REASSESSING MLB’s GREATEST with RACE in MIND:                        Bonds, Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, and Williams©
                                  By John Weston Parry
 
Major League Baseball’s Hall of Fame voting is broken and badly needs repair. That process is overly dependent on subjective beliefs which, among other things, has let racial prejudice influence perceptions and outcomes without meaningful corrections. By attempting to measure athletic greatness and lack of character together, MLB has been fueling that bias since 1936.

This year, as in 2013 and seven times previously, no players were deemed worthy of admission, not even two of the most dominant in MLB history: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Instead, the baseball world was left to celebrate the remarkable career of Hank Aaron, who died a few days earlier.

How does Aaron compare, though, with the two other greatest African American players in MLB history, Willie Mays, and Barry Bonds? How do all three of them compare with greats like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams, who did not compete against African-American and other players of color during all, or the most significant portion, of their careers? How should pitchers be ranked and why have there been so few African-American pitchers selected to the Hall of Fame? How can MLB become less racially biased and its Hall of Fame more relevant? And what role has widespread use of performance-enhancing substances (PEDs) played in this mess?

Four Distinct Eras in Major League Baseball History

A livelier baseball, widespread PED use, and a large increase in foreign players are conditions and circumstances that have helped to create four distinct eras in Major League Baseball history, which have substantially altered player performances and how they should be evaluated. The most profound and enduring influence on the game and its players, though, has been racism and its legacy.   

Lively Baseballs

Major League Baseball’s first full season was in 1901. In those early years, the players were white and baseballs were manufactured by a number of companies. In 1920 MLB established uniform standards for its baseballs, which reportedly made them much livelier. Thus, the prior period from 1901 to 1919 became known as the dead ball era. In the intervening years, suspicions have been raised a number of times that MLB secretly altered those standards at various times to make baseballs even more lively, but the evidence has been inconclusive.

Racism and Racial Prejudice

Despite the annual celebrations of Jackie Robinson, MLB has much to apologize for when it comes to race that cannot be wiped clean by incorporating statistics from the Negro leagues, retrospectively. With the possible exception of Curt Schilling, being a racist rarely has been an impediment to inclusion in MLB or passing its lack of character criteria for greatness.
Racism has been part of the professional game much longer than PED use. The difference is that the mostly white, older sportswriters who have selected players for the Hall of Fame seem to have been obsessively outraged by the later, and not particularly disturbed by the former.

When one reviews the list of all-time MLB greats, it is impossible to escape the ugly specter of racial prejudice. As late as 1959 not every MLB team had broken the color barrier. For years, there were unspoken limits on how many black players would be allowed and at which positions. Even today African-American athletes have been discouraged from becoming pitchers, catchers, and shortstops.

In addition, the major leaguers who played when MLB was entirely or overwhelmingly white did not compete against many of the best baseball players in America. Unfortunately, those great athletes who were in the Negro leagues can only be reliably evaluated based on separate statistics, which were compiled differently from MLB. Simply deeming those two sets of statistics to be equivalent is a mistake because it marginalizes what happened and attempts to erase MLB’s responsibility with a clever public relations gimmick.

Being one of the best athletes to play in the Negro leagues should stand on its own as a criterion for greatness. It does not need to be propped up by MLB. Teams from the Negro leagues regularly beat teams made up in part or entirely of white MLB players, including Babe Ruth. Once Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, African-American players began to dominate the record books, starting in 1954 when Willie Mays won the National League’s Most Valuable Player (MVP) award.
Such domination extended through the 1970’s and into the 1980’s. Led by Barry Bonds African-American players continued to be a strong presence in MLB until 1997 when their numbers began to drop precipitously.

PEDS and Foreign Players

In a very different way, athletes who played in MLB since steroids and other performance-enhancing measures became so prevalent also have performed under substantially different conditions than players from prior eras. Unfortunately, the use of PEDs is clouded by the fact that their widespread presence in baseball and other sports can be traced back to post-World War II years when returning American soldiers introduced the benefits of amphetamines for improving concentration and alertness, and thus physical performance.

Well before the steroid era in baseball, many players were popping pills, including apparently all-time greats. Furthermore, MLB did not penalize players for steroid use until 2004, years after stars like Jose Canseco, Mark McGuire, and 1996 National League MVP Ken Caminiti revealed that they, along with many other players, had been using them regularly for years. The documented steroid era also coincides with the influx of Latino and other foreign players, who now constitute 35% of MLB athletes.

Four Distinct Eras

There are at least four distinct eras in which players can only be reliably judged by comparing them to other players from the same time period. These dates, subject to future revisions, are approximations based on key historical events or trends.

• Dead-ball baseball played exclusively by white players (1901-1919);
• Live-ball baseball played exclusively or almost exclusively by white players (1920-1953);
• Dominance by African-American players (1954-1996); and
• Widespread use of PEDS and the influx of foreign players (1997-present day).

Who Should be Recognized as the Greatest MLB Player of All-Time?

By general consensus, the three greatest white MLB players—excluding pitchers—are Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, and Ted Williams. Cobb and Ruth compiled their statistics competing only against other white players, and Cobb did so mostly in the dead-ball era. Williams had his best seasons competing against only white players before Mays, Aaron, and other great African-American players like Frank Robinson became dominant.

Barry Bonds is the best player from the current era, which has been characterized by widespread use of PEDS and the dominance of foreign players. He also may be the best player from the previous era, winning the first three of his seven MVPs in 1990, 1992, and 1993. Bonds, more so than Mays or Aaron, dominated the game in a way that had not been seen since Babe Ruth.

In judging these all-time great baseball players below, their prodigious statistics have been separated from their social contributions to baseball and their character qualifications, which are far more subjective and often prejudicial factors that have little to do with the quality of their athletic performances.  

Ty Cobb (1905-1928)

The greatest dead-ball, MLB player of all-time was Ty Cobb, although he played much of his career in the live-ball era as well. He only competed against white athletes, but against them, he hit for average more consistently and more productively than anyone else in MLB history. He was the Pete Rose of his day, but: his lifetime batting average of 366 was more than sixty points higher. He also had the best OPS (on base percentage and slugging percentage combine) 10 times and he led the league in runs scored or runs batted in nine times. Furthermore, Cobb won the home-run tile with 9 in 1909, led the majors in total bases six times, and finished behind only Ruth, Bonds, and Mays in career Wins Against Replacement (WAR) when compared to everyday players.

In addition, Cobb was the best base stealer of his era (892), although his success rate was not particularly high based on modern standards. Furthermore, although the available statistics are somewhat unclear, he appears to have been at least an above average fielder because the Detroit Tigers designated him to play center field, which is the most valuable outfield position. 

For a long time, Cobb was portrayed as a reprehensible southerner who reportedly was an avowed racist, violent, and took pleasure injuring his opponents when he slid spikes high to avoid a tag or break up a double play. That portrayal has since been corrected by baseball historians and Ken Burns. There is little substantial historical evidence, beyond second-hand opinions, to support these accusations against him, except that he tended to be aggressive on the base paths and had a cantankerous personality. He also established a large college scholarship program for residents of his home state of Georgia.

Babe Ruth (1914-1935)

Babe Ruth is the best baseball player from the exclusively white eras and statistically has the best offensive career numbers in MLB history. He had the best OPS in the majors thirteen times and the best overall OPS ever, along with the best career WAR. His lifetime .342 batting average was in striking distance of Williams’ and only.24 behind Cobb, but his power numbers and yearly run production totals surpassed everyone. He was the home run king at a time when only the knockout in boxing was celebrated more in sports. He finished with the magic number 714, which Aaron and then Bonds finally surpassed. Incredibly, his lifetime numbers would have been considerably greater, except he was so talented he spent most of his first five seasons in the majors as a top flight pitcher winning 94 games. 

Yet, except in exhibitions, Ruth never competed against non-white players, many of the best of whom in his era were in the Negro leagues. Thus, the MLB athletic talent pool during his years was marginalized, certainly as compared to the post-World War II years when African-American athletes supercharged the athleticism of baseball. Ruth also was overweight much of his career so his movement was limited, including his fielding, although, as mostly a right and left fielder, he possessed an outstanding arm.

Much like Cobb, Ruth’s character was complicated, controversial, and disputed, historically. He could hardly be described as a good will ambassador, though. He drank and ate too much and for years partied with many different women. Next to Jackie Robinson, however, he had the most profound impact on the game of baseball of any player in history. He was a mythic figure, who made MLB one of the most compelling entertainment venues throughout the Roaring Twenties and lifted the spirits of the nation during the Depression. This added immeasurably to his legacy of athletic greatness.

Ted Williams (1939-1960)

Ted Williams is the second-best white baseball player in MLB history based on his combined offensive statistics, which are only somewhat below those of Ruth. That level of excellence is reflected in his career OPS, which trails only Ruth, as well as his .344 lifetime batting average. In his ten best baseball years, Williams was a run producing machine leading the majors in scoring runs or runs batted in eleven times. He also led the major leagues in homers four times and finished his career with 521. In addition, like Barry Bonds, he had a superb eye for the strike zone, leading the league in walks seven times during his ten best seasons. Remarkably, Williams voluntarily lost nearly five years in the prime of his career to military service as a fighter pilot in World War II and then the Korean War.

Not coincidentally, his ten best offensive years, including when he became the last player to hit 400 for a full season (406), all occurred before baseball was well-integrated with African-American players. In fact, the Boston Red Sox, the team he played for, did not integrate until 1959 at the end of Williams’ stellar career. Defensively, as a left fielder, Williams was mediocre. He had a good arm, but lacked foot speed, which is why he only stole 24 bases in his entire career. 

Williams was never a celebrity like Joe DiMaggio or Ruth. In fact, his personal life left a great deal to be desired, both for himself and those close to him. Reportedly, he was demonstrably kind and generous to some, but not to his wives and children, nor to many sportswriters or fans who were the targets of his unbridled scorn and anger. Still, he was a decorated war hero, who sacrificed a significant portion of his baseball career to risk his life flying combat missions for his country.     

Other White Players of Special Note

A few other white players deserve serious consideration in the conversation about who was best along with Ruth and Cobb. Lou Gehrig (1923-1939) comes closest to Williams in terms of offensive numbers. He even exceeded Williams in scoring runs and batting them in over his career. Gehrig, however, had slightly fewer home runs, a little lower career batting average, considerably fewer walks, and more strikeouts. Furthermore, Gehrig had the luxury of playing with Ruth on the New York Yankees, the best team in baseball. As a result, Gehrig’s lifetime WAR was a slightly lower than Williams’.

Williams’ contemporary Stan Musial (1941-1963) had a little higher WAR and more total bases, but in most other offensive categories he trailed Williams by a little, including lifetime batting average, and in terms of OPS by a significant margin. Williams’ other contemporary Joe DiMaggio (1936-1951) was a more complete ball player and a much greater celebrity being married to Marilyn Monroe, but his offensive numbers fall considerably short of what Williams accumulated. Furthermore, DiMaggio’s WAR lags behind William and other all-time greats.

Mickey Mantle (1951-68), before he was slowed by injuries, was a better all-around player than DiMaggio and was often compared to Mays, but Mantle’s career was diminished by injuries, especially defensively. Lastly, baseball historians will have to wait to see how Mike Trout performs in the second half of his career, but so far, his impressive numbers do not measure up to the greatest, except for his OPS that currently puts him in 8th place all-time.

Willie Mays (1951-1973)

Willie Mays is considered by many—and arguably most—baseball experts as the greatest all-around MLB player ever. He was the epitome of a five-tool athlete, who excelled at hitting for average, hitting for power, fielding, throwing, and running. This is reflected in his 156.2 WAR, which trails only Ruth (182.5) and Bonds (162.8) among everyday players. In addition, Mays is third all time, after Aaron and Musial, with 6066 total bases. 

As good as he was over his career, though, Mays was considerably better during his prime. For a thirteen-year period from 1954-1966, after missing nearly two of his potentially best years in 1952-1953 to military service, Mays compiled better offensive statistics than anyone, including Aaron who broke into the league in 1954. Mays also was the consummate center fielder, dazzling his opponents and fans alike with his amazing catches and throws. He won 12 gold gloves, which ties him with the great Roberto Clemente for the most by any outfielder in history.

During those 13 years, Mays batted over 300 ten times, 296 twice, and 313 or better eight times, including 345 in 1954 and 347 in 1958. He also hit at least 34 home runs in eleven of those years, leading the majors in four seasons in which he hit 52, 51, 49 and 47 homers, respectively. In five of those 13 years, he had a league-leading OPS, and led the majors twice. In addition, he stole 18 or more bases in nine of those years, including leading the majors in 1956-1958 and the National League in 1959.

From 1967 when he was 36 until he retired in 1973 at age 42 playing for the New York Mets, Mays was hardly a five-tool wonder and even his offensive numbers dropped off substantially. Thus, his career totals fall short of Aaron’s, even though during the height of Mays’ career, he was the consensus best player in baseball.

As a baseball trailblazer, Mays is rarely recognized for his off-the field contributions, especially when compared to Jackie Robinson and Aaron. What made Mays unique, though, and so valuable in a civil rights context was the way he thrilled his mostly white competitors and fans. In 1954 he became the first African-American ball player to win a league MVP. By doing so, he established the dominance of black players in baseball’s record books for decades to come. Furthermore, his engaging smile, enjoyment of the game, and the seeming ease with which he performed so well, endeared him to the American mainstream. This made him extremely popular at a time when it was difficult to be a black MLB player as both Robinson and Aaron found out.

Hank Aaron (1954-1976) 

Hank Aaron rivaled Willie Mays as being the greatest baseball player in his era. And, with respect to career numbers, accumulated even better offensive statistics. This advantage was highlighted when Aaron broke the most coveted record in baseball by hitting even more home runs than Ruth.

Aaron finished his career with 733 homers, while Mays had 646. Aaron also has the career records for the most total bases with 6591 and RBIs with 2202. In addition, he is fourth in runs scored ahead of Ruth and Mays, but not Bonds. Furthermore, Aaron was a very good right fielder who won three Gold Gloves. He also had good speed stealing 240 bases over his career. His career WAR of 143.1 puts him in fifth place all-time for everyday players, behind both Bonds and Mays. In addition, he trailed Bonds and Mays in career OPS (.944 vs 1.051 and .949, respectively).

Aaron is celebrated as the greatest by many for a variety of reasons that extend beyond his career statistics and play on the field. While he was clearly second to Mays in terms of popularity and performance for much of his career, Aaron’s pursuit of Ruth redefined who he had been. At a time when Mays was past his prime, Aaron became a national celebrity,
For months, especially in the African-American community, Aaron was more important than Jackie Robinson. Aaron was on a schedule to break an untouchable racial glass ceiling: Ruth’s historic record that for many Americans helped confirm their belief that the best baseball players were white. Once he did, Aaron could do no wrong. He became a civil rights icon, even though off-the-field his advocacy was muted because he was a part of baseball’s establishment. Along with Jackie Robinson day, Aaron’s senior position in MLB was used to disguise a multitude of racial sins in baseball, and to misleadingly indicate substantial racial progress was being made.

Barry Bonds (1986-2007)

With a career that straddled two eras, Barry Bonds was the best baseball player in both. Arguably, he was the best ever, winning the National League’s MVP award a record seven times, more than twice as many as anyone else in baseball history. Bonds came of age just as African-American dominance in the MLB was giving way to the influx of multi-talented Latino and Hispanic players, including Alex Rodriquez and Albert Pujols. Like Mays, his Godfather, Bonds was a consummate five-tool player, and more.         

Statistically, only Ruth exceeded the totality of Bonds offensive career numbers, but the Babe did so against exclusively white competition and before foreign players assumed such an important role in MLB. As an all-around player, Bond’s record exceeds even Mays, displaying more power, equivalent speed and hitting for average, while stealing more bases (514 to 338). Where Mays had a significant edge was in the field. The Say Hey Kid won 12 gold gloves playing a more valuable outfield position. Bonds won eight gold gloves in left field.

Bonds surpassed everyone in home runs. His record total of 762, like Ruth’s 714, will not be broken for many years, if ever. And Bonds like Mays accomplished that feat while playing most of his career in San Francisco where it was particularly difficult to hit homers.

Bonds also has the highest career OPS (1.164) of any player since Ted Williams, including the two highest OPS scores for a single season (1.422 and1.381) and also the third highest tied with Ruth (1.379). Bonds WAR of 162.8 is the second best for any everyday player, again trailing only Ruth. Furthermore, Bonds has the most total bases in history when walks are included, surpassing Aaron, Ruth, Musial, and Mays in that order. That advantage becomes even greater if one accounts for stolen bases.

From 1993 through 2004, Bonds recorded numbers that exceeded those of Ruth in his prime. During that ten-year stretch, Bonds became the only player in history to have an on-base-percentage in a single season over .500, which he accomplished four times, including an astounding .609 in 2004. In addition, during those years he recorded three of the highest slugging percentages ever (.799, .749, .812), as well as the very highest: .863 in 2001.

Yet, despite his jaw-dropping numbers, Bonds has been rejected for the Hall of Fame nine times and is likely to be rejected next year on his tenth try. That means he can only be selected by a special old-timers committee, which would be no more than a consolation prize given his unique baseball stature.

Bonds and PEDs: A Presumption of Guilt

Everyone “knows” Bonds used PEDs, except they don’t. That belief is a largely subjective opinion shared by many, but which is not backed up by clear and convincing evidence. Given what we have seen in recent years in this country, it is reasonable to suspect that at least for some of the overwhelmingly white sports writers who vote for the Hall of Fame, Bond’s race has been a factor and the PED debacle in baseball has been used to camouflage that underlying prejudice.

If suspicion of PED use should be a disqualifying factor for the Hall of Fame—which it should not—most players player from this era could not be admitted. Amphetamines have been a key part of MLB “nutritional” supplements since the late 1940’s. Reportedly, bottles of the stuff circulated locker rooms and most players took them at least occasionally, including Aaron, Mays, Mantle, and Bonds.

The evidence is conflicting as to when steroids, human growth hormones, and other body building substances invaded baseball, but it certainly was no later than the early1990’s and probably well before that. No doubt baseball body types were changing and a number of players confessed to having “juiced” throughout their careers. They also contended many others had joined them, but would not name names. It is important to note that those suspicious body types have never returned to what they were. Today’s most outstanding players, including Mike Trout and Albert Pujols, have body types that closely resemble Bonds in San Francisco, more so than the Mays-like Bonds who played for the Pittsburgh Pirates. 

A key point, though, whatever you believe about PED use in baseball is that MLB did not view it as a serious offense until Congress made it a national issue many years later. In 1991, Commissioner Faye Vincent sent a letter to all the teams, but not the players. That memo stated that steroid use—like spitballs or corked bats—was against the rules, but MLB imposed no testing program until 2003 and no specific penalties until 2004. In other words, MLB, like the NFL, intentionally marginalized the seriousness of illicit drugs that were being used for the purpose of improving performance.

When Congress began holding hearings and then making steroid use illegal legislatively in 2004, things began to change in baseball. MLB commissioned former Senator George Mitchell to investigate. The MLB friendly Mitchell Report was published in 2007, the year Bonds retired. Following its issuance, the FBI was strongly motivated to take steps to show that it was getting tough on PED violators in baseball, so federal law enforcement took aim at several of the highest profile players, including two first ballot Hall of Fame candidates, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, one black and one white.

One of the great misconceptions about PED drug tests is that they are highly accurate and reliable. A significant percentage of test takers register false positives or false negatives in the best of circumstances, and those mistakes can increase substantially if the testing and lab protocols are less than pristine, which reportedly happens often. This is an important reason why MLB never penalized Bonds for his alleged PED use, although he had one positive test result in 2006 for amphetamines.

It also explains why the FBI’s prosecution of Bonds for alleged steroid use and lying about it was ultimately unsuccessful. The federal government’s case was based largely on a 2003 MLB test of Bonds that had produced a negative result. A significant amount of time later, the government re-tested that sample and concluded it was positive for steroids. After a trial, Bonds was found innocent of using steroids, but guilty of lying about it. This seeming logical impossibility, led a federal appeals court to acquit Bonds on that one count, meaning, under the American legal system, Bonds was innocent of all the charges against him.   

Nevertheless, the Hall of Fame voters do not have to go by the evidence or the law. They can arbitrarily determine character faults that make players unworthy of admission based on nothing more than their subjective beliefs and prejudices. That helps to explain why racism, bigotry, domestic violence, and other types of substance abuse are largely ignored as disqualifying factors, while popular suspicions of PED use are deemed a fatal character flaw. 

Only Three African-American Pitchers Are in the Hall of Fame

Pitchers deserve to be in a separate category in determining the all-time greats. To begin with, they are on the field only a fraction of the time compared to everyday position players. Furthermore, more recently those percentages have decreased with each successive generation of pitchers. In addition, even though beginning in the 1950’s African-American players dominated the MLB record books, that dominance did not extend to certain positions due to racial prejudice. As a result, very few African-American players have made the Hall of Fame as shortstops, catchers, and pitchers.

Only three of the 83 pitchers in the Hall of Fame are African American. One of them, Satchel Page, played virtually his entire career in the Negro leagues. The other two are Bob Gibson of the St. Louis Cardinals and Fergie Jenkins of the Chicago Cubs.

Only Gibson, though, is generally considered one of the greatest pitchers ever, coming in #10 according to Bleacher Report’s statistical compilations. Furthermore, the top four pitchers on that list—Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Grover Cleveland, and Cy Young—all established their records pitching against exclusively white opponents. The best pitchers who played against integrated competition, based on these rankings, are Sandy Koufax, followed by Greg Maddux, Tom Seaver, and Randy Johnson. 

Conclusion

The intertwined legacies of MLB and its Hall of Fame should be reassessed in light of racism and the PED debacle that have distorted baseball history. Arbitrarily deciding to paper over what happened in the past by gratuitously equating MLB and Negro league statistics in the record books falls far short of making amends. So much more needs to be done by both MLB and its Hall of Fame.

Less than eight percent of MLB players today are African-Americans. In 1981, just after Mays and Aaron concluded their illustrious careers, it was nearly 20 percent. Nevertheless, in the intervening years, MLB chose to largely ignore the African-American community, preferring instead, under Bud Selig’s leadership—ably assisted by his chief lieutenant Rob Manfred—to make a financial and organizational commitment to attract Latino and other foreign players, who now make up 35 percent of MLB.

At the same time, the dual impact of racism and PEDs has left the Hall of Fame process in shambles. For years, racial prejudice and character assassination by the predominantly white baseball writers who vote for inclusion or exclusion to the Hall of Fame have been camouflaged as simply representing collective expert opinions and beliefs, often shared by the predominantly white baseball fans.

It is well past time to revamp the Hall of Fame, as well as the criteria defining who should be regarded as the greatest to play the game. By rigorously accounting for the subjective impact of racial prejudice and racism in the voting process since the first class of inductees were enshrined in 1936, an entirely different gestalt emerges. Among other things, the character assessments, which are inherently subjective and biased, not only lose their relevance, but the harm that they have caused becomes far more apparent.

In this re-imagined Hall of Fame, PED use can be dealt with by an asterisk and an acknowledgement that it has been and continues to be an unfortunate part of the game, as it is in football, not an arbitrarily determined reason to stigmatize certain players, mainly of color, and give a free pass to the rest. More importantly, MLB should acknowledge that the two leagues and their teams practiced apartheid until 1959. Thereafter this racism was re-framed through powerful constraints on how many African-American players would be acceptable and which positions they would be allowed to pursue. That type of racial prejudice has manifested itself most prominently with pitching, which explains why of the 83 pitchers who have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, only three are African-Americans. 

MLB and its Hall of Fame need to take meaningful steps to address this disgraceful racial legacy. The most recent effort has almost entirely missed the mark by metaphorically equating the Negro leagues with MLB. A sincere reconciliation process could begin by: 

• acknowledging that playing only against exclusively white competition diminishes the records of most of the greatest white players in history, including Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Grover Cleveland, and Cy Young, while, conversely, enhancing the accomplishments of African American players like Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Bob Gibson, and Fergie Jenkins. 
• eliminating the subjective and inherently biased character criterion for the Hall of Fame; and
• celebrating Barry Bonds as probably the greatest MLB player in history, and certainly the greatest African-American player, by inducting him into the Hall of Fame next year by acclimation.

          Not Being Female Enough in Sports© 
                       Who Should Decide and on What Basis?                    
                                   By John Weston Parry
              Update Following the Semenya Olympic Ban©


​The Olympic Controversy over Testosterone

The Court of Arbitration for Sport, the IOC, and WADA

The highly partisan Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)— which is not a court at all, but rather an administrative arm of the largely white, male-dominated International Olympic Committee (IOC)—is turning its back on science, medical ethics, and gender rights with its tentative, arbitrary, and divided conclusions about what it means to be female in sports. This so-called “landmark”—but far from final—ruling threatens to be even more arbitrary and unjust than past unfair competitive advantage collaborations by the CAS, IOC, and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Together, these masculine sports organizations have made a mess of their efforts to regulate performance-enhancing substances, generally. (See, John Weston Parry, “Monumental Mishandling of the Russian Doping Scandal” at Sportpathologies.com and Chapters 8-11 in the Athlete’s Dilemma: Sacrificing Health for Wealth and Fame (Rowman & Littlefield, 2017).  

Testosterone is just one of many such substances that this masculine triumvirate has handled very badly. What make the present situation worse are blatant misogyny and gender discrimination—which CAS has acknowledged, but not really understood—accompanied by underlying racism. The occasion for the latest outrage is a long-running controversy over whether world class South African athlete and multiple Olympic champion, Caster Semenya, who is black, should be prohibited from competing in major Olympic-sanctioned track events in the future because she has always possessed unusually high levels of naturally occurring testosterone, and now it is going to be sanctioned.

It is important to keep in mind that virtually every superstar athlete, whether it is Michael Phelps, Lebron James, Tom Brady, Serena Williams, Novak Djokovic, or Simone Biles, has at least one physical gift that separates them from almost everyone else. Why should testosterone levels be treated any differently than lung capacity, reflexes, flexibility, speed, or power?

One important reason is that relatively rare biological differences in sex development, which used to be called hyperandrogenism, have been subjectively diagnosed as a medical disorder DSD, a new label which still has created widespread professional dissent within the global medical community. It is being applied to women who have been categorized as females all their lives and have always lived as women. This harkens back to the 1970’s when the American Psychiatric Association shamelessly made homosexuality a psycho-medical disorder, while religious groups called it a sin.

CAS ruled that Semenya and athletes like her should no longer be allowed to run in a few but not all races, specifically those from 400 through 800 meters. Semenya’s signature race is 800 meters. The International Association of Athletic Federations (IAAF), the Olympic affiliate lording over track and field, had insisted that the ban should include longer races up to a mile as well. The New York Times reported that the IAAF believes that in all these women’s races, but not other races, these female athletes “gain an unfair advantage… because they have additional muscle mass, strength and oxygen-carrying capacity.” (That sounds like a description of Michael Phelps’ advantages over his male competitors.) With regard to the longer races the CAS recommended, but did not actually mandate, “that the IAAF consider deferring application of its testosterone rule beyond 800 meters `until more evidence is in.’”

The current ban will continue until the Olympic champion reduces her body’s naturally occurring testosterone to specified levels, which the mostly white men who control the male-dominated Olympic sports world believe should be minimally necessary to be considered female. As Monica Hesse explained in the Washington Post, Semenya must be able to show that the amount of testosterone in her blood falls below 5 nanomoles, “which is one-billionth of a mole.” Semenya said ‘`hell, no,’” when asked whether she would comply.

The Scientific Evidence and Medical Ethics

Whether such small differences can be measured accurately is at best uncertain, especially given the fact that different WADA-sanctioned labs and different so-called experts have consistently produced variable results when trying to measure the levels of other performing-enhancing substances. Furthermore, there is no compelling scientific evidence that these differences in testosterone levels have a significant impact on performance. It is all based on inadequate studies that many experts, including endocrinologists from Harvard Medical School and physicians of the World Medical Association (WMA), have warned are scientifically and/or ethically flawed.     

In the recent past, some athletes of color like Semenya, have been forced to mutilate their sex organs so they could compete in Olympic events for their relatively poor nations. Now, an incrementally more enlightened CAS, along with the white, male-dominated IAAF—under the leadership of “Lord” Sebastian Coe—is requiring Semenya, and other athletes like her, to take powerful drugs to reduce their testosterone levels.

Alarmingly, exactly what combination of medications should be used, at what dosage levels, and with what harmful side-effects—including other potentially disqualifying performance-enhancing properties—are left to the athletes’ personal physicians to decipher with those patient-athletes serving as not fully consenting guinea pigs. Even the CAS noted it had “serious concerns” about whether this testosterone policy could be applied fairly.     

There is no definitive scientific proof or standards that support the view that being above this arbitrary level is performance-enhancing for middle distance runners. More importantly, the WMA, through its president, expressed “strong reservations about the ethical validity of these regulations.” The Guardian, a respected British newspaper, reported that WMA’s council had advised “physicians around the world not to take part in implementing the IAAF’s new [gender policy]…[C]ompelling [these] female athletes to take hormone suppressants [would be] contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards.”     

CAS revealed its own ethical uncertainty after issuing a split 2-1 decision, which probably will be appealed to a Swiss federal tribunal for final resolution. All three CAS members joined together to advise: “At a broad level we would hope there is still hope. We believe the IAAF should pause and consider carefully what is the correct way to proceed.”  

The IAAF and Lord Coe

Lord Coe, however—one of the leading proponents for forcing these female athletes to artificially limit their naturally occurring testosterone if they want to be given the privilege to compete as females—revealed no such willingness to wait or reconsider. “`Athletics has two classifications: it has age, it has gender. We are fiercely protective about both. And I am grateful the court for arbitration for sport upheld that principle,’” he pontificated, using the same kind of flawed logic President Trump invoked after the Mueller report.

Comparing age, which is exact, with gender, which is increasingly fluid, is misleading at best. It also has little to do with principle. It is undeniably discriminatory as CAS officials conceded in their own statement: “discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the IAAF’s aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics.”

If IAAF’s prejudiced thinking is upheld, the new battle cry to promote white male privilege may morph into something like: “anything we do is justified as long as we conclude it is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate.” That twisted rationale certainly would appeal to the U.S. Attorney General, as well as a number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Hopefully, the Swiss federal tribunal will smack it down hard, deciding to place human rights above archaic masculine notions about gender and unfair competitive advantages.  
 
Unfair Competitive Advantage Debunked

Boundaries of gender and sexual identity are expanding in much of the Western World, especially among younger generations of Americans. That growing acceptance does not seem to have carried over much to sports, which tend to view these changes through a narrow and outdated prism of unfair competitive advantages. Thus, what increasingly should be viewed as part of natural selection and freedom of choice remains a threat and mystery to male-dominated hierarchies that want to determine what it means to be a female athlete.

This is particularly relevant today because of insensitive controversies surrounding a small—but increasing—number of people, who were viewed as males at birth, but are or will become trans females. Deciding who should be allowed to be female in sports is seen as the prerogative of those who are obviously uncomfortable with these shifting gender boundaries, and female athletes who benefit by drawing the boundaries strictly to help perpetuate their own athletic dominance. For years lesbian athletes were presumed to have some type of unfair competitive advantage, and that prejudice still resides in many people today.  

Unfair competitive advantage is one of the most subjective concepts in sports. If an advantage can be promoted, bought, or sold, it almost always is viewed as fair. The Olympics, for example, place few if any limits on the amount of money and other resources athletes are allowed to receive in order to help them train, be nutritionally fit, and purchase the best coaching and equipment. Similarly, there are few restrictions in professional or collegiate sports on athletes having access to more resources than their opponents. Most limitations, such as salary caps and rules on amateurism, are there to benefit owners and athletic departments.

Yet, female athletes, who naturally have more testosterone than most other females, as well as trans female athletes are treated like—or sometimes worse—than athletes who introduce illicit performance-enhancing substances into their bodies. Female athletes, who produce too much testosterone naturally, are directed to either reduce those natural levels artificially or compete against men. In order to facilitate this prejudice, a medical condition known as hyperadrogenism was invented to justify compelling women and girls with high testosterone levels to accept invasive “treatments.” By making this condition medically abnormal, those who have it are viewed as being “sick.” This same type of bogus medical labeling was used a number of years ago in order to “treat” homosexuality as a disease.

On the other hand, even if trans females have what are considered normal female testosterone levels, they too are very likely to be precluded from competing in high school, college, Olympic, and professional sports as females. A double-standard is in place regarding testosterone levels, which disadvantages both categories of these differently-female athletes. Yet, there is a persuasive argument that as a matter of basic fairness both women and girls with naturally high levels of testosterone and who are transgender should be allowed to compete as the females they view themselves to be. This would be a reasonable accommodation to promote inclusion.

Female Athletes with High Testosterone Levels    

Demanding that female athletes artificially decrease their natural testosterone production for non-health reasons makes about as much sense as requiring Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps to shorten their abnormally long legs and arms so that their stride and reach no longer provide them with an unfair competitive advantage. Hyperadrogenism and now DSD discrimination is sanctioned in the sports world because it affects females who are categorized as abnormal based on their having one characteristic—higher testosterone production—that is narrowly and arbitrarily associated with maleness. The unfair competitive advantage rubric allows this form of invidious discrimination to be considered socially appropriate. Based on that logic, however, very tall female basketball players should be forced to get smaller or play with the men.      

There are certain genetic or physical characteristics that historically distinguish males from females. At the same time, there are obvious emerging areas of gender ambiguity, involving atypical physical characteristics or physiological or psychological needs to alter one’s sexual identity. These become controversial in sports because generally men are presumed to have certain natural athletic advantages over women. No American or Olympic male athlete, though, has been disqualified from a sport because he has overly feminine characteristics that would appear to be an advantage in sports such as gymnastics, figure skating or tennis.

By comparison, female athletes who are perceived to be different in masculine ways, often have to overcome the possibility of disqualification, as well as more generalized invidious discrimination. Such discrimination may be based on either their gender ambiguity or choices about sexual identity. The tennis player and transgender pioneer, Renee Richards, for instance, achieved both condemnation and notoriety in the mid-1970’s when she had surgery that helped her to transition from being a man to becoming a woman. Afterwards, she was never permitted to play sanctioned tennis competitively as a female.

If prejudice against trans athletes in sports was about unfair competitive advantage, however, rather than invidious discrimination, there would be no objection to testosterone-appropriate trans females participating in sports as women and girls. Yet, there is a big human rights problem, which even major American newspapers and their journalists have difficulty grasping, because of the badly flawed and outdated concept of unfair competitive advantage.
 
Physiological Differences

While there have been numerous disagreements as to how females and males differ in ways that affect athletic performances and how that information should be processed, there are relevant physiological differences that have consensus support in the medical and scientific communities. The Washington Post in its “Health & Science Section” focused on five key characteristics.

The first is lean male musculature “particularly in the upper body,” due to “testosterone and other hormones,” which produces added muscle mass for increased power. Second, male hearts normally are bigger, which promotes greater endurance by “send[ing] more blood… [and] oxygen-carrying hemoglobin” to working muscles. For a typical male, that translates into a “15 to 25 percent” increase in “aerobic capacity.”

Third, mature females have and use more estrogen, which allows them to store more body fat, particularly in the hips and breasts. Fat results in a drag on performance. The leaner athletes are the stronger they tend to be in relation to their body mass. That is an important reason why a number of elite female athletes, who compete in skating and gymnastics as adolescents, before their bodies start producing high levels of estrogen, have been able to prevail over older and more experienced athletes in those sports.

Fourth, because females have wider pelvises, the bones that lead to their knee joints are more angled, which creates significantly more stress during their athletic endeavors. This difference makes females “five or six times as susceptible to knee injuries as males….” Women and girls also appear to be more susceptible to concussions. One physiological advantage that females generally have—Novak Djokovic not withstanding—is “range of motion” or “flexibility.” Some of their joints are more “lax” due to “anatomical differences” and possibly “hormones.” This provides females an edge over men in sports like “gymnastics and figure skating,” for example.

It is important to remember, though, that these identified physiological differences between males and females are based on group characteristics. Group dynamics can be unreliable and misleading when applied to specific individuals. This has been particularly true when that information is used to conclude that an athlete should be deemed not female enough to compete as a woman or girl.   

Determining Who Should be Allowed to be a Female Athlete

The favored analyses for the question of who should be allowed to be a female athlete tend to muddle gender-based differences, often in disturbing ways. As discussed earlier, recent notions of sex verification, especially in Olympic sports, equate naturally high testosterone levels in women with their having an unfair competitive advantage due to what is called hyperandrogenism and more recently DSD. In the IOC’s view—and those sports organizations that follow this outdated model—athletes who are affected with this so-called condition are expected to compete as males rather than females, or not compete at all.

The fact that these female athletes with naturally high testosterone levels also have female characteristics that create competitive disadvantages when compared to male athletes becomes marginalized by focusing on only one physical characteristic of many. Having too much testosterone is an arbitrary and ambiguous distinction, especially given the fact that generally elite athletes have at least one physical characteristic distinguishing them from other people. Genetic advantages tend to be important reasons why athletes are able to become elite.

Scientifically, the I.O.C.’s policy of banning women who have naturally high testosterone levels is neither fair nor rational. In an open society the presumption should be that any athlete with a high testosterone level, who has been competing as a female, should be categorized as female. The exceptions would be if the applicable sports authority can prove definitively that those athletes should not be considered females based on multiple, unambiguous scientific measures, or the athletes have cheated by taking substances to artificially boost their testosterone levels. Otherwise, athletes should be allowed to define their genders for themselves.    

With respect to testosterone levels, there appears to be no definitive demarcation that separates males from females. The evidence even remains ambiguous and conflicting as to whether athletes with higher testosterone levels perform better, much less in which sports or what events in those sports. In addition, males and females vary considerably with respect to how their bodies manufacture, store, and use testosterone. Because of these variations it is difficult—if not impossible—to reliably and accurately measure and predict how an individual athlete’s testosterone level will affect his or her performance in a particular sport.

Another major concern is that testosterone testing as presently carried out embraces and encourages gender discrimination by creating a presumption that these female athletes are overly masculine, whatever that means. Generally, female sex testing in sports has been discriminatory because it originated with a presumption of impropriety. Once accused, these athletes are forced to overcome a second, corollary presumption that they have an unfair competitive advantage. The consequences for these athletes can be career and life-altering in very negative ways.

In recent years, the problems with testosterone testing of female Olympic athletes have grown worse in the guise of being fairer. Female athletes who are deemed to be overly male are given an ultimatum. They must choose between two bad alternatives. Either they must have surgery or use powerful drugs to lower their testosterone levels in compliance with a “’therapeutic proposal” prepared by a medical team representing the governing sports body, or be permanently banned from that sport. Should the proposed medical intervention prove unsuccessful in lowering the athlete’s testosterone measurements to what are established as appropriate levels, those athletes also will be banned.

Describing these intrusive medical interventions as therapeutic is nothing less than an Orwellian exercise designed to invade a woman’s body and her civil rights using treatment as the cover. Some reported therapeutic proposals have been horrific. According to the New York Times, sports authorities from certain emerging nations have recommended—and even insisted—that young adult, female athletes become athletically eligible by agreeing to surgeries to remove their gonads and partially remove their clitorises. This is like directing doctors to break the legs of differently-female athletes to ensure their knees are no sturdier than so-called normal female athletes.

Making matters worse, in order to develop these therapeutic proposals, the affected athletes must agree to invasive medical exams and procedures. These intrusions include having x-rays, MRI’s, blood tests, and genital inspections. Moreover, these athletes typically are asked to submit detailed personal accounts about their psychosexual histories. Such outrages have been justified by another Orwellian construct that females, who have high levels of testosterone, are thus sick and should be treated for their own good. Even by the IOC’s loose standards, these egregious due process violations are unconscionable. Yet, they continue to be embraced in the sports world as part of the outdated and misleading notions about what constitutes an unfair competitive advantage.

Gender Discrimination in Professional & Collegiate                     Sports: Glacial Progress Despite Title IX© 
                                     By John Weston Parry
 
Overview
​
Gender discrimination in American sports was supposed to be meaningfully addressed in the early 1970’s. Yet, except for halfhearted support of females in our culture who want to participate in their own athletic competitions (separate but equal)—but only if they do not take resources away from sports played by men—the metaphorical powers that be have tolerated, accepted, and even encouraged gender discrimination in many different ways.

As the second decade of the Twenty First Century is nearing a close, we still hail it as a social breakthrough when a woman (Becky Hammond) is hired to be an assistant coach in the NBA or another becomes privileged enough to do the play by play for a major television network. Female athletes in professional team sports—most notably soccer, basketball, and hockey—continue to earn a small fraction of what their male counterparts receive. And management positions in professional and collegiate sports, even those for women, continue to be dominated by men.

Unfortunately, the one generally accepted measure of diversity progress in major American team sports, a report card from the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports, continues to give out passing—and even above average grades—for diversity and inclusion based on gender to the cartels, which are responsible for running our major sports: the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NCAA. (The NHL refuses to participate in these diversity rankings.) Also, these diversity report cards do not include tabulations for female managers and coaches in sports for men, much less condemn the total absence of women in such positions. 

Even with today’s grade inflation, the Institute’s evaluations inadequately describe the serious gender problems that continue to persist. The overall grade for our major sports, given the glacial progress of the past 50 years, deserves to be an F for failure.

Title IX

Title IX, which was passed in 1972, was one of the most important civil rights statutes of its time. Nevertheless, it was an inadequate substitute for failing to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. There is no doubt that Title IX has empowered many female athletes, especially in high schools and colleges, but as a legal matter it was only intended to cover those public programs receiving federal financial assistance. Furthermore, its implementation has been hampered by politicians, who often constrain the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which is charged with its enforcement.

Since the early 1970’s the NCAA and major division I college athletic programs have tried to undermine Title IX’s mandate that there must be gender equality in intercollegiate sports. Those in opposition repeatedly sued to halt and then slow Title IX’s impact. Today this resistance has shifted somewhat with the times. The NCAA still evidences an underlying hostility towards Title IX, but women’s groups, through litigation and media education, have forced those opponents to be more restrained in their arguments and actions. The new victims in the NCAA’s revisionist history of Title IX are those male athletes who play intercollegiate sports that are being threatened or discontinued in order to create equal opportunities for female athletes.    

There appear to be legitimate concerns that non-revenue sports for men are being curtailed. Nonetheless, why this is happening has little to do with sports for women. Football and men’s basketball at Division I universities and colleges—and many Division II and III schools as well—monopolize resources that could be used to support non-revenue sports for both men and women. As U.S. News and World Report explained, “football keeps eating up larger portions of athletic budgets, and Title IX keeps getting blamed.” In the process sports for women continue to lag behind those for men.

When athletic departments, the NCAA, and their supporters discuss the decline in non-revenue sports for male athletes they all but ignore the money that is needed to support the revenue-depleting sports of football and basketball, including the astronomical salaries of coaches and athletic directors of major sports programs. Instead, they disparage Title IX as a federal intrusion into the educational prerogatives of the affected universities and colleges—which apparently for many of them is the right to discriminate. This is hardly surprising since Division I football and basketball for men are viewed as sacred cows, while sports for women become easy targets in an intercollegiate sports world dominated by men.

Not surprisingly, Division I schools have engaged in various subterfuges to make it appear that there has been substantial progress under Title IX, when in fact there has been considerable resistance and even backsliding. Former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, who since 2001 has been the president of the University of Miami—and an ardent supporter of men’s football and basketball—has acknowledges that “`universities have been end-running Title IX for a long time, and they do it until they get caught.’”  

In one of the more blatant but widespread types of deceptions, university and college athletic departments engage in what is generously referred to as “roster management,” rather than fraud. According to a New York Times study, a large number of Division I programs appear to be “padding women’s team rosters with underqualified… athletes… [and]… counting male practice players as women.” Forty-eight programs have been discovered “double-and triple-counting women… to mask the fact that they have fewer female athletes.” It is a safe bet, though, that many more college athletic programs have implemented similar deceptions without ever being caught.  

Due to Title IX many female athletes are receiving greater opportunities to participate in high school and certain recreational sports. Once they enter college, however, female athletes must contend with the reality that the NCAA and many university and college athletic departments continue to discriminate based on their gender. Remarkably, since Title IX was first enacted, even the opportunities for females to be head coaches of teams for women have spiraled down. In 1972 the vast majority of college teams for women had female head coaches. Today, most do not. In addition, coaches of those women’s teams are paid significantly less then the coaches of men’s teams in the same sports.      

Non-Title IX Sports for Women: The 2015 World Cup

Title IX does not apply to many of our sports, including Olympic competitions and international soccer, basketball, and hockey. Inequities in salaries and playing conditions have led American female athletes to protest and take various job actions, especially for improved pay. An issue that typified these inequalities arose before the 2015 Women’s World Cup was to be played in Canada.

In recent years all the games of the Men’s World Cup have been played on grass mainly for safety reasons. Nonetheless, FIFA and the Canadian Soccer Association ignored warnings and complaints that women soccer players would be at heightened risk of injury since all their games were going to be played on artificial turf to save money. Making this decision worse, a number of studies have demonstrated that female athletes tend to be more vulnerable to the types of leg injuries, especially to their knees, that occur more frequently when soccer is played on artificial turf as opposed to grass. From a health standpoint it is even more important for women soccer players to compete on grass surfaces than for the men.  

Not only were the governing soccer authorities unwilling to rule that women should play on grass fields, but according to Juliet Macur of the New York Times, those officials employed delaying tactics to ensure that any legal complaint to a Canadian court could not be heard until it was too late to book stadiums with grass surfaces. FIFA, soccer’s much-criticized governing body, did not even try to resolve this health dispute. It refused to discuss the matter with the high profile American players, like Abby Wambach, who were leading the players’ protest. Instead, FIFA issued a non-responsive statement claiming that it remains “`a strong advocate for the equal treatment of men and women in all aspects of life.’”

A few months later after the games had been played, FIFA released its own study showing that team doctors had reported a slight decrease in injuries to women players in comparison to previous World Cup competitions played on grass. Keep in mind, however, that team doctors in professional sports often do what those who pay them direct or imply, even if it jeopardizes athletes’ health. (See “The Pitfalls of Team-Directed Medical Care,” in of The Athletes Dilemma: Sacrificing Health for Wealth and Fame (Rowman & Littlefield June 2017). Thus, given FIFA’s reputation for suborning corruption, the accuracy and objectivity of its study deserves to be called into question.      

Media Bias

Issues related to gender receive less media attention than race for men because female athletes almost never participate in our four major professional sports leagues or the most important and lucrative Division I sports, football and men’s basketball. There also has been media acquiescence to the troubling notion that because women do not participate—or are not allowed to participate—in these sports as players, it somehow is not blatant discrimination for those enterprises to continue to avoid hiring women to be executives, general managers, managers, and coaches for those teams. It is often reflexively justified as a sensible business decision.

This male bias is particularly striking for positions managing and coaching men’s teams. As mentioned earlier, the Institute for Diversity and Ethics and Sports does not even bother to publish data about the percentage of female managers and coaches in those sports, much less highlight the widespread absence of women in such positions.

In addition, men often marginalize women who succeed in athletics. On the 40th anniversary of Billie Jean King’s beating Bobby Riggs—which symbolically advanced equal rights for women, particularly in athletics, and provided an impetus for the enactment of Title IX—ESPN released a story by a writer who claimed King’s victory was a fraud. As described by Gail Collins in the New York Times, the dubious report, which could not be readily disproved, was based on the recollections of a “79-year-old man who [after 40 years of silence] claim[ed] to have listened while a couple of mob bosses … discussed Rigg’s promise to throw the match.” The fact that this “incredible tale” would become a much discussed news item at a time when the nation was about to celebrate King as a major contributor to the “American women’s movement” was unfortunate at best, but hardly coincidental. Nor was it coincidental that such a claim would be aired on a sports network watched overwhelmingly by men.

Golf and Women in the Boardroom

That women are denied access to front office and management roles in sports has been exemplified by the blatant sexual discrimination displayed in golf, especially at the most famous venues in the world. Until recently a vast majority of the private golf clubs, which have been viewed as the key to gaining access to corporate boardrooms, either have barred women as members or relegated them to second class status. This has been true both in the United States and Great Britain.

Augusta National Golf Club, which hosts the Masters, and The Royal and Ancient Golf Club (St Andrews), Royal Troon Golf Club, and Muirfield Golf Club, which regularly host the British Open, adamantly refused to allow women to be members of their clubs without facing any serious consequences. It was not until 2012 that Augusta finally bowed to public and corporate pressure. St. Andrews followed in 2014. Royal Troon and Muirfield changed their policies in 2016 and 2017, respectively, but only because they had to if they wanted to host future British Opens.

Augusta National was established in 1934, but never had selected a woman to be a member, even though there was no specific rule prohibiting such a selection. It was part of a “tradition like no other,” as Jim Nance is fond of saying in his Masters broadcasts. In 2002, however, Martha Burk, a psychologist representing the National Council of Women’s Organizations, strongly urged Augusts to stop discriminating by refusing to admit women as members. The golf club’s leadership stood firm for ten more years, however, trying instead to convince the rest of the world that its members were being victimized in the press by radical feminists. These good old boys were standing up for the right to choose only male members, much like many of their forefathers had insisted upon being able to choose who could sit next to them in public places.

When the day of surrender finally came, Burke expressed relief, but noted it was “about 10 years too late for the boys to come into the 20th century, never mind the 21st century.” Augusta’s chairman Billie Payne proclaimed it a “`joyous occasion” after the club admitted two women, including Condoleeza Rice, as members. The New York Times was less charitable. Their editorial staff noted that Augusta had “decided to stop embarrassing itself…[by]finally reach[ing] the point of gender tokenism.” Like Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Quatar, which in 2012 had “let women compete on their Olympic teams for the first time …, another bastion of male authority …ha[d] heeded the call to equality.”

Two years later ESPN reported that St. Andrews had “end[ed] 260 years of male-only exclusivity.” Until then the golf club had embraced a written policy that specified women could not be members. Instead of only admitting a couple of token women as Augusta had done, St Andrew granted honorary and regular memberships to a handful of women, including British Princess Anne and the great Swedish golfer, Annika Sorenstam. The new policy fell well-short of equality, but it no longer constituted blatant discrimination either. 

Royal Troon finally voted to open its membership to women in July 2016 shortly before it was supposed to host the British Open. Ending decades of discrimination had been a prerequisite for being allowed to hold that prestigious sporting event. Two months earlier Muirfield Golf Club had been dropped from the British Open rotation when it voted to continue to ban women. A year later Muirfield members changed their minds. Almost immediately, despite their moral obtuseness and arrogance, the Scottish golf club was rewarded with the promise of being able to host future British Opens.   

While these formerly all-male golf clubs were compelled to enter the modern world by demonstrating a token adherence to the mores of civilized Western societies, throughout the United States and Britain women are still treated as second class citizens at many private golf clubs and prestigious public courses. Karen Crouse in a New York Times article has concluded that “gender bias remains ingrained in the game.” There continues to be a perception that a “golf course… is…where men can escape from their wives and children.”

Crouse reported that in Texas, a woman golfer, who was on the Ladies Professional Golf Association tour, could not practice with her husband, who also was a professional golfer. The practice ranges designated for professionals at their private club were reserved exclusively for the men. Similarly, there are numerous private clubs that continue to prohibit females from getting tee times until noon on weekends. Furthermore, women golfers at most of those clubs only receive associate memberships, which do not include the right to vote in club elections (separate but not equal).

Conclusion

What happens at these privileged golf clubs exemplifies a much larger gender problem in sports. Even as compared to racial minorities, women lag well behind in obtaining key management positions with professional teams. Very few women become owners of sports franchises. Those who do typically obtain their ownership positions indirectly by being married to or the child of a principle owner.

Based on the report cards issued by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, which grade diversity in the N.F.L., M.L.B, N.B.A., and “College Sports,” the lack of effort to promote gender diversity is evident, even though, due to grade inflation, obvious hiring deficiencies are marginalized by the grades that are given. The average grade for these sports enterprises based on race is an A, while the average grade for gender is a C+. (The N.H.L. does not participate in this survey, presumably because its hiring practices, if made public, would be embarrassing.)

At a time in our history when more women go to college then do men, American sports cartels are placing themselves in untenable positions by continuing to foster gender discrimination in their front offices. Even the most prestigious golf clubs have grudgingly moved forward. Unfortunately, it probably will take a substantial amount of time to adequately diversify team sports based on gender. In part this is because there are so few women role models.

A number of months ago a female corporate executive writing in Forbes suggested that the Rooney Rule, which applies to minority hiring in the N.F.L, should be expanded to cover all corporate boardrooms—including other American sports enterprises—and embrace additional diversity characteristics, especially gender. While her sentiments are commendable, the prospects for substantial gender diversity improvements in sports anytime soon seem unlikely. The Rooney Rule, even following the Obama years, has failed to achieve its objectives with regard to race. Moreover, given the current social and political climate, our nation seems far less receptive to meaningfully addressing diversity and inclusion deficiencies of any kind.

Only a few days ago this lack of sensitivity to diversity issues in sports was illustrated when an 8-year-old girl and her girl’s soccer team were disqualified from a tournament in Nebraska because she “`look[ed] like a boy.’” Tournament organizers persisted in this outrage even after her parents provided documentation that their child was a female, who just liked to wear her “hair short.” Subsequently, a number of television networks in reporting on the widespread support this little girl had received from her teammates, treated her story about invidious discrimination as little more than a case of mistaken identity.    

LEGAL OR NOT THE TRADEMARK “REDSKINS” IS WRONG,  ESPECIALLY FOR A TEAM FOUNDED BY AN AVOWED RACIST
                                         By John Weston Parry
 
Many people seem to object to civility that is “politically correct.” The name of Washington’s football team fits into this widening window of bad manners and insensitivity. Currently, team owner, Daniel Snyder, his management, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, and much of the team’s fan base are celebrating because a U.S. Supreme Court decision has indicated that “Redskins” probably is not a legally impermissible trademark. It appears to satisfy the minimal constitutional standard for free speech because it is only racially insensitive, not plainly hateful. 

While legitimate grounds exist to distinguish Snyder’s case from the Asian-American musicians, who called themselves the “Slants,” that looming precedent is largely beside the point. Whatever the legal outcome may be, Snyder is fundamentally wrong, even if some American Indians, who directly benefit from team donations, claim the name is not objectionable, or his fans and Goodell approve of his using a racially insensitive name by cloaking it behind misplaced pride. History is not on the side of the team, its fans, or the NFL.

The Supreme Court Decision

The fundamental legal issue is a balancing of the First Amendment’s free expression clause with the federal government’s discretion to violate fundamental constitutional protections for compelling reasons. The government’s need to ban racially offensive expressions as trademarks in order to protect Asian-Americans from disparaging themselves was not considered compelling.

Millions of Americans today distinguish between an offensive statement uttered by members of the group, who are supposedly being maligned, and a similar statement made by outsiders. The most discussed example is the use of the “N” word by African-Americans. Asian-Americans calling themselves the “Slants” is more like African-Americans using the “N” word. It may or may not seem to be offensive, depending on one’s moral leanings, but clearly it is less offensive than if a white HBO satirist flippantly employs the term trying to be humorous.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a conservative, four man Court plurality, stressed that the “Slants” were not engaging in hate speech. Instead, they were being prohibited from expressing a message demeaning a protected group. Furthermore, even if the Slants are engaging in hateful speech, Alito adopted Justice Oliver Wendell Homes’ 1929 dissent, which argued that: “`the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” White supremacists being allowed to march with Nazi flags and symbols through Skokie, Illinois is a classic example of such constitutional tolerance under the First Amendment.

Four other justices, led by Anthony Kennedy, embraced the idea that the government must have compelling reasons to limit an individual’s right to express a viewpoint, even if “a particular audience might think [it] offensive, at least at first hearing.” Because Justice Gorsuch did not participate, neither rationale had majority support. Even under Kennedy’s more flexible approach, the Trademark Office may have a difficult time trying to convince lower courts that Washington’s team name is unlawful.

The Racist History of Washington's Football Team

Dan Snyder may act badly at times, but there is nothing to indicate that he is a racist. George Preston Marshall was responsible for the team’s name and its racist history many years before Snyder became the owner. Washington was the last NFL team to integrate, adamantly refusing to hire African Americans, not only as players and coaches, but throughout its organization. Until 1962 Marshall did everything to prevent integration, even though by 1955 every other team in the league had broken that racial barrier. Washington also was the only NFL team that chose to exploit a racially insensitive trademark as its team moniker. That was hardly a coincidence. Marshall was responsible for both of those decisions.

Even after he was compelled to integrate his team, Marshall's racist animus never changed. When he died in 1969, Marshall specified in his will that none of the money he was leaving to the “Redskins Foundation” could be used for “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” One of his other legacies was the team's clueless fight song, which, until the 1980’s, included the words “scalp’ um, swamp’ um, we will take’ um big score.” Even today the team’s song proudly retains the phrase “braves on the warpath,” as if American Indians have a special capacity for violence.

Nevertheless, the team continues to promote and protect its offensive trademark, mainly for financial considerations, using litigation, as well as misleading polls that reveal most fans still approve of the team’s name. Unfortunately, polls are a poor way to judge matters of fact or morality. They reflect opinions and beliefs. Too often the results reveal the ignorance or prejudice of those being sampled. For instance, a few years ago a Pew poll found that only 34 percent of Americans believed President Obama was a Christian, and many people, including his successor in office, professed the false belief that Obama was never born in this country. What these poll results show is that institutional racism is difficult to recognize, combat, and dislodge.

Conclusion

In its historical context, today's debate about the Washington football team's name is analogous to whether the Confederate flag should continue to fly in public places. It may not be illegal or even primarily hateful, but it is racially insensitive, and is made more so by the team’s racist history. It is doubtful that anyone in authority would tolerate Washington's football team being called the “Spearchuckers” to honor the bravery of African tribesmen. No local jurisdiction should allow any taxpayer funds to be used to support a new football stadium for Snyder’s team, as long as he continues to insist on keeping this offensive trade name. Fortunately, simply calling them the “Skins” going forward would be a pretty easy, familiar, and reasonably acceptable fix. Such a change is long overdue.      


            
​  
                                   

SOUTH CAROLINA PUSHES WOMEN’S COLLEGE BASKETBALL                 TOWARDS A TRANSFORMATIVE MOMENT
                                By John Weston Parry
 
 In some ways the parallel between South Carolina dominating women’s college basketball is similar to, and no less important, than an all-Black starting five at Texas Western defeating Kentucky’s heavily favored, all-white team in the 1966 NCAA men’s college basketball championship. The obvious comparison is this year South Carolina not only had a Black starting line-up, including player of the year Alyssa Boston, but every member of that team, as well as head coach Dawn Staley and her chief assistants, were Black.

They soundly defeated a team that for years was the most dominant force in women’s college basketball, the Connecticut Huskies. Those Huskies were led by their white male coach Gene Auriemma, his white assistant coaches, and Page Bueckers, last year’s player of the year, who also is white. The rapid racial transformation in which most of the best women players are Black, is only part of the narrative that reached a pinnacle at the women’s final four in Minneapolis, the city where a white police officer murdered George Floyd.

The other part of the story, arguably no less significant, is a likely final step in the gender transformation of the women’s basketball head coaching ranks, from what was once a mostly male profession to one that is likely to be dominated by women, especially at the most storied university or college programs. Today, though, a majority of women in college sports programs still have male head coaches controlling their athletic destinies.

Auriemma’s ability to win one championship after another at Connecticut, outpacing the legendary John Wooden at UCLA, began to fray because, as a white male coach, Auriemma could no longer attract enough of the very best high school players, a majority of whom are Black, to his illustrious program in the way Dawn Staley, a Black woman, is now able to do. Off the court, Auriemma and Staley appear to be friends, having both benefitted from their close relationships with former University of Virginia women’s head coach, Debbie Ryan, decades ago. In the recruiting and coaching wars, however, Daley is now consistently beating her older and more famous rival.

Auriemma also appears to be somewhat out of touch with his potential recruits, regardless of race. At the 2017 final four in Dallas, Auriemma was asked why there had been a decrease in the percentage of women coaches. To him it was “quite simple…, [n]ot as many women want to coach.” They seek a “normal life,” presumably with less responsibilities. Too which his daughter tweeted, “DAD, WALK IT BACK.”

Subsequently, before she retired, the hall of fame, former Notre Dame women’s basketball head coach, Muffet McGraw, promised never to:
         hire another male coach for her staff… Men run the world,           men have the power, men make the decisions… [W]hy                 shouldn’t 100 or 99 percent of the jobs in women’s                         basketball go to women? Maybe its because we only have           10 percent athletic directors in Division I. People hire                   people who look like them, and that’s the problem.    

When McGraw made that speech at the 2018 Final Four, where Notre Dame was a finalist, none of the other three teams had women head coaches. Remarkably, the percentage of female head coaches in women’s basketball had dropped from 79 percent in 1977 to 59 percent.

Moreover, according to the Tucker Center for Research on Girls & Women in Sport, the percentage of head coaches for all Women’s NCAA Division-1 Teams in 2020 was only 42.2 percent. Nevertheless, a female head coach has now won the last five women’s NCAA basketball championships, with Staley having been victorious twice, and Covid once in 2020, when no tournament was held.

This trend appears to be a seismic shift in the making, with Staley leading the way, as Auriemma continues to search for high school players who he can recruit to get him back to the very top again. Being a white male head coach—even a legendary hall of famer—in the highest rungs of women’s college basketball appears to be a liability, despite all the other unique resources the U Conn women’s team still bring to the table.

Hopefully, very soon, all the top women’s college basketball programs will have access to those same resources and media coverage. Perhaps then the NCAA finally will treat the women players equally with the men.     

​
In America’s Favorite Spectator Sports Gender-Based         Inequalities Are Worse Than Racial Disparities,
​    The WNBA and the Rooney Rule Notwithstanding  ©                                    By John Weston Parry
Overview

Too many Americans not only wonder whether a woman can be elected President of the United States, but whether women should be given equal rights. In this political environment, it is important to understand that America’s favorite spectator sports help incubate and perpetuate many of the worst gender-based pathologies in this country. For over 150 years these sport businesses, like our nation itself, have been dominated by white men and ruled with a masculine, misogynistic athletic mentality that has been even more resistant to change than spectator sports-related racism.
 
These masculine social imperatives in American spectator sports originated, historically, with professional baseball, boxing, football, and Olympic sports; then spread to other sports, including those for women. This evolution of male privilege has been even more pernicious than what has occurred in the American corporate world more generally. In these sports businesses women have made less progress than men of color.  
 
Propaganda surrounding the male-centered Olympic Ideal of old has been infused into American sports, especially college athletics. Both the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and NCAA profit by promoting myths about amateurism, athletic harmony, and good sportsmanship in order to obscure the fact that these so-called amateur athletics are big businesses teeming with misogyny, homophobia, racism, cheating, and exploitation of both female and male athletes.
 
A masculine sports mentality with its privileges for white men has been supported by a male dominated legal system, male-dominated politicians, and male-dominated local, state, and federal governments. The fans and media, mostly men, have embraced masculine sports propaganda that is bound together with the glue of patriotism, politics, and Christian religion..
 
Over many years American spectator sports have carefully circumscribed acceptable roles for females. With few exceptions, woman and girls have been devalued as: (1) irrelevant; (2) potential sources of profit; (3) Cold War pawns; and/or (4) victims of discrimination, misconduct, and exploitation. Almost never have females been treated as being equal to men in these American spectator sports businesses.
 
Progress in overcoming gender stereotypes and various forms of exploitation has been painfully incremental and too often practically nonexistent. Not all major American spectator sports and their male-dominated governing organizations are equally to blame, but none are blameless. The permitted roles for females in athletics have been altered over time, but the underlying discrimination, misogyny, abuses, and exploitation have endured and, in the Trump years, have begun to accelerate.
 
In America, sports ruled by the NFL, NCAA, and US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) have all distinguished themselves in extremely disappointing ways. Internationally, the IOC and FIFA have produced the most pernicious results. In addition, male-dominated organizations that govern major sports for women, including the USOPC and its affiliates, the NCAA, and U.S. Soccer, have facilitated discriminated, exploitation, abuse, and neglect of their female athletes.
 
The WNBA 

The one promising exception is the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA), which recently took an incremental step towards achieving gender equality by significantly boosting compensation and benefits, including the provision of maternity leave with full salaries, for all its players. Those female athletes will earn only a fraction of what NBA players earn and substantially less than what they could earn overseas, but these changes represent progress.
 
Unfortunately, whether this formula will prove financially successful is uncertain. The WNBA’s players union president Nneka Ogwumike implicitly expressed her doubts by stating that she hoped these improvements would “create a [circumstance] in which it is clearly a viable option to play in the WNBA.” In public, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver also was cautiously optimistic. This is “a roadmap for the future of the WNBA and reinforces the NBA’s belief in the league’s strong potential for growth,” he said, only months after having disparaged the WNBA’s business model. His new belief and the NBA’s support, however, could be erased in an instant, if the revenues produced displease the mostly male NBA owners, who behind the scenes pretty much control the WNBA.  
 
NFL Head Coaches of Color Are Few and Far Between, But... 

Gender-based spectator sports controversies and pathologies have a common denominator. Men, mostly white, are making almost all of the important decisions that affect these sports and largely control the media that cover these sports. Because African-American athletes dominate a number of spectator sports for men today, especially basketball, football, and track, and have made substantial inroads in the sports media, African-American and other men of color have encountered somewhat less resistance with regard to diversity and inclusion in these popular sports than have women. At least the powers that be in these popular spectator sports are willing to acknowledge that there is a racial problem.
 
Thus, there is a greater expectation of diversity and inclusion based on race than gender. This is why annually it has become a national story when progress, or usually lack of progress, is reported in the hiring of men of color to be head coaches in the NFL, Currently, there are only four head coaches of color in the 32 team league. Of the five coaching vacancies that were recently filled, only one went to a minority, Ron Rivera who is Puerto Rican.
 
The New York Times described this racial disparity as “embarrassing. The Fritz Pollard Alliance called the NFL’s record in this regard “abysmal.” And The Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins opined that it is not only the “fault of white team owners…, [but also] a generation of head coaches who have made it a habit of promoting younger white replicants of themselves.”   
 
All of these condemnations are apt and deserved. Yet, this continuing NFL problem with racial discrimination in its hiring of head coaches completely overshadows a far more glaring diversity inequality in America’s spectator sports.
 
Gender-Based Hiring in America’s Favorite Spectator Sports 

There has never been a female head coach in any major professional or college team sport for men, and precious few low level assistants. That blatant inequality is rarely mentioned in the media, much less made a category to be tracked in the most cited gender report cards that are issued by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports (TIDES). Even if one tabulates women coaches on all men’s college teams, including non-revenue sports, the figure remains an incredibly low “3 percent,” and those positions tend to be paid the least.
When the San Francisco Giants hired the first female coach in MLB history in 2020, ESPN.com reported that the team had indicated Alyssa Nakken's role would be to "promote high performance" and to "throw batting practice and hit fungoes" before games. 

Why are gender-based hiring disparities in America’s favorite men’s spectator sports so profound? It goes beyond the lack of “equal opportunities” that many experts and scholars have pinpointed. The complete answer has many socio-economic, historical, and legal dimensions, but the most important single factor is that all of these sports have been, and continue to be, ruled by privileged men, most of whom are white. Even the leading team sports for women are controlled by men.
 
This pervasive gender bias largely explains why there are more men coaching in women’s team sports than women. As Notre Dame’s women’s basketball coach Muffet McGraw observed in 2018, the privileged men who make most of the hiring decisions in America, especially in our spectator sports, tend to hire individuals who look like themselves. This masculine prejudice influences almost every spectator sports decision that is made. In this particular segment of American society, female gender bias is even more pervasive than racial bias.
 
There are few, if any, industries that do a worse job of ensuring female gender diversity and inclusion than major American team sports. Yet, the TIDES gender report cards continue to give almost all of them, except super conference Football Bowl Series (FBS) college programs, a gentleman’s pass or even better. In part, this may be because the male-dominated, professional leagues being evaluated contribute to the funding of these report cards and apparently have input into which criteria will be used to evaluate their own gender and racial diversity progress. The National Hockey League has unilaterally declined to participate in these report cards, perhaps because anecdotally the NHL appears to have severe diversity deficiencies.
 
One obvious omission from these report cards is team ownership, which is deliberately excluded as a category, even though that information is readily available. Perhaps that is because the Devos family that own the Orlando Magic, funds the sports management college program in which TIDES resides. Remarkably, these leagues and other spectator sports organizations can receive an A+ grade and not have hired as many women as men. They can get a C+ even if they have fallen short of hiring one woman for every two men. In order to fail, an entity must have hired less than one woman for every three men. What all this indicates is that the expectations for gender progress in major American spectator sports continue to be ridiculously low.
 
The situation is not that much better in the leading spectator sports for women. This includes U.S. Women’s Soccer, U.S. Women’s hockey, the WNBA, and women’s college basketball, soccer, and hockey. To begin with, all of these sports for women are controlled by organizations dominated by men: the U.S. Soccer Federation, U.S. Hockey, the NBA, and the NCAA, respectively. That male dominance goes a long way to explaining why compensation for female athletes in American women’s team sports has been so low and the work conditions substandard as compared to the men. The most talented American women athletes often go abroad to play because the pay is much better. This domestic male privilege also explains why more than half of the head coaches on professional and college teams for women are men and why “89 percent of Division I college athletic directors are men.”
 
The TIDES report cards only include one spectator sport for women, the NBA-controlled WNBA. Even though 100% of WNBA players are women, females make up only 50% of their head coaches, somewhat less than 50% of their GMs and senior team executives, and only about 15% of their principle team owners. Nevertheless, the WNBA receives an A overall grade because, in comparison to men’s professional leagues and major college sports, a mediocre record can be defended as exemplary.
          
The lack of equitable gender diversity in America’s favorite spectator sports is both a symptom and cause of a much broader social pathology. Gender discrimination, misogyny, sexual and domestic violence against women and girls, including female athletes, is rampant, and surpasses similar problems in the rest of American society. Women’s rights groups and “The Me Too” movement should pay much closer attention to major American spectator sports. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, with respect to incubating and spreading gender-based pathologies throughout America, spectator sports appears to be worse than the movie industry.            

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN PROFESSIONAL
  SPORTS: Reasonable Modifications for John Daly and Other                                 Elite Athletes with Disabilities©  
                                    By John Weston Parry
 
Introduction
 
John Daly set off volleys of criticism when at the 2019 PGA Championship he was allowed to use a golf cart to accommodate his medically diagnosed osteoarthritis. The reaction reaffirmed the unfortunate reality that nearly thirty years after the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the spectator sports world still is unfairly resisting reasonable implementation of the law and its regulations. 
 
At their core, physical and mental impairments in sports are the opposite of performance enhancing. They typically are viewed as something for athletes to avoid, shun, and minimize. Oftentimes athletes who are repeatedly injured are given the unflattering and career damaging label of being “injury-prone,” rather than unlucky or the victims of the recklessness of their opponents. Once so labeled an athlete’s value as a player and teammate is likely to be reduced.
 
In most sports injuries are an inevitable consequence of competing athletically. Yet, despite the fact that elite athletes are more prone to injuries and impairments due to the accelerated stresses on their bodies, as well as deliberate and reckless strategies by opponents to overwhelm and even injure them, a paradox exists. Some of the worst forms of invidious discrimination in America’s favorite spectator sports befall athletes with disabilities.
 
In part this is because the notion of providing reasonable modifications or accommodations under the ADA to help athletes with disabilities compete on a level playing field has been reflexively dismissed as providing an unfair competitive advantage. It also is because of ignorance, lack of understanding, and stigma surrounding disabilities themselves. Internationally this prejudice has been aimed most notably at blade runners like Oscar Pistorius, who have tried to compete in Olympic competitions with artificial legs.
 
These discriminatory attitudes are illustrated in America by: (1) the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision involving former PGA golfer Casey Martin in 2001; (2) what happened a few years later to NBA first round draft pick Royce White when he asked for reasonable accommodations; and (3) most recently the hullabaloo surrounding John Daly.         
 
Casey Martin’s Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case
 
The ADA was enacted to protect people with disabilities from discrimination and facilitate their inclusion in major life activities, including as elite athletes in spectator sports. One of the primary strengths of this federal law is the concept of providing reasonable modifications or accommodations to promote inclusion and deter discrimination. What is “reasonable” is supposed to be determined on a case-by-case basis, but in the sports world the concept of unfair competitive advantage and how it tends to be implemented interfere with this process in counterproductive and often irrational ways.
 
The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that largely resolved how this tension between inclusion of elite athletes with disabilities and unfair competitive advantage should be addressed involved professional golfer Casey Martin. In the late 1990’s, Martin was struggling to play on the PGA tour because he had a degenerative leg disease known as Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome. He was constantly in pain and it became increasingly difficult for him to walk around a golf course.
 
Citing the ADA, he requested permission to use a golf cart in major PGA tournaments where golf carts are prohibited. Unless he was granted that modification, his career on the regular PGA Tour was over. He would be relegated to satellite tournaments, which allow those professional golfers to use carts, but offer much less prize money. Instead of being viewed as a heroic figure overcoming the odds against him, Casey Martin was being denied a reasonable opportunity to compete against the best golfers in the world. 
 
Even if the requested modification had been granted, Martin was facing a considerable challenge. Hitting good golf shots is in large part dependent upon the strength and flexibility of a golfer’s legs. Being allowed to use a cart would only give Martin a slim opportunity to continue to earn a living a little longer on the PGA Tour. The PGA, negatively influenced by some of the game’s most famous and celebrated professionals at the time, denied his request based on the dubious and insensitive argument that being able to use a cart would somehow give Martin an unfair competitive advantage. Thus, he filed suit in an Oregon federal court, which ruled in his favor. That decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
 
Still, the PGA resisted complying. It took the legally permissible, but expensive, time-consuming, and morally questionable step of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2001, seven Justices—with only two dissents—Scalia and Thomas—largely affirmed the lower court rulings that had granted Martin’s requested modification. As a threshold matter, the nation’s highest court decided that the ADA applied to professional golf tournaments, which charge the public an admission fee to attend. This type of athletic event is a public accommodation, just like a restaurant, store, or NFL football game.
 
More importantly, the Court found that in denying Martin’s request, the PGA had acted unjustly. With respect to determining whether a requested modification constitutes an unfair competitive advantage, the legal query focused on how it would affect the way golf is supposed to be played. Did the requested modification fundamentally alter the nature of the game?     
 
The Supreme Court dismissed the PGA’s claim that the fatigue players experience walking the course is an essential element of golf. The essence of the game is making shots, with or without the use of a cart. The Rules of Golf clearly allow carts to be used, which happens in various professional tournaments, including on the Champions Tour for players age 50 or over. Thus, the decision to prohibit carts from being used on the PGA Tour was discretionary, not essential.
 
In addition, even if it were true that allowing Martin’s requested modification could in some small way affect the outcome, this did not mean the request was unreasonable. In order to make that determination, the PGA should have taken the time to evaluate Martin’s individual circumstances, which it failed to do. Instead, the PGA issued a blanket prohibition and claimed, in the words of the Court's majority, all its rules were “sacrosanct and cannot be modified under any circumstances….” This violated federal law.
  
Soon after his legal victory, Casey Martin’s impairment forced him to curtail his dream of continuing to be a professional golfer. Several valuable years of his professional golf life had passed while he was fighting to be treated fairly by the PGA. Nevertheless, he became a very successful golf coach at the University of Oregon. Over a decade later, however, almost miraculously Martin stunned the golf world by qualifying for the 2012 U.S. Open. Legally, he could no longer be denied the use of a golf cart.
 
Royce White and the NBA
 
A second prominent example involving the denial of reasonable accommodations or modifications for a professional athlete with a disability occurred in the NBA. Royce White was one of the most physically talented athletes in the 2012 NBA draft. Nonetheless, his draft stock began to drop once he revealed he had an anxiety disorder, which included an overwhelming fear of flying.
 
Unlike most athletes with mental impairments, who hide their conditions, White had decided early on to be candid and transparent. His situation was not unique in the sports world. Both Tony Kornheiser and John Madden, when they were broadcasting weekly network football games, were driven from one location to another in luxurious buses to accommodate their fear of flying. The television networks understood that the talents of those two broadcasters more than made up for any added expenses in dealing with a relatively common anxiety disorder. 
 
Unfortunately, athletes with mental conditions tend to be treated with far less empathy than sports media personalities, especially by the media. Although initially White was viewed as a consensus top ten pick, on draft day he dropped to the Houston Rockets who made him the 16th selection in the first round. Despite his disappointment, Royce expressed gratitude that Houston was willing to take a chance on him. At first it seemed as if would become a heartwarming story of an athlete dealing productively with his disability.
 
That never happened. Soon a serious rift emerged regarding the proper way to deal with White’s mental health issues, especially the provision of reasonable accommodations that would allow the player to maximize his talents. The Rockets, the NBA, and most of the basketball media thought the team’s front office should make the decision as they pleased without any outside guidance. An unenlightened Rockets management decided it would address each disability-related situation when it arose without establishing a coordinated plan to more productively accommodate White’s special needs.
 
White, mental health professionals, and disability experts—but not his team or the league—understood that proper planning for the player's special needs involved relatively complex questions, requiring specific medical and legal expertise, which was readily available. Thus, White insisted on an accommodations plan, which the Rockets refused to even try to develop, much less implement. Neither White nor the Rockets budged from their positions. In the disability-unfriendly sports world, White was viewed as having overstepped his bounds. Despite his obvious basketball skills and talent, he was sent to play in what was then called the NBA’s Developmental League, which was almost unheard of for a rookie of his skill-level and maturity.
 
Phil Taylor expressed the prevailing paternalistic attitude in the sports world when he penned an open letter to White in Sports Illustrated. The NBA “will always be hazardous for someone with your anxiety condition…`Basketball might not be what is best for you.’” Taylor’s unenlightened advice mirrored the paternalistic advice William Rhoden of The New York Times gave to former professional football player Jonathan Martin. Rhoden said Martin should quit if, due to his mental illness, the offensive lineman was not tough enough to withstand bulling from other players, especially his teammates.
 
White responded to the Rockets and the media criticism by becoming an outspoken mental health advocate, focusing his attention on the double standard that unfairly differentiates physical and mental impairments in sports. He insisted that the team specify how his mental condition would be handled going forward consistent with what federal law under the ADA normally requires. The Rockets with the league’s support dug in their heels suggesting that any accommodation or modification for White might violate the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NBA and the players by favoring one player over another.
 
While the team’s lawyers had asserted a plausible, if not convincing, defense, Rockets management clearly was not abiding with the promise of the ADA. One of the main purposes of requiring an accommodations plan that is agreed to by the person with a disability and his or her employer is to provide a reliable structure so that both parties know what to expect when potential disputes arise. Unfortunately, the cooperation and flexibility needed for these agreements to work for both parties were at odds with the rigid and sometimes tyrannical organizational structures of professional and collegiate sports teams and Olympic enterprises. 
 
By the fall of 2013, White had been traded to the Philadelphia 76ers, where he was waived from the team before he had played a single game. What was being referred to as a trade appeared to be a maneuver to avoid legal liability and help the NBA deal with a public relations problem. The 76ers never did anything that suggested they intended to accommodate White’s special needs so that he would be able to play in the NBA
 
It took many months for White to be invited to try out for another team. The Sacramento Kings signed him to a ten-day contract at a minimal salary. This meant that White was starting over again as a professional player and the odds were stacked against him. Before the next season began he was completely out of the league.
 
NBA insiders blamed White’s demise as a basketball player on his inability to cope with his mental impairments. In this biased sports media narrative, White’s continuing need for reasonable accommodations made him what Bleacherrport.com referred to as “the worst first-round pick ever.” Yet, with a little help White might have become a very productive player.
 
John Daly and His Critics
 
      Barry Svrluga wrote in the Washington Post that it was a “complicated” question whether, due to his osteoarthritis, John Daly should be “allowed to ride in a cart for the PGA [Championship].” Casey Martin, by comparison, understood why the PGA had “`handled this correctly.’”
 
For Svrluga the “optics just [weren’t] great” because Daly is overweight—“[his] belly … might prevent him from seeing [his] knee that no longer has its meniscus”—and he has abused his body over many years. While Svrluga conceded that under the ADA Daly “should be allowed to ride in a cart,” the talented journalist still felt comfortable employing ableist stereotypes to create doubts. The spectator sports world is not very enlightened when it comes to diversity issues, particularly those that involve athletes with physical or mental impairments.  
 
In addition to his insensitive characterizations about Daly’s weight and hinting that the golfer’s disability was his own fault, Svrluga embraced popular stereotypes about large numbers of people with disabilities not deserving the accommodations they receive. In response to Daly having said he “can’t walk more than six holes before the whole knee swells up… and then… can’t go anymore,” Svrluga wrote:
 
Okay, fine. Still, should Tiger Woods have had a cart at the 2008 U.S. Open, which he won on a broken leg? Should Fred Couples get a cart to erase his notoriously bad back? Or… [w]hen Nolan Ryan loses his fastball, should the mound be moved up from 60 feet 6 inches to 50 feet 6 inches?
 
Svrluga’s examples bring to mind Antonio Scalia’s preposterous dissent in the 2001 Casey Martin Supreme Court case in which the intellectually-gifted justice—joined by Clarence Thomas—engaged in similar callous speculation. Scalia suggested that allowing Casey Martin to use a golf cart, because he could no longer walk, might open the door for a Little League baseball player with attention-deficit disorder to be given four strikes rather than three.
 
The ADA was enacted nearly thirty years ago. To this day there remains steadfast opposition to its fair implementation. People with disabilities have to fight tooth and nail to receive what the law requires and common decency dictates in a humane society. The ADA is frequently sabotaged by critics who pose improbable scenarios about its implementation in order to scare the public into thinking the law is unreasonable.
 
That type of speculation should be journalistically unacceptable, just like other discriminatory references towards various classes of people, whether it is gay bashing, misogyny, or racial insensitivity. There has never been a law in American history in which trying to be “reasonable” is more of a core precept of its implementation than the ADA. The regulations, for better and sometimes worse, bend over backwards not to conflict with broad economic interests and popular American values and beliefs—too often at the expense of people with disabilities.
 
Under Title III, which governs sporting events like PGA tournaments, people claiming to have a qualifying disability must establish they have an impairment that negatively affects at least one major life function in a substantial way. If this hurdle is overcome, they become entitled to reasonable modifications that will allow them to fully participate in that event. The 7-2 Supreme Court majority in the Casey Martin case explained that the key determinant in deciding what is “reasonable” in the context of professional golf, or any other sport for that matter, is whether the proposed change of the rules “fundamentally” alters the competition? If it does not and the proposed modification is necessary for the person to fully participate, it is reasonable.
 
Many professionals and highly skilled amateurs are allowed to use carts in tournaments, as are members of the general public. Walking around a golf course accompanied by a caddie who carries the golfer’s bag is not fundamental to playing golf. In the United States, the use of caddies has a regrettable racist legacy. Golf itself has a history of denying women and minorities access to the game and club facilities, while embracing the image of black caddies carrying clubs for white male club members and white male professionals. There is nothing particularly admirable about a golfer being able to walk the course aided by his caddy.  
 
Like Justice Scalia’s example in the Casey Martin case, all of Svrluga’s hypotheticals are inappropriate based on any rudimentary understanding of the ADA and its regulations. Whereas in Daly’s situation the law is clear that he qualifies for a cart, the other proposed scenarios are extremely problematic or absurd, beginning with the Tiger Woods circumstance. Tiger Woods himself placed more fuel on that ADA fire when he publicly chided Daly for using a cart, bragging that he had competed and won a championship while “walk[ing] on a broken leg.”
 
For most golf fans, the still much-beloved—and much accommodated—Woods attacking the often criticized John Daly, was not only hypocritical, but pretty much closed the door on Daly’s accommodation being viewed as acceptable by those fans. Yet, when one unpacks the realities of their very different circumstances in the context of the ADA, it is Woods’ position that does not stand up to scrutiny.
 
There are two possibilities why Tiger Woods’ comment was misleading and wrong. To begin with, sports legends are frequently built on the notion of competing while injured, gutting it out for the team or the fans. Too often these injuries or their actual athletic impacts are greatly inflated for the benefit of a compelling narrative. This might well have been the case with Woods at the U.S. Open, given that millions of fans saw him walk and play championship golf on his impaired leg.
 
On the other hand, if at the time, Woods actually had a broken leg and torn ACL as reported, he would have had a covered disability under the ADA. Thus, he would have been legally entitled to use a cart if he had asked for one. Neither of these two possible scenarios should diminish Daly’s legal entitlement to use a cart, or the PGA’s obligation to provide him with one.
 
With regard to Fred Couples “notoriously aching back,” there is every reason to believe that his condition is not a covered impairment under the ADA, since his dysfunction appears to be temporary and intermittent, as compared to Daly’s osteoarthritis which has been diagnosed as permanent and is likely to become worse over time.
 
Lastly, the Nolan Ryan scenario could not happen under the ADA for three reasons. First, Major League Baseball having to change the distance of the pitcher’s mound for a player with a disability would fundamentally alter that sport. Thus, it would not be required under the Supreme Court’s opinion. Second, even if that proposed modification of the rules did not fundamentally change the game of baseball, it would be nearly impossible to implement at the professional level in a reasonable manner since it would require having two separate pitching mounds on the same field. Third, and most importantly, losing one’s fastball to the naturally occurring aging process would not by itself qualify as a disability. It would have to be accompanied by a medically diagnosed impairment. 
 
Conclusion
 
In the NBA, PGA, and other spectator sports, where star and superstar players, including Tiger Woods, receive special considerations all the time, it is extremely discouraging that players who have disabilities cannot be dealt with in reasonable and sensitive ways. Think of what would have been lost if the brilliance and physical eccentricities of Stephen Hawking had not been accommodated by his employers because doing so would be an unfair competitive advantage. In less significant but still similar ways, spectator sports organizations lose out each time they fail to take reasonable steps to accommodate talented athletes, who happen to be different, physically or mentally.

     
​        Baseball's Racial and Ethnic Shortcomings
                    (Except on Jackie Robinson Day)© 
                                    By John Weston Parry   
           
Football long ago became our national past time, but what happens in baseball with respect to diversity retains special social importance. As America's favorite sport for much of the Twentieth Century, baseball has earned an exalted place in our culture, especially as a symbolic melting pot for immigrants and other minority groups. While professional football brought in a token number of black players a year before baseball, it was Jackie Robinson who became a national hero and the most popular representative of integration.
 
Beyond the obvious fact that fans who attend Major League Baseball (MLB) games are overwhelmingly white, there are three pressing issues that highlight baseball’s lack of diversity and suggest the presence of racial and ethnic insensitivity: the precipitous decrease in the percentage of African-Americans who play the game; the scarcity of lucrative endorsement opportunities for the increasing number of Latino and other Hispanic professional baseball players; and the unsatisfactory record of MLB and its teams in promoting diversity in their hiring, promotions, and other employment practices. This may be changing under the leadership of the new Commissioner, Rob Manfred, but it is far too early to evaluate whether meaningful progress has taken place.
 
The Decline of African American Players in Baseball           

Baseball is no longer the epicenter of sports in America, especially for African-American youngsters whose urban—and more recently suburban—cultural traditions and preferences have moved them to embrace other sports, particularly basketball, football, track, and boxing. Baseball continues to represent a possible means for immigrants and minorities to improve their economic and social status, but in different ways than in the past.
 
Latinos and Asians, especially from foreign countries, have greatly increased their presence in professional baseball in America. The noticeable decrease in African-American participation is due in large part to the extraordinary success of African-American athletes in other sports. At the same time, discrimination and lack of opportunity still persist and clearly remain important factors.
 
In recent years there have been numerous stories in the sports media about the declining number of African Americans playing baseball, especially in college and the minor and major leagues. This is a symptom of baseball's inability to earnestly promote racial inclusion. Stories about baseball’s lack of diversity tend to be prevalent once a year, just around the time baseball celebrates Jackie Robinson Day.
 
One of the earliest and best documented warnings about the decline of African American baseball players came from the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), which thoroughly analyzed MLB’s demographics from 1947 through 2012. Mark Armour and Daniel Levitt compiled statistics of the sport's racial profile, focusing specifically on “white,” “African-American,” “Latino,” and “Asian” players. These two researchers and their assistants identified and categorized all of the 10,340 athletes who had played during those years using the aforementioned categories.
 
In 1947 just after Jackie Robinson broke the baseball color barrier, the league was 98.3% white. Subsequently, there was a steady movement towards more diversity, which peaked in 1997 when only 60% of the players were white. Since then the percentage of players of color has remained relatively constant, hovering between 36 and 40 percent. What changed, though, was the number of non-white MLB players who were African-Americans. During the 1970’s, 80’s, and much of the 90’s, those numbers hardly fluctuated. The highest percentage was 19 percent in 1981. Beginning in 1997, however, there has been a precipitous decline. This trend finally bottomed out in 2009 when the percentage of African-American players fell to around 7 percent, where it has hovered since then. As compared to 1981, there has been a 63 percent decrease.
 
Beginning in 1987 there was a steady growth in the percentage of Hispanic players, mainly from South America and the Caribbean. Their numbers increased from 12.3 percent to nearly 29 percent in 2009. Since then that rate has remained around 28 percent. What has caused some confusion is that a significant percentage of the Hispanic players coming from Central and South America have been black. Nevertheless, these Latin players, especially those who are of color have not been fully accepted by the American public, if corporate sponsorship is any measure. As Peter Keating reported in ESPN The Magazine, “being Hispanic cuts endorsements by a [stunning] 42.6%.”
  
Armour and Levitt had explained previously that the decrease in African-American players was influenced by many factors “external to the game.” The most prominent factor appeared to be the limits placed on African-American athletes with respect to the positions they have been encouraged or allowed to play on the baseball field growing up. Similar stereotyping has been present in football and even basketball.
 
Traditionally, African-American players have been under-represented as pitchers and catchers, positions that Latino athletes have assumed with much greater frequency because they get a more equal opportunity in their countries to play those positions. Pitching and catching are positions in which baseball intelligence has been valued the most. Given how biases about sports intelligence have manifested themselves in determining what positions African-Americans have traditionally played in football and basketball, it is not surprising to learn that a similar bias has short-circuited diversity in baseball as well.
 
Unfortunately, this stereotyping has been accelerated in recent years because major league teams have increased the number of pitchers and catchers on their rosters, which has decreased the rest of the available positions that African-Americans are encouraged to play. What this suggests is that the decline of African-American ballplayers has a demonstrably racial dimension. It appears to be based more on a bias in youth baseball than overt discrimination in the big leagues, however, since many international players, including black and brown Latino athletes, have been welcomed as pitchers and catchers in the big leagues. At the same time, MLB has failed to effectively encourage African-American athletes to become baseball players. 
 
Black culture also has played a substantial role. Even in those years in which the percentage of African-Americans playing major league baseball was the highest, a significant majority of African-American athletes still chose to participate in other sports, especially basketball, football, boxing, and track. Arguably, the greatest percentage of African-American professional baseball players existed during the 1930’s and early 1940’s as a result of the vibrancy of the “Negro” leagues. Once those leagues declined in popularity, though, there were considerably fewer opportunities for African-American baseball players because years after Jackie Robinson was first allowed to play, Major League Baseball continued to discriminate in less blatant ways.
 
After avoiding the issue for many years, eventually MLB took official notice of the declining interest in baseball among African-American athletes. In April 2013, towards the end of his tenure as Commissioner, Bud Selig convened a task force to study the problem. Selig’s emphasis was in trying to convince the public that baseball, because of Jackie Robinson, was a leader in race relations, and not a chronic offender.
 
Selig’s most prominent and fervent commitment to diversity was through his support for baseball, internationally. His main interest was to grow the sport’s economic potential globally, which led to a substantial influx of Latino and Asian players. As Howard Bryant wrote in ESPN The Magazine, “the annual lament of the vanishing black player…sounds hollow when the business of the game is so constructed to find talent except black ball players.” Owners are “sinking billions into the Japanese market… [and are] heavily invested in Latin America…, the world’s cheapest, most plentiful source of [baseball] talent.’” At the same time, in Division I college baseball programs, which are a major source of minor and major league talent, less than 5% of the players are African-Americans.
 
Currently, one of the most powerful potential incentives for African-American kids to play baseball is as an alternative to football, which is becoming less attractive to many athletes and their parents because of growing concerns about concussions and other brain injuries. Nevertheless, a sustained shift in sport preferences will not occur until there is a much greater commitment to establish better funded inner city and suburban youth baseball programs targeting African-American kids. Yet, even if that should occur, there is no guarantee that among those children baseball will generate the enthusiasm of basketball, football, or even track. 
 
Racial and Ethnic Hiring in Baseball Is Still Discouraging 

It may be an overstatement to conclude that the primary reason for the substantially reduced percentage of African-American players in the major leagues in recent years is a lack of commitment to racial diversity. Nonetheless, it certainly has been a substantial factor. While millions of dollars have been spent in identifying and developing Latin and Asian ball players, comparatively little has been invested to similarly target African American athletes in the United States.
 
Somewhat more encouraging—at least on the surface-- was the news that Major League Baseball and its teams and affiliates had hired more front office administrators of color than in the past. Because of that progress, in 2016 MLB received an A- grade in racial diversity hiring from the Institute of Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Nevertheless, when one closely analyzes those results, it becomes evident that the overall grade discounts the most prominent decision-making positions in baseball.
 
According to the 2016 MLB Racial and Gender Report Card, only three teams had minority managers. Fredi Gonzalez, the only Hispanic skipper, was fired shortly after baseball's lofty grade had been awarded. That left only two minority managers: Dusty Baker of the Washington Nationals and Dave Roberts of the Los Angeles Dodgers, both of whom were African-Americans. There has been a steady decline in the number of  minority managers since 2009.

In addition, as of 2016 there were only two African-American general managers. Remarkably, this meager showing was an improvement. Before 2015, there had only been four black general managers in the history of baseball. Furthermore, none of the majority owners of baseball teams are African-American. (Magic Johnson has a substantial stake in the Los Angeles Dodgers, but is not a majority owner.)
 
Thus, while Bud Selig and his successor Rob Manfred have contended that baseball is a leader in racial diversity and tolerance, the facts strongly belie that conclusion. With respect to the most powerful people in the game—the owners, the Commissioner, the general managers, and the managers—major league baseball lacks diversity.
 
Eight years after we elected the first African-American as our President, MLB seems to be regressing with regards to racial diversity. Professional baseball consistently lags behind the NBA and NFL with respect to major indicators of racial progress. Recently, Commissioner Manfred acknowledged that racial imbalance when he announced there was a pressing need to hire more "entry level minority candidates that we can promote and develop." Unfortunately, that approach, even if it were to be carried out, would take years to bear fruit and would have little or no impact in making ownership more diverse.