Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[newtogolf]

I understand the difference but it's not absurd, overweight people are now able to get handicap parking permits.  From what I've read, Martin can walk, his argument was he likely wouldn't be able to walk 18 and play his best golf.  A 350+ lb Daly would argue the same, especially in 90+ degree temperture.

The point I was making and a few others (not Phil) is that once a precedent is established, the potential to take advantage of it is possible.  Jamo is also correct in pointing out that thus far no one has, which supports the point that golf is a gentlemans game.

Originally Posted by PhillyMac

I don't see the advantage for him competing with the use of a cart especially against the talent that he has to play against. I do see a disadvantage with him walking. The comment about Tiger with his bum leg and John Daly/Colin Montgomery with the weight is absurd, Tiger can take time off and heal, John Daly/Colin Montgomery can loose the weight. But Casey can't take time off and heal like the rest. That's just my opinion, though.

[Shorty]

Just remember that this was a huge legal issue when it initially happened. Also, the condition he has could lead to death, not just discomfort if he walks.

[TourSpoon]

Casey originally argued that due to his disability walking fatigued him to the point that it was harmful and a true barrier to his ability to compete. By using a cart, he gained no real advantage, but that the cart allowed him to compete and put him on a more equal ground to demonstrate his golfing skills. Given the nature and severity of his condition (severe lack of circulation in his legs) I also believe that he did not harm the game due to him using the cart. For those of you that don't remember, this case was decided by the Supreme Court who, after reviewing the medical history, the fundamental parts of the competition of golf, along with applying principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ruled in his favor 7-2. The court did not alter the policy of the Tour, it just granted an exception that had to be proven. While many thought that this would open the floodgates, that never happened. It only allowed Casey to compete at the highest level. I happened to disagree with the exception until I learned the facts of the case and how it ultimately did not alter the way Tour Golf was played, except for one guy named Casey Martin. In the end analysis I think the result was good for golf and I had no problem with Casey using a cart, then or now, so that he can compete and have a crack at his dreams.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by iacas

On the flip side, Casey Martin is a really rare exception, so allowing him to use a cart isn't going to open the floodgates or anything. Most people who have a disability like Martin don't qualify for and reach the upper levels of golf.

I haven't decided how I feel, although I'm leaning towards "no."

However, the above reasoning is contradictory to the stance you and I have on belly/anchored putters for disabled/handicapped players on the tour.  If we use that reasoning here, it would also apply to the Tour if they were to ever ban belly/anchored putters and somebody were to claim they needed it due to back surgery/problems.

Back to this specific topic, my opinion is likely going to be:  same rules for everybody.  Either allow anybody to use carts, or none can use them; even the disabled.  That is my opinion until somebody persuades me otherwise.

What other "sport" changes its rules to allow disabled persons to compete?  Is there an analogous situation out there somewhere?

Brandon

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

The goal in golf is getting the ball in the hole in the fewest amount of strokes. The person that does that wins. Everything else is irrelevant.

Reductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that a player should then be able to use non conforming grooves, 18 clubs in the bag, DMDs, etc etc.  If everything else was irrelevant, there wouldn't be rules.  IMO this is about the integrity of the rule: either you support it or you don't.  Slow play?  Enforce it equally and to everybody.  No carts?  Same thing.  If a compelling case is made that sways the powers that be to think differently, they should change the rule.

And to the issue of it being a health risk if he walks, that is his freedom of choice in competition.  Boxers enter the ring knowing they could die.  Football players know their career could end at any moment.  UFC fighters the same way.  If a player cannot walk without causing physical harm to himself, explain why a sport should cater to that?

Brandon

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Reductive reasoning leads to the conclusion that a player should then be able to use non conforming grooves, 18 clubs in the bag, DMDs, etc etc.  If everything else was irrelevant, there wouldn't be rules.  IMO this is about the integrity of the rule: either you support it or you don't.  Slow play?  Enforce it equally and to everybody.  No carts?  Same thing.  If a compelling case is made that sways the powers that be to think differently, they should change the rule.

And to the issue of it being a health risk if he walks, that is his freedom of choice in competition.  Boxers enter the ring knowing they could die.  Football players know their career could end at any moment.  UFC fighters the same way.  If a player cannot walk without causing physical harm to himself, explain why a sport should cater to that?

Brandon

The things you mentioned are all rules of the game.  Riding in a cart or not isn't a rule of the game, and it is debatable if walking is really an integral part of the game.  (Obviously the Supreme Court decided it was not)  I certainly do not play better when I ride.  If I kept those stats, I am pretty confident that it would be the other way around ... I seem to play better when I'm walking.

If it's not an integral part of the game, then he's not gaining any advantage by using the cart, and if he's not gaining any advantage then I don't have any problem with it.

[BallStriker]

cart....no question about it....let the man hit the golf shots....there is no doubt imo that the bar for allowing a player to use a cart should be very high, but casey martin is certainly entitled to this accomodation

my 2 cent

[newtogolf]

Walking in 90+ degree temperture may not an integral part of the game, but it does relate to conditioning.  Your stats might show differently, but overall I'd think over four days in the heat of the summer, walking takes a more physical toll on a golfer than riding in a cart.  Fatigue, dehydration, loss of electrolytes are all normal conditions of walking 3-4 miles in intense heat, so I'd argue the guy riding does have an advantage.

Why couldn't Daly argue that his weight condition and smoking place him at higher risk for heart attack and death if he's forced to walk?  I get one is a self induced disease and the other is a condition outside Martins control, but if the purpose of the ruling was to reduce / eliminate the risk of death and the court determined that walking isn't integral to the game how do they legally differentiate between the two and only allow one to ride in a cart?

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

The things you mentioned are all rules of the game.  Riding in a cart or not isn't a rule of the game, and it is debatable if walking is really an integral part of the game.  (Obviously the Supreme Court decided it was not)  I certainly do not play better when I ride.  If I kept those stats, I am pretty confident that it would be the other way around ... I seem to play better when I'm walking.

If it's not an integral part of the game, then he's not gaining any advantage by using the cart, and if he's not gaining any advantage then I don't have any problem with it.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Walking in 90+ degree temperture may not an integral part of the game, but it does relate to conditioning.  Your stats might show differently, but overall I'd think over four days in the heat of the summer, walking takes a more physical toll on a golfer than riding in a cart.  Fatigue, dehydration, loss of electrolytes are all normal conditions of walking 3-4 miles in intense heat, so I'd argue the guy riding does have an advantage.

That's fair.  I have never competed in golf (at any level other than in 8th grade) nor have I played full rounds on 4 consecutive days.  So you are right, my stats are a moot point.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Why couldn't Daly argue that his weight condition and smoking place him at higher risk for heart attack and death if he's forced to walk?  I get one is a self induced disease and the other is a condition outside Martins control, but if the purpose of the ruling was to reduce / eliminate the risk of death and the court determined that walking isn't integral to the game how do they legally differentiate between the two and only allow one to ride in a cart?

I guess technically he could.  But common sense tells me that he never would.  (Also don't think you get a lot of backing from the ADA for smoking and eating too much)

This argument, for me, holds little water based on Jamo's comment earlier.  The "setting a bad precedent" and "slippery slope" arguments were valid in 1998 because it was the first time the issue had come up.  The whole basis of these arguments being that you are potentially opening the floodgates.  Well this isn't the first time, they already opened the floodgates 14 years ago, and it turns out the reservoir was dry.  Not one single golfer (that I know of) has ever tried to talk or sue his way into getting a cart.  Why not?

They either don't think it's an issue or wouldn't give them any kind of edge, or they recognize the unique-ness/rarity of the situation.

[iacas]

FWIW, I think Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion and did a good job of it, saying that ruling bodies should be free to make the rules of their game and sport the way they want, and that the ADA doesn't apply to sports.

I'm still on the fence, personally, but largely because it's incredible Martin got as far as he did. Most people with his disability wouldn't be lower than a 9 handicap, most likely.

[BallStriker]

Originally Posted by iacas

FWIW, I think Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion and did a good job of it, saying that ruling bodies should be free to make the rules of their game and sport the way they want, and that the ADA doesn't apply to sports.

I'm still on the fence, personally, but largely because it's incredible Martin got as far as he did. Most people with his disability wouldn't be lower than a 9 handicap, most likely.

jebus...you bring up the man.....at the same time i love scalia for his raw, absolutely genius logic, i hate him for the fact that a man of his brilliance perceives the world the way he does....is it possible he really thinks his job is interpreting the law?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

The things you mentioned are all rules of the game.  Riding in a cart or not isn't a rule of the game, and it is debatable if walking is really an integral part of the game.  (Obviously the Supreme Court decided it was not)  I certainly do not play better when I ride.  If I kept those stats, I am pretty confident that it would be the other way around ... I seem to play better when I'm walking.

If it's not an integral part of the game, then he's not gaining any advantage by using the cart, and if he's not gaining any advantage then I don't have any problem with it.

I'm operating under the assumption that not allowing carts was a Tour rule.  If it isn't, then I don't see what the fuss is about.  I think whether or not it's "integral" to the game is likely the biggest debatable topic here.  IMO, if it isn't integral to the game, everybody on the Tour should have the option of using a cart.  I don't see how it could be integral for one person and not another.

Originally Posted by BallStriker

jebus...you bring up the man.....at the same time i love scalia for his raw, absolutely genius logic, i hate him for the fact that a man of his brilliance perceives the world the way he does....is it possible he really thinks his job is interpreting the law?

Hear hear!

Brandon

[uttexas]

But an exception was allowed, and we still haven't gone back. As far as I know Casey Martin is the only one to use a cart (albeit many years apart).

This is the best argument. An exception was previously allowed, setting the precedent. Other arguments. There's an official tour event (can't remember which one) where the par three ravine is so severe, after the pros hit their tee shots, they are carted to the green. Walking is an advantage. You get a feel for the turf and increased proprioceptive input (my Foleyism of the day) when walking. Carts are not an advantage for Mr. Martin, but a device he requires to traverse a 7000 yard golf course. When in doubt, consult the rule book. To my knowledge, you can play golf and record an official score for your handicap with other assistive devices. Examples: walking cane (Old Tom Morris), contacts/prescription glasses (Tom Kite/TigerWoods), leg braces (Hogan), and a cart (some courses are "cart only")

[bplewis24]

I don't think the "it's not a slippery slope because nobody else has tried it" argument is the best argument.  I think it (and the slippery slope argument itself) is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not the rule has merit or not and whether walking is integral to the sport or not.

I have a question: if Casey Martin's case proves that walking can be a detriment to his particular game--and by extension, others' as well--doesn't that prove that walking IS integral to the sport?

Brandon

[ApocG10]

Yes. The man has a disability. Comparing it to someone getting fat, or having a bad knee, is not the same. The guy has a disease which prevents him from walking 18. There are no floodgates to open. If you have a medical reason to use one, im fine with it. Being obese is a medical reason to walk, not one not to walk.

[ApocG10]

Quote:

Why couldn't Daly argue that his weight condition and smoking place him at higher risk for heart attack and death if he's forced to walk?  I get one is a self induced disease and the other is a condition outside Martins control, but if the purpose of the ruling was to reduce / eliminate the risk of death and the court determined that walking isn't integral to the game how do they legally differentiate between the two and only allow one to ride in a cart?

Daly is no longer 'obese', just overweight, so the point is moot unless he balloons again. And I dont think Daly ever fought for a cart, so you are going on what if's and maybe's.

Either way, those are things Daly can change. Casey Martin cant change his disease.

[inthehole]

as a golfer with a bad back I can somewhat relate ... I voted yes, he should be able to compete w ith a cart as his disability is a legit legal disability,

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I'm operating under the assumption that not allowing carts was a Tour rule.  If it isn't, then I don't see what the fuss is about.  I think whether or not it's "integral" to the game is likely the biggest debatable topic here.  IMO, if it isn't integral to the game, everybody on the Tour should have the option of using a cart.  I don't see how it could be integral for one person and not another.

Brandon

I don't just think that the 'integral' part is the biggest debatable topic here, it's the only debatable topic.

If it's integral, one could argue he gains an advantage and obviously that is problematic.

If it's not, then there's no problem.  And just because it's not integral doesn't mean everybody should have the option.  I look at it similar to a prescription drug.  His doctor has "prescribed" that he needs a cart, but that certainly doesn't mean that the rest of the tour need to have the option.  Maybe a good analogy would be allowing a severe asthmatic to use an inhaler.  He couldn't get through 18 holes without it, so its technically an "advantage" for him ... but its not going to help a non asthmatic.