problems, fatigue is not a part of the game.  If Colt Knost can walk 18 with no problem the same holds true.

Someone wrote that Ben Hogan quit golfing because his injured legs couldn't handle it anymore.  That's not true either.  He was 59 when he retired from the PGA.  How long do you think he was going to play?

Allowing Casey Martin to use a cart doesn't affect the game itself at all.  All of the other comments about playing at night to accommodate blind golfers, letting golfers play a 2000 yard course, robots throwing footballs for armless QB's, baseball players using carts to run the bases, reverse discrimination, level playing fields, etc. are so out there and don't pertain to the Supreme Court ruling.

Running bases and throwing footballs are significant parts of the game.  Night golf significantly changes the game, just like making a bigger hole would.  There is no reverse discrimination.  Anyone that is disabled and can't walk 18 holes may use a cart.  If you can walk 18, there's no reason to use a cart.  And there's nothing in the ruling saying there has to be a level playing field.  It's making an accommodation to a disabled person in a part of the game that's not significant.