THE New York Times, despite its standing as one of America's most respected and authoritative newspapers, has never been one to particularly impress this writer . . . admittedly for reasons which stem mostly from an apprenticeship with far more colourful and equally informative British and Australian publications.

And its editorial this week, which sent shockwaves through the world of professional golf, did little to alter that opinion.

The Times called for Tiger Woods to boycott next year's Masters, the first of the year's four majors, in order "to send a strong message" to members of Augusta National Golf Club that continued discrimination against females would not be tolerated.

Augusta chairman Hootie Johnson has remained adamant that a woman will not be among the 300 club members by the start of the Masters in April. And he recently lashed out at Martha Burk and the National Council of Women's Organisations for trying to coerce change at the all-male club.

But regardless of what stance one takes on the issue - and there are many, women included, who believe that as a private club Augusta has the right to pick and choose its members - it would appear grossly unfair to throw Woods into the heat of this bubbling cauldron.

As intelligent and articulate as he might be, Tiger's talents are golf and not politics related. His battles should be fought on the fairways and not in the boardroom.

Any influence he enjoys through his status as a sporting icon should not be twisted to exert political pressure.

To his great credit, Woods has never ducked the issue. He's repeatedly said he believes women should be allowed into the club. And his opinion as an honorary member without voting rights should be respected and left at that.

For such an influential publication as The Times to put him in a position whereby he can only be criticised by those on both sides of the fence is as wrong and as unethical as discrimination itself.

"A tournament without Mr. Woods would send a powerful message that discrimination isn't good for the golfing business," said the Times.

Well, making the world's most recognised face in sports the scapegoat for a problem which he didn't create and certainly can't solve, isn't good for business either.

Not surprisingly, Woods is becoming annoyed by the continued calls for him to skip the Masters.

"It's frustrating because I'm the only player they are asking," he said earlier this week.

"They're asking me to give up an opportunity no one has ever had - winning the Masters three years in a row."

And, pertinently, he added: "No one has boycotted the Masters before" not even to protest the club's once discriminatory policy against blacks.

Later this week the Reverend Jesse Jackson announced his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition would organise protests at the Masters if a woman was not admitted as a member by April, but then called the Times editorial "unfair and inconsistent" for singling out Woods.

"I don't remember them saying to Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus to boycott the Masters because blacks are not playing," said Jackson, who then appeared to contradict himself by saying he would urge Woods to take a stronger stand.

"He's much too intelligent and too much a beneficiary of our struggles to be neutral," Jackson added. "His point of view does matter."

Indeed, it does. But it's Woods' prerogative and his alone to choose how and for whom he supports any given cause.

And at all costs he should resist becoming yet another sports figure turned political pawn.