http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010529/ts/pga_martin_dc_3.html

[snip] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a federal anti-discrimination law requires that disabled golfer Casey Martin be allowed to ride in a cart between shots, rather than walk the course, during professional competition.[cut]

So, in other words, the Supreme Court has decided the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) takes precedent over the rules of their sport as established by the PGA.

The ADA is a good thing in my opinion, but this far exceeds it's original intent. Personally, I agree with the 2 dissenting opinions...

Scalia wrote that in his view the court's opinion ``exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose.'' He said the court's judgement ``distorts'' the text and structure of the law and distorts ``common sense.''

Opinions?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 29, 2001

Answers

Americans often raise "sport" to mythological levels. Senor Martin and the PGA are engaged in commerce. More specifically, it is the business of golf-based entertainment. According to your ADA, a firm must make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. There is no question Senor Martin suffers from a disability. Does the reasonable accommodation of a golf cart undermine the competitive nature of the sport? The Supreme Court says, "No." The sport of golf is not the endurance necessary to walk a few thousand yards, but the ability to strike a small ball with an oddly shaped club.

The Supreme Court used the same standard it might apply to other occupations, and correctly so. Professional sports are businesses, and should be treated like any other enterprise. The PGA desires no more consideration than a small market. If citizens do not agree with the ADA, it should be repealed for all businesses.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), May 29, 2001.

Personally,I agree with the ruling.I can't seem to fathom why some of the pro's disagree with it,if the sport were 'walking' I might be able to see their point.Are Palmer and Nicholaus afraid of getting beat by the handicapped Casey Martin?

If the guy can golf,the PGA should have welcomed him with open arms,as it would seem to grow their fan base,instead all they have done is pissed quite a few people off.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 29, 2001.

The PGA was claiming that walking the course is an *integral* part of the game. If that were true, then it would follow that I shouldn't be able to count MY score against my official handicap unless I walked, which, being the lazy bastard that I am, ain't very likely.

ADA or no, I agree with the ruling. The PGA, IMO, were the ones "distorting common sense".

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), May 29, 2001.

Although I never took to the game, I played it for about 6 or 7 years. My dad was a HS golf coach and a scratch handicapper who has 5 lifetime holes-in-one to his credit. Heck, he has even written short stories whose plot revolved around interpretation of the PGA rules - and he made me read them! So I am very familiar with the game of golf.

The PGA publishes and maintains the official rules of golf in the USA. However, those official rules do not prohibit the use of carts for either causal play or tournament play. The use of carts has only been prohibited by the PGA in golf tournaments that qualify for the "PGA tour".

Their argument was (as best I can make it out from the news stories) tried to say that PGA-sanctioned golf tournaments were a special kind of golf and that the use of a cart by any player would result in an unequal application of the rules. Common sense tells me much is obvious. Of course if Martin can use a cart and other golfers can't, then the rules are being applied unevenly.

But that was not a sufficient legal reason to deny Casey Martin the use of a cart. So the PGA had to pretend that somehow walking the course was a fundamental element of playing PGA tournament golf and that not walking the course would mean that the game being played by Martin was fundamentally different from the game being played by his competitors. That's hooey!

Carts are optional in every other kind of golf tournament played under the official PGA rules. Only PGA tour events were held to the stricter standard. The SC ruling was correct in my view. What the PGA needs to do is to set up a standard and unambiguous qualification for use of a cart on the tour. If they do that, then everlything will be peachy. Why they resisted this simple solution so fiercely (and expensively!) bewiders me.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 29, 2001.

Tiger could spot Casey 5 strokes per side, carry him on his back, and still beat him by 3. The Supremes ruled on this matter based on the ‘public access’ element regarding the golf course in general. For instance, the playing court at Staples Center or the ball field at Yankee Stadium would not fall under such a ruling, as the public is not allowed access to that area.

Physical endurance is most definitely a major element in professional golf. Next month at the U.S. Open in Southern Hills (Tulsa, OK), temperatures can be expected to reach into the 90’s. The closing holes of each round will favor those golfers with the best conditioning programs and Mr. Martin would have an advantage over the others who have walked the entire course.

There are exceptions to all rules but it is doubtful that you will see any other Casey Martin situations on the regular PGA Tour…..Seniors maybe.

-- So (cr@t.es), May 29, 2001.

I can't speak to the legal aspects, but the PGA's argument seemed rather lame to me. Somehow, walking the course is fundamental to the sport, but carrying your clubs or judging distance without yardage books isn't. My impression of the PGA is that like a lot of established organizations, they tend to resist just about any significant change irrespective of its merits.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 29, 2001.

I think Martin should be allowed to use his cart. However, he should not be allowed to run over other players.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 29, 2001.

LN, did any of your dad's stories start out like this:

"The victim was found in a water hazard adjoining the Seventh Hole, a picturesque but demanding little Par 5 at 583 yards, with copious sand traps, dangerously sloped fairway and perilously fast green."

If that line seems awful, maybe my entry will have a chance in the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 29, 2001.

If physical endurance or stamina is such an important issue in this matter why do the golfers not have to carry their own clubs during the game? Wouldn't this force the weaker golfers out of contention?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 30, 2001.

Good for Casey!!

As bad as his leg is I bet it takes more out of him to walk back'n'forth to his cart between shots than it does for the 'healthy' players to walk the whole course. I believe that stamina comes into play during the summer swing but I don't think the cart gives Casey an advantage simply because his leg is in such bad shape. He probably only has a few years left to play anyway.

If this opens any doors at all, it'll be on a case-by-case basis.

Imagine if you will, all the pros in their carts, plastered in sponsors adds and numbered. Hey, it might speed up play!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 30, 2001.

How many of you are aware that Casey Martin was Tiger’s teammate on the Stanford Golf team? The 'leader' of that team was Notah Begay III. Just a little trivia 4U.

-- Telinet (like@it.is), May 30, 2001.

I did!!

In fact, Tiger has commented in the past that while rooming with Casey during away matches, he would be in so much pain that Tiger had to help him to bathroom.

I'm sure Casey was on his own from that point on though......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 30, 2001.

I think everyone's happy for Casey and personally I think the PGA did themselves a dis-service by not accomodating him on their own rather than having it dragged through the courts. But... ALL OF THAT IS BESIDE THE POINT. This is an issue of law, not emotions.

In a previous life I was quite well-schooled on the ADA when it was first initiated. (Seminars, meetings with the corp lawyers, etc. It was a major deal which could have a profound affect on any business that was not in compliance.) In my opinion this case falls outside the juristiction of the ADA. It's also my opinion that this decision has set a dangerous precedent and has opened the door for many future lawsuits from those trying to take unfair advantage [abuse] of the ADA. (Susceptibility to abuse was a major question mark when the act was first passed.)

I would love to quote some remarks from the dissenting opinion of Scalia but unfortunately it is in a format which requires Acrobat Reader (PDF?) and I cannot copy excerpts. (Is there a way to do this?) However, if you would be interested in reading his entire opinion, you can find it via this site. If nothing else, you'll at least see this whole thing from another perspective-

See PGA TOUR Inc vs Martin

(BTW, Senor Gasset- The courts found that Casey Martin was an independent contractor, NOT an employee.)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 30, 2001.