Casey Martin: Cart or Not?

[x129]

If walking isn't essential to golf, then sure it is the right decision. A lot of the other crap that people have mentioned (shorter courses,...) are clearly essential to the game.. Walking is right on the edge.  Seniors can use carts in USGA events but we still call what they do golf. Heck the PGA used to allow carts in Q School.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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".

[zipazoid]

Quote:

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?

It doesn''t really matter what I think. So I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals. I'll just say that if it is consistent with the SC's ruling on Casey Martin, then they are allowed to play with a cart. If not, then they're not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

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.

Quote:

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.

I was quoting you on the previous part re other hypotheticals. Wasn't intended for this part.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

Sports should not be in the business of accommodating people who cannot play them.

I agree, but that is why this situation is so unique.  They are accommodating a person who CAN play.  And the more I watch him limp around the practice range and course, the more happy I am with the decision to allow him to play.  It's simply astonishing that somebody who cannot walk can play at such a high level.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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 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?

It seems that we're debating to completely different issues.  The majority position here, as expressed by several, is as follows:  it is not okay for an external body (i.e. Congress or the USSCt) to impose some condition on the PGA Tour (or USGA in this case) that requires them to make a concession for people who don't meet the standards to play US Open level golf.  One of those standards, according to the Tour, conditions of competition, and pretty much everyone associated with the USGA and Professional Golf, is that you must walk.  The USSCt said that walking is not an integral part of the game, but the vast majority of the world of championship golf disagrees.

However, again, the majority position on this forum seems to be that in Casey Martin's case, as a very skilled golfer with an extremely rare disability that makes it impossible (not just uncomfortable) for him to walk 18 holes, the decision to allow him to use a cart is reasonable.  This is more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.

The USSCt's opinion (as well as district court's) in Martin's case was that his condition qualifies as a disability under the ADA, and that allowing him to use a cart is a "reasonable accommodation" because walking is not integral to playing professional golf.

Viewing Martin's case through any lens other than the ADA is well beyond the scope of this issue.  He's only riding a cart because of the ADA, a law passed by Congress which the USSCt opined applies in Casey Martin's case.  Those of us who agree that the Court's opinion isn't completely unreasonable (again, on an emotional level, limited to this extremely rare case) are, at most, agreeing that the ADA can provide some relief in some extreme cases.

A temporary illness, injury, etc. is not protected by the ADA.  It's not a disability.  Whether someone is allowed a handicapped parking space is not even an ADA issue--those rules are set by a state, municipality, or, in some cases, even a private business--and is completely unrelated to this discussion.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

It doesn''t really matter what I think. So I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals. I'll just say that if it is consistent with the SC's ruling on Casey Martin, then they are allowed to play with a cart. If not, then they're not.

Those hypotheticals would not be consistent with the USSCt's ruling in Martin's case, because they're not disabilities covered under the ADA.

As for John Daly's lung cancer, or athsma, or whatever, it might be a "disability" and it might not.  It has to seriously impair a life function.  Walking, working, etc. are life functions.  Walking 10 miles, or running a marathon, are not life functions.  Walking 100 yards (or even 500) is a life function, because it's something that every person will reasonably have to do almost every day.  It also has to be a permanent condition.

I think there are plenty of people with lung cancer, or athsma, who can walk 500 yards, or even a mile.  These people would likely not qualify as "disabled" under the ADA with respect to WALKING, which is the "life function" that is being analyzed in this case.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Those hypotheticals would not be consistent with the USSCt's ruling in Martin's case, because they're not disabilities covered under the ADA.

Well, there you are then.

[sacm3bill]

Quote:

It seems that we're debating two completely different issues.  The majority position here, as expressed by several, is as follows:  it is not okay for an external body (i.e. Congress or the USSCt) to impose some condition on the PGA Tour (or USGA in this case) that requires them to make a concession for people who don't meet the standards to play US Open level golf.  One of those standards, according to the Tour, conditions of competition, and pretty much everyone associated with the USGA and Professional Golf, is that you must walk.  The USSCt said that walking is not an integral part of the game, but the vast majority of the world of championship golf disagrees.

However, again, the majority position on this forum seems to be that in Casey Martin's case, as a very skilled golfer with an extremely rare disability that makes it impossible (not just uncomfortable) for him to walk 18 holes, the decision to allow him to use a cart is reasonable.  This is more of an emotional reaction than a logical one.

The USSCt's opinion (as well as district court's) in Martin's case was that his condition qualifies as a disability under the ADA, and that allowing him to use a cart is a "reasonable accommodation" because walking is not integral to playing professional golf.

Viewing Martin's case through any lens other than the ADA is well beyond the scope of this issue.  He's only riding a cart because of the ADA, a law passed by Congress which the USSCt opined applies in Casey Martin's case.  Those of us who agree that the Court's opinion isn't completely unreasonable (again, on an emotional level, limited to this extremely rare case) are, at most, agreeing that the ADA can provide some relief in some extreme cases.

I think you've summarized the thread quite well there, and agree for the most part with all you've said.  I just think that the Casey Martin issue is related to the hypothetical issues, since the rationale for giving Casey a cart, if logical and not emotional based, should be applicable to hypothetical cases as well. You've made a good point though in saying that the support for Casey is more emotional than logical. Again, I agree with that.

Quote:

A temporary illness, injury, etc. is not protected by the ADA.  It's not a disability.  Whether someone is allowed a handicapped parking space is not even an ADA issue--those rules are set by a state, municipality, or, in some cases, even a private business--and is completely unrelated to this discussion.

Yes, and I was careful to distinguish my mention of handicap parking as a non ADA-related issue. My point there was just to show that there are other entities that grant disabled people special consideration, whether or not the disability is permanent, and was wondering if people felt the same consideration should be shown non-permanently disabled golfers, if so why, and if not why not, using the same rationale being used for support of Casey.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid

It doesn''t really matter what I think. So I'm not going to entertain hypotheticals. I'll just say that if it is consistent with the SC's ruling on Casey Martin, then they are allowed to play with a cart. If not, then they're not.

Those hypotheticals would not be consistent with the USSCt's ruling in Martin's case, because they're not disabilities covered under the ADA.

Again, I agree. But my question was never "Should those hypothetical situations be given the same consideration as Casey because of the ruling." My question has been, "Should those hypothetical situations be given the same consideration as Casey based on the rationale behind the ruling". (Or more specically, the rationale behind why the ADA laws are what they are.)  If the rationale does not hold up for the hypotheticals, it does not hold up for Casey either.

I realize the rationale for the ruling was based on ADA requirements, but surely that should not be the only agency that provides compensation for the disabled. As we see in the handicapped parking example, precedence exists for other means by which disabled people (even temporarily so) are provided assistance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

...And the more I watch him limp around the practice range and course, the more happy I am with the decision to allow him to play.

From a purely emotional standpoint, I couldn't agree more.

[newtogolf]

Actually it could be considered a disability if it was shown that after numerous surgeries the knee still was not sufficiently stable to perform his job as a professional golfer.

You're making it seem like Martin is confined to a wheelchair when he fact he walks well.  He is not able to walk the distances a golf tournament requires.

Originally Posted by k-troop

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.

[allin]

D[quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/58810/casey-martin-cart-or-not/342#post_725714"]I agree, but that is why this situation is so unique.  They are accommodating a person who CAN play.  And the more I watch him limp around the practice range and course, the more happy I am with the decision to allow him to play.  It's simply astonishing that somebody who cannot walk can play at such a high level. [/quote] I do find the no cart responders insist walking is integral to competitive golf, then based on this premise any other response is not logical. The reason for rules is to prevent a competitive advantage. It is clear Martin derives no advantage. There are always competitive advantages, for example Tiger and others have had the opportunity to play Olympic frequently, he attended Stanford and is a native of northern California. Access to instruction and quality courses at an early age varies greatly. The court decision is not some grand conspiracy to equalize competition for those who have not demonstrated the talent, skills, and commitment intrinsic to tournament golf. I see these responses not as logical, although if you accept the premise of walking being intrinsic many meet the test of internal logic. The truth is walking is a small part of the total competitive test, hardly a dominant part. Yes that is only my opinion, but given the number of golfers who compete well who are older, significantly over weight etc I feel this is greatly over stated. If cardiovascular fitness is so important then I, a former sub 147 800 meter runner should have a big advantage. I am average at best even after many years of practice and play. The tenor of a significant number of the no cart responses seem atavistic rather than true defenses of fair competition. I wonder if this attitude part of the reason so many feel golfers are elitist, not in a positive way, and feel unwelcome. I detect much of this in other sports I have tried. In fact it reminds me of football players questioning teammates toughness for not playing through injury. Hopefully the concussion issue is bringing some reason to this attitude. In other words I feel these responses are reflective of the the value placed on toughness. I feel dealing with the mental stress from nerves, making good decisions and shots while competing is the type of toughness intrinsic to golf, not overcoming fatigue brought on by walking. On balance I am shocked that so many seem to be applying the values of other sports rather than those of golf, traditionally a game of honor and gentlemanly behavior. I am disappointed to find golfers are becoming more like other sports rather than leading with a more enlightened perspective.

[k-troop]

Actually it could be considered a disability if it was shown that after numerous surgeries the knee still was not sufficiently stable to perform his job as a professional golfer.  You're making it seem like Martin is confined to a wheelchair when he fact he walks well.  He is not able to walk the distances a golf tournament requires.

The text you quoted fully explains the conditions you address. And it seems odd to what-if Tiger's condition in 2008 when we know that it was not permanent for ADA purposes. Also please quote the language where I made it seem like he is in a wheelchair. I specifically said he is incapable of walking 18 holes which is factually correct. Finally, being a professional golfer is not a major life activity as contemplated by ADA. Walking is. Walking may or may not be an integral part of being a professional golfer, depending whether you're a USSCt justice or someone who plays professional golf.

[newtogolf]

I didn't state you claimed he was in a wheelchair, but by the ADA's definition of disability Martin doesn't fit the classic definition.

(b) Statutory Definition -- With respect to an individual, the term "disability" means

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

The first part of the definition covers persons who actually have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. The focus under the first part is on the individual, to determine if (s)he has a substantially limiting impairment. To fall under the first part of the definition, a person must establish three elements:

(1) that (s)he has a physical or mental impairment

(2) that substantially limits

(3) one or more major life activities .

Most people would not consider the inability to walk 4-5 miles on a golf course a disability but I understand why he gets the exception and pointed that Tiger without relief of pain or stability in his knee could qualify as well.

Originally Posted by k-troop

The text you quoted fully explains the conditions you address. And it seems odd to what-if Tiger's condition in 2008 when we know that it was not permanent for ADA purposes.

Also please quote the language where I made it seem like he is in a wheelchair. I specifically said he is incapable of walking 18 holes which is factually correct.

Finally, being a professional golfer is not a major life activity as contemplated by ADA. Walking is. Walking may or may not be an integral part of being a professional golfer, depending whether you're a USSCt justice or someone who plays professional golf.

[the19thhole]

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?

Exactly, I'm pretty sure Olazabel could have got himself registered disabled. Plenty of times he looked like walking for him was torture.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by allin

It is clear Martin derives no advantage.

I 100% disagree.

And that's simply where the line exists - in the area that separates people who think he has "no advantage" and those who think he clearly, obviously does get an advantage as the only guy in the field who got to have a cart.

I don't think it's the place of sports organizations to try to "make up for" someone's natural disability. Whether walking is "integral to the sport" or not (I contend that, at the PGA Tour level, it is), the simple fact is ALL contestants are required to WALK under the Conditions of the Competition. Except one, who is allowed to drive a cart.

Casey's regrettably missed the cut (I was hoping he'd make the cut and play well), and so with that, I'm closing the thread. I think everyone's had their say, and I haven't seen anything new in quite some time. PM me if you disagree.