Casey Martin fiasco

[Mi_chief_fan]

Now, i'll admit it: I [b]HATE[/b] golf. Can't play. Can't stand to watch. The very thought of calling these spoiled, rich brats 'athletes' makes me either want to laugh uncontrollably, or vomit(it's a fine line, you know).

However, the whole Casey Martin fiasco really bugs me. Those who say that he should be able to use this cart, as a result of the disabilities act, are really disillusioned. Somehow, I doubt the NBA, NHL or NFL would allow such a thing either.If so, Joe Montana might have led the Chiefs to a couple of Super Bowl wins.

I guess what it comes down to is this: is golf a 'sport'? For them to be taken seriously, they really need the Supreme Court to turn down Martins request.

If Martin wins, i'll be entering my golf cart in this year's Boston Marathon. :D:

[Gaz]

Either you allow all competitors to use a cart, or you allow none of the competitors to use a cart, regardless of their physical limitations.

xoxo~
gaz
has little patience for special dispensation.

[Baby Lee]

A person with Tourettes or panic attacks can perform the normal motions of the game. In fact, these disabilities are often paired with some form of OCD, which can be steered into a practice discipline.

[for instance, Machmud Abdul-Rauf [I have no idea how close I am on the spelling] had Tourettes and OCD and played in the NBA. His condition manifested in expessive blinking and he often took 30-45 minutes to tie his shoes before the game, lacing and re-lacing 10-12 times. But he also practiced 3s obsessively and had a pretty good run as a 3-point slinging guard].

However, with panic attacks you can't perform in front of a crowd. I see no more judicial activism in Court finding as a matter of fact that a crowd of onlookers is not intinsic to the sport as finding that walking the course is not an intrinsic part of the sport. If your comfortable with the Court ordering an accomodation in one case, you should be comfortable with the court ordering an accomodation in the other.

[DanT]

Mile High Mania,

Yeah, I agree with your general point of view (that accomodations that don't threaten the essential integrity of the sport should be made), I was just pointing out that the particular case of panic attacks could be something that becomes an issue for an exceptional athlete well after he or she progresses through little-league, high school and even professional developmental leagues. You and I are both taking a pragmatic approach to this issue.

[DanT]

Hey JC~Johnny,

Your mention of Abdul-Rauf reminds me of an interesting book on neurology and sports called, "Why Michael Couldn't Hit And Other Tales of the Neurology of Sports" by neurologist Harold Klawans, M.D.

[url]http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0380730413-4.[/url]

(The title alludes to Michael Jordan's unsuccesful pro baseball career.) The author talks about Abdul-Rauf's case and some other interesting ones. It's an interesting read.

I agree that it's very unlikely that any court would find the presence of a crowd to be extrinsic to a spectator sport. Hell, most people would accept that a lot of what distinguishes professional golfers, bowlers and billiards players from the rest of us is not their particular techniques, it's their ability to perform those techniques over and over again at a high-level while under scrutiny from others.

[Edited by DanT on 01-19-2001 at 01:50 PM]

[TexN]

raiderhader

I have to agree with you. My criticism is directed toward the PGA. I don't suggest, or support, a government mandate, and I don't think the ADA issues apply.

I am just giving my opinion on the issue of wheather or not I THINK he should be allowed to play.

And again, I would like to point out that the football (and most other) analogies are completely off base.

The comment about women stands.

TexN

[Raiderhater]

[QUOTE]If a woman ran a 4.1 40, was 6 foot 5, and could flat out catch, you'd allow her on the Chiefs' roster as well.[/QUOTE]

Pitt,
actually I wouldn't.

[QUOTE]I wouldn't mind women in a men's club. Actually, I find the thought very inviting.[/QUOTE]

Pitt,
I have a big problem with it because men can't be themselves around women. You never know when you are going to be charged with sexual harrasment (for as little a thing as looking at them "in the wrong way"). The reason they have these clubs is so that guys can get away from time to time.


[QUOTE]raiderhader--
Tell me what rule in the NFL says that women can't play? I would've taken Mia Hamm over Elliott any day of the week.[/QUOTE]

Mark,
I never said that there was a rule. I was using that as an example of how these things can go to far.

[QUOTE]And again, I would like to point out that the football (and most other) analogies are completely off base.

The comment about women stands.[/QUOTE]

TexN,
the NFL analogy does work because I used it as an example of a private organization that could have its rules tampered with by the courts to allow someone that the NFL doesn't wan't.
As for the comment about women, I hope you didn't think I was chastising you because I wasn't. More or less being a smart alleck. Trust me, most women I know would tell you that I am no friend to the female population. [img]http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/3dlil/wink.gif[/img]

I agree totaly with Gaz in post #60.

[KCWolfman]

Brad - Sorry, any rules changes in any competition should be across the board, not for any individual....

Any of you who support Martin's action are welcome to this answer, please:

Name one solitary male professional televised sport that allows only certain players advantages not directly related to the game due to their disabilities.

[Logical]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ENDelt260 [/i]
[B]I feel this thread needs some attention. [/B][/QUOTE]

Attenshun!

[NaptownChief]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ENDelt260 [/i]
[B]I feel this thread needs some attention. [/B][/QUOTE]


Why?

[JOhn]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ENDelt260 [/i]
[B]I feel this thread needs some attention. [/B][/QUOTE]lonelyness sad thingy