Perspectives of Professional Golfers on the PGA's ADA Obligations

職業高爾夫選手對於PGA在美國殘疾人法案下應負義務之觀點

楊子孟(Tzyy-Meng Yang)；林東興(Tung-Hsing Lin)；陳培季(Pei-Chi Chen)；涂鵬斐(Peng-Fei Tu)

凱西馬汀 ； 職業高爾夫協會 ； 美國殘疾人法案 ； casey martin ； professional golf association ； americans with disabilities act

興大體育學刊

12期（2013 / 01 / 01）

133 - 140

英文

十多年前，凱西馬汀根據美國殘疾人法案（ADA）打贏了一場訴訟官司，得以在PGA美國公開賽中使用高爾夫球車。如今，他重返相同的奧林匹克俱樂部球場，打同樣的美國公開賽。因此，可否在比賽中使用高爾夫球車的辯論，又重新開啟了。最高法院曾以7比2的優勢裁決，顯示對於ADA的強烈支持意圖。然而，從運動員的角度來看，此項判決是感性戰勝理性。在運動競賽中的公平性，簡單地說就是選手必須在相同的規則下進行競爭。一旦競賽的規則和程序受到法院的干預和挑戰，運動的自主性和體育組織的治理角色將被數個對於體育界不利的裁決和決定所撼動。文末對於該案不同價值觀念的意涵提出看法。

More than a decade after winning a legal battle for his right to use a cart on the US PGA Tour under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Casey Martin returns to the Olympic Club to play in the same tournament. The cart debate reopens. The Supreme Court ruled with a 7-2 decision in Martin's favor, showing a strong indication that it upholds the intent of the ADA. However, from the athlete's perspective, the ruling is a triumph of sense over sensibility. Fairness in sports competitions simply means that all competitors play by the same rules. Once the sporting rules and procedures are intervened and challenged before courts, the autonomy of sports and the governing role of sports organizations would be shaken up by several ruling and decisions against the sporting community. The implications of having different values on the Casey Martin case are presented in the end.

1. abcNews.go.com (2001). The Effects of the Casey Martin Ruling. Retrieved September 15, 2012 from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93180&page=1
2. Coleman, J. J.,Debruge, M. L.(1993).A Practitioner’s Introduction to ADA Title II.Alabama Law Review,45,55-57.
3. Epstein, A.(2003).Sports Law.Clifton Park, NY:Thomson/Delmar Learning.
4. ESPN.com (2001). Outside the Lines: Casey Martin's Battle to Ride. Retrieved September 9, 2012 from http://espn.go.com/page2/tvlistings/show42transcript.html
5. Howard, P. K.(1995).The Death of Common Sense.New York:Random House.
6. Johnson, M. (2000). Casey's Cart: A Personal Victory? or a Wake-Up Call for the Movement? Ragged Edge Online. Retrieved September 10, 2012 from http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/extra/caseyscart.htm
7. Johnson, W. (2001). The PGA Tour vs. Casey Martin. The Sport Journal. Retrieved September 9, 2012 from http://thesportjournal.org/article/pga-tour-vs-casey-martin
8. Sandel, M. J.(2009).Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?.New York, NY:Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
9. Shark.com (2001). Norman cheers Martin decision on CNN. Retrieved September 12, 2012 from http://shark.com/play/golf/go_featured_x.cfm?objectid=1311
10. SportsIllustrated. CNN.com (2001). Supreme Court upholds earlier Martin ruling. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1206060
11. Street Law (2001). PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, Casey. Retrieved September 1, 2012 from http://www.streetlaw.org/document/117