Question:
I know I’ll get flamed for posting this exchange between Corby Gilmore and myself, but I’m at my wit’s end on this whole Casey Martin debate. I CAN’T BELIEVE THE COURTS IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE ALLOWED IT TO GET THIS FAR!!!!!! (GIVEN THE CLIMATE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, MAYBE I SHOULDN’T BE SO SURPRISED.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Remember, as it stands now every healthy PGA pro (including Craig Stadler) has an unfair advantage over Casey Martin because they can walk 18 holes, and he can’t. The cart does NOT, repeat NOT give Martin an advantage; it only negates the disadvantage he would otherwise be subjected to. Okay, Corby… You’re right. Craig Stadler and the rest of the able-bodied pros have an advantage over Casey. They also have an advantage over you and me. That doesn’t mean we’re entitled to get "strokes" to help level the playing field. John Daly has an advantage over the rest of the field because he hits the ball farther. That doesn’t mean that everyone else should get to tee from the "white" tees! [snip] Professional athletics is about that–athletics. It’s about measuring a person’s physical skills AND their limitations. Randy I agree with you. However, none of the examples you cite have anything to do with a congenital physical disability. They can all be overcome with hard work, practise, perseverance and dedication. Casey Martin’s disadvantage cannot. That is the difference.
Corby, I’ve read your numerous posts on this subject, and your position (as I understand it) is pretty clear: Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that because Casey has a congenital physical disability, he’s entitled to a "fair" compensation to help "level the playing field." In this case, it is asserted, such a compensation would be a cart. Is that your position? If it is, let me ask you this: If Casey were a baseball player, and it was apparent that he was gifted enough to hit a baseball farther than anyone else, would you say that Major League Baseball should be required by law to allow him to hit a baseball while seated in a wheelchair, then "roll" to first base (assuming he was fast enough to beat out the throw)? And if so, should the rules be "bent" somewhat to allow him to roll past the base, since it would be harder for someone in a wheelchair to stop on the bag? That would certainly help "level the playing field." Or if Casey were a football player–let’s say an offensive lineman–would it be right to change the rules of football to restrict the defensive lineman on the other side to wait three seconds–"one-one thousand, two-one thousand, three-one thousand"–before starting to charge the quarterback, just because Casey has a bad leg? That would help "level the playing field." The whole idea is just ridiculous. What if Casey were BLIND? (There ARE blind golfers, you know–some of them quite good.) It is a violation of the Rules of Golf to allow a caddy or playing partner to "show" the line to a player. Blind golfers play with "spotters," who, essentially set up the player to the ball, position their club on the ground and then step out of the way. This would be illegal under the Rules. If a blind golfer ever comes along who is the exception and can compete at the highest level, would you argue that the Rules should be changed to make accomodations? There are a couple of problems with this whole pro-Casey argument: First, Casey isn’t being discriminated against for a job. And second, where in the ADA does it say anything about the need to level the playing field IN ATHLETIC COMPETIONS, pro or otherwise? This is obviously outside the INTENT of the law. And those of you who don’t see that are overlooking the obvious and getting sucked in by the emotion of this case. Casey is not–I repeat, he is **NOT**–being discriminated against by a potential **EMPLOYER**. The PGA TOUR is not the players’ EMPLOYER. They are merely a non-profit organization which stages professional athletic competitions benefitting charities. If he wants a **JOB** with the PGA TOUR, I have no doubt he would be judged as to his qualifications without regard to his disability. If the TOUR were to discriminate against him for a "job," then, he’d have a case under the ADA. But he’s not applying for a job. He’s trying to enter athletic competitions. We all admire his skills, but I’m not going to shed one single tear over any supposed limitation to his earnings potential. The Nike endorsement deal he’s already signed will net him more than most Americans will earn in a lifetime. He can ply his skills as a golf instructor (David Ledbetter, Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Jim Flick and scores more earn well into six-figures). He can manage golf facilities (the earnings potential for being "Director of Golf" at some of the country’s fine facilities is well into the six-figure range, sometimes with a nice million-dollar house thrown in). He can make golf videos, write golf books, maybe even go to work for the PGA TOUR. There are lots and lots of "jobs" that he is not only qualified for, but would be a great candidate for. Who WOULDN’T hire him, for crying out loud??? He’d be a tremendous attraction for business. But what he wants is to enter professional golf tournaments without complying with the requirements. It’s that simple. And like many other spoiled children, since he hasn’t gotten his way, he’s throwing a hissy fit. Somebody oughta turn him over their knee and give him a good spanking. His tears in court yesterday (2/3) were no doubt genuine, but little more than a ploy by his attorney to shift emphasis away from the rational thought involved in weighing issues. Alright–nobody else has said it, so I will. Casey’s self-centeredness in this matter is reprehensible. That he would put himself before the honor and integrity of a game that’s been played for over a hundred years by men like Hogan, who certainly could have been aided by the use of a cart after his near-fatal automobile accident, demonstrates a level of selfishness unheard of in golf. The damage Casey threatens to do to The Game cannot be measured in prize winnings. Not only do I hope he loses his case, but that he is forced to eat some crow somewhere along the way. He seems oblivious to it now, but one day he’ll wake up and realize that he’s gone from being one of the game’s most sympathetic figures to becoming an icon for selfishness, and in so doing, will become one of the games most detested figures. I pray that won’t happen. But I must repeat something I posted earlier: That we are all blessed with the potential to overcome our own limitations gives us HOPE. It does not provide us with GUARANTEES. There are no guarantees in life, despite what the American judicial system would like you to believe. Nobody knows for sure how the judge will rule. But one thing I’m real clear on is that PROFESSIONAL ATHLETIC COMPETITIONS are outside the realm of the law’s intent. Senator Harkin may have been quick to summons Casey to Washington for a photo opportunity two weeks ago. But like all other shameless polititians, he’ll take credit for anything, regardless of whether he thought of it. No, the INTENT OF THE LAW was to provide protection for individuals against discrimination in their efforts to find a JOB. Casey’s "job" as a golf professional encompasses many areas. But the "privilege" of getting to compete in golf tournaments for PRIZE MONEY is nothing more than a fringe benefit, available only to those who can compete at the highest level while complying with the requirements of competition. Professional athletic competition, as it pertains to golf professionals, is not "employment." And to compete at that level IS NOT A **RIGHT**. If it were, every scratch golfer in the world would be out there trying. Once again: Professional athletics is about that–athletics. It’s about measuring a person’s physical skills AND their limitations. Randy
Response:
Corby, I’ve read your numerous posts on this subject, and your position (as I understand it) is pretty clear: Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that because Casey has a congenital physical disability, he’s entitled to a "fair" compensation to help "level the playing field." In this case, it is asserted, such a compensation would be a cart.
Like many others, you have misunderstood. It is, I am sure, Corby’s position(and mine), that using a cart does not "level the playing field" but allows him on the field in this PARTICULAR SPORT. If Casey were a baseball player, and it was apparent that he was gifted enough to hit a baseball farther than anyone else, would you say that Major League Baseball should be required by law to allow him to hit a baseball while seated in a wheelchair, then "roll" to first base (assuming he was fast enough to beat out the throw)? And if so, should the rules be "bent" somewhat to allow him to roll past the base, since it would be harder for someone in a wheelchair to stop on the bag? That would certainly help "level the playing field."
Different sport, with different physical requirements needed to play the game. Or if Casey were a football player–let’s say an offensive lineman–would it be right to change the rules of football to restrict the defensive lineman on the other side to wait three seconds–"one-one thousand, two-one thousand, three-one thousand"–before starting to charge the quarterback, just because Casey has a bad leg? That would help "level the playing field." The whole idea is just ridiculous.
Different sport, with different physical requirements needed to play the game. What if Casey were BLIND? (There ARE blind golfers, you know–some of them quite good.) It is a violation of the Rules of Golf to allow a caddy or playing partner to "show" the line to a player. Blind golfers play with "spotters," who, essentially set up the player to the ball, position their club on the ground and then step out of the way. This would be illegal under the Rules. If a blind golfer ever comes along who is the exception and can compete at the highest level, would you argue that the Rules should be changed to make accomodations?
Not the same thing. Martin isn’t looking for anyone to help him play or change the essence of the game. First, Casey isn’t being discriminated against for a job. And second, where in the ADA does it say anything about the need to level the playing field IN ATHLETIC COMPETIONS, pro or otherwise? This is obviously outside the INTENT of the law. And those of you who don’t see that are overlooking the obvious and getting sucked in by the emotion of this case.
I would claim that tou are overlooking the obvious and getting sucked in by the emotion of the case. Casey is not–I repeat, he is **NOT**–being discriminated against by a potential **EMPLOYER**. The PGA TOUR is not the players’ EMPLOYER. They are merely a non-profit organization which stages professional athletic competitions benefitting charities.
Ah, but the court may think otherwise. We all admire his skills, but I’m not going to shed one single tear over any supposed limitation to his earnings potential. The Nike endorsement deal he’s already signed will net him more than most Americans will earn But what he wants is to enter professional golf tournaments without complying with the requirements. It’s that simple. And like many other spoiled children, since he hasn’t gotten his way, he’s throwing a hissy fit. Somebody oughta turn him over their knee and give him a good spanking. His tears in court yesterday (2/3) were no doubt genuine, but little more than a ploy by his attorney to shift emphasis away from the rational thought involved in weighing issues.
Oh my god, Casey doesn’t need to play the tour to make money, he can do other things. Big deal. Alot of people choose professions for reasons other than money. And who are you to say what any person should or shouldn’t do. You have no right to make any such judgement about another person.
Response:
Corby, Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that because Casey has a disability, he’s entitled to a "fair" compensation to help "level the playing field." Like many others, you have misunderstood. It is, I am sure, Corby’s position(and mine), that using a cart does not "level the playing field" but allows him on the field in this PARTICULAR SPORT.
Fine. Are you suggesting that it is fair in an athletic competition for different rules to apply to different contestants? Furthermore, "allowing him on the field" is not a right. If it were, every scratch golfer would be out there now. If Casey were a baseball player, [snip] Different sport, with different physical requirements needed to play the game.
Right, it doesn’t require walking as TOURnament golf at the highest level does. Or if Casey were a football player–[snip] Different sport, with different physical requirements needed to play the game.
Right, it doesn’t require walking as TOURnament golf at the highest level does. What if Casey were BLIND? [snip] Not the same thing. Martin isn’t looking for anyone to help him play or change the essence of the game.
No, but he IS looking for them to change the fundamental nature of competition. Name ONE SPORT in which different rules apply to different players. Casey is not being discriminated against by a potential **EMPLOYER**. The PGA TOUR is not the players’ EMPLOYER. Ah, but the court may think otherwise.
On this we agree. That is, indeed, what the court will decide. However, there is a legal definition of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. And as I understand the TOUR’s structure, they don’t qualify. The TOUR obviously doesn’t see themselves as the players’ employer. I’m not going to shed one single tear over any supposed limitation to his earnings potential. [snip] Oh my god, Casey doesn’t need to play the tour to make money, he can do other things. Big deal. Alot of people choose professions for reasons other than money. And who are you to say what any person should or shouldn’t do. You have no right to make any such judgement about another person.
I’m not making that judgement. I’d love nothing more than to see Casey overcome his disability, walk the courses and win. All I’m saying is there are some roles in life which are inappropriate for certain people to fill. For example, if a kidnapper snatched an infant from a shopping cart, would you want the policeman who chases after the kidnapper to be in a wheelchair? Of course not. My heart goes out to Casey, as everyone’s does. But if the court decides that professional athletic competition at its highest level is open to the ADA, watch out. Build ramps in the parking lots, make the porta-potties wheelchair-accessible, even provide special "viewing areas" at golf tournaments for those who must remain seated in their wheelchairs. But don’t change the rule for one player. Then, you’ve changed the fundamental nature of competition. I’m sorry, but not all athletes are created equal. Athletics are about measuring their skills AND athleticism, not about giving some of them a head start just so they can compete. Randy
Response:
No, but he IS looking for them to change the fundamental nature of competition. Name ONE SPORT in which different rules apply to different players. Again, we disagree. You think walking is fundamental to the game, I don’t.
Gary, I’ll try this one more time. Name ONE SPORT in which different rules apply to different players. As far as the "walking is fundamental" argument, I agree, walking is NOT fundamental to the game of golf, as its played by 40-million of us. But in TOURNAMENT golf at its highest professional level, it is. That there is a distinction at the professional level is not unique to golf. The 3-point line is different in the NBA than in all amateur levels. The kicking tee in the NFL is lower than in the NCAA. And there are lots of other examples in which rules OF COMPETITON are different at the pro level. Y’know, I got to thinking today what a wonderful story it was when Ben Hogan overcame his physical disability, wobbly legs and all, to come back from his near-fatal auto accident and win the U.S. Open. I wonder how much less of an accomplishment it would’ve been viewed as if he’d been the only player on the course with a cart. I feel sorry NOW for Casey. I’ll REALLY feel sorry for him if he gets his cart and becomes a lightning rod for antagonism leveled toward him by players and fans of the game. But don’t count on me rooting for him. Praying, yes. Rooting, no. Randy
Response:
Fine. Are you suggesting that it is fair in an athletic competition for different rules to apply to different contestants?
Obviously, we have a difference of opinion on our definition of rules that apply to the playing of the game. Furthermore, "allowing him on the field" is not a right. If it were, every scratch golfer would be out there now.
Not if they can’t qualify based on their golf game. Besides, how come the PGA tour has allowed the use of carts in all the rounds prior to the finals, prior to the Martin issue came up? Right, it doesn’t require walking as TOURnament golf at the highest level does.
Again, I don’t feel that walking is integral to the game. You do. What if Casey were BLIND? [snip] Not the same thing. Martin isn’t looking for anyone to help him play or change the essence of the game. No, but he IS looking for them to change the fundamental nature of competition. Name ONE SPORT in which different rules apply to different players.
Again, we disagree. You think walking is fundamental to the game, I don’t. Ah, but the court may think otherwise. On this we agree. That is, indeed, what the court will decide. However, there is a legal definition of what constitutes an employer-employee relationship. And as I understand the TOUR’s structure, they don’t qualify. The TOUR obviously doesn’t see themselves as the players’ employer.
Again, the legal definition will be what the judge rules, not what you or I think. Of course, if the TOUR doesn’t see themselves as the Player’s employer, how do you explain fines and suspensions that the tours issue against the players? Gary
Response:
Again, the legal definition will be what the judge rules, not what you or I think. Of course, if the TOUR doesn’t see themselves as the Player’s employer, how do you explain fines and suspensions that the tours issue against the players?
If you’re giving a ticket for drunk driving and the judge fines you $1000 and suspends your license for 6 months, does this mean he is your employer? David http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/3580/
Response:
Again, the legal definition will be what the judge rules, not what you or I think. Of course, if the TOUR doesn’t see themselves as the Player’s employer, how do you explain fines and suspensions that the tours issue against the players? If you’re giving a ticket for drunk driving and the judge fines you $1000 and suspends your license for 6 months, does this mean he is your employer?
Obviously not. And they are the same? How? I suppose you can be fined by just anybody, then? Oh, I see, there must be a law that allows judges and the PGA tour to fine people.
Response:
writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I know I’ll get flamed for posting this exchange between Corby Gilmore and myself, but I’m at my wit’s end on this whole Casey Martin debate. I CAN’T BELIEVE THE COURTS IN OUR COUNTRY HAVE ALLOWED IT TO GET THIS FAR!!!!!! (GIVEN THE CLIMATE OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, MAYBE I SHOULDN’T BE SO SURPRISED.) Remember, as it stands now every healthy PGA pro (including Craig Stadler) has an unfair advantage over Casey Martin because they can walk 18 holes, and he can’t. The cart does NOT, repeat NOT give Martin an advantage; it only negates the disadvantage he would otherwise be subjected to. Okay, Corby… You’re right. Craig Stadler and the rest of the able-bodied pros have an advantage over Casey. They also have an advantage over you and me. That doesn’t mean we’re entitled to get "strokes" to help level the playing field. John Daly has an advantage over the rest of the field because he hits the ball farther. That doesn’t mean that everyone else should get to tee from the "white" tees! [snip] Professional athletics is about that–athletics. It’s about measuring a person’s physical skills AND their limitations. Randy I agree with you. However, none of the examples you cite have anything to do with a congenital physical disability. They can all be overcome with hard work, practise, perseverance and dedication. Casey Martin’s disadvantage cannot. That is the difference. Corby, I’ve read your numerous posts on this subject, and your position (as I understand it) is pretty clear: Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that because Casey has a congenital physical disability, he’s entitled to a "fair" compensation to help "level the playing field." In this case, it is asserted, such a compensation would be a cart. Is that your position? If it is, let me ask you this: If Casey were a baseball player, and it was apparent that he was gifted enough to hit a baseball farther than anyone else, would you say that Major League Baseball should be required by law to allow him to hit a baseball while seated in a wheelchair, then "roll" to first base (assuming he was fast enough to beat out the throw)? And if so, should the rules be "bent" somewhat to allow him to roll past the base, since it would be harder for someone in a wheelchair to stop on the bag? That would certainly help "level the playing field." Or if Casey were a football player–let’s say an offensive lineman–would it be right to change the rules of football to restrict the defensive lineman on the other side to wait three seconds–"one-one thousand, two-one thousand, three-one thousand"–before starting to charge the quarterback, just because Casey has a bad leg? That would help "level the playing field." The whole idea is just ridiculous. What if Casey were BLIND? (There ARE blind golfers, you know–some of them quite good.) It is a violation of the Rules of Golf to allow a caddy or playing partner to "show" the line to a player. Blind golfers play with "spotters," who, essentially set up the player to the ball, position their club on the ground and then step out of the way. This would be illegal under the Rules. If a blind golfer ever comes along who is the exception and can compete at the highest level, would you argue that the Rules should be changed to make accomodations? There are a couple of problems with this whole pro-Casey argument: First, Casey isn’t being discriminated against for a job. And second, where in the ADA does it say anything about the need to level the playing field IN ATHLETIC COMPETIONS, pro or otherwise? This is obviously outside the INTENT of the law. And those of you who don’t see that are overlooking the obvious and getting sucked in by the emotion of this case. Casey is not–I repeat, he is **NOT**–being discriminated against by a potential **EMPLOYER**. The PGA TOUR is not the players’ EMPLOYER. They are merely a non-profit organization which stages professional athletic competitions benefitting charities. If he wants a **JOB** with the PGA TOUR, I have no doubt he would be judged as to his qualifications without regard to his disability. If the TOUR were to discriminate against him for a "job," then, he’d have a case under the ADA. But he’s not applying for a job. He’s trying to enter athletic competitions. We all admire his skills, but I’m not going to shed one single tear over any supposed limitation to his earnings potential. The Nike endorsement deal he’s already signed will net him more than most Americans will earn in a lifetime. He can ply his skills as a golf instructor (David Ledbetter, Butch Harmon, Hank Haney, Jim Flick and scores more earn well into six-figures). He can manage golf facilities (the earnings potential for being "Director of Golf" at some of the country’s fine facilities is well into the six-figure range, sometimes with a nice million-dollar house thrown in). He can make golf videos, write golf books, maybe even go to work for the PGA TOUR. There are lots and lots of "jobs" that he is not only qualified for, but would be a great candidate for. Who WOULDN’T hire him, for crying out loud??? He’d be a tremendous attraction for business. But what he wants is to enter professional golf tournaments without complying with the requirements. It’s that simple. And like many other spoiled children, since he hasn’t gotten his way, he’s throwing a hissy fit. Somebody oughta turn him over their knee and give him a good spanking. His tears in court yesterday (2/3) were no doubt genuine, but little more than a ploy by his attorney to shift emphasis away from the rational thought involved in weighing issues. Alright–nobody else has said it, so I will. Casey’s self-centeredness in this matter is reprehensible. That he would put himself before the honor and integrity of a game that’s been played for over a hundred years by men like Hogan, who certainly could have been aided by the use of a cart after his near-fatal automobile accident, demonstrates a level of selfishness unheard of in golf. The damage Casey threatens to do to The Game cannot be measured in prize winnings. Not only do I hope he loses his case, but that he is forced to eat some crow somewhere along the way. He seems oblivious to it now, but one day he’ll wake up and realize that he’s gone from being one of the game’s most sympathetic figures to becoming an icon for selfishness, and in so doing, will become one of the games most detested figures. I pray that won’t happen. But I must repeat something I posted earlier: That we are all blessed with the potential to overcome our own limitations gives us HOPE. It does not provide us with GUARANTEES. There are no guarantees in life, despite what the American judicial system would like you to believe. Nobody knows for sure how the judge will rule. But one thing I’m real clear on is that PROFESSIONAL ATHLETIC COMPETITIONS are outside the realm of the law’s intent. Senator Harkin may have been quick to summons Casey to Washington for a photo opportunity two weeks ago. But like all other shameless polititians, he’ll take credit for anything, regardless of whether he thought of it. No, the INTENT OF THE LAW was to provide protection for individuals against discrimination in their efforts to find a JOB. Casey’s "job" as a golf professional encompasses many areas. But the "privilege" of getting to compete in golf tournaments for PRIZE MONEY is nothing more than a fringe benefit, available only to those who can compete at the highest level while complying with the requirements of competition. Professional athletic competition, as it pertains to golf professionals, is not "employment." And to compete at that level IS NOT A **RIGHT**. If it were, every scratch golfer in the world would be out there trying. Once again: Professional athletics is about that–athletics. It’s about measuring a person’s physical skills AND their limitations. Randy
I can’t believe I actually got sucked into this endless debate, but here goes anyway. IF walking is a part of the sport of golf that plays a part in the outcome of the tournaments, why are us amateurs sometimes forced to ride carts? Why don’t they send all golf carts everywhere to a landfill and never allow another cart on any course to be used by a golfer? Why does the Senior Tour allow carts? These are merely pro golfers who have incurred disabilities because of their advanced age. Do the seniors who ride have an unfair advantage over the ones who don’t? Tradition be damned. The PGA is one of the most pious, hypocritical organizations in the world. The PGA has already caused serious self-inflicted wounds by opposing Martin. If they had said, this young man can really play golf and we don’t want to stand in the way of amateurs of pro’s either who want to play golf either for recreation or competition, they would have been applauded by most all people who are interested in golf. Sure, there would have been the ususal stuffed-shirt opposition to this change, just like Ben Hogan opposed cavity back irons and the well known PGA challenge to the Pings that made golf a little easier. But no, the PGA must uphold their precious tradition. Crappo! I tell you what. If the PGA wants to make top physical conditioning a factor in the tournaments, lets do away with the players caddies (servants). Yeah, I’d love to see these physical specimens toting those tour bags down the fairway. Even the ones that could do it would have to retire at 30. So how far do you take
… read more »
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Again, the legal definition will be what the judge rules, not what you or I think. Of course, if the TOUR doesn’t see themselves as the Player’s employer, how do you explain fines and suspensions that the tours issue against the players? If you’re giving a ticket for drunk driving and the judge fines you $1000 and suspends your license for 6 months, does this mean he is your employer? Obviously not. And they are the same? How? I suppose you can be fined by just anybody, then? Oh, I see, there must be a law that allows judges and the PGA tour to fine people.
When logic creeps into your world maybe you might understand the parallel I was drawing to your ludicrous statement. David http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/3580/
Response:
When logic creeps into your world maybe you might understand the parallel I was drawing to your ludicrous statement.
Whatever.