Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by the19thhole

I'll ask the question again. If one of the top golfers blow their knee (let's call him Tiger McIlroy) to the point he can't really walk anymore, but can still play. He is now registerd disabled, so should he be allowed to use a cart?

Well for one, it's hard to picture a guy blowing out his knee & still being effective as a top-flight golfer.

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.

Quote:

But there is one example that I can think of. Bill Glasson. He had a ton of knee surgeries. He walked. And here's the key reason: He could.

So I would conclude that your example is not relevant. Glasson could walk 18. Martin cannot.

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.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by the19thhole

Exactly why I asked my question. Get injured, get registered disabled and the ruling states you have to be accommadated under the ADA. STUPID.

Except Martin is not injured. He has a congenital defect. You don't see players getting injured and using carts on the PGA tour do you? When they get hurt they sit out until they are healthy. Martin will never be healthy and is handicapped vs the rest of the PGA tour.

[VoidOfEnigmas]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Except Martin is not injured. He has a congenital defect. You don't see players getting injured and using carts on the PGA tour do you? When they get hurt they sit out until they are healthy. Martin will never be healthy and is handicapped vs the rest of the PGA tour.

has it, I dont understand people against it. They're probably republicans too.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by voidofenigmas

has it, I dont understand people against it. They're probably republicans too.

I don't think that has much to do with it but I will stay away from making this political.

There is nothing wrong with him using a cart he is disabled and it gives him no advantage. Using the argument about players getting injured doesn't work because they can recover from an injury, Cory Pavin not being able to hit it as far because he's little doesn't work either especially since there are guys on tour similar to his size that hit it a lot further, being overweight doesn't make you disabled in the professional sports world. Basically whether you agree with it or not doesn't matter since he is playing and using a cart based what I saw today it didn't give him any type of advantage.

[VoidOfEnigmas]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

I don't think that has much to do with it but I will stay away from making this political.

There is nothing wrong with him using a cart he is disabled and it gives him no advantage. Using the argument about players getting injured doesn't work because they can recover from an injury, Cory Pavin not being able to hit it as far because he's little doesn't work either especially since there are guys on tour similar to his size that hit it a lot further, being overweight doesn't make you disabled in the professional sports world. Basically whether you agree with it or not doesn't matter since he is playing and using a cart based what I saw today it didn't give him any type of advantage.

lol was purely meant as a joke, I am not political in the least lol

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Quote:

Originally Posted by the19thhole

Exactly why I asked my question. Get injured, get registered disabled and the ruling states you have to be accommadated under the ADA. STUPID.

Except Martin is not injured. He has a congenital defect. You don't see players getting injured and using carts on the PGA tour do you? When they get hurt they sit out until they are healthy. Martin will never be healthy and is handicapped vs the rest of the PGA tour.

Ok, so you've answered the question "Should there be a distinction between illness and injury?" in the affirmative. But what's your rationale? The ADA does not distinguish between injury and illness/congenital defects when deciding whether someone is disabled. Why should the PGA Tour, the SCOTUS, or anyone else?

(And one reason you haven't seen injured players use carts is because they'd have to petition the PGA Tour to do so, just like Martin did. I'm sure the Tour would deny them but they could always take it to a higher court, just like Martin did.)

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Using the argument about players getting injured doesn't work because they can recover from an injury...

That's not true at all. Many injuries can be permanent. Loss of limb is one obvious example, or a broken bone that never sets well - and what about arthritis, as an example of illness vs injury?  I'm sure there are many injuries and illnesses that aren't congenital, where someone could still swing a club well but not walk 72 holes over 4 days as easily.

[VoidOfEnigmas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Ok, so you've answered the question "Should there be a distinction between illness and injury?" in the affirmative. But what's your rationale? The ADA does not distinguish between injury and illness/congenital defects when deciding whether someone is disabled. Why should the PGA Tour, the SCOTUS, or anyone else?

(And one reason you haven't seen injured players use carts is because they'd have to petition the PGA Tour to do so, just like Martin did. I'm sure the Tour would deny them but they could always take it to a higher court, just like Martin did.)

That's not true at all. Many injuries can be permanent. Loss of limb is one obvious example, arthritis another... I'm sure there are many other examples where someone could still swing a club well but not walk 54 holes over 4 days as easily.

If an injury would be permanent, then it would be a lifelong handicap at that point, that person if they needed a cart should be entitled to it. That's what we're getting at, a disability is different from a standard injury.

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by MSchott

Except Martin is not injured. He has a congenital defect. You don't see players getting injured and using carts on the PGA tour do you? When they get hurt they sit out until they are healthy. Martin will never be healthy and is handicapped vs the rest of the PGA tour.

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.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by voidofenigmas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

That's not true at all. Many injuries can be permanent.

If an injury would be permanent, then it would be a lifelong handicap at that point, that person if they needed a cart should be entitled to it. That's what we're getting at, a disability is different from a standard injury.

At what point do you make the call that an injury is permanent? After suffering with it for a year? 5 years?

And again, the ADA doesn't make you prove an injury is permanent before giving you disabled status. Why should that be a factor for the PGA Tour with respect to whether an injured player gets a cart or not?

[VoidOfEnigmas]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

At what point do you make the call that an injury is permanent? After suffering with it for a year? 5 years?

And again, the ADA doesn't make you prove an injury is permanent before giving you disabled status. Why should that be a factor for the PGA Tour with respect to whether an injured player gets a cart or not?

a doctor makes that distinction. Think about the rest of your question dunno its been stated a few times.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by voidofenigmas

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

At what point do you make the call that an injury is permanent? After suffering with it for a year? 5 years?

And again, the ADA doesn't make you prove an injury is permanent before giving you disabled status. Why should that be a factor for the PGA Tour with respect to whether an injured player gets a cart or not?

a doctor makes that distinction. Think about the rest of your question dunno its been stated a few times.

How is a doctor going to make that distinction in cases where it's not clear whether the patient is going to improve or not?

The point is, people are throwing around these "if"s and conditions on who should get a cart and who shouldn't. But as far as the ADA is concerned, if you're disabled you're disabled. Doesn't matter how you got that way. So if the SCOTUS can rule that the PGA Tour is subject to the ADA's requirements in this way, there's now precedence for any disabled golfer to get a cart. That's why I don't understand why some folks feel congenital defect is different than injury, or injury is different than permanent injury, etc.

As far as I can see that's not been answered. You say it has a few times - can you point me to a post? (Or explain in your own words?)

[the19thhole]

And as I said using a cart at my home course is an advantage to walking it.

I actually feel sorry for Casey the more I think about it. I think it's great that he wants to compete and is playing, but one of the reasons everyone is saying yes is because we all know he is not going to challenge at the top. So it doesn't matter if he rides or not, but it makes the pc brigade feel good.

How would people feel if this was Tiger Woods deciding to ride a cart because after all walking or not doesn't matter up against Phil or Rory who are walking? Do you really believe it would be a level playing field?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by the19thhole

How would people feel if this was Tiger Woods deciding to ride a cart because after all walking or not doesn't matter up against Phil or Rory who are walking? Do you really believe it would be a level playing field?

We're on the same side of the poll I think ,but I want to separate two issues:  I can concede for the sake of discussion that even with the cart Martin is at a "fatigue" disadvantage to the rest of the field, whereas Tiger would probably be *ad*vantaged over the field with a cart. That's one issue...

But that doesn't make it ok (IMO) for disabled people to be given advantages in professional sporting events. That's another issue entirely.

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

We're on the same side of the poll I think ,but I want to separate two issues:  I can concede for the sake of discussion that even with the cart Martin is at a "fatigue" disadvantage to the rest of the field, whereas Tiger would probably be *ad*vantaged over the field with a cart. That's one issue...

But that doesn't make it ok (IMO) for disabled people to be given advantages in professional sporting events. That's another issue entirely.

I totally agree with both points.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

We're on the same side of the poll I think ,but I want to separate two issues:  I can concede for the sake of discussion that even with the cart Martin is at a "fatigue" disadvantage to the rest of the field, whereas Tiger would probably be *ad*vantaged over the field with a cart. That's one issue...

But that doesn't make it ok (IMO) for disabled people to be given advantages in professional sporting events. That's another issue entirely.

That's the key point here he's not getting any advantage because of his disability that's why the court ruled he could use a cart. I do understand your argument but my guess would be if someone with an injury or whatever that is a questionable reason would not be allowed a cart. The pga would most likely go back to court but luckily no one after Martin has tried to use a cart and if they did they were privately denied. These arguments started right after he won the court case and was allowed a cart back then everyone thought he just opened the flood gates. Everyone was saying you would see a lot of players trying to take carts for any reason but it never happened. Part of the reason I think it never happened is that if Martin was the standard for needing a cart most people knew they would not meet that standard.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But that doesn't make it ok (IMO) for disabled people to be given advantages in professional sporting events. That's another issue entirely.

That's the key point here he's not getting any advantage because of his disability that's why the court ruled he could use a cart.

It's an advantage to Martin, is what I'm saying. Martin's disability is being lessened by the use of the cart, and the Supreme Court should not be in the business of trying to level the playing fields in pro sports. (Again, IMO).

[clubchamp]

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.

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

That's the key point here he's not getting any advantage because of his disability that's why the court ruled he could use a cart. I do understand your argument but my guess would be if someone with an injury or whatever that is a questionable reason would not be allowed a cart. The pga would most likely go back to court but luckily no one after Martin has tried to use a cart and if they did they were privately denied. These arguments started right after he won the court case and was allowed a cart back then everyone thought he just opened the flood gates. Everyone was saying you would see a lot of players trying to take carts for any reason but it never happened. Part of the reason I think it never happened is that if Martin was the standard for needing a cart most people knew they would not meet that standard.

Wrong (IMO). Key point here is he has a disabilty and the SC didn't want to say no especially with ADA in place. They used the advantage or not argument as it were to blow smoke up peoples ass and got it wrong in my opinion. And in some way that's the sad part. It was easy to say yes because he was never going to be a contender.

Still missing the point - not just injured that with a layoff will heal. Injured to the point of registered disability. The PGA cannot fight it tehya have to be given a cart because precedent was set with the SC ruling. No it would only open the floodgates if there is suddenly an influx of disabled golfers. Martin wasn't the standard, being disabled under ADA was . If we forget it was Casey Martin that fought this case and say it was Tiger Woods instead who for whatever reason can't walk a full 18 holes, but can play golf. Would he have an advantage using a cart or not over other golfers he was competing with? I definitely say Yes and that is why the original ruling should have been no because there is always going to be the possiblity that someone could gain an advantage from it.