Whenever any sport changes or is forced to change its game plan, traditionalists inevitably see dire consequences. Night games will doom baseball. The three-pointer will ruin hoops. Tennis will never be the same with metal rackets.
Now, we have similar hand-wringing about the integrity of professional golf following the Supreme Court decision allowing Casey Martin to use a cart on the PGA tour to compensate for a debilitating circulatory disease. But surely a sport that has survived Big Bertha and plaid pants can weather one narrow ruling that rightly enforces the Federal Disabilities Act, which bans discrimination against the disabled in public accommodations. In this case, it should be noted, the public accommodation is really a workplace. For Martin and others who have turned a game into a livelihood, that is exactly what those rolling greens and treacherous roughs represent — a place of business to which the law of our land declares those with disabilities must be given access.
Critics are correct that the ruling opens a window of litigation other athletes may try to exploit, although we doubt you’ll ever see an aging Michael Jordan roaming the baseline in a wheelchair or, as Justice Antonin Scalia suggested, a four-strike exemption for baseball. Critics are wrong, however, in suggesting that the ruling gives Martin an unfair advantage.
The decision simply allows him to compete — to continue to practice his chosen profession. While stamina is a part of the game, use of a cart does not “fundamentally alter” its competitive aspects, as the ruling noted. Finesse will still play an infinitely more important role than force or mere endurance. A motorized conveyance will reduce Martin’s strides — but it won’t help his strokes.
Today's News
