Playing golf in court no walkover for Martin

Then it was chads. Now the golf course. The long arm of the Supreme Court, it seems, reaches out everywhere. Not that anyone who has ever argued rules with a golfer will be surprised that only the highest court in the land can resolve this one.

Casey Martin (28) has a degenerative birth defect, a circulatory disorder that has atrophied his right leg and makes walking painful. Prolonged walking risks haemorrhaging or a fracture.

But he is also a very talented golfer, at least by most people's definition. He was so successful at amateur level that he decided to go professional, and that's when his real problems started.

The PGA Tour, the body of pro golfers which controls the professional circuit, ruled that the buggy he used in amateur competition was no longer permissible. It gave him an unfair advantage, they argued.

Faced with the loss of his career Casey Martin in 1997 sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. His argument, that, far from giving him an advantage, the buggy simply levels the playing field. And, crucially, that walking is not essential to the essence of the game of golf.

Initially a district court agreed with Martin that the PGA Tour had acted unfairly and gave him an injunction requiring the tour to allow him to play. The PGA Tour appealed, and lost, so he played on.

Last week the issue ended up before the Supreme Court whose ruling is awaited with considerable interest in sporting circles.

To complicate matters, a day after his appeal court ruling, another court in Chicago ruled the opposite. It rejected a claim for a buggy by another disabled golfer, Ford Olinger, arguing that issue was not a proper one for the courts but should be determined by those who made the rules of golf.

There are important issues at stake for all of sport, not least, whether it can stand apart from the standards of fairness and equality that prevail in other forms of social activity and which are ultimately adjudicated on by the courts.

The PGA Tour claims that it is fighting the good fight for all sports organisations, conjuring up the prospect of similar claims across the board and the loss of sovereignty over the rules by sports governing bodies. But the Martin circumstances are not that straightforwardly applicable elsewhere and the Act could not be used to fundamentally alter the rules or character of a game. There is, moreover, a strong case that the tour is not being consistent in its argument about the intrinsic importance of walking to the game. With buggies acceptable in the amateur game it rests on a case that says pro golf is actually a different sport.

A statement by the PGA Tour made the argument: "Professional golf is an athletic competition and the ability to walk five miles each day for four consecutive competitive rounds, week after week, often under adverse conditions and over challenging terrain, is part of the endurance and stamina required to play professional golf at its highest level. The average golfer on the PGA Tour competes in 20 events, and walks about 400 miles per season. . .

"Should recreational golfers be permitted to use motorised transportation in order to play the game?" is a far different question than, "should professional golfers be permitted to use motorised transportation to compete in a sport?"

"Also, an important point: professional golfers earn their living for themselves and their families - recreational golfers do not - an important distinction. Because golfers are athletes, a player must bring all the requisite athletic skills to the competition. This view is shared by all of the major golf organisations around the globe."

The District Court found however that the gentle walking pace of golfers made fatigue "primarily a psychological phenomenon. . . Stress and motivation are the key ingredients here." And it argued that "Mr Martin easily endures greater fatigue even with the cart than his able bodies competitors do by walking".

A University of Miami law lecturer, Susan Stefan, who teaches and practices disability law, agrees. "I support Casey Martin for a whole variety of reasons", she says, noting that the PGA Tour last week gave players carts to ride between certain widely spaced holes in Hawaii, allows its Senior Tour (over-50s) men to use carts, and permits carts in PGA Tour qualifying events. It all suggests "carts are not a fundamental alteration of the game of golf."

On a human level, not a legal one, she says, "what I find hardest to understand is why the PGA Tour is pursuing this so vigorously. It's a public-relations disaster." The press coverage certainly overwhelmingly backs Martin's case with more than one commentator pointing out that Martin provides a magnificent example of the best of the sporting spirit, a refusal to lie down in the face of enormous adversity. The PGA Tour just looks mean.

Out on the course at Pebble Beach in California on Tuesday Casey Martin was playing strongly. He has lost his PGA Tour card for 2001 but is fighting to get back form.

psmyth@irish-times.ie