In 1972, Jane Blalock found herself at the center of one of the most controversial episodes in LPGA Tour history. Accused of illegally moving her golf ball, the rising star faced disciplinary action that quickly escalated from a fine and probation to a one-year suspension. What followed, however, turned the controversy into a landmark legal battle, with a federal judge ruling that the suspension violated antitrust law.

The controversy began during the week of May 15, 1972, at an LPGA tournament in Louisville, Kentucky. Tournament director Gene McCauliff III appointed four observers to watch Blalock during the second round. They alleged she illegally moved her ball, prompting the tour’s executive board to investigate.

On May 20, the board decided to disqualify Blalock from the Louisville tournament, place her on probation for the rest of the season, and fine her $500 for cheating. At that point, the punishment did not include a year-long suspension.

The situation changed after Blalock appeared before the board on May 26. She had been called to Southern Pines, North Carolina, where she was told about the probation and the fine. Two board members, Cynthia Sullivan and Judy Rankin, later described statements she made during that meeting as admissions of improper conduct. The court record says she made those remarks when she was told about the penalties.

Marlene Hagge, representing the tournament committee, subsequently recommended suspending the golfer. She did this at a second board meeting on May 28. Hagge and another player, Kathy Farrer, were at that meeting. Neither was a board member, and both played against Blalock. Sullivan, Rankin and Sharon Miller were the board members present. They talked it over and voted for a one-year suspension. Linda Craft was reached by phone in Baltimore. Once the case was explained to her, she voted for it too. Penny Zavichas was in Colorado and could not be reached.

On May 30, the board informed Blalock that she would be suspended from June 1, 1972, through May 31, 1973. She was called before the board again, this time in Baltimore, Maryland. All five members were there. They spoke with her at length, then told her the decision. Every board member agreed to it.

Those statements became part of the dispute, but people contested their interpretation. Blalock later recalled that she acknowledged the difficulty of guaranteeing perfect ball replacement every time and that she did not intentionally move her ball to gain an advantage. Years later, she has maintained that her remarks had been misinterpreted. She even recalled apologizing for the possibility of mistakes while insisting that she had never intentionally acted to benefit herself.

The $5 million lawsuit that changed the story

Blalock then responded with legal action on June 1, 1972. She filed a $5 million antitrust lawsuit against the LPGA. Her challenge focused on Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits certain agreements that restrain interstate trade.

The central issue was bigger than whether the original allegations justified a penalty. Blalock challenged how the suspension was imposed and argued that her fellow competitors had collectively prevented her from earning a living through professional golf. She said the one-year suspension was a group boycott and a “per se” restraint of trade.

The composition of the LPGA executive board became particularly important. Its five members, Cynthia Sullivan, Judy Rankin, Linda Craft, Penny Zavichas, and Sharon Miller, were professional golfers who competed against Blalock for tournament prize money.

The judge first dealt with a basic question: do antitrust laws apply to professional golf? He said yes. He pointed to Justice Blackmun’s 1972 opinion in Flood v. Kuhn. That case exempted baseball, but Blackmun said other pro sports played across state lines, “football, boxing, basketball, and, presumably, hockey and golf,” were “not so exempt.” Another case, Deesen v. Professional Golfers’ Association of America, backed this up.

Now, two things had to be true before the boycott could be illegal. First, it had to affect trade between states. Second, there had to be an agreement among the people behind it. Nobody disputed either one. LPGA tournaments, co-sponsored by its Tournament Players Corporation, were held in several states, and it had sold the rights to broadcast certain events across state lines.

As for the agreement, Sullivan, Rankin, Craft, Zavichas, Miller and the LPGA’s members had agreed through the LPGA’s constitution and by-laws not to deal with Blalock when they imposed the suspension. The defendants did not deny that the suspension was an agreement among themselves to refuse to deal with her for a year. They only argued that it was not a primary refusal to deal.

According to the federal court’s June 21, 1973, ruling in Blalock v. Ladies Professional Golf Association, the board members who imposed the suspension stood to benefit financially from her exclusion. The judge also questioned the board’s broad discretionary authority and the escalation from probation and a fine to a year-long suspension. He called their power “completely unfettered,” and subjective.

The restrictions extended beyond LPGA-sponsored events. Under the association’s rules, members generally could not compete for prize money in other tournaments, professional-amateur events, or qualifying competitions for the required LPGA sponsorship or written approval.

As a result, the suspension threatened Blalock’s ability to compete across the professional golf market. The judge described it as “tantamount to total exclusion from the market of professional golf.” He found that Blalock was a member in good standing and that the suspension’s purpose and effect were to exclude her from the professional golf market. He characterized the arrangement as a ‘naked restraint of trade.’

On June 21, 1973, U.S. District Judge Charles A. Moye Jr. granted Blalock partial summary judgment. He ruled that the competitor-imposed suspension violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The decision focused on board members’ collective action against Blalock. The court concluded that the suspension amounted to an unlawful group boycott under the antitrust principles it applied.

It was a significant legal victory, but its scope matters. The judge did not declare that Blalock had never moved her ball improperly, nor did he establish that the original cheating allegations were false. The decision addressed the legality of the suspension and the circumstances under which her competitors imposed it.

Despite the suspension announced in 1972, Blalock did not spend the entire year away from competition. A preliminary injunction prevented the LPGA from enforcing the ban while the litigation continued. This allowed her to keep playing and earning tournament winnings.

By the time of the ruling, the suspension had expired on May 31, 1973. The court therefore dissolved the preliminary injunction, finding that no further injunctive relief was necessary, and denied the defendants’ request to increase the bond. The judge stated that the suspension violated antitrust law and that Blalock was entitled to her winnings during the period of the purported suspension, while leaving the determination of money damages and permanent injunctive relief for the remaining proceedings.

In an August 2024 episode of FORE the Good of the Game, Blalock revisited the controversy and discussed its personal and professional impact. Recalling that period, she said, “It was certainly a very dark time for me.”

She also described the toll of court appearances, depositions, and defending herself against the allegations.

Jane Blalock’s career extended far beyond the scandal

Blalock’s place in golf history cannot be reduced to the 1972 controversy. She won 27 official LPGA Tour events and recorded 299 consecutive tournaments without missing a cut. This extraordinary run of consistency remains a defining part of her career. Blalock also helped create opportunities for older women professionals by helping develop the women’s senior golf circuit.

But that number of 27 has a messy history, too. Golfweek’s Beth Ann Nichols wrote in 2022 that Blalock’s “win total was 29, 26 or 27”, depending on which late-1990s media guide you read.

Her last win came in 1985. And for over a decade, she was credited with 29. Then, in the late 1990s, she got a phone call. Her wins in the Lady Angelo’s 4-Ball in 1972 and 1973 were being removed. That left her with 27. Her partner in both events, Sandra Palmer, got the same call. Palmer’s total fell from 21 to 19. A committee had decided that team events should not count as official wins. The total also briefly dropped to 26, because her 1974 Southgate Ladies Open win was left off the list by mistake. It was later added back. (Via Beth Ann Nichols)

That said, her later relationship with the organization also took a surprising turn. In her 2024 interview, Blalock recalled that the LPGA subsequently asked her to represent its interests in other matters. The golfer who had once challenged the tour in federal court later described working with it on other issues.

Blalock later recalled receiving ‘many apologies’ from players who had relied on hearsay rather than witnessing any wrongdoing themselves. Those recollections suggest the dispute’s legacy wasn’t defined entirely by lasting hostility.