[John Gillott]

Maybe an odd question to ask on a bouldering forum - but is speed climbing the BH (friable rock) any more crazy that speed climbing mixed north faces (Steck)?

Why is it relevant?

I'm wondering whether we should be any more amazed at the adoption of a speed climbing mentality on alpine rock compared with alpine mixed north faces. Huber's style seemed more cautious and controlled than speedy to me.

[tc]

The crux pitch (VIII/VIII+) on the Brandler Hasse is 20 metres. The rest are between 30 and 45 metres.

[SA Chris]

Maybe an odd question to ask on a bouldering forum - but is speed climbing the BH (friable rock) any more crazy that speed climbing mixed north faces (Steck)?

Why is it relevant?

I'm wondering whether we should be any more amazed at the adoption of a speed climbing mentality on alpine rock compared with alpine mixed north faces. Huber's style seemed more cautious and controlled than speedy to me.

Not really. I've seen Guides in Chamonix frontpointing at incredible speeds. These guys cover tens of thousands of vertical feet every year and have done so for decades. They can get into a rhythm and practically run up moderately hard terrain.

[dave]

If you look at the heli footage of Steck on the Eiger he's basically sprinting frontpoint up the snowfields at an incredible pace, well above the average pace of the route, which in effect buys him time for the more technical mixed shit. Obviously soloing an all-rock route limestone isn't like this at all, you've still got to look for holds and climb carefully, you can't just sprint up with your eeys shut like dan osman on a layback crack.

[SA Chris]

Word. Fact that there is footage of him at all should be enough.

[Sloper]

Stu,

I wasn't suggesting that there was a syllogistic model that could deal with the matter, rather the following:

You can add as many long words to your post as you like, and it doesn't change the basics of what I wrote. If you want to adopt a trial analogy, before the trial even starts the prosecution has to amount sufficient evidence for the CPS to consider it worth going to trial. Note that the prosecution doesn't simply have to point out that the defence hasn't provided it for them. /quote]

Stu, the charges have been made, the evidence on which they are founded has been presented, we are now debating the evidence.  You are right, the lies (if that's what they are) about running don't mean that he hsan't done xy or z, rather what they do is undermine the credibility of the claims and thus emphasise the need for supporting evidence.

There's something called 'bad character' evidence.  Basically the idea is if you're a liar about some relavent matters then it's relavent evidence when your honesty is called into question with regard other matters.  If RS had good evidence to back up his claims then we wouldn't be having this debate.

Stu what makes you think I'm indulging in the same behaviour as Rich did with Ben Heason, in that case Rich made the accusations against Ben and then sought to build a case against him.  In the current debate, Rich made the claims, as part of his basis for sponsorship, others doubted the claims and explained why they had the doubts and we are now considering those charges and the evidence.

Consider this: look at the number of non sponsored runners with a sub 2:30 in the NYC. http://web2.nyrrc.org/cgi-bin/htmlos.cgi/45562.1.072125389333099065

The evidence that he got this 'ghost pass' is limited to a second hand hearsay statement that he got a 'ghost pass' to the NYC marathon.

A sponsored runner would not pass on their entry, if you do that you get banned and almost certainly lose your sponsor.  Ask yourself why would someone who had trained like fuck and was a serious runner take that risk and give up their entry just because a 'socialite' like Ivan Greene asked them to do so?

This story seems like an elaborate lie to cover up and simple one.  If IG had the weight to pull an ilegal entry why didn't he have the weight to pull an additional legal one? How did he find out who was injured and might be prepared to give up their bib? How did he get in touch with them? What's in it for IG?

Then there's the problem that 4 minute milers tend not to be marathon runners (in fact he'd be in the top three in the country in both disciplines), there's no evidence of anyone doing a 4 minute mile as he claimed, he's no recorded pedigree at either mile or marathon.

On any credible assessment of what evidence we have the only rational conclusion is that RS has been dishonest about his athletics claims and that this undermines his credibility for the other un-evidenced claims making them less likely to be true.

[Stu Littlefair]

Seriously, why can't people use the quote system properly?

Sloper, in my reply to you, I was talking about you using his boxing claims as further character evidence. Whatever the situation with his running, it's not relevant to the fact that you slung more mud based on very poorly researched facts and supposition, despite the facts that your assertions are easily checkable if you can be bothered.

Thats why I compared your behaviour to Rich's in the Heason thread.

[Sloper]

I don't know I asked John Cox for some help and he told me to fuck off.

Stu, it was reported that RS had claimed to have won his last eight fights, been on the verge of representing England and so on, when all the evidence to the contrary was/is that this was not true.

You don't seem to get it do you? 

In the RS v BH 'incident' RS made allegations and then sought to construct evidence to support his own case from rumours, hearsay and the like.

In the current matter of the people v RS, RS made statements and then numerous others have adduced good evidence that tends to show that the statements are untrue.

I have been commenting on the evidence that has been advanced by others.  as for checking the evidence the rankings pages of the ABAE and ukboxing.net or what ever it was are unavailable.

Perhaps you might care to read my contribution about when the burden on those making the accusation has been satisfied and when the burden properly shifts to the person accused to provide some evidence.

Anyway, I'm off to The Works.

[Stu Littlefair]

I don't know I asked John Cox for some help and he told me to fuck off.

Stu, it was reported that RS had claimed to have won his last eight fights, been on the verge of representing England and so on, when all the evidence to the contrary was/is that this was not true.

Bloody hell; you've done it again. Remember, I'm just talking about your use of his boxing results here, and asking - what evidence? The fact that ABAE haven't put their membership lists or rankings online? Damning! And ukboxing.net appears not to exist, so I doubt its relevance.

You don't seem to get it do you? 

I think I do get it, to be honest. I'm aware that there's some decent circumstantial evidence that puts Rich's running career in doubt. You don't seem to get that there's no good evidence that his boxing doesn't bear muster, or that he didn't climb AD, Hubble and others. All there is is the same rumours, hearsay and the like (to borrow a phrase) that was used in the Ben Heason case... So your argument about when the burden of proof shifts doesn't really apply to his climbing now, does it?

[slackline]

Or to put it another way...

In the current matter of the people v RS, RS made statements and then numerous others have adduced good evidence that tends to show that the statements are untrue.

..it seems to me that good evidence seems to mean...

"Neither myself nor anyone else has bothered to identify and ask the belayers on the claimed ascents (Hubble, AD, A Muerte, Liquid Ambar, etc.) for confirmation, therefore in its absence we have adduced that they didn't happen".

...which is a bit tenuous when "all" it takes is to find the belayers for each and go and ask them for confirmation.

[shark]

"Neither myself nor anyone else has bothered to identify and ask the belayers on the claimed ascents (Hubble, AD, A Muerte, Liquid Ambar, etc.) for confirmation, therefore in its absence we have adduced that they didn't happen".

...which is a bit tenuous when "all" it takes is to find the belayers for each and go and ask them for confirmation.

Not as easy as you suggest. Nobody I know (and I have been asking for 2 years) knows who belayed him on AD or AM.

Can anyone categorically name a belayer for any successful ascent of a route at 8c or above ? Please...   

[slackline]

I realise its not necessarily that easy (which is why I put double quotes around the "all" part), but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried before the claim is questioned (and is perhaps why you at least have attempted to do so?).

Can anyone categorically name a belayer for any successful ascent of a route at 8c or above ? Please...   

Not I, but I'm sure that those who have climbed the grade remember who belayed them.

[butterworthtom]

These witch hunts don't often ever reach a conclusion it seems, so it is good to see that people seem to be seeking facts regarding the validity of some of Rich's claims. I would love to find out that he has always been telling the truth, however it gets progressively more difficult to believe him after some of the information posted on here.
Presumably Rich will find out about this thread, and I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.

[Barratt]

These witch hunts don't often ever reach a conclusion it seems, so it is good to see that people seem to be seeking facts regarding the validity of some of Rich's claims. I would love to find out that he has always been telling the truth, however it gets progressively more difficult to believe him after some of the information posted on here.
Presumably Rich will find out about this thread, and I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.

what he said

[dobbin]

Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.

we've been here and asked before. It didnt yield fruit. The argument then was that he wouldnt divulge or show the videos as he wanted the doubters to confront him directly or somesuch.

[Sloper]

Stu, let me try and explain again.

The running etc has no direct bearing on whether he did nor did not climb AD or any of the other hard routes.  What it does do is bring in question the credibility of the claims.

The point Slackers about there being good evidence is simply this, it is good evidence in relation to the athletic claims and thus the credibility of the person making the claims, not their climbing ability or the routes that they have ticked. 

With Ben Heason we didn't have good evidence.  We can refute the claims about running to a relatively high degree and give reasons why in a way that we couldn't with BH, eg an official on every route on Froggatt on the one day one can climbe there etc . . .

As I said before RS can produce evidence which willl categorically demonstrate his 4 minute mile run, his sub 2:30 marathon, his boxing and so on. 

This won't have a direct bearing on the claims that he has made for AD etc but if he's can demonstrate that we're alll so very wrong on these matters it makes his claims very much more credible than they appear otherwise.

In the absence of direct evidence of a claim the only means of assessing the credibility of the claim are by reference to the nature and extent of the claim and the credibility of the person making it.

Here we have the later being substantially diminished.

[Stu Littlefair]

 

You seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm an idiot. Show me where I posted that the evidence pertaining to Rich's running has no bearing on the issue of his character? In fact, I've repeatedly accepted that it's awkward for him, and means people will naturally question his climbing and boxing achievements.

I've never suggested the contrary, so to repeatedly explain to me that this is true is, to put it bluntly, fucking annoying. 

However, you have persistently ignored my actual complaint, which is that you have provided no evidence which directly relates to his boxing, but have nevertheless seen fit to baldly state that "all the evidence" points to him lying about this as well. I'd have thought, as a lawyer, that you'd be more careful about the things you say in public.

Anyway, that was my last attempt to get you to read what I'm writing, rather than what you think I'm writing. Hope you enjoyed the works.

[account_inactive]

Sorry Stuart but can you explain that again?

[Sloper]

You seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm an idiot. Show me where I posted that the evidence pertaining to Rich's running has no bearing on the issue of his character? In fact, I've repeatedly accepted that it's awkward for him, and means people will naturally question his climbing and boxing achievements.

I've never suggested the contrary, so to repeatedly explain to me that this is true is, to put it bluntly, fucking annoying. 

However, you have persistently ignored my actual complaint, which is that you have provided no evidence which directly relates to his boxing, but have nevertheless seen fit to baldly state that "all the evidence" points to him lying about this as well. I'd have thought, as a lawyer, that you'd be more careful about the things you say in public.

Anyway, that was my last attempt to get you to read what I'm writing, rather than what you think I'm writing. Hope you enjoyed the works.

No I'm well aware of your academic credentials and would no way wish to suggest that you're an idiot, after all the phrase I would use is moron. (not than I'm suggested you're a moron either I just find idiot rather tedious unless prefixed by something that gives it a bit of colour).

My point about the boxing was simple.  As I recall on the Cockfax thread there were people saying that they'd made enquiries with people in boxing and there was no record of RS being registered as a boxer or boxing.  I think they mentioned names of coaches and regional organisers and so on.  OK this is hearsday evidence but it's direct and first hand hearsay.  So, yes all the evidence does point to him lying about this too.

The point I was making was that if these comments were eroneous then he would be able to show that he had boxed because records are kept of every bout (as I undersatnd it).  I don't think (and I'll check what I posted) that I said that he hadn't boxed, rather that if he had there would be a record and if there is no record then it was most unlikely that his claims are truthful.

As I have said before I'd be really rather pleased if RS would produce the evidence which showed that the impression that I and others have is wrong and that as far as his boxing, running claims go he's within a "gnat's" of the truth.

As for the works, indeed not a bad session, I managed to haul myself up some black and yellows, although no doubt Alderson will be on to say that I didn't match the finsihing hold of the one facing reception . . . which does happen to be the truth . . .

[i_a_coops]

I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?

For what it's worth, abarro81 and Three Nine (who have both climbed with Simpson) are in a van in Spain for the next couple of months, and are unlikely to be checking ukb regularly.

[butterworthtom]

Barrows can't keep away

[clgladiator]

Its quite sad to see so much attacking of one person happening and it needs to be resolved for the better or worse.
There are quite a few pictures of RS on the Moon site doing hard stuff in the 'jura, surely someone would know who the photographer for those shots was?

[deadhead]

Dan I agree that Sponsors should check for evidence for there athletes achievements.

However why did Wild Country and Scarpa choose to sponsor him if there was so much doubt about his credentials? Why the sudden change of heart as from what you and Percy are saying there was no evidence before and there is no evidence now. From an outside perspective none of this makes any sense.

I don't think they (his sponsors) have handled this well at all, although clearly simpson has himself to blame for refusing to, or not being able to produce evidence  for a lot of his claims. If they thought he was for real before and now they think he's a liar they should really explain the reason for the U-Turn

Imyho the real problem is that climbing is a trust sport and that I'm sure most sponsors take people at their word because there has never been a duty to provide hard evidence and there are so very few people who do lie or cheat exactly because the rewards are less than in footy or climbing.
However, with a trust sport surely there is a reciprical burden of truth and when asked directly (i'm sure we'd all agree) an athlete should reward the faith of the followers of the sport with evidence for what he has done - especially as it is such a simple thing to do - simply by giving a belayer or twos name...
Now i am presuming two things with his sponsors A. they've asked him and either don't like what they've heard or he has refused to answer them much like he won't come on forums anymore and B. If it's simply that he won't answer they can certainly drop him from their team but I would be pretty certain they're not going to go round accusing him of anything in public especially with no evidence. Refusing to answer questions is no proof of guilt - it may make people suspicious and that may lead to something but I'm pretty certain that major companies would have one eye on litigation and aren't going to be posting on websites.
And by the way has anyone asked them??

[mark s]

out of interest ive just google "new york marathon rich simpson" nothing apart from 2h30 is 20 minutes slower than the best in the world!!!!

then "rich simpson boxing" again nothing.as sloper says every boxer and amatuer fight is closely regulated.something would be online

there is no doubting he had talent and was a strong little yoth

[Paul B]

maybe you should read the thread through in its entirety!