[chummer]

Fair point Ru, but it was the "writing whatever we feel like afterwards" that I was specifically asking about. Although it's only 'trainspotting folk like yourself who need to decide what you write, what you write is then taken as the history and will be referred to in the future. My point is what do you write? Will Simpson's ascents be ignored or noted as having some doubt about them? I've almost answered my own question there..

[Paul B]

More

UKC doesn't speak for all climbers so no need for the public service announcement.

...so why they feel the need to single out Rich?

+1

[slackline]

Exactly.  I understand why people are getting upset by this, but I don't understand why UKC feel like they need to report this as a news item.  I don't remember this happening with Si the Conner or Scott McSpanishspotter, so why they feel the need to single out Rich? UKC doesn't speak for all climbers so no need for the public service announcement.

 

Id guess its an attempt to slow the inevitable tide of 'What ever happened to that Rich Simpson thread?' threads as much as anything.

Unfortunately such an approach will never work, as evidenced by this thread and the associated one on UKC, it just stimulates more discussion.  If you don't want anyone to know about Fight Club, you don't talk about it.

[Doylo]

Scarpa say in the article that he resigned so i was only half wrong just like those who said he'd been dropped by all his sponsors were half wrong.

[Dr Lokov]

Anyone remember Andi Peters ?
I belayed Andi Peters on Hubble in November, he RP'd the route first try after only a few hours work. Been training hard in the broom cupboard. He used Ed the duck as a chalk bag.

[Sloper]

I think the difference is that Scott & Si O'Connor were not a sponsored athletes and Rich Simpson was.

I also think that it's a cynical ploy to avoid admitting that their journalistic standards are so low that they've published stuff in the past without any sort of evidence or checking of sources.

Now there's a thought. . . .

[T_B]

I also think that it's a cynical ploy to avoid admitting that their journalistic standards are so low that they've published stuff in the past without any sort of evidence or checking of sources.

Easy to say with the benefit of hindsight.

[Bonjoy]

I for one think UKC have handled this pretty well all things considered, including the aforementioned news piece which draws some sort of line under things, as well as summarising what is actually a fairly newsworthy happening in UK climbing to folks who don't want to trawl through long and rambling threads.

[Grubes]

This thread is kinda pointless.

As shark said when he locked the last thread:

If Simpson wants to respond or other evidence comes to light we can unlock it.

Nothing new has been brought to the table for or against.
UKC just confirmed what has happened in a 1 page summary of the events with confirmation from the sponsors so the UKC mob know what's happened.

Until Rich comes out and confirms or deny what happened its pointless discussing it further.

[Paul B]

This thread is kinda pointless.

Disagree. UKC striking all of his ascents from the (or their) record seems pretty significant to me.

[Wagner]

Of course it true..
I Belay Dicky on Hubble..

[nik at work]

I for one think UKC have handled this pretty well all things considered, including the aforementioned news piece which draws some sort of line under things, as well as summarising what is actually a fairly newsworthy happening in UK climbing to folks who don't want to trawl through long and rambling threads.

I agree. Some people seem to have a knee-jerk reaction to pour scorn on everything that UKC do, rather than actually think about whether their criticism has any basis. Have a wad.

[Falling Down]

I agree.

[Norton Sharley]

Agreed.

Just because it's on the other channel doesn't mean to say it's not correct or the right thing to do.

[petejh]

Until Rich comes out and confirms or deny what happened its pointless discussing it further.

Firstly, I only think it's pointless if you don't believe in people receiving credit where credit's due.

Secondly, and more importantly, that isn't the point Jon (chummer) is making. He's saying that guidebook authors deleting ascents based on internet threads is a dangerous precedent to set and raises lots of awkward questions about what rights guidebook writers have to act as judge and jury in matters such as these.
Since I've just spent the best part of the last two weeks looking into this as thoroughly as I could and trying to make a decision about what to do about the forthcoming NW limestone guide, I'd agree with Jon that's it's an important issue which needs to be thought about. When you think about it, it was always going to come down to something like this with Rich.

I had typed a massive reply detailing why I'm convinced that Rich has lied about his claims, based on the information I've collected from the various people I've contacted, but  D.Y.O.R. - it's enough for me to say that I talked and emailed with enough trustworthy people to get a good enough picture to make my decision. If it comes to the point that I need to justify my decisions I can, by detailing the people I talked to and every instance of alleged bullshitting from so many different trustworthy and independent sources that it's impossible for me believe in Rich's integrity anymore. 
There is no comfortable answer on who gets to judge climbing history - I'd give someone a lot of money I don't have if it meant this sour affair never had to happen, if people want to volunteer to write the guidebook for me I'll happily let them but ultimately someone has to make the awkward decisions or no book gets published (I guess you could claim nothing has to be done by guide writers but that to me seems to be missing a massive point of guidebooks ie recording who did what significant). I'm also aware of the fact that this leaves me open to scrutiny from people with their own motives. Perhaps the next time I claim a new winter route (hopefully quite soon) I'll be put under the spotlight (hopefully not quite soon) - I once top-rope rehearsed a winter route on Clogwyn Du so I guess that means you could use it as a reason to doubt me next time I claim a ground up first ascent ('cause it definitely 'aint going to be an OS )  but those doing the disbelieving should remember that I couldn't prove that I didn't top-rope something, whereas Rich can easily prove he climbed what he claims to have. The key thing to remember throughout all of his stories is  'how would a trustworthy person act in his situation?'.

I, and I'm sure I am not alone, find the whole thing quite sad (in a depressing way).

Couldn't agree more, the whole saga has left me feeling shit.

Amateur nature of climbing is an interesting one - and I think this matter highlights the ability of climbers to self-police our activity. It's good that no official body had to get involved to officiate and declare a finding on who gets to be awarded an ascent. Jesus, it's lucky he didn't make the Olympics 

[Ru]

edit: unnecessary addition. Deleted.

[alx]

First post here!

Something I have meaning to ask.

Your sponsorship is in essence based upon you performing high profile work.  Is being paid for work that isn't performed considered fraud? 

 

If not, then surely my solo  of Action Direct deserves me at least a replacement of my worn out Miura VS's every now and then...

[RASTATA]

For how long this Simpson saga is taking now? 2 months? And still no single person which would step up and said, yes I belay Rich in AD, LA, H?! Don't know what you think, but for me that means just one thing...Case closed

[slackline]

Theres a reason the previous thread on this got closed..............its not going anywhere other than round in circles.

[Jaspersharpe]

Word.

[ghisino]

Your sponsorship is in essence based upon you performing high profile work.  Is being paid for work that isn't performed considered fraud? 

I've always understood that sponsorship is grossly based on your ability to make them sell more equipement, because people see a pic/vid of you wearing that shoe/harness/tshirt/rope/whatever on your 9c, and they know/think you've climbed a 9c, and/or they think you're really cool, so they unconsciously think that if they buy that  shoe/harness/tshirt/rope/whatever, they will get marginally closer to climbing 9c and/or being as cool as you.
(and in the end, they buy that shoe/harness/tshirt/rope/whatever).

in that perspective, paradoxically, a totally false/inflated achievement that is believed by most as true has more value that a true achievement that's believed by most as false!!!

[erm, sam]

LOG!

[Bonjoy]

Ru, by 'history books'  I mean it as a generalisation for all that is written on climbing ascents whether that be on the internet, in the history sections in guides, or in other publications. Of course it's up the guide writer but I personally don't think it's an irrelevency.

I meant that it was an irrelevancy for most guides as they don't have lists of ascentionists anyway. Clearly it's not an irrelevancy for the few that want to include this information, but then the writers will make a judgement call as they do already.

There's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about.

My point is that there has been lots of fuss about the "historical record" when in actual fact the "record" is just a few trainspotter blokes like me who will do exactly the same thing when writing books and articles as we've always done. Which is to do a bit of googling, a bit of ringing round, then writing whatever we feel like afterwards.

To know what will count as the historical record, look at what represents the historical record of the past. As well as mags and guidebooks there are biographies, films, broader historical texts such as Welsh Rock and of course oral history. Nowadays it includes the forums and the news/articles on various websites.
Yes the creation of any media boils down to an individual making judgement calls and this is entirely the point. It is much easier and infinitely less contentious if such calls can be made from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. If climbers at large are aware of what is known they can form their own opinions from this, otherwise the entire onus falls on the writer/film maker. In the absence of open discussion, said trainspotter bloke will likely verify any ascent regardless of its veracity. And what if Mr trainspotter, after ‘a bit of googling, a bit of ringing round’ does come across something dodgy? Do you seriously think he’s likely to go out on a limb and be the one to voice what everyone else is busily sweeping under the carpet?
When I read about Joe Brown, Colin Kirkus or whoever, I’d like to think the writing reflects the facts known and opinions help by climbers at the time, not some prettified version put about to keep the peace at the time.
I don’t think it’s helpful for the climbing community to avoid subjects just so we can all keep bobbling along in happy-happy-joy-joy land.
I do think that the discussion specific to RS has run its course. Though locking another topic on the subject seems pointless and counter productive to me. What is worth discussing is how to avoid the same shit happening again and again and….

[Jim]

spot on bonners.
nice ren & stimpy reference

[slackline]

nice ren & stimpy reference

and its just reminded me I've got all Ren & Stimpy series on DVD (and yet to rip them to the PS3).  I've also got two CDs of songs from the series.