At 10:30 AM 6/7/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Netters:
>
> One result of the Cssey Martin decision has not come up and,
frankky, it just occurred to me though it was plain in front of my face from
te start/.
>
> If the USSC can hold that walking is not essential to the game of
golf, how can all the stupid non-competitive disqualification rules in the
HS rule book stand up? E.G.: wearing jewelry, having your shirt come loose
during a race, a relay team not having exactly the same uniforms
Ed:
I think your analogies are weak and make it more and more obvious that you
have no idea how to interpret or read a Supreme Court decision. The color
of uniforms and the wearing of stuff has nothing to do with ruling on
whether or not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA fundamentally alters
the nature of the event.
Another poster mentioned the possible alteration in the color of a high jump
bar for a visually impaired individual. What is your opinion of that? Or
would you rather try to drag up silly analogies that do not make any sense
whatsoever?
I commend the members of this list that have kept the Casey Martin decision
in an appropriate context. That is the context of common sense.
Tim Willis ESQ.
(770) 939-7669
>book makes it plain that everything must be measured, otherwsie how are you
>going to break a tie by going to the second best jump or throw (this
happened a
>couple of times this year). </FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2> It
>goes even further. A South Jersey coach told me last night that at his
sectioal
>meet, they were using the seed cards to determine the minimum measureable
>distance---anything bettered by half the seeds---or the styarting height in
the
>PV and HJ. Theey were going to start one PV at 12-0 because more than half the
>boys had that height on their seed card. He pointed out that this was the
boys'
>top height, not what they intended to come in at.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT color=#000000
>size=2> &n
bsp;
&nbs
