of the American League or of Yankee Stadium. They are themselves the entertainment that the customers pay to watch.'' As for Stevens' interesting claim to know golf's ``essence,'' Scalia said, yes, sure, the Constitution's Framers expected ``the judges of this august Court would someday have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot (BEG ITAL)really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. ... Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question.'' Many questions may now come to courts from athletes seeking court-ordered alterations--not, of course, ``fundamental'' ones touching the sport's ``essence''--of this and that sport's rules in order to accommodate different disadvantages. Scalia envisions parents of a Little Leaguer with attention deficit disorder asking a judge to order that their child be allowed four strikes because his disability makes hitting that much harder. And what of the mother who today is suing the San Francisco Ballet, charging that its weight and height standards illegally discriminate against her daughter ? Suppose the daughter's physical attributes count under the ADA as ``disabilities" in the context of her preferred profession. If that seems unthinkable, you have not noticed all that has been swept into the category ``disability'' under the ADA. What ``reasonable modifications'' of the Ballet's standards might Justice Stevens improvise? By what principle should the Ballet's standards survive while the PGA Tour's do not? The work of compassionate courts never ends.