[Johnny Brown]

amen to that dave.

...and I don't know anyone who hasn't seen the Welford at the crag pulling down. That's just the point - if you go out a lot you bump in to people, you, me, the welford, whoever, and you see them climb and you form an opinion, like Dave says. When you've never seen someone who lives locally and 'climbs loads' you get to wondering...

To debunk the "birds nest" theory above - Ru was trying hubble at exactly the same time, and wasn't having any problem with birds nests.

now that's what we're looking for  - FACTS. Can you drop any more FACTS Stu? ...made me laff when I heard it tho...

we've had four pages of posts and thats the first FACT. Amazing...
Can I suggest you all get binos?

[Sloper]

As a bit of an anorak when it comes to evidence. (if I thought I'd get any repleies I'd post a thread disucssing the stautory exceptions to the rule against hearsay and Boardman v DPP, but I'll stop now I'm getting a warm tingling feeling).    

Take the following.  four years ago i was working in North Nottinghamshire, had a gym at work, was getting out on the grit on average three days a week and was route setting at Nottingham Wall.  I got f--king strong and managed to do some problems like Blind Date, T Crack etc.  Mots of the harder problems I did at odd time like 10 am on  atuesday morning when there was no-one about.  3 years later when I go to the wall twice a year, go to the gym about once a month and get out on rock once a month not suprisingly I've turned into a complete punter.  Does this mean I didn't do Blind Date?

What is however evidence is for example, where x has a sudden peak and is never able to reproduce the performance.

What is evidence is x claims to have done y when the conditions were appaling.

What is evidence is x claims y on a date when no-one saw him at the crag, or x was arriving at the crag as it was getting dark etc.

What is evidence is whether x demonstrates the capacity to climb y.

Of course evidence is not proof and as Stu said the presumption should be innocence until guilt is proven.

So rather than name and shame the liars, why not concentrate on naming and shaming the doubters.  If you make the allegaiton it's for you to prove it, it's generally impossibl to prove the negative.

And before anyone starts, the hold I pulled off Gorrilla Warfare or the one at the buckstone were removed without the aid of tools.  It must be because I'm either very fat ort very strong, you decide.

[Johnny Brown]

...agreed. But everyone is allowed a few unwitnessed ascents. Its when there are no witnesses during an entire (publicised) career that people get to worryin...

[Dave Flanagan]

So rather than name and shame the liars

Why would one not name and shame the liars?

[Bubba]

If people want to name and shame the liars then bear the following in mind.

- It's only fair to do so if the accused are given a chance to put their side across. I would urge you to confront the "accused" in private before using this forum as your soap box.

- If what you say has an effect on the accused's career, or whatever, then be prepared for the possibility that they may take legal action against you.

- If anyone starts coming out with what I consider wild accusations with no real evidence to back them up, then the posts will be moderated. Discussion is one thing, but I don't really condone these witch hunts unless there is some strong evidence to back them up.

[Mike_H]

ENOUGH!

I'm really suprised about whats being said here, and from some posters I hold in high regard. Theres been 4 pages of absolute drivel, and 1 fact on the age old argument of did he/didn't he.

Everyone is always going to have doubters, and for as many doubters there are going to be as many people who will stand up for them. Its all smoke screens and playground rhetoric at the end of the day.

If no one is willing to name names in case they could be wrong, then let the matter rest. I don't think it is the place to be airing your views.

[Pantontino]

I think it is okay to discuss the nature of the media, how ascents are reported, the commercial imperative, human nature, modern climbing culture, especially as there is no anonymity on here and the moderation will stop things getting silly,

but,

it becomes very tricky when people start suggesting doubts without explaining their sources.

I realise that JB is only reflecting what is being said behind the scenes, and I've no wish to crucify him for wanting to discuss how fucked up things have become, but I do think we have to be very careful about the damage that we can do to a 'potentially innocent' person's reputation.

It seems that we are heading towards a situation where video proof is required. I find that pretty sad really: some people appear to have lied, therefore proof is required by everyone.

Maybe some people have lied (quite likely if you follow Dave's human nature/tyopical cross section of society argument), but I also believe there is a lot of destructive, competitive jealousy kick starting the rumour mill. Some of the things that people have said to me have shocked me. Jealousy is clearly a very powerful emotion.

[webbo]

having climbed for 30 years i heard all this stuff before .when i was an angry young man( along ,long time ago).i would challenge people to their faces(usually under the influence of mind altering substances ). people still lied
however if you don't question doubtful ascents 3 or 4 years later  when the person is a better climber people start to belive
the roaches guide proves this i.e the woodentop brothers

[Nigel]

What a minefield!

Let's face it this is pretty much everyone's favourite topic at the moment, perhaps because its gossip and we're just a bunch of old ladies, but also I think because the thought of this behaviour grates with most reasonably minded people. Perhaps the biggest question here is how to discuss it on a public forum, as there is a noticable tendency to be "too fair" and not say what you really think, which makes for naff gossip! However it also makes you think about your views, which is a good (and more important) thing.

I agree with Simon that it is perhaps more useful to discuss the commercial aspects, the modern media culture, issues of trust, issues of jealously, and what to do if you actually have proof that someone has been bullshitting, as lets face it its doing high level climbing no good - like JB points out the natural reaction these days is doubt!

Moving on to specifics: Evidence; my natural reaction would be for the doubters to prove their case. However as Sloper say its impossible to prove a negative (except in certain cases where ridiculous porkies get told - such as the climber who was witnessed NOT doing what he'd claimed!). So as distasteful as it is, I would rather see those who are doubted produce evidence of their ascents. I know this seems ridiculous but put yourself in their shoes. If someone accused you of lying about an ascent, would you rather be "principled" and shrug it off (knowing that you would get away with it if you had indeed lied!), or would you say "come on then, lets go to the crag and I'll try to repeat it for you". Myself, I'd be busting moves in minutes, sod principles!

This ties in with what Dave said, which is that a good climber can't really help being good, i.e. you can't be crap and then expect people to believe that when you're on your own you're a beast! But hey, perhaps its the God's honest truth. All I'm saying is that you can't expect people to believe it. Borrow a video camera and quash the doubters. Wouldn't you do it to save your own reputation? Like I say I know its distasteful, but wouldn't you? Of course, different folks different strokes.

Sorry I've lost my spunk now and I don't want this reply to become too unwieldy, so perhaps a brief mention of the media. At the minute on 8a.nu you can claim what you like and yes it is used as a source by magazines. Philip Moser has already "disappeared" from being in the top 10 boulderers due to being discredited. British magazines (and gear sponsorship companies) at the minute have created a very unhealthy climate by being too image-driven, they have cultivated a small pool of photographers who in turn each have a small pool of subjects. If these subjects are sponsored then they receive money (up to a yearly limit) for pictures in magazines. Hence there is a pressure on them to produce "noteworthy ascents" and then get photos in order to get paid. If they don't then they get nowt. Healthy?

[Sloper]

First of all the point about the wintess stating that the ascent did not occur that is positive evidence as to what happened rather than vidence as to what did not happen. (pedantry, I know but I couldn't help it).

As for the point about doing things when you're own your own that you can't / don't do when others are about.  I used to do a lot of soloing on my own (largely because I'd be at the crag at odd times etc) and there's a hidden power reserve technically known as the 'o fuck, if I fall of this now I'm fucked function' that is impossible to engage in less stressful times.  It's happened to me and no doubt to most of you!

I disagree re the onus being on the person to prove the validity of their ascents with one proviso.  If you're a sponsored hero and you're putting up routes at the cutting edge or doing serious repeats then there's a burden to prove what you say you've done.

[Johnny Brown]

My views exactly. If anyone doubts anything I've done i can either produce witnesses or at least make a good stab at repeating it. Why is that too much to ask of the 'famous' climbers?

[Stu Littlefair]

I think I agree that once a climbers ascents start to be doubted then producing video evidence is probably the only way to sort things out. However, I think people should be FAR more cautious about muck-spreading.

The references above about nobobody seeing a climber pulling down being enough evidence to publicly voice doubts, that's bollocks. Stronger evidence would be if you had personally climbed with someone often, and they were consistently failing on hard problems. To use your example Dave, if I went climbing for a week with said 7c climber, and he consistently failed to climb 7a+ - then I'd feel confident saying he wasn't on 7c form. If he claimed 7c the next day, I wouldn't believe him. If he claimed 7c next month I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Form goes up and down. One time I climbed with Jerry on two consecutive days and he was SHIT. Two weeks later he climbed the Ace.  :owned:

So I'd advise a little care. Don't spread third-hand rumours if you can't check the facts. Don't gossip if you don't have good reasons.

On the other hand, if people don't believe you, then become a media star. After all, why do you think Steve bothered filiming himself on Elder Statesman?

[Stu Littlefair]

My views exactly. If anyone doubts anything I've done i can either produce witnesses or at least make a good stab at repeating it. Why is that too much to ask of the 'famous' climbers?

Producing Witnesses:  You can't produce them if they weren't there. Some people are nomadic by habit.

Repeating problems:  Fair enough, they could have a stab, if they can be arsed. Personally, I'd be arsed. But don't doubt them just 'cos they won't come and perform for you. Just because they don't give a shit if you think they did a problem, it doesn't mean they didn't do it.

This is the reason I think this whole "burden of proof" shit has gone too far. I got the impression that the grief Steve got was really distressing for him. Is climbing bits of rock really so important that we can ruin someones month, just because we have nebulous doubts that we're not even sure enough of to defend them in public?

[Bubba]

Where do you draw the line - somebody good with Premiere could fake digital video evidence. Ok, I'm not being entirely serious there.

Steve also offered me the full unedited take of him on Jason's Roof (see video on this site). I declined the offer because I didn't think it necessary for him to have to prove it.

[Stu Littlefair]

Where do you draw the line - somebody good with Premiere could fake digital video evidence. Ok, I'm not being entirely serious there.

Why not? If people are deliberately lying, do you think cutting two attempts on a problem together to make a "continuous" ascent is going to be beyond them?

[Nigel]

I disagree re the onus being on the person to prove the validity of their ascents with one proviso.  If you're a sponsored hero and you're putting up routes at the cutting edge or doing serious repeats then there's a burden to prove what you say you've done.

This is exactly what I meant to say but I forgot! As is clear from my reply I find this way of doing things distasteful but I'm willing to to brush that distaste aside for high level claims, obviously I'm not advocating it as a matter of course! Only for thiose who are widely doubted.

[Johnny Brown]

People will only need to start filming themselves if they habitually climb alone at odd times - this is not a case of everybody needs to prove themselves.

The vast majority of us have mates who spot, belay, brew up or just exist enough to verify our claims. plus there are very few of us whose performance is erratic enough to raise suspicion.

So I don't think its too much to ask - those lone wolves just need to be aware you can't hide your cake and have people believe you've not eaten it :up:

[Nigel]

Stu you make valid points and to be honest I agree with them. I only hold the views I do because of the state of things at the minute, where the rumour mill is getting out of control and having a *very* detrimental effect on British climbing (e.g. Dunning repeates Dreamtime. Massive news? Yes. One sentence in OTE because the editor hears the rumours). All I'm saying is that perhaps it is necessary for this sort of videoing etc to happen in the *short term* so that trust is restored and the "scene" can move forward.

[Bubba]

I suppose it's up to the individual as well. Some people probably don't care if the rest of the climbing community doubts them, because they know full well what they've done, and don't need the blessing of others for their comfort.

But then, some do - I remember Johnny Woodward not being believed regarding his ascent of Beau Geste. He went and did it again with witnesses and photographers. If he was less arsed about the rest of the climbing community, we might all still be sitting here putting him down as a bullshitter.

[Bubba]

Why not? If people are deliberately lying, do you think cutting two attempts on a problem together to make a "continuous" ascent is going to be beyond them?

I can see there being a resurgence in the second hand market in analogue camcorders now  

[Sloper]

Repeating problems:  Fair enough, they could have a stab, if they can be arsed. Personally, I'd be arsed. But don't doubt them just 'cos they won't come and perform for you. Just because they don't give a shit if you think they did a problem, it doesn't mean they didn't do it.

There are problems that i've done in the past that I couldn't repeat the next day or next week. Some times (and more frequently when you're on your limit) you just get lucky, the conditions are right, you're feeling good about a new job, girfriend passing an exam or what ever and it gives you that edge.  After the moment has passed you return to your base level.

[Johnny Brown]

I remember Johnny Woodward not being believed regarding his ascent of Beau Geste. He went and did it again with witnesses and photographers.

'a moment of inspiration, fuelled by the desire to disprove his detractors'...eh?

[Stu Littlefair]

People will only need to start filming themselves if they habitually climb alone at odd times - this is not a case of everybody needs to prove themselves.

The vast majority of us have mates who spot, belay, brew up or just exist enough to verify our claims. plus there are very few of us whose performance is erratic enough to raise suspicion.

So I don't think its too much to ask - those lone wolves just need to be aware you can't hide your cake and have people believe you've not eaten it :up:

To be honest I think that's fair enough. But you've got to meet people halfway. If you're going to require the doubted to produce video evidence, you've also got to have some self-discipline about who we doubt. No-one has any better reason to doubt steve other than the fact that they don't think he's that good, and they haven't see him do it. Personally, I don't think that's enough reason to drag his name through the mud, and there we differ, I guess.

[dave]

Sorry I've lost my spunk now

prank calls again?

[Pantontino]

I've done some of my finest ascents after my girlfriend has passed an important exam. I don't know why, it just gives me such a boost.

(sorry couldn't resist)

back to the heavy shit...