[Wellsy]

And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.

You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.

I can see where you're coming from there. I think if you just climb as a discipline though, no competitions no sponsors, it's probably fine. Not like you're harming anyone.

[cheque]

And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever?

Just one of the things that separates the pastime of rock climbing from the sport of competition climbing.

[Will Hunt]

You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.

Does anybody seriously think that performance is relevant to sponsorship any more?

[ali k]

So this route is actually only E9 and everyone’s taking steroids to get up the thing. Standards have slipped since Brexit!

[Will Hunt]

So this route is actually only E9 and everyone’s taking steroids to get up the thing. Standards have slipped since Brexit!

If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!

Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?

[shark]

Does anybody seriously think that performance is relevant to sponsorship any more?

Where do I sign? 

[ali k]

If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!

Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?

What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?

[Will Hunt]

If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!

Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?

What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?

Cusping is what happens when a route, problem, or grade that was cool is made uncool by the act of a particular person climbing it.

Example: I used to think that 8c was a big number until Jim climbed Bat Route in the Great Cusping of 2019.

[Bradders]

If Franco links it on top rope it could be the quickest cusping of a hard route ever!

Do we have a thread for significant cusps? Does Remus have a list? If not, why not?

What’s cusping? Is that a sex thing?

Cusping is what happens when a route, problem, or grade that was cool is made uncool by the act of a particular person climbing it.

Example: I used to think that 8c was a big number until Jim climbed Bat Route in the Great Cusping of 2019.

Just like Red Baron Roof clearly isn't 7C+? 

[Ged]

Seems like every man and his dog's on it atm.

/adds to Fiend's dog friendly crag list.

"The recent scenes on Lexicon have been unprecedented. Yesterday, @francocookson & @neiljmawson turned up for a slice of the action and at one point, 3 climbers (including @ste_mcclure ) were queuing for an E11! "

Excellent, I always feel slightly sorry for routes that people have put a lot into that immediately fall into obscurity.

Is it obligatory to be from the North York Moors to have a go?

[Doylo]

The only way to know for sure is to pull his undies down to see if he has shrunken testicles. I’m game .

[Serpico]

The only way to know for sure is to pull his undies down to see if he has shrunken testicles. I’m game .

Surely you'd have to have knowledge of their previous size to be able to judge?

[Doylo]

The only way to know for sure is to pull his undies down to see if he has shrunken testicles. I’m game .

Surely you'd have to have knowledge of their previous size to be able to judge?

………

[User deactivated.]

And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.

You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.

I'm not aware of any banned substances list for rock climbing, so who decides which performance enhancing drugs are ok?

Most people will claim an ascent is valid if the performance was enhanced by caffeine. Well at least testosterone naturally occurs in the body, so a little bit more of it can't be cheating, right?

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

[Fultonius]

And I mean in rock climbing, where you don't even have to figure out how to pass a drug test? In comps you do, but not for going out and doing whatever? Yeah. Not that I remotely care if they are or think there's even anything really wrong with it tbh, not morally anyway.

You're definitely toeing the morality line (or just stepping straight over it) if you're a professional athlete using your performances to get sponsorship deals.

I'm not aware of any banned substances list for rock climbing, so who decides which performance enhancing drugs are ok?

Most people will claim an ascent is valid if the performance was enhanced by caffeine. Well at least testosterone naturally occurs in the body, so a little bit more of it can't be cheating, right?

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

Of course, in the non-competition world anyone can do what they want really. I guess the question is - if anyone (not positioning fingers here) had done this, do you think they'd be as likely to name check their favourite supplement as their entourage of support crew?

[shurt]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUIBjWfIp8U/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Interesting topic to discuss 

I guess you could argue that a 14 page write up on UKC involving ballet and equipment consultants is an excellent cover story. Just sayin...

If I was Gresh I'd just post a photo on here of my healthy ball sack, but then maybe he's got something to hide. Doylo knows, just ask him

[tim palmer]

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things?  Measurable increase in strength and recovery?  Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids. 
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned,  I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.

Edit: typo

[User deactivated.]

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things?  Measurable increase in strength and recovery?  Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids. 
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned,  I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.

Edit: typo

Re: I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned

To give one example, there's a huge amount of research on creatine showing that supplementation usually has a significant impact on performance and recovery. I imagine that little to no research has been done on the aforementioned peptides and other designer drugs that are now available.

[tim palmer]

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things?  Measurable increase in strength and recovery?  Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids. 
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned,  I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.

Edit: typo

Re: I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned

To give one example, there's a huge amount of research on creatine showing that supplementation usually has a significant impact on performance and recovery. I imagine that little to no research has been done on the aforementioned peptides and other designer drugs that are now available.

I would put my house on the fact that the effect of creatine is tiny and much more variable than that of stanozolol. Hence why one is considered cheating and the other isn't (?).

I am not sure I see the logic in saying that because there are things that may be cheating which aren't banned we should be on board with people using things which definitely are. Besides the fact that these designer drugs can't be that good if the top athletes still pop for the same old things. 

[User deactivated.]

Obviously I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I do think testosterone and other steroids are 'cheating' but that's not based upon anything objective. There's a massive grey area these days in which drugs are acceptable and I don't know where the line is, e.g. various peptides that can allegedly enhance anything from strength, endurance, recovery, and even cognitive/learning enhancements! And many of these aren't even banned in professional sports (yet).

Is the ban on anabolic steroid not entirely based on objective things?  Measurable increase in strength and recovery?  Along with the objective achievements of countries with doping programs based on the use of anabolic steroids. 
I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned,  I think I heard the analogy of trying to put 6 wheels on a car used by one sports science bod.

Edit: typo

Re: I think the majority of supplements do nothing which is why they aren't banned

To give one example, there's a huge amount of research on creatine showing that supplementation usually has a significant impact on performance and recovery. I imagine that little to no research has been done on the aforementioned peptides and other designer drugs that are now available.

I would put my house on the fact that the effect of creatine is tiny and much more variable than that of stanozolol. Hence why one is considered cheating and the other isn't (?).

I am not sure I see the logic in saying that because there are things that may be cheating which aren't banned we should be on board with people using things which definitely are. Besides the fact that these designer drugs can't be that good if the top athletes still pop for the same old things.

Back in my weightlifting days I used to gain a good 10kg on each of my big lifts when starting creatine along with a couple kg of bodyweight (which would disappear upon cessation). The research shows the effect is well above and beyond placebo, but I assume you are correct that stanozolol has a much stronger effect. 

I clarified that steroids weren't ok in my opinion, but that this opinion is drawing an imaginary line in the sand on performance enhancers that are ok and those that aren't. Choosing the acceptable level of enhancement a substance can provide before its not ok is where we stray from objectivity. That was my point. 

Regarding athletes popping for the same old things, well of course they only test positive for substances on the banned list. A quick google search shows me that the modern peptides etc are getting banned by testing bodies as they catch up, and athletes have been testing positive for them following the bans. I can only assume there's plenty of stuff the testing agencies haven't discovered yet. There's a bloke fighting this weekend who's previously weighed in at over 250lbs, shredded, whilst training for boxing - a cardiovascular sport. He hasn't tested positive but if anyone thinks that is completely natural then I have a bridge to sell them.

[Wellsy]

I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.

[Fiend]

done naturally without gear... no.

Well Lexicon is pretty damn gearless on the upper headwall...

[Wellsy]

done naturally without gear... no.

Well Lexicon is pretty damn gearless on the upper headwall...

Apparently not 

[AJM]

I think Malc's point is similar, an elite athlete making absolute strength gains in their late 40s/50s has either massively underperformed to an inexplicable degree for 30 years... or they're on gear. If one thinks that can be done naturally without gear... no.

I'm not entirely clear how much of this conversation is merely hypothetical and how much of it relates to Gresham in particular, but if the latter - is he "elite" in strength terms? As he says in the IG post below, things that represent major milestones for him are the sorts of things "the youth" warm up on....

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTHcr27DAO_/?utm_medium=share_sheet

He's way better and way stronger than me and all that, so this is absolutely not intending to do down his abilities - but there's "making strength gains as an elite athlete in your 50s" and there's "getting to hang the bm2k slot one armed", and I honestly have no idea whether the latter is still in the realm of elite performance that means it is subject to biological constraints in the way the former is.

[Nibile]

There's a bloke fighting this weekend

I'm looking forward to watching the match. I think that Usik may be a bit too light in this class, he's a natural light heavyweight. I hope that the weight gain will not slow him down, speed and technique are some of his assets. Joshua doesn't have much to prove but he's got to be careful, apparently he hasn't got exactly an iron chin.