Smoking at The Open

It was not a pretty sight seeing Darren Clarke desperately drawing on a fag to get his nicotine fix at The Open.
Not a good image for young golfers, can you imagine a cricketer or a boxer having a sly puff during a match.
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

I'm sure back in the day during a test match I'm sure when a side was batting whoever wasn't batting had the odd puff.I'm sure I read a book(Johnny Giles I think)where they used to have a puff and a cup of tea at half time.

Doon,try telling that to Miguel angel Jimenez

No doubt I will attract the usual criticisms from the likes of SR about being a guardian reader but I totally agree with you doon. No matter what the situation there is something terribly desperate about smokers drawing as if their life depends on it, oh how the irony.

Doon the Water wrote:
He was smoking at his work place, how do the R&A [EPGA] get round that law?

Probably something to do with it being outdoors. The do-gooders haven't managed to ban that (yet)

Davie

I am guessing you are a smoker?

If so you probably dont understand the annoyance of people smoking even in in the most open of spaces. In fact that is often worse as you are outdoors trying to enjoy the free space and environment and someone ruins that.

Even ignoring any issues like that can we really say it was a particularly good image for golf to be giving out. Thankfully it seems his performance outshone any negatives that could be drawn from his smoking and promotion of heavy drinking.

Yes I'm a smoker. I consider myself a considerate smoker and will go to great lengths to try to avoid annoying people who don't smoke.

But while it's still legal to smoke outdoors I will continue to do so.

Breast cancer badge on his hat - fag in his mouth! Great character and golfer but there is a contradiction there which is more complex than anything I can explain!!!
BTW I read the Guardian and the Telegraph every day - never been sure what the "Guardian reader" - point is all about? Maybe Davie can explain?

puligny wrote:
BTW I read the Guardian and the Telegraph every day - never been sure what the "Guardian reader" - point is all about? Maybe Davie can explain?

Surely by definition you can't understand the point - you are one?

I think it's something to do with liberalism and bad spelling, not really sure myself even though I've never bought a copy.

SJ - too deep for me buddy - you will have to explain more simply!

puligny wrote:SJ - too deep for me buddy - you will have to explain more simply!

Anyone who reads the Guarniad isn't going to call anyone else a Guardian reader as a derogatory term. Even if they do read the Torygraph as balance!

SJ - you'll grow out of it with luck and a following breeze!

I think the question should be is the golf course classed as Darren Clarkes work place ? if so it doesn't matter if its outside in the open air its still against the law . I was stopped at a train station on a platform in the open air at least 100 feet away from anyone else last month and fined £50 quid as the station and ALL parts of it be them under cover or in the open are classed as a work place . Annoyed the f... out of me but aparantly it is the law.

puligny wrote:SJ - you'll grow out of it with luck and a following breeze!

Grow out of what, exactly? Not trying to imply any insult or offence, just stating what seemed obvious, that people who read the Guardian aren't going to use 'Guardian reader' in a defamatory manner. That you also read the Telegraph implies your politics aren't simply left wing, as might be the case for most Guardian readers, but nonetheless you won't be inclined to insult fellow readers.

McLaren wrote:No doubt I will attract the usual criticisms from the likes of SR about being a guardian reader but I totally agree with you doon. No matter what the situation there is something terribly desperate about smokers drawing as if their life depends on it, oh how the irony.

Mac,

I've never so much as had a drag on a teenage mate's fag in my life. And yet I couldn't care less about DC or anyone else wanting to smoke on a golf course, so long as they don't do it six inches upwind from me. I don't have any interest in it myself, but smoking is an entirely legal pastime, and if people want to do it, I don't have any problem with it at all. So-called left-wingers who just want to ban everything annoy the hell out of me.....

While I agree that smoking is inherently disgusting and a needless and pointless pursuit anyone who has ever been to a golf tournament would know that it is commonplace amongst professional golfers. Besides I don't see anyone getting on Jiminez' back about his big churchill stogie, or is that allowed because it's somehow comical to see? What's next, Clarke being criticised for daring to be pictured with a pint of the black stuff.
So what if it's his place of work, if you deny him being able to have a cigarette in what is basically open air where the same public can indulge in a fag and are themselves a considerable distance away from him then all you are being is a petty eurocrat. Builders, construction workers etc always have a fag on the go. Denying them that would be pretty pathetic, even if it is in the letter of the law.

I'm not sure who it was but there used to be someone who bowled (cricket) with a pipe in their mouth, and David Bryant used to bowl (crown green) with a big sherlock holmes number.

I think smoking is a really horrid thing to do , but as long as it's not affecting anyone else in the vicinity then who cares?, all these tree huggers and jobsworths getting on his back probably inhale more dangerous fumes from their planet killing 2cv anyway.

I don't really get how people can have a go at a golfer for smoking on the golf course - you've already ruined the pub trade, maybe it might be policy to leave it there?!?

As for smoking, banning it in various places is a convenient way to simply exert power and show that you can ban things. There is little plausible argument that it should be banned for the benefit of the health of the smoker because despite the disparity between the tax that it generates and the cost that it incurs, poor eating, alcoholism and drug use all offer an equally large gap and yet smokers are victimised. The only concern is to the people around a smoker which is irrelevant somewhere like a golf course and should be down to the landlord/proprietor in a privately owned business- if they have to cater for non-smokers and do not then they will lose this business, which is their choice. Sadly, local pubs are bearing the brunt and we will all be left with awful gastro pubs and large chains offering every drink deal possible to encourage binge drinking - maybe alcohol will be next? There must be a Niemoller poem in there somewhere...

Every morning walking to work in central London I wil get a face full of smoke from soneone chuffing away walking in front of me, without fail. Narrow pavements and Soho being full of people who think it's cool to smoke make in inevitable.
Makes me want to wretch but I'm sure everyone of them thinks they are being considerate smoking outside and not bothering anyone
And how come its apparently OK to throw a fag butt on the ground but no other litter?

Begs the question of the smokers on here~ Do you think Darren might not have won without his nicotine fix?

Doon the Water wrote:Begs the question of the smokers on here~ Do you think Darren might not have won without his nicotine fix?

Doon, really good point and one that I believe was touched upon a couple of years ago when Player raised the issue of drug use in golf. As much as I do not think that performance enhancing drugs can have as big an effect on golf as it does in other sports, smoking may have more of an effect. Towards the middle/end of Clarke's round when the pressure was heating up, he lit a cigarette in between green and tee on one of the holes and this would have invariably had a calming effect on him. I'm not sure how much of an effect that this would have had but assuming that he is a regular smoker, not being able to smoke would have played a part because it would have left him unable to resort to cigarettes when he needed them. I don't think that with Clarke they were the difference between winning The Open and not winning it as I thought that his win was one of determination as much as anything but there have been many instances where a calming effect would have made the difference between winning and not winning and assuming that smoking gives that calming effect, there must be some advantage.

Diggers wrote:Every morning walking to work in central London I wil get a face full of smoke from soneone chuffing away walking in front of me, without fail. Narrow pavements and Soho being full of people who think it's cool to smoke make in inevitable.
Makes me want to wretch but I'm sure everyone of them thinks they are being considerate smoking outside and not bothering anyone
And how come its apparently OK to throw a fag butt on the ground but no other litter?

Damn good point. Whether banning smoking has any health benefits for non smokers is hardly the point as the sheer unpleasantness of passive smoking should be enough for it to be banned everywhere. You should not be able to smoke outside your own property, and not even there if you have kids.


Back to darren clarke, I am not sure it matters whether it is his workplace or not you would have thought the R and A had a policy that covers whether players can smoke on the course or not. It is not the greatest image for the sport but does it do enough damage to warrant the authorities doing something about it?

Mac, the TV broadcasters already have a policy of not showing a golfer smoking, occasionally the odd one might slip through the net as happened with Clarke, but I hardly think it's a big deal or that it is sullying the image of a sport which is already seen by many as stuffy, sedate and gentle.

Of course it doesn't matter that it's his "workplace". It is basically the open countryside and the difference between the crowd and DIggers example of SOho is that the players (at their so called workplace) are far enough away from the supporters with the exception of those sad maniacs who rush up to where the ball sits and so will avoid all but the smallest "air pollution" from his fag. IN fact they've probably more chance of breathing in the smoke from fellow spectators.
There are far more pressing things which the R&A could look into which would benefit the image of sport before the almost invisible problem of tour pro's smoking needs looked at.

SR
Depends if you may consider Nick O' Tean as a performance enhancing drug.

I think at that moment it certainly helped darren.

I very much doubt it gave him any more of an edge over those who don't smoke.
That is to say a sly puff wouldn't have helped non smokers cope with stress/pressure and I can't see how it helped Darren either.

I think it was more about doing something to try and take his mind of the situation , it could of been anything it just so happened Darren smokes .

It's not so long ago that Brian Barnes was drinking several pints a round. What if DC had slurped a quick pint of ?

Regardless, course etiquette may be put to a more severe test in Oh Canada as John Daly gets ready to start his round only three shots (I use the word advisedly) off the lead.

If you consider a course a pro golfers workplace then a smoking area would have to be provided and accommodation made for adequate smoke breaks throughout the round. Which is ridiculous in all honesty.

I am a non-smoker and never will smoke. But there are worst things going on than someone having a smoke. As long as smoke isn't blown in my face Im happy. Plenty of people smoke on the golf course - i do think if DC had whipped out a cigar down the 18th ( like Jimenez) nothing would be said. Its because its a feg.

As much as passive smoking might be annoying, it has little health implications on an occasional basis and there is no reason to simply ban it. There are lots of things that might annoy people and to ban them would be going down a very sad route for society. It's interesting that Darren Clarke's smoking should be pointed out when he is proudly overweight and openly drinks alcohol - surely those examples to viewers and particularly younger viewers are far worse when they are not semi-censored like smoking by the TV companies.

I think DTW raises a very good point here.
Would DC have been able to perform to the same level without a cigarette? I don't smoke but if what i understand about the calming influence of smoking and the reaction to going too long without smoking is correct, then the answer is most likely no he wouldn't have been able to.

I think the key here is it's not illegal which provides some justification for not banning it on the golf course, but then taking cough mixture isn't illegal and plenty of sportpeople have been banned for doing that before an event.

Poor eating, alcoholism and drug use have been mentioned as a comparison and the idea that smokers are victimised. I'm not sure i agree with that. By poor eating i assume we're talking leading to obesity, which a) doesn't have any ill effect of anyone else and b) obesity can occur through no fault of the 'victim' for various medical reasons. Drug use is illegal and drinking alcohol has various laws restricting the use of it in various situations and in public. So i'm not sure how smokers are victimised. As far as drug use goes (which is what it is) it gets VERY VERY preferential treatment

Nicotene is a stimulant, so it shouldnt have a calming effect. However the act of having a cigarette may well serve to calm the person who smokes it down, a kind of panacea really.

MPB, Fat cannot be synthesised out of thin air, you still have to ingest the calories regardless of any underlying medical condition. You may have metabolic or thyroid issues which means you find it more difficult to burn the same calories as someone without these issues, but that just means you have to reassess how many calories you intake. It's a completely manageable condition, and people make excuses for being fat will blame it on anything but themselves.
In any event this only affects a miniscule proportion of obese people in the UK, and the overwhelming majority of those with a weight problem (almost 100%) is down to their own glutony, laziness and lack of exercise.

I'm not trying to defend smoking, as I'm not a smoker, but golfs televisual image is sullied more by many of the golfers being lardy than the very occasional sighting of a golfer on screen taking a toke of a fag. Apart from Cricket, I can't think of any sport in the modern era where players get away with it. It's like Rugby pre professional era.

Speaking of fat golfers, was watching the end of the Canadian Open yesterday. The guy who lost the play off looked like a pig dressed up as a golfer.

He looks a bit like Shane Lowry actually, seems faft people all look alike when they get to a certain size. They are often fond of the crusty goatee as well, perhaps trying to disguise several chins.

Super, completely agree that there are more important things in golf to address and completely agree that the vast majority of obese people are so through their own fault, but not always.
My dad is obese, no doubt about it. But he has severe asthma and arthirities in his hips, which means to say he finds it hard to exercise an understatement. He could not possibly eat less trust me. My point in raising it was to say it would be very difficult to 'address' this issue as some may have bonafide reasons, whereas smoking is a choice pure and simple.

It takes an additional 2000 calories over and above what your body actually requires to put on ONE pound of fat.
Your dad may not be able to eat much less, but if he wants to lose weight (and many fat people don't, so I can't argue with that) then perhaps he needs to look, not at HOW much he's eating, but WHAT he's eating. Not sure how much he drinks but that can contribute a lot.
In any event though, people in his situation represent a tiny minority of fat people in the UK.
How a professional sportsman can justify being fat is quite beyond me.

I find it hard to believe though that people in this day and age still continue to smoke, it's easy to give up.

Digs, i think biologically nicotine can be relaxing depending on the person. Whilst it is a stimulant what it does (in some) is stimulates glands to release hormones which give a calming effect (reduce heart rate, nerve activity etc).
Depends on the person i think

I only know this as my bro's a paramedic!

Better educate him then MPB, smoking increases heart rate, blood pressure and respitory rates, hardly things which will help you in the heat of the moment when calmness is required.
I think a cigarette has a placebo effect in that smokers believe it calms them down but medical evidence proves the opposite.

I do think there is something in the points people are making about cigarettes and comparisons to banned substances. Nicotine when ingested by the human body is a drug, however I am not sure any of us on here have the right knowledge to understand its effects on the human body.

If it does produce an affect then you have to question why you would be allowed to smoke on the course and not take an amount of say diazepam that would have the exact same calming effect as nicotine. Or indeed something like adrenalin should smoking act like a stimulant.

If it is not the case that it has a biological effect but it could be shown that the only effect was a mental one associated with the comfort having the cigarette in your hand then there are some other issues. Now a cigarette is in the same category as those bands like McIlroy wears that are meant to channel positive energy. Now we are in the realms of psychology and superstition which probably can’t be regulated.

If nothing else the fact there is no clear guidance probably just highlights just how poor golfs attitude to drug testing and drug policy are compared to other sports.

The simple fact Mac is that nothing in a cigarette is on the banned substances list, therefore we must assume that any "benefits" from cigarettes are not considered to be of a sufficient enough level by the governing bodies to produce any tangible effects on the level of performance.

End of story.

Super, my dad has been to the doc and been told he will find it virtually impossible to lose weight. He drinks (alcohol) nothing and eats very little.
Anyway, the fact it's my dad is an irrelvance, whether we like it or not there are sometimes reasons.
But agreed its a minority.

Re educating my paramedic brother with your up to date medical knowledge, thanks but i think i'll leave that ha ha
Smoking does do all of those things and i of course a stimulant however, as i said, in some it can be a relaxant too. I've taken this from Wiki as it's easy -

"When they wish to relax, they take deep puffs, which produce a high level of blood nicotine, which depresses the passage of nerve impulses, producing a mild sedative effect"

"Nicotine is unique in comparison to most drugs, as its profile changes from stimulant to sedative/pain killer in increasing dosages and use."

MPB, it does do as you say, but only because nicotine withdrawal raises all of those things and getting a "fix" gets it back to the normal level of a smoker.

A smoker typically has a higher heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate than someone who doesn't smoke, so would Clarke smoking really give him an advantage over someone who doesn't smoke. Unlikely.

The likes of Clarke,Lowry and Blanks (He does have a name) might be happy the way they are. Just talking in golfing terms ( bit radical I know), but if these guys were to lose a massive amount of weight then this would probably mean completely rebuilding their swing. You picture Monty's swing or Craig Stadlers. Would they be different if they were slim?

People come in all shapes and sizes and this can dictate how the club is swung. This makes life interesting. What next? Short people should stand in grow bags until they are taller? Tall people should be squeezed until they are all the same height?

I'm not a smoker,but I am carrying a few extra pounds (not obese). Going back to the topic. DC did nothing wrong. What he did was perfectly legal. I suppose if he tucked into a BigMac half way round that would have been wrong.

They must have changed their swings whilst they were becoming fat, as long as weight loss is gradual why should it make much difference going the other way.
Mickelson has managed it very well, as has Lee Westwood. Seems like another excuse to me.

Super, agreed it only has a calming effect on those heavily addicted.
So smoking probably only puts Darren back on an even keel with everyone else, that's true.
But the fact remains that without smoking it's likely he would not have been able to perform to the same level.
Also does this mean if a heroine addict becomes a pro he should be able to shoot up on the course for the same reasons as Darren?

That's an extreme, but an interesting question

MPB

Your dad is an irrelevance? Bloody harsh.

He is of course totally irrelevant to mankind or at the very least the universe, but so are most of us really. Either way you should show your father a little more respect.

Disagree MPB, Even after smoking Clarkes resiratory rates etc will still be higher than others who don't smoke, so he's still got it tough.

Heroin is illegal MPB so is a silly comparison.
We've a guy at my club who is an alcoholic. Great player, but utterley dependent, now he gets away with it in club comps, but in national competitions where he can't get away with it and his nervous system suffers he generally stinks the place out.
The beneficial effects of smoking is hard to measure, but if it was such a benefit you'd think it would be banned by the R&A, but it isn't. Must tell us something

McLaren wrote:MPB

Your dad is an irrelevance? Bloody harsh.

He is of course totally irrelevant to mankind or at the very least the universe, but so are most of us really. Either way you should show your father a little more respect.

Oh god, here comes The Guardian editor again.
It's all about context Mac. He's broadly irrelevant to the argument.

Mac, actually relatively funny, for you.......

Super, the heroine thing was a silly example true. The drinking one would be better. Not illegal but not alowed on a golf course.

I wonder if smoking is allowed not because no one understands the medical effects but more because it's so commonplace ad has been happening as long as golf has been played!

It must be physically beneficial to Darren or surely he wouldn't do it

That could be a good point MPB, I wonder how much has been done to determine the effects of a cigarette.
In any event I doubt Clarke was the only smoker in the field, and as he won and they didn't it doesn't look like a cigarette does too much to enhance performance.

It's not that it's physically beneficial, it's because he's addicted. If he'd left his fags in the car does anyone think he wouldn't have still won?

SR

I hope you said that with a great deal of sarcasm.

I suspect without the cigarettes he probably would still have won as he was far and away the best player that week.
That said, i've no doubt (be it because of a placebo affect or because of the possible physiological reasons) that without a smoke he would have been in a different frame of mind. Whether that weould have affected his performance we'll never know.

There is no doubt he was the best player by a margin bigger than anything the cigarettes gave him