Don't know if this is strictly relevant, but the Casey Martin argument reminded me to look and see what I thought at the time. . . . .
PLEASE FORWARD TO GLENN REEVES AND ANG SPORTS. THIS IS A GOLF COLUMN FOR THE TUESDAY SAN MATEO TIMES.
by Gib Papazian
It was last Saturday afternoon and your faithful scribe was seated at the local 19th hole with the usual cast of cranks, naysayers and curmudgeons. It was too early for the Sony Open, so our dutiful bartender switched on the inauguration.
Perhaps in part due to our new president’s well known lineage (his great-grandfather is the Walker in Walker Cup), this spawned a surprisingly rational and respectful discussion on taxes, abortion rights and race relations in America.
Being bi-partisan golfers, we politely agreed to disagree, noting that anyone who came from a family of USGA Presidents couldn’t be too bad - at least this president wasn’t likely to be a golf cheat.
The trouble started when the wet blanket who haunts the end of the bar brought up the single most divisive subject facing America today. That’s right, in a time of hopeful renewal and celebration (or protest depending on who you ask), he had to mention Casey Martin.
The cause du célèbre of the national press is back in the headlines. It has been more than three years that the courts have grappled - and America has debated - this uncomfortable subject with no resolution. Supposedly, we will soon come to the end of these endless legal machinations, but truly contentious issues like this tend to precipitate endless appeals.
Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, this series of court cases has revived the age old debate on how far government can intrude on the rights of private organizations. Specifically the use or misuse of well-intentioned laws out of their original context to advance some social or politically correct agenda.
In some measure, it mirrors the same national epoch brought on by Hal Thompson’s ill advised public comments at Shoal Creek. Only this time, the villain held up for derision by the non-golfing media is not an ignorant and senile racist in the Deep South, but the very organizations that govern our game.
One radio pundit, on our local sports station, hinted darkly last week that the PGA’s “Caucasian Only” clause of the early 1960's invalidated the Tour’s right to uphold their decision on the Casey Martin case. A bizarre linking of issues, but a good example of the vitriolic and irrational passions this debate has ignited.
Granted, Tim Finchem and the PGA Tour are not sympathetic characters, but both the PGA and United States Golf Association carry a long history of support for both under privileged children and handicapped golf.
The primary distinction is that this debate isn’t about minor competitions, this is about the game of golf on its highest levels. Walking one round of golf is not taxing for sure, but competitive golf - especially on the amateur level - is not always confined to 18 holes. To suggest that the ability to walk 36 holes in competition under stifling pressure is not part of the game is patently ridiculous.
The one fundamental rule we cling to tenaciously is the notion that everyone adheres to the same rules. Regardless of how sorry you feel for Martin’s plight, his legal pleas clearly marginalize that concept.
Yet, can golf’s governing bodies demonstrate in court that his golf cart measurably affects tournament outcomes?
Casey Martin’s first victory on the Nike Tour was achieved when many of his closest competitors had to slog through two rounds in miserable weather due to a rain delay. Should we affix an asterisk to that victory? Certainly not, but it still begs a question.
It also recalls an ironic pairing during the 1998 U.S. Open at Olympic. There was Casey Martin, motoring down the fairway on his modified cart, playing with a walking Jose Maria Olazabal. Quite a juxtaposition for those paying attention.
It is worth recalling because Olazabal was unable to walk for over a year due to a debilitating foot ailment. He was told by doctors he may never walk a golf course again and was confined only to hitting a few balls.
When asked if he would petition to take a cart, his answer was short and to the point: “Golf is a walking game,” he said. Maybe this is a symbolic dividing line between American and European golfing cultures.
Across the pond, “buggies,” as our golf carts are derisively called, are viewed as an American oddity that erodes the basic social fabric of the game. Here, we have become so accustomed to these mechanical prosthesis, that hardly anyone remembers golf carts were originally meant only to help arthritic golfers.
And because carts are so common in America, it is easy to see how a sympathetic judge could render an incredibly elastic interpretation of the American Disabilities Act. The PGA Tour did not help its case by allowing carts on the Senior Tour.
But this judicial activism - and let’s be honest, golf is an easy game to pick on - has also given rise to some silly lawsuits. In Southern California last year, a bored attorney filed a class action suit in court, demanding bunkers be re-built on all public courses to accommodate wheelchairs.
The rhetoric seems to have escalated to even less circumspect and more righteous and inflammatory rhetoric. So what is the right answer? What is to be done?
In the view of your faithful scribe, the time for golf’s governing bodies to fight this battle is long past; the genie is out of the bottle. The old parental adage has never been truer: you can say “no” a thousand times, but the utterance of a single “yes” in a weak moment wipes the slate clean.
Besides, it is difficult to imagine the PGA Tour taking such a hard line if, for instance, Tiger Woods developed a serious problem. He is their meal ticket and the key to enormous television revenues.
Tiger would be carried around the course by scantily clad harem girls in the manner of a sultan if he demanded it - and Tim Finchem would lead the way. I know it, Finchem knows it and Tiger knows it too.
Like it or not, some golfers are more equal than others in the eyes of the PGA Tour. While the U.S.G.A. has historically stuck to their core principles regardless of financial considerations or legal consequences, they still allot all sorts of “special exemptions.” Remember Hale Irwin in 1990?
Golf’s governing bodies would be well advised to grant a one-time “special exemption” to Casey Martin and simply be done with it. His plight is proving a distraction to addressing far larger threats to the integrity of the game. Ely Calloway’s threats of litigation have far more chilling consequences than one man on a golf cart.
Besides, this is not an entirely unique situation. According to golf historian Bob Huntley, “in the mid to late 19th century, a disabled former Captain of the R&A was permitted to traverse the course during a Medal round . . . on a pony!”