UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => shootin' the shit => the log pile => Topic started by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 11:37:09 am

Title: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 11:37:09 am

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=59419 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=59419)

I, and I'm sure I am not alone, find the whole thing quite sad (in a depressing way). I know the topic about Rich was locked and rightly so and I am genuinely not trying to be all UKC about this but these statements do raise the question; what will be recorded about Rich's ascents in the history books?

Just read that back and it sounds like I am trying to stir an already muddy pool after it's just settled, that is truly not my intention. I think for the N.Wales Limestone guide that we'll have to mention something about Liquid Ambar but will this set a precedent where all unproven/ unwitnessed ascents of hard routes will have a footnote in the history section? That in my opinion would be pretty shit and it undermines the whole amature sport ethos.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 11:38:35 am
 P.S As far as his other sporting achievements i really couldn't give a fuck although it obviously provides ammo for the doubters
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: account_inactive on December 16, 2010, 11:51:16 am
Today is a sad day indeed
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 16, 2010, 12:00:06 pm
UKC can always raise a smile though:

Quote from: Yonah
A defining moment in the history of the website: perhaps you, or we, have come of age.

Amazing. We need a smug/superior smiley, hold on a minute.......

(http://i776.photobucket.com/albums/yy49/alexandros1313/bigsmug.png)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 16, 2010, 12:01:57 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Serpico on December 16, 2010, 12:02:44 pm
I've stayed away from this particular car wreck so far, but this has pissed me off a bit:

Quote
Wild Country have now issued the following statement to UKC:

"Earlier this year there was a forum thread on UKC which seemed to provide some evidence that disputed Rich Simpson's running claims - and alluded to problems with other claims Rich Simpson had made regarding his climbing. Wild Country, concerned about its reputation and also in consideration of concerns over the history of the sport, felt it prudent to ask Rich Simpson to provide evidence for some of his ascents in the shape of naming his belayers for several routes - routes which were reported and claims that were repeated on Wild Country's website as Rich Simpson was a Wild Country sponsored climber.

However, Rich Simpson refused to supply any information that could verify his ascents, even when repeatedly asked directly by Wild Country, thus Wild Country decided to terminate his sponsorship and remove any information regarding Rich Simpson from its website until such time as evidence is provided."

We have also received a statement from Scarpa:

"When we saw the threads on various web sites raising doubts about Rich Simpson's ascents, we asked him to make a statement on UKC in order to protect his reputation and that of Scarpa and the Mountain Boot Company. Rich Simpson refused to make a statement and then, under his own instigation, immediately tended his resignation as a sponsored athlete. We accepted this resignation."

Which is a different sequence of events to:
Quote
When rich became aware of the UKC thread two weeks ago he wrote to his sponsors telling them he was giving up his sponsorship. He had no intention to reply to the thread.
From Doylo on 9th Nov'

Taking advantage of your mate's desire to stick up for you is a low trick.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on December 16, 2010, 12:02:52 pm
I was writing something for the Moon website the other day about top British performances, and you mention Steve mac and Ryan and Tom Bolger and how great the things are that they do, but then it comes to Rich and when I was writing I just found my heart wasn't in it. Personally I've no reason to doubt him, but I just didn't feel like it, almost like it was disrespectful to all the people who are straight about it.

It seems, at best, that Rich has gone to great lengths to orchestrate some massive mystery about himself as some sort of performance. I don't find it that sad, just mildly odd.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 16, 2010, 12:09:23 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?

UKC wrote another non-news article.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 16, 2010, 12:23:54 pm
Taking advantage of your mate's desire to stick up for you is a low trick.

It is a different sequence of events, but unless you know exactly what Doylo was told and whether it was possible to misinterpret it, I don't think points like this help. The chinese whisper effect, even in the law where we're all paid to communicate accurately, is huge.

As for the history books point, what history books? Guidebook writers will make their own minds up. 99% of the time it's an irrelevancy. I've written the Raven Tor section of the next BMC limestone guide, and guess what, like most other guidebooks I haven't included lists of everyone that's done Hubble.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 16, 2010, 12:41:48 pm
Well that's just lazy.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Paul B on December 16, 2010, 01:02:44 pm
It is a different sequence of events, but unless you know exactly what Doylo was told and whether it was possible to misinterpret it, I don't think points like this help. The chinese whisper effect, even in the law where we're all paid to communicate accurately, is huge.

It works both ways too; I was told a completely seperate version of events by someone who works at WC than their official press release, a version that was far more sympathetic to RS.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 01:07:39 pm
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. You may not have included lists of all those who have done Hubble but others will in other books and articles (see Grimer's post) and for other routes Rich has claimed like Liquid Ambar where Rich's ascent was pretty significant in the history of that route it will/has been be written about, so again I don't think it's an irrelevancy. There's also his first ascents and the question of whether all of his ascents without evidence will be doubted now when written about.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Dr T on December 16, 2010, 01:25:13 pm
Quote from: Tom Ripley
What about the boxing claims, they sounded pretty unlikely too?

Also, is he defiantly studying at Cambridge - people were casting doubt on that claim too.

Has anyone, of note, in the climbing world come forward to support Rich?

The big question that everybody on the other channel seems afraid to ask is...

"Does anyone have proof that this Rich Simpson actually exists???"

  ;D
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 16, 2010, 02:05:58 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 02:19:28 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)

Why don't you just go and knock one out then Sloper so we can get on with discussing the written and yet written history of British climbing.


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 02:20:38 pm
 :-*
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 16, 2010, 02:28:36 pm
Perhaps there's an article to be written on famous british climbing fantasists, from Gary Gibson's two new routes in a day (Lundy & Pembroke) through to this.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 16, 2010, 02:35:59 pm
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 16, 2010, 02:42:33 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot>]?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 16, 2010, 02:44:13 pm
Surely that was intentional.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chris20 on December 16, 2010, 02:45:05 pm
I think the real question is who would win a fight Rich Simpson or Si O'Connor?

(yes this is childish but I'm working on some tedious stuff and need a bit of light relief . . . fluffer!)

Rich Simpson, FACT!...... http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rich+simpson&word2=si+o+conner (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rich+simpson&word2=si+o+conner)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 16, 2010, 02:48:43 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot?

Wasn't that done on purpose by the writer of that article in very similar circumstances?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: account_inactive on December 16, 2010, 02:49:00 pm
Today is a sad day indeed

What changed today ?

UKC wrote another non-news article.

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.

 
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: account_inactive on December 16, 2010, 02:50:07 pm
The thing is though the written record is pretty unrelaible, anyone else remember OTE crediting Seb with the FA of Parthian Shot?

Wasn't that done on purpose by the writer of that article in very similar circumstances?

Who would have done a thing like that  :whistle:
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: remus on December 16, 2010, 02:59:34 pm

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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 16, 2010, 03:11:51 pm
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..

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Paul B on December 16, 2010, 03:12:51 pm
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
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 16, 2010, 03:23:57 pm

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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 16, 2010, 03:39:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Dr Lokov on December 16, 2010, 03:52:24 pm
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.

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 16, 2010, 04:16:00 pm
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. . . .
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: T_B on December 16, 2010, 04:28:35 pm

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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 16, 2010, 04:36:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Grubes on December 16, 2010, 06:09:23 pm
This thread is kinda pointless.

As shark said when he locked the last thread:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Paul B on December 16, 2010, 06:15:28 pm
This thread is kinda pointless.

Disagree. UKC striking all of his ascents from the (or their) record seems pretty significant to me.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Wagner on December 16, 2010, 06:16:18 pm
Of course it true..
I Belay Dicky on Hubble..
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: nik at work on December 16, 2010, 07:03:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Falling Down on December 16, 2010, 07:07:35 pm
I agree.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Norton Sharley on December 16, 2010, 07:28:03 pm
Agreed.

Just because it's on the other channel doesn't mean to say it's not correct or the right thing to do.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: petejh on December 16, 2010, 08:11:19 pm
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 ;D)  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?'.

Quote
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  ::)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 16, 2010, 08:34:59 pm


edit: unnecessary addition. Deleted.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: alx on December 16, 2010, 09:30:45 pm
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...
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: RASTATA on December 17, 2010, 07:50:23 am
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
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 17, 2010, 07:55:04 am
Theres a reason the previous thread on this got closed..............its not going anywhere other than round in circles.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 17, 2010, 08:00:33 am
Word.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: ghisino on December 17, 2010, 09:02:11 am
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!!!


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: erm, sam on December 17, 2010, 09:04:51 am
LOG!
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 17, 2010, 09:50:25 am
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.

Quote
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….
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on December 17, 2010, 10:01:02 am
spot on bonners.
nice ren & stimpy reference
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 17, 2010, 10:22:00 am
nice ren & stimpy reference
:agree: 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.

Ren and stimpy- happy happy joy joy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H84gkp5GEAM#)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 17, 2010, 10:24:36 am
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.

Dream on.

As an example of myths in the making I thought the following was gold dust:

Quote
by - Al Evans  on - 10 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: I used to be able to do three one arm pull-ups with either hand (it's actually not difficult if you train for them) but then along came Steve Bancroft who could do one arm pull ups on a single finger, as I remember , any finger!

This had me evaluating Bancroft in a different light then...

Quote
by - steve webster  on - 10 Dec 2010  In reply to Al Evans:
although this has nothing to do with this thread.steve could not do one finger pull ups,he could barely manage a one armer.he was one of the climbers weakest stregth wise when he lived in leeds.
  :lol:

Another example was the chockstone on Right Eliminate. Everyone banged on about the historical importance and it turned out Joe Brown hadn't placed but it was added later in the 70's.


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: nik at work on December 17, 2010, 10:28:13 am
I continue to agree with Bonjoy. He's smart as eggs that chap.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 17, 2010, 10:37:49 am
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….

shark is right, bullshit and climbing have always gone hand in hand and every generation has it's dodgy characters. However I also agree with Bonjoy that the above is worth discussing. Why does it seem to be so easy for bullshitters to prosper and what can be done about it? I have absolutely no idea what the answer is though.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 17, 2010, 10:39:57 am
Fair point Shark, I did only say ‘I’d like to think’. Anyway, regardless of the past, my point remains, the less turd polishing that goes into literature the better.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 17, 2010, 10:47:25 am
shark is right, bullshit and climbing have always gone hand in hand and every generation has it's dodgy characters. However I also agree with Bonjoy that the above is worth discussing. Why does it seem to be so easy for bullshitters to prosper and what can be done about it? I have absolutely no idea what the answer is though.

Harry Frankfurt : On Bullshit (http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf) (I've got a book verison of this and its a load of crap a very good read).

Its an attempt to define what bullshit is and its application (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit).

There is this excellent paragraph on truth/lying/bullshit...

Quote from: Harry Frankfurt
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: John Gillott on December 17, 2010, 11:04:19 am
It's way off topic now (or maybe the problem of historical accuracy is the new topic) but I'm not sure about your gold dust stuff Shark. I don't see the Al Evans and Webbo quotes as being contradictory, for two reasons: firstly, if I remember it right Bancroft did get a bit stronger in the fingers towards the end of halcyon days - see FAs of Castellan and Narcissus in 1976. Secondly, I think Al Evans was referring to one finger wrapped through a sling or a loop rather than draped on a campus rung or similar. The former is a lot easier.

I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Johnny Brown on December 17, 2010, 11:15:47 am
What was the Brown quote about his inventing jamming? Something like 'the fact that we didn't make any such claims didn't stop others making them for us'?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 17, 2010, 11:22:02 am
Why does it seem to be so easy for bullshitters to prosper and what can be done about it? I have absolutely no idea what the answer is though.

I think the answer has arrived.

My experience is that the majority of people the majority of the time are honest in their dealings. I also thing that it is a healthy thing to be generally trusting. Suspiscion breeds suspiscion and if people are generally perceived to be breaking the rules then it in turn encourgaes cheating for those who wouldnt otherwise as after all what is the incentive to be honest if everyone is at it ? Also it makes for a nicer world. I think this is how things are and should remain in climbing.

However, and I think this high profile case with Simpson will help enormously, if there are anomolies that give rise to doubt then asking for and being supplied with evidence should be an unemotionally charged transaction. I am of course talking about high profile claims rather than what somebody said they did on the Wave last wednesday. If nothing else is salvaged from the Simpson car crash then raising the notion more generally that it is conceivable that top athletes may be bullshitting is likely to put observers on a more heightened sense of alert for anomolies and have greater weight/authority when requesting evidence - well for this generation anyway. Top climbing performers will no doubt also be more likely to ensure they have evidence to hand for these eventualities too.   


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 17, 2010, 11:29:47 am
I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.

He signed a questionnaire confirming there was no chockstone. My take in my dealings with Brown is he as straight as an arrow albeit not having the perfect recall. Perrin also said that he (Perrin) effectively soloed RE as there was no chockstone.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: T_B on December 17, 2010, 11:32:17 am
Maybe RS was the last of a generation who could get away (for a long time) with making stuff up? Already the expectation (from both public and sponsors) has shifted and anyone who hasn't got FA photos on their blog or a video would instantly raise suspicion. In the world of HA mountaineering, unless you have photographic proof, you may as well not bother publicising your ascent.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 17, 2010, 11:33:34 am
In the world of HA mountaineering, unless you have photographic proof, you may as well not bother publicising your ascent.

You'd be gutted if your batteries died then!
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 17, 2010, 11:40:00 am
I dont disagree with most of that Bonners. Just because I was flippant doesn't mean I'm an idiot.

Sorry that sounds a bit harsh. My point is simply that there is no officially correct history, just a mush of stuff on the internet, in the occasional book and in peoples heads that may or may not be right. All anyone ever does is consider this and then add what they want to it.  I think this is what you're saying too.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 17, 2010, 12:18:35 pm
I see your point there Ru, well made. I suppose I just want that 'mush of stuff' to be as accurate as possible but I guess it can only say what is based on evidence of which there is none. So to conclude, the only conclusion you can draw is that all of his unproven ascents are to be recorded with a hefty element of doubt. Full stop, finito, fucking shame, but he's only got himself to blame as my mother used to say. (not that Simpsons had ount to do with my mother, allegedly)

The one good thing that may come out of this is that any bullshitters or potential bullshitters may think twice before bullshitting and those that don't may do a little more to prove they aren't.

That's got to be it now eh?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 17, 2010, 12:54:53 pm
Excuse the long winded post. By the time I’d written it a lot of the points had already been made, but I can’t be arsed to edit it down now.

I think there are reasons why this happens time and again and trying to address these might reduce the chances of recurrences.
Some of the reasons why climbing has historically been a fertile breeding ground for liars?
1. Climbing is as much a way of life as a sport and as such is done by individuals for entirely individual reasons. I think many consider the seeking of verification as an intrusion and an insult with no part in our noble pastime. Some seem to believe this to such an extent that they refuse to accept that anyone could possibly abuse this trust, or that protecting the code of trust is so precious that a few liars and cheats is a price worth paying. Ironically it is this three wise monkeys approach which leads to the messy divisive splurges which periodically happen (see point 3). Nobody particularly wants to ask their mate “who belayed you on X route?”. And once an aura of doubt surrounds a particular climber this question becomes even less attractive as it tends to label the asker as doubtful. Obviously this difficulty can easily be exploited by anyone seeking to fabricate ascents.
2. The climbing media and sponsors, in reflection of climbers’ attitudes have taken ascents on trust as a matter of principal too. There is rarely any fact checking. Therefore issues only surface (usually in a messy explosion) when a large amount of grassroots noise about a climber forces someone out of silence. By which time the proverbial horse has bolted.
3. Once a ‘doubt’ does surface the nature of it’s emergence has placed the burden of proof on the ‘doubter’ at least initially, rather than the ‘doubted’. Doubters generally have been given a very rough ride for daring to speak out. As it’s not really possible to prove a negative in most cases, the doubter is often then shot down with egg on their face. The whole doubter v doubted game seems to place the doubted party on an apparent moral high ground which is easily exploited to avoid scrutiny.
4. Subsequent to any attempts to clarify matters regarding doubted claims the climbing media has then tended to back up the unbalanced nature of the challenge/response. Either for fear of libel accusation or fear of appearing tawdry, they have tended to take the easy line, at best ignoring the subject, more often shutting down discussion in a way which looks to the world like support for the doubted.


How could things be different?
1.   Climbers could accept that some elements of climbing are in fact as much a sport as for instance athletics. Once this acceptance is made then it stands to reason that for top level achievements a basic amount of verification should be the norm. Not for every ascent but for sufficient to give credit to the rest. Crucially the onus should be on the climber to provide this and failure to do so will leave the burden of proof firmly in the hands of the doubted should any questions arise.
2.   Any source of climbing news could ask a basic set of questions of any ascent and provide the answers or lack of as a standard part of the news. Date, belayer/spotter, witnessed/unwitnessed, film/no film, etc. By making this a basic, standard part of news processing it takes the poison out of the question as everyone will be asked the same questions and won’t feel singled out. There is no temptation for fantasists to build a portfolio because it will appear hollow from the outset.
3.   Hopefully 1 and 2 would greatly reduce the likelyhood of an internet fact finding debacle, but should one arise it should be easy to either dismiss the doubt, or failing that it would be the norm that it’s the responsibility of the climber to back their own story.
4.   Clear news standards should make it easy for websites/mags to dismiss the obvious (hopefully very rare) fantasists and hence avoid having to make tricky calls about moderating/pulling critical threads.

Not rocket science really
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: webbo on December 17, 2010, 03:34:35 pm
It's way off topic now (or maybe the problem of historical accuracy is the new topic) but I'm not sure about your gold dust stuff Shark. I don't see the Al Evans and Webbo quotes as being contradictory, for two reasons: firstly, if I remember it right Bancroft did get a bit stronger in the fingers towards the end of halcyon days - see FAs of Castellan and Narcissus in 1976. Secondly, I think Al Evans was referring to one finger wrapped through a sling or a loop rather than draped on a campus rung or similar. The former is a lot easier.

I'm also a little skeptical of the second example you cite - that discussion of chockstones and Right Eliminate. It's my experience that Brown and his generation enjoyed teasing others and spinning tales - not in any kind of RS way, more around the edges and for the fun of it on the whole (their big achievements are not in doubt) - especially when asked about it by admirers or later generations.
billy bancroft lived in leeds when he did the f.a. of narcissus and castellan so its not a case of him getting stronger after he left leeds.as i spent most of 1976 and 77 down the old leeds wall practicing one armers on the pocket above the door with steve and chris the flash i reckon i've more idea about this than mr evans plus given his history i wouldn't trust his memory.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: John Gillott on December 17, 2010, 03:55:16 pm
Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Johnny Brown on December 17, 2010, 04:48:34 pm
Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: T_B on December 17, 2010, 04:51:31 pm
Not sure of the relevance of Narcissus either; hardly a powerful route and definitely not requiring of much finger strength.

I'd say it was both powerful and fingery (on that flake). But that maybe explains why I still haven't got up it  :'(
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: John Gillott on December 17, 2010, 04:53:19 pm
That's true (JB), or relatively so - I'm just hazily remembering magazine articles and perhaps guidebook histories that mentioned these routes in the context of a surge in his strength and performance.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: petejh on December 17, 2010, 06:09:36 pm
I suppose I just want that 'mush of stuff' to be as accurate as possible but I guess it can only say what is based on evidence of which there is none. So to conclude, the only conclusion you can draw is that all of his unproven ascents are to be recorded with a hefty element of doubt.

Either recorded with a hefty element of doubt - ie hefty enough to make it clear that the author considers it bullshit, -  or just not recorded at all. As things stand Rich's LA ascent isn't going to be recorded in the guide at all, for reasons which I've already explained to Rich himself and on this thread and elsewhere. I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of writing something about an ascent which I don't think happened in order to make clear to readers that it's consideover-caffeinated sugary drink companyshit.

I can't imagine this happening apart from in exceptional cases like RS - for e.g. a climber who's just had a couple of ascents doubted, but without RS's long record of exceptional claims lacking any evidence, would just be given the benefit of the doubt as seems to be the tradition. Like I'm trying to make clear - I feel like I've done enough research now to ensure my conscience is clear for being partly responsible for damaging RS's reputation. If he'd have stuck to bullshitting about climbing he'd have got away with his ascents being recorded, it's the 4mm/marathon and Olympic boxing team claims - which he made to my face, which have flagged him up and led to this. On a related note I don't think you can pigeon-hole bullshit as being relevant/irrelevant if it's all got to do with sporting claims. Anything to do with private life is obviously irrelevant, but his were public sporting claims.

I agree with Bonjoys list of reasons for why climbing seems to be a fertile zone for bullshitters. His ideas on how things could be done differently made me wince at first as they seemed like a step towards turning climbing into a less honorable pursuit. On reflection though they would make the climbing scene better as long as people took it upon themselves to act in the way bonjoy described, it would take something good away from climbing if it became normal for these things to be demanded by others as a matter of course.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Johnny Brown on December 17, 2010, 07:00:36 pm
The Boy's list seems a bit , sure, but the fact is need only apply in unusual circumstances. Very little climbing news comes as unsupported reports from the individual - far more often it comes from friends who were present and can't wait to spread it around. Usually this means it comes already verified - the various reports I've been involved with over the years all have - and there is no need for fact-checking to carry any undertones of doubt, just a genuine enthusiasm for the details.

The second factor is the nature of media today means being a sponsored climber requires you provide some content other than bald facts. If you want to get ahead you provide pics, videos etc upfront to connect with the wider public. Dave MacLeod doesn't put videos on his blog as proof, he does it because that's how you inspire people.

All that needs to change is how much slack is given to would-be heroes who persist in consistently avoiding either of the above. As Pete points out, its very worrying that this has only come to a head due to outlandish claims in other sports.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: jonjon on December 17, 2010, 07:54:22 pm

Another example was the chockstone on Right Eliminate. Everyone banged on about (it)

well to be fair some guy called Simon Lee on the other channel did

 :)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: webbo on December 17, 2010, 08:18:44 pm
Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers. ;D
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 17, 2010, 11:37:15 pm
No Bonjoy, absolutely not rocket science ( I once casually used that phrase whilst chatting with a couple I barely knew. Turned out he was an engineer on the Ariadne project.).

You're quite right: it's the diffidence about feeling entitled to ask for evidence that's the problem. That way uncertainty prevails. No-one has any business demanding to know what you've done. But if you assert something remarkable it's perfectly legitimate to do so - as you say, take the angst out of it all.

Ultimately it's the law of averages which decides. To not have evidence to give once is perfectly possible. It might happen again, even, but every time is not credible. I think the singular problem with climbing is the need to record two different activities as 'climbing' ie personal  adventure and sporting achievement. One you expect hard evidence for, the other we just want to know about the escapades of the talented, pushing boundaries.

Regarding history, it'll always be a bit vexed, but it's so massively against the odds to repeatedly have no convincing evidence that a consensus will come about so long as people communicate, and that's fine and normal.

What I loathe is people clucking about like a huddle of gossipy fishwives playing at being psychologists, tossers. There's no need to be undignified or get a kick out of all that disapproval.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 19, 2010, 12:22:26 pm
What I envisaged (and somebody had already suggested a similar thing on UKC already) was a request for info as a matter of course. It's not a demand and anyone is free to refuse for whatever reason (and the reason might be wholly understandable e.g. if you did the FA while bunking off work with your mistress).
So long as the question was always asked then the news item wouldn't have to state "Billy Poopants refused to give details", the lack of details would imply that none were given when the question was asked. As said by others, only a history of multiple mystery ascents would be cause for suspicion.
Regardless of the bullshit deterrent value, i think it's nice to have more of the back-story on ascents anyway.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Pantontino on December 19, 2010, 04:13:51 pm
Interesting - thanks. The magazine and guidebook write-ups of the first ascent of Castellan (the moves through the overhang, or the way it was done at that point at any rate) suggested a bit of a breakthrough for Bancroft: press hype perhaps?

the way steve did castellan as i heard at the time was feet first i.e. more of a front lever type move to throw a foot into the pocket on the lip.which is possibly more suprising as if my memory is correct he was even shitter at these than one armers. ;D

Apologies for continuing the slightly off topic stuff, but:

It's a while since I did it but all I remember of the roof pitch on Castellan is a bit of swinging around and then some shoulder barging. You don't need to be able to do one armers for that.

There's always been a strong element of hyperbole in climbing media, and I say that as someone who is probably guilty of over hyping things...on occasion.  :whistle: (I was just being enthusiastic of course!)

That said, it does dismay me that certain individuals in the older generation seem determined to re-write history in their own favour. We are lucky to have people like Webbo who pop up and give an alternative truthful version of events.

Oh, and well said Bonjoy, couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 20, 2010, 01:07:34 pm
Does this mean that all my new routes are going to continue to be recorded as 'superb and stunning last great problems' Si or are you going to start being all truthful and call them all 'fillers in with some good climbing'?  :P
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 21, 2010, 03:39:35 pm
I have been hoping that this Simpson affair would get sorted but it seems he's happy to get erased from climbing history. He's content with his life and has no plans to get involved. A strange standpoint in my view but there you go, he's an odd fish. For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Quote
Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Makes me laugh that people are doubting him. I tried to log on to U.K Climbing website when I read about the story but unfortunatly my schools sever wouldn't let me (I am in Thailand). Maybe people will stop doubting him now! Maybe he upset someone, I know he can be an arrogant little twat sometimes!!!

But i guess its too little too late. Case closed.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: nodder on December 21, 2010, 03:45:23 pm
 :dance1:

 :beer2:
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Grubes on December 21, 2010, 03:47:51 pm
For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:
Quote
Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Excellent news
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: surfchimpster on December 21, 2010, 05:30:46 pm
Cant believe ukc have done an article on this... bunch of chimps.

The whole thing would have been easily put to rest like this....

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=monty+pthon+witch+sketch&btnG=Google+Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=monty+pthon+witch+sketch&btnG=Google+Search)

burn him...burn him!

I've never seen such a chuffing pathetic witch hunt in all my days .


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on December 21, 2010, 05:34:33 pm
Don't burn him, build a bridge out of him.  ::)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 21, 2010, 07:44:14 pm
I have been hoping that this Simpson affair would get sorted but it seems he's happy to get erased from climbing history. He's content with his life and has no plans to get involved. A strange standpoint in my view but there you go, he's an odd fish. For my own piece of mind i contacted the guy who Rich told me belayed him on Liquid Ambar and Hubble. He replied this:

Quote
Yes, I can confirm Rich done these routes as I belayed him.
Makes me laugh that people are doubting him. I tried to log on to U.K Climbing website when I read about the story but unfortunatly my schools sever wouldn't let me (I am in Thailand). Maybe people will stop doubting him now! Maybe he upset someone, I know he can be an arrogant little twat sometimes!!!

But i guess its too little too late. Case closed.

Not at all. The more we can salavge from the wreckage the better. Is this Dan Tounley (sp.) ?. Can he log in to UKB ? It would be good to have first hand witness testimony. I'm sure a few Q and A's would then establish those ascents as a start.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 21, 2010, 08:44:08 pm
I've met the guy in question. I believe he is completely credible, i think if someone asked him to lie for them he would probably kick their head in. He knows his stuff re climbing (climbs 8b+). To be honest Shark he is a bit of a (how shall i put this) livewire. I was surprised to get such such a measured response and i think you've no chance of getting him to do a question and answer session.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 21, 2010, 08:50:09 pm
I get what you're saying Chris, but if he's working in a school he must be quite capable of measuring his words. Whether he'll agree to is a different matter perhaps?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: GraemeA on December 21, 2010, 08:58:02 pm
I get what you're saying Chris, but if he's working in a school he must be quite capable of measuring his words. Whether he'll agree to is a different matter perhaps?

Assuming the guy is a teacher I am more concerned with his grammar than anything else.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jerry Morefat on December 21, 2010, 09:02:59 pm
Cant believe ukc have done an article on this... bunch of chimps.


I think you're being a bit unfair on UKC here. They took a position because, at the time, there was no evidence to suggest that Simpson had climbed x,y,z, despite a reasonably concerted effort to find some. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. How can you form a view on something with no evidence to support it (unless you are of a religious persuasion of cause)? Subsequently evidence has come to light which suggests Simpson did climb x or y, or z or ... well you get the idea. This doesn't make UKC a 'bunch of chimps' it just means there is evidence which wasn't available to them at the time.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 21, 2010, 09:09:58 pm
UKC have done nothing wrong. Simpson has completely brought it on himself.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 21, 2010, 09:20:28 pm
I've met the guy in question. I believe he is completely credible, i think if someone asked him to lie for them he would probably kick their head in. He knows his stuff re climbing (climbs 8b+). To be honest Shark he is a bit of a (how shall i put this) livewire. I was surprised to get such such a measured response and i think you've no chance of getting him to do a question and answer session.

I've met him too, on a few occasions. He's from Birmingham I think. I met him in Siurana with Rich in about 2001, and saw him redpoint Bou i Prou, 8b. I think Stu was there too as he was on that trip with me. Dan's climbed a lot with Rich and climbed some hard routes, but likes to stay out of the limelight.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: SA Chris on December 21, 2010, 10:09:16 pm
Assuming the guy is a teacher I am more concerned with his grammar than anything else.

Why what happened to her?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 21, 2010, 11:02:38 pm
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.

Ru, would you advise go to a fast track hearing on liability on the basis of the above?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 22, 2010, 07:33:08 am
A trial on which point? Bit of an odd question - would all depend. Most of the "evidence" in this matter wouldn't get anywhere near being considered in a trial.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 22, 2010, 08:05:14 am
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.

There isn't credible evidence at any point in the discussion that's taken place. People just listen to a range of observations and make up their minds to varying degrees of confidence giving greater weight to some points of view than others, depending on perceived level of insight.

What's the word for that? Circumstantial ? Normal ?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 22, 2010, 08:21:52 am
Either the guy is credible or he isn't. Thankfully there is a very easy way for him to prove if he is, absolutely and without a shred of doubt.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 22, 2010, 08:42:19 am
Either the guy is credible or he isn't. Thankfully there is a very easy way for him to prove if he is, absolutely and without a shred of doubt.

Brain exam? Mind meld?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mark s on December 22, 2010, 09:17:30 am
Assuming the guy is a teacher I am more concerned with his grammar than anything else.

Why what happened to her?

haha

a few proved ascents will not prove all the other stuff he claimed.
i still think his name should be wiped from the climbing records.
ive noticed he's still on moon website,you would have thought they would also cut any ties with him as his other sponsers did
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 22, 2010, 09:18:55 am
Assuming the guy is a teacher I am more concerned with his grammar than anything else.

Yeah you just can't get the staff these days.  :wave: Happy Xmas old bean.

I'm quite interested in Rupert's brain exam thingy. Will that be a credible alternative to coursework?  :)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: GraemeA on December 22, 2010, 09:29:27 am
  :wave: Happy Xmas old bean.

And to you.

Anyway it will all get sorted out soon. Jens has been in contact with RS and will soon publish a complete load of codswallop that will not only prove RS has done all sorts of stuff that he hasn't even claimed but also that UKC is actually run by robots controlled by Ben Heason and it's all a massive conspiracy.

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 22, 2010, 10:19:54 am
Either the guy is credible or he isn't. Thankfully there is a very easy way for him to prove if he is, absolutely and without a shred of doubt.

Brain exam? Mind meld?
This chap says he has the videos of Rich doing Careless and Liquid Ambar. I for one would take his word for it regards Hubble if I saw the video of LA. I think few would argue that this proved his credibility as a belayer/witness. Given that it is such a simple matter for him to do this I see no reason to take anything he says as credible until such time as the videos are shown. I believe the videos are in a non digital format, but there is no need for a complex re-formatting, a phone video of it playing on a screen will be fine.
Now I’m not a betting man but I’m willing to put a £50 bet on with any RS true believer that these videos will for some reason never materialise. Any takers?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mark s on December 22, 2010, 10:42:56 am
Either the guy is credible or he isn't. Thankfully there is a very easy way for him to prove if he is, absolutely and without a shred of doubt.

Brain exam? Mind meld?
This chap says he has the videos of Rich doing Careless and Liquid Ambar. I for one would take his word for it regards Hubble if I saw the video of LA. I think few would argue that this proved his credibility. Given that it is such a simple matter for him to do this I see no reason to take anything he says as credible until such time as the videos are shown. I believe the videos are in a non digital format, but there is no need for a complex re-formatting, a phone video of it playing on a screen will be fine.
Now I’m not a betting man but I’m willing to put a £50 bet on with any RS true believer that these videos will for some reason never materialise. Any takers?
i think your money is as safe as houses there jon
these videos would have appeared long ago.
i was expecting rs to be in the bbc sports personallity final 10 this year
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Nibile on December 22, 2010, 10:44:12 am
it's good to have positive news.
anyway, I agree with DOylo. Rich called for trouble and got it. strange guy indeed: if I had climbed those routes, I'd tattoo myself "I climb 9a" on my forehaead, and would fit the subject into any conversation.
"hey have you heard Mark's new car broke down?"
"oh yes, by the way, the day I climbed Action Direct all the cars in the parking seemed fine".
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: SA Chris on December 22, 2010, 11:21:20 am
Either the guy is credible or he isn't. Thankfully there is a very easy way for him to prove if he is, absolutely and without a shred of doubt.

Brain exam? Mind meld?

Lie detector or torture I think.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Ru on December 22, 2010, 01:13:45 pm
This chap says he has the videos of Rich doing Careless and Liquid Ambar.

Dan said this to you?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on December 22, 2010, 01:21:15 pm
I'll PM you Ru. Suffice to say he said it. If you disagree after reading the PM then by all means post something to that effect.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on December 22, 2010, 01:40:59 pm
one thing that is clear is that rich was a monster as seen in doyles vid of him doing pinky perky in the school.
He clearly was capable of doing these routes/problems but wether he did them I remain unconvinced for various reasons including promised vid of careless, belayer on zone, 4 minute mile, marathon irregularities etc...
If he did do them then its a great shame as IMO it would be something to be very proud of, I believe he had it on his number plate on his car?
why not just release the vids etc...
Maybe its something to do with the whole heason scandle.
Its good to see that ben is cranking fairly hard and putting a few vids up, would be great if rich did the same and proved that he is not a liar as he obviously has put a lot of time and effort into climbing and for it to all end like this is a real shame
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 22, 2010, 02:25:22 pm
This is a misunderstanding, its Simpsons footage
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 22, 2010, 02:50:26 pm
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.


You would say that
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on December 22, 2010, 04:15:42 pm
Maybe its something to do with the whole heason scandle.
Its good to see that ben is cranking fairly hard and putting a few vids up, would be great if rich did the same
sorry, this is worded wrong, didn't mean I believed the stuff Ben did, i didn't, just good he got back into climbing.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 22, 2010, 08:47:12 pm
?? You don't believe BH did the routes he claimed (maybe I read that wrong)?
Anyway.
I'm very much against casually damning RS with just a bit of vague information but you should note that vid does not show a link of Peky Pinky. It's edited.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on December 22, 2010, 08:51:13 pm
No I don't believe the routes he claimed.
I didn't realise that pinky perky footage was edited, long time since I've seen it.
He was still strong as fuck anyway, that much I'm sure people aren't disputing
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: roddersm on December 23, 2010, 09:10:49 am
I thought the Pinky Perky and other school room stuff was actual footage of him climbing the stuff and only the Action Direct "ascent" was edited? Doyle did you say that the school room footage wasn't taken by you or have I misread this?
 

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: GCW on December 23, 2010, 09:15:13 am
Perky Pinky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA_zHzbUhpk#)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 23, 2010, 09:30:26 am
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.


You would say that

I would because unsubtantiated second hand 'hearsay' isn't credible evidence. 

FFS the Bible has more credible 'hearsay' evidence.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 23, 2010, 10:10:06 am
He was still strong as fuck anyway, that much I'm sure people aren't disputing

A few people (Damo, Mick) seemed rather put out on the other channel when I said much the same thing.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: markwellin on December 23, 2010, 10:11:30 am
anyone else noticed a bit of cock at about 54 seconds in the pinky perky video?!

that mans got some balls to put that in
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on December 23, 2010, 10:21:05 am
He was still strong as fuck anyway, that much I'm sure people aren't disputing

A few people (Damo, Mick) seemed rather put out on the other channel when I said much the same thing.
why?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 23, 2010, 10:31:52 am
why?

Because I criticised some of the playing at being psychologist type posts where people were assuming they knew that the ascents had not been made, and then went on to theorise... I said something about sticking to facts only, and that we only know that he was one of the very strongest sport climbers of the last decade, but not much more.

Damo in particular took issue with my use of the word 'know' arguing that I just believed what I'd seen in the media and didn't 'know' anything of the sort. Mick posted to back him up saying he was one of the few posters who really talked sense.

There's a valid point in there somewhere, but to imply that I'm apologising for/supporting RS and he may well have been weak as a kitten is just silly IMO.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on December 23, 2010, 11:12:54 am
That pretty much sums up why I stopped posting on that site.

Oh hold on........

(http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/4901/thbigsmug.jpg) (http://img840.imageshack.us/i/thbigsmug.jpg/)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 23, 2010, 11:41:49 am
We were in the school for about 4 hours that day, he did loads of hard problems on repeat, 1-5-9 campussing loads of times etc.. He got on Perky Pinky but didn't manage to do it in a oner so i spliced two sections together. You can't deny he was bastard strong. I mean Neil Mawson has climbed 8c and he's not in the same book never mind the same page in terms of strength. Malc Smith sent me a message recently, he sounded pretty dumbfounded by it all and said that Simpson was the strongest climber he'd ever seen (and he's seen a few). None of this means much as hard proof is needed but you can't deny he was strong enough.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 23, 2010, 11:48:45 am
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.


You would say that

I would because unsubtantiated second hand 'hearsay' isn't credible evidence. 

FFS the Bible has more credible 'hearsay' evidence.

This is probably why he doesn't get involved. People like you will never be satisfied.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: a dense loner on December 23, 2010, 11:53:53 am
anyone who doubts rich was strong is a fool, he was a monster on what he was good at. however, as we all know that is not pertinant to this discussion.
there are loads of strong people who can't climb and loads of very good climbers who are not strong.

to be honest i'm more disappointed with all this for people with unswerving loyalty like doylo and keith
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 23, 2010, 12:21:30 pm
Sorry old things but I can't consider this as in anyway cedible evidence.


You would say that

I would because unsubtantiated second hand 'hearsay' isn't credible evidence. 

FFS the Bible has more credible 'hearsay' evidence.

This is probably why he doesn't get involved. People like you will never be satisfied.

What utter nonsense.

If I saw a video, I would be satisfied.
If a credible witness gave direct evidence that they saw the ascents I would be satisfied.

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 23, 2010, 12:29:53 pm

If a credible witness gave direct evidence that they saw the ascents I would be satisfied.

Who is it you think is lying then, the Hubble LA witness or me?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on December 23, 2010, 12:32:14 pm
to be honest i'm more disappointed with all this for people with unswerving loyalty like doylo and keith

Yes, it seems that the people who seemed to knew Rich a little better - Doylo, Ru, Alex Messenger and that - aren't so keen for blood. No reflection on the truth or not of Rich's claims, but still, in the face of other more vocal dagger-personalities, it gives one a better view of the world.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 23, 2010, 02:24:38 pm

If a credible witness gave direct evidence that they saw the ascents I would be satisfied.

Who is it you think is lying then, the Hubble LA witness or me?

If you said you'd seen x ascent then I'd believe you.

As I understand it person x is saying person y told them that they'd seen a video. 

I'm not saying anyone is lying what I'm saying is that the weight that can be attached to second hand hearsay is minimal. 

Ru can explain more about conditional admissibility but I'd say (given the edited videos that are in circulation compared to unedited one that are not) at best the statement is weak evidence that person y had seen a video and that's all.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: roddersm on December 23, 2010, 03:11:49 pm
http://outdoors.caledonianmercury.com/2010/12/20/superathlete-or-walter-mitty-the-strange-case-of-rich-simpson/001440#respond (http://outdoors.caledonianmercury.com/2010/12/20/superathlete-or-walter-mitty-the-strange-case-of-rich-simpson/001440#respond)

It'll be in the News of the World next.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: ghisino on December 23, 2010, 04:44:56 pm
there are loads of strong people who can't climb and loads of very good climbers who are not strong.

you know, my guess is those are the exceptions, and the general rule is that there is a correlation between some feats of strength, (lack of) weight, performance on a board and outdoor performance (at least on styles that have something in common with the board)

it is very pleasing to think about oneself as an exception to this rule since, in the first place, our culture values Ulysses (mastery) more than Achilles (strenght).

furthermore on one side it is hard to think that you should really go through a boring process of training and diet if you want to maximize your performances, at least in terms of best redpoint/boulder grade (fuck on-sight performance on all styles and rock types!)
on the other side, people who embrace that process might easily get frustrated by the lack of consistency of their performances, as they did not realize in the first place that "maxing the redpoint grade" is not "getting better at climbing" in a general sense.

this generates a widespread faith that technique comes to people like a sort of holy spirit and "bam!" they perform better just because of that, and you know, they're soooooo weak...no hard work to put in, no boring hours in the gym or equally boring "training at the crag", thats pointless : just pray, worship climbing and wait for the holy spirit to descend on you.
As a side result, this faith makes it easier to accept other people's performances, since they come from an innate gift that you simply don't have...from a sort of supernatural force...
you can skip the whole process of addressing how climbing performance really matters to you, of solving the conflict between the part of you that wants to chase the grade so badly and the other who says there's a lot more in life than training for it.

and as a result, some forum users (esp. on ukc) have come to the paradoxical conclusion that "people who are strong outdoors are weak indoors. RS was strong indoors, so he could not have been strong outdoors".
Really, some posters seem to use the feats of strenghts and board performance as a proof that RS could not perform over a certain grade outdoors, and they are honestly convinced of their words (!!!)

this really seems an insult to logic, to me.
(wait, i forgot, climbing doesn't follow the laws of logic, physics of whatever...it's some sort of miracle happening. i apologize for my blasphemy to all forum readers)



PS myself as well, i think i'm such a weak bastard in the gym and a wizard on real rock.
but at least i'm honest in admitting that's 90% self-lying, 9% lack of motivation to reach my limit on boards, and maybe 1% truth  :-[

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: chummer on December 23, 2010, 04:47:30 pm
at least the NOTW would have had some tits in it to provide a few minutes of light entertainment
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 23, 2010, 06:19:59 pm
Ru can explain more about conditional admissibility but I'd say (given the edited videos that are in circulation compared to unedited one that are not) at best the statement is weak evidence that person y had seen a video and that's all.

Spare me the law bullshit (as impressive as it is i couldn't give a monkeys, are you turning into JonC, or are you the same person perhaps?). Its quite simple. I got in touch with the guy Simpson told me belayed him on LA and Hubble (without telling Simpson). He replied that he did belay him.  Thats it. I can honestly see no reason why he would lie. Simspon apparently has some footage of some stuff, we'll probably never see it though so you might aswell stop harping on about it. He was strong and capable enough to climb the routes. However there is a strong case against him. Obviously he now needs to prove the rest of his claims if he wants to remain in the climbing  history books and restore his reputation. I posted what i had found out because i know not everyone wants scandal to light up there lives. I know some people found his climbing and training inspiring and i hope this at least gives them some hope that they weren't completely juped.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on December 23, 2010, 07:11:28 pm
All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

I don't disbelieve you when you say that you were told this.

If this person were to come out and provide an on  the record comment with when etc and that RS did the routes in one then I'd be satisfied that there was good evidence to support the claims.

As for being John Cox, you're having a laugh he's a bloody new labour type.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: a dense loner on December 24, 2010, 08:18:11 am
ghisino what are you talking about?

also tbh i'm bored of all this lawyer speak on a bouldering site, do they have no lawyering sites for that kind of stuff?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: SA Chris on December 24, 2010, 08:48:56 am
also tbh i'm bored of all this lawyer speak on a bouldering site, do they have no lawyering sites for that kind of stuff?

www.cunts.com (http://www.cunts.com)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: galpinos on December 24, 2010, 09:13:12 am


www.cunts.com (http://www.cunts.com)

For some reason that site is blocked at work.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Paul B on December 24, 2010, 10:57:12 am
All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

Strangely when these threads first appeared this was what was asked for. If you leave the video out of it for a minute (which is obviously a contentious issue), what more information does a belayer need to give?

I'm not sure how much of the UKC thread people over on this side of the fence have read (or I may have missed it here?) but this information was offered to petejh (assuming the names carry over) first to clarify the historical record (with conditions), which I gather was refused. This information didn't have to come through Doylo.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 24, 2010, 11:58:10 am
I'm not sure how much of the UKC thread people over on this side of the fence have read (or I may have missed it here?) but this information was offered to petejh (assuming the names carry over) first to clarify the historical record (with conditions), which I gather was refused. This information didn't have to come through Doylo.

I'm not sure what you are saying (as usual) but it sounds like a criticism of petejh. Doylo knows who the belayer was, had his contact details and also knows him personally. petejh didn't.

Also emails from strangers don't elicit the same response (if any) as emails from mates.

To save anyone ploughing through the UKC thread (which you can only do if you are registered) what petejh said was:

Quote
by - petejh  on - 14 Dec 2010
In reply to friend1:
Seeing as this thread is going to be locked and I have the feeling that Alan won't be allowing anymore speculation to appear on UKC - I'd like this to be on some sort of public record before I forget the details:
Rich got in touch with me 4 days ago (on the 10th December) following my request for him to validate his ascent of Liquid Ambar for the forthcoming North Wales Limestone guidebook. He told me that he'd give me the name and contact details of his belayer for Liquid Ambar and Hubble provided I accept his 3 conditions, which were:
1) That his (the belayer's) details (name, email etc) are not placed on internet forums or in widespread media of any kind.
2) That only one person (yourself preferably) makes contact to verify my ascent.
3) That you request verification for the purposes of the historical record in your guidebook, and do not mention debates on ukc etc – he abhors this type of thing, and would probably be reluctant to get involved if he believed that your requests were in direct response to forum speculation.

I see these as smokescreens and attempts to control the situation - typical of his behavior whenever he's been questioned. His conditions are unacceptable to me for these reasons -
they isolate me into being partly responsible for supporting his reputation without his proof being open to public scrutiny,
it's totally unrealistic for Rich to try to keep his means of validation separated from the internet climbing community by which so much of the doubt has been raised about his claims,
Rich's behavior, by which I mean his long-term refusal to respect the wishes of any member of the climbing community by supplying proof when he's been respectfully asked to do so, has ensured he isn't in a position to demand 'conditions' from anyone,
and lastly there's no reason for there to be any great secrecy in this matter, it's a claim of an ascent up a little bit of a cliff near Llandudno - we're not talking about international espionage here, the only possible reason for wanting secrecy is if Rich has something to hide.

I emailed Rich back today to tell him either to verify his ascent of LA in an open and honest manner by giving me a straight answer, or consider his ascent struck from the record, he hasn't replied yet. I've spoken or been in contact with a lot of Rich's acquaintances over the last week to get a more complete picture, none of them supported Rich's claims and they actually raised even more doubts then they cleared up.

People have always been open and receptive to Rich proving the doubters wrong but he's never done so which is a shame, because he's a 'nice' guy and one of the strongest climbers around. As things stand I believe Rich has lied about all of his most impressive sporting achievements.
 


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 24, 2010, 12:27:17 pm
To be fair i've only met the guy in question once 7 years ago (hardly mates), i very much doubt he remembered me as he was pissed as a fart. In fact he was so rowdy that night after making me stop the car to get some booze i was persuaded by everyone else to drive off and leave him to save us all trying to control him. Therefore if he'd have remembered me i doubt he would have been as forthcoming with his reply.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on December 24, 2010, 12:39:04 pm
Sorry Doylo. Sounds like an interesting guy. Simpson has referred to him a couple of times:

Planet fear interview (http://www.planetfear.com/articles/Youth_of_Today_Richard_Simpson_94.html)

Quote
..Then one I day met someone called Dan Tounley he was older than me and had a very high motivation and was very talented he was climbing 8a+ at the time, he obviously saw that I was talented and very keen so he took me under his wing and taught me how to climb hard, how to train, that there's nothing to be scared of and that you must give 110 per cent if you want to achieve your goals and that you can do anything as long as you want it bad enough. He took me outside and even helped me with money on a few occasions by not letting me pay fuel money etc. We then went on a climbing trip abroad to northern Spain for 3 months, I was only 17 at the time and was very nervous but he was great he looked after me and I just had an incredible time and realised that all I wanted to do was to climb and travel and fortunately I'm still doing it now and enjoying it more than ever.

And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview (http://www.climbing.lu/index.php?page=simpson)

Quote
3. Who or what has influenced your climbing?

My great friend Dan Tounley, who got me into climbing and showed me the ropes. Although he does not climb anymore and has lived a life full of problems, he remains the person I most respect in climbing

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 24, 2010, 12:49:28 pm
I think the reason Simmo handed down all those conditions to pete was because he realised that this witness needed to be treated somewhat delicately. Obviously the end result (as usual) was that it didn't look good for him.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Paul B on December 24, 2010, 01:01:10 pm
Unsurprisingly I was replying to the post I quoted. I'll try again:

What more do people like sloper want past this:

All we know is that you're saying that you were told by person x that they belayed RS.

Unless you happen to know everyone classed as a climber personally there's not a lot else you can expect.

I'm not sure what you are saying (as usual) but it sounds like a criticism of petejh. Doylo knows who the belayer was, had his contact details and also knows him personally. petejh didn't.

I just thought it relevant, the original requests made were for proof, it was offered and rejected. I certainly hadn't seen it mentioned on here and its the first offer of such in what has been a very one sided affair (for obvious reasons).

Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on December 24, 2010, 01:30:07 pm
I just hope this issue remains dormant on UKC (unless of course Simmo gets involved).  Tis a circus over there
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: RAK Punter on December 25, 2010, 04:43:57 am


And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview (http://www.climbing.lu/index.php?page=simpson)



Difficult to take this article too seriously when the interview opens with:


"1. When and how did you discover climbing?

At school, my science teacher took me climbing as I was being disruptive in her class. I really enjoyed it and continued to climb with her until it I discovered that she was in fact an alien. I found myself looking for a new climbing partner shortly after. "
I read no futher
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: clm on December 25, 2010, 06:42:59 pm


And Climbing in Luxembourg (WTF?) interview (http://www.climbing.lu/index.php?page=simpson)



Difficult to take this article too seriously when the interview opens with:


"1. When and how did you discover climbing?

At school, my science teacher took me climbing as I was being disruptive in her class. I really enjoyed it and continued to climb with her until it I discovered that she was in fact an alien. I found myself looking for a new climbing partner shortly after. "
I read no futher

Theyre desperate for science teachers nowadays. Theyll take anyone.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: SA Chris on December 25, 2010, 09:47:37 pm
maybe he means she is an immigrant rather than an extra terrestrial?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: andy_e on December 26, 2010, 01:09:11 am
And he's a racist too?
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mark s on December 26, 2010, 12:02:04 pm
Having said that it seems there are many people inflating their own abilities in terms of what level they climb at, consequently, over grading routes and boulders. But, at the end of the day, they are only cheating themselves.


a quote from the climing in luxembourg interview ,oh the irony  ???
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Dr T on January 03, 2011, 03:16:48 pm
An interesting overview on some of these issues inc a little on this specific sorry affair...

http://www.deadpointmag.com/articles/view/uncut-footage-burden-proof-or-threat-our-community (http://www.deadpointmag.com/articles/view/uncut-footage-burden-proof-or-threat-our-community)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: a dense loner on January 04, 2011, 10:26:38 am
not really interesting, and the author goes on about uncut footage way too much
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on January 04, 2011, 10:42:00 am
He also conflates entertainment (in the form of climbing videos/films) with evidence which doesn't make any sense at all.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on January 04, 2011, 12:18:01 pm
The comments are interesting. In a "gawping at a car crash" way.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: lagerstarfish on January 04, 2011, 02:57:49 pm
not really interesting, and the author goes on about uncut footage way too much

I think you mean "uncut footage"
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: hairich on January 04, 2011, 11:23:15 pm
i may have missed the point of this chris as i am a bit drunk but if you have spoken to rich0s belayer then why dont you name him and then the true internet detectives on here can track him down and ask him. i am sorry if this has been dealt with already
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 04, 2011, 11:35:38 pm
The 'point' is i contacted the belayer for LA and Hubble and he confirmed it. Quite simple. If the 'true internet detectives' want to contact him all they have to do is read this thread. Obviously my word isn't good enough
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Sloper on January 05, 2011, 12:01:59 am
As I have said and this is getting tiresome so off to bed, all you can say is that this bloke told you he had belayed Rich.

This is no more evidence of Rich climbing the routes than Rich telling you how Ivan Greene had blagged him a dodgy entry to the NYC marathon is evidence that that is what Ivan Greene did.

As I have said before I would like nothing more than solid credible evidence to come out to back up Rich's climbing achievements, but that doesn't mean I have to suspend my critical assessment of the claims and the arguments both pro and agin.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 05, 2011, 12:11:42 am
I wasn't talking to you  :please:. Simpson telling me something about the marathon is not the same thing as me contacting an independent witness and asking if he belayed him. You want video and more proof and thats fair enough but your not going to get any. At the end of the day for this to get resolved lots of belayers and witnesses would have to be contacted. You either trust what these people say or you don't. Basically the same thing i've done but on a bigger scale. There's nothing new to add to this, i wish i could resist replying to stupid posts  :wall: :wall:
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on January 05, 2011, 12:35:35 am
I genuinely feel for you here Doylo.

For fuck's sake. Sloper, I hope the affirmation you are getting from all this is somewhere near the level of frustration it creates.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 05, 2011, 12:44:13 am
I'm actually starting to see why simmo hasn't bothered with all this, you can't fucking win
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: hairich on January 05, 2011, 01:15:48 am
sorry chris.like i said i missed the point.in no way did i mean your word was not good enough
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jim on January 05, 2011, 09:04:43 am
I'm actually starting to see why simmo hasn't bothered with all this, you can't fucking win
Trouble is, he could of easily sorted this if what he said is true (ie got video of careless etc..).
Anyway, best let this thread die, if only for Doyles sanity....
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: slackline on January 05, 2011, 09:10:56 am
Three pages later....

Theres a reason the previous thread on this got closed..............its not going anywhere other than round in circles.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on January 05, 2011, 09:43:45 am
As I have said and this is getting tiresome so off to bed, all you can say is that this bloke told you he had belayed Rich.

This is no more evidence of Rich climbing the routes than Rich telling you how Ivan Greene had blagged him a dodgy entry to the NYC marathon is evidence that that is what Ivan Greene did.


I disagree. We are dealing with likelihoods here rather than incontravertible proof. A key difference is that Tounley told Doyle independently.

I hadnt heard of Dan Tounley before. From what I have read on this thread he:

a. exists
b. was a capable sport climber (Ru saw him climb an 8 in Spain) so is credible (would know the difference between dogging and redpointing)
c. is out of the country doing TEFL or missionary work in bongo land or something
d. has personally confirmed he belayed/witnessed Simpson doing LA and Hubble

Of itself that would normally be more than good enough proof - were it not for the other unresolved issues around the other claims.  It is possible that Tounley is lying to support Simpson - but it seems unlikely.

Speaking personally for these two ascents I am open to it being possible (rather than thinking it unlikely) that Simpson did them. It wouldnt take much more in terms of witness testimony (Tounley being the only one so far so we are clutching at straws) to make me think it was probable he did them.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: mrjonathanr on January 05, 2011, 09:57:17 am
I hadnt heard of Dan Tounley before. From what I have read on this thread he:

c. is out of the country doing ...missionary work in bongo land or something
:thumbsdown:
Anyway. RS's problem is that once doubts surface and go unaddressed the standard of proof required to refute them tends to rise as scepticism gets more entrenched. And that some more recent claims seem very shaky for quite a few reasons, casting a retrospective shadow over ascents he may well have had the ability to do.
In short, too little too late means we'll never know, unless he takes Jim's advice and finds his video camera. Somehow I don't think that will be happening.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on January 05, 2011, 10:32:22 am
I'm actually starting to see why simmo hasn't bothered with all this, you can't fucking win
Leave it alone Chris, for your own sake. Remarks like that just invite people to start picking at the wound again. ‘You can’t fucking win’ is hardly true for a man who says he has everything on video….
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: SA Chris on January 05, 2011, 11:33:28 am
harde to believe that such a flourishing economy began with a humble soft drink and a catchy advertising campaign.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 05, 2011, 11:33:43 am
I'm actually starting to see why simmo hasn't bothered with all this, you can't fucking win
‘You can’t fucking win’ is hardly true for a man who says he has everything on video….

I don't think he's ever said that. Anyway unless something else comes up there's nothing else to say on here.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Bonjoy on January 05, 2011, 11:52:16 am
I can’t be bothered to trawl through old threads and PMs but he did say he had at least a very significant number of his ascents on video. I was exaggerating by saying all. At the end of the day he could still pretty much “fucking win” if ANYONE saw ANY of these, but we both know that’s never going to happen and we both have our own interpretations as to why that will be and like you say that’s the end of it, so unless things change I’m fully in agreement that we should all drop it.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on January 05, 2011, 11:56:49 am
Yeah, didn't everybody know exactly where everybody stood on this about ten pages ago.

I like repeating myself endlessly as much as the next man, but shouldn't this horse be thrown on the shit pile.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on January 05, 2011, 11:57:27 am
Oh, I see it already is  :)
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 05, 2011, 12:01:58 pm
I can’t be bothered to trawl through old threads and PMs but he did say he had at least a very significant number of his ascents on video. I was exaggerating by saying all. At the end of the day he could still pretty much “fucking win” if ANYONE saw ANY of these, but we both know that’s never going to happen and we both have our own interpretations as to why that will be and like you say that’s the end of it, so unless things change I’m fully in agreement that we should all drop it.

Ye but i'm not in control of what simpson has in his attic. I've never said he should be completely vindicated on the basis of the LA belayer. Not at all. I just don't think that these two ascents should be ignored when someone's confirmed them.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: DaveC on January 05, 2011, 12:08:34 pm
Somehow this subject/thread now has me thinking of Bill Hicks talking about how some subjects are like bad toothache, you just can't leave it alone....ooowwww................................................oooowwwww.......must stop prodding it.............ooooowwwwwwww!!! :wall:






I'm sure Slackers or somebody will dig out the relevant youtube vid.......
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on January 05, 2011, 01:24:00 pm
At the end of the day for this to get resolved lots of belayers and witnesses would have to be contacted. You either trust what these people say or you don't.

Sorry can I just pick up on this. Going on his interviews, belayers/witnesses will be limited (not being funny) as he says he tends to climb with select trusted people and is a loner (can be read two ways).

Its knowing who they are too. You got an encouragingly decent response off Tounley. If you don't fancy it would you mind if I sent him an email to pick his brains on what other hard ascents he belayed/witnessed and who else (if anyone) was around for them. Also who else he knows of who was there/belaying on other ascents where he wasn't present might elicit some new leads. It might be better coming from you but I can sense you are done with this ! Two or three independent accounts would count for an awful lot.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Doylo on January 05, 2011, 01:41:43 pm
I haven't got his email, i contacted him via facebook. I think if he'd witnessed anything else significant Simpson would have mentioned it. He might know who was there for some other stuff. I think he was more of an early climbing partner. Sounds like they met up a few times when simpson was going well. To be honest Shark i don't think you'll get much more out of him. Barring Simpsons intervention i think this issue has ran its course. I'm through with trying to investigate any more, i'll give you a million pounds if you lock this thread!
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on January 05, 2011, 02:06:12 pm

I'm through with trying to investigate any more, i'll give you a million pounds if you lock this thread!

 :greed:

This is a revenue stream worth investigating
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: grimer on January 05, 2011, 04:21:13 pm
Yes Shark, why don't you lock this. Look at this page. It is nothing but a parade of people nagging Chris because he's said a few supportive things about someone he udes to be friends with. What's anyone getting out of it.

I know I don't have to look, but I do, and it's always the same.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Johnny Brown on January 05, 2011, 04:32:18 pm
There is absolutely no point in locking this as another will simply start in its place. Probably on UKC first, then here, either way its better to let things trickle on here than stop for a month and then explode elsewhere.
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on January 05, 2011, 04:37:11 pm
Oddly enough I have just replied to a PM asking that it get moved off the ShitHeap to a main forum.

This thread got logpiled because firstly it was posted in 'News' and wasnt News and secondly because it related to the UKC statement and anything that revolves around UKC tends to get logpiled to keep the Borg off our backs. It has now morphed to not being about the UKC statement any more.

I can't guess what anyone is getting out of it. Personally I'm glad it has elicited the first witness. Personally I'm hoping for more leads and info starting with is 'Tounley' spelt correctly as it doesn't come up on Facebook ? I'm sure someone other than Chris can answer that.


Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: shark on January 11, 2011, 10:14:19 am
I haven't got his email, i contacted him via facebook. I think if he'd witnessed anything else significant Simpson would have mentioned it. He might know who was there for some other stuff. I think he was more of an early climbing partner. Sounds like they met up a few times when simpson was going well. To be honest Shark i don't think you'll get much more out of him. Barring Simpsons intervention i think this issue has ran its course. I'm through with trying to investigate any more, i'll give you a million pounds if you lock this thread!

With Doylo's help I emailed Dan through Facebook last wednesday and got a reply this morning.

Dan again confirmed he belayed Simpson on LA and Hubble. Both were early morning ascents to get good conditions and there wasn't anyone else present. He moved to Thailand shortly after the Hubble ascent. He wasn't present for any of the other key ascents or able to provide any other leads on other belayers/witnesses and was sorry he couldn't be any more help.

PM me if anyone wants a copy of the email exchange. 
Title: Re: UKC Simpson statement
Post by: Jaspersharpe on January 11, 2011, 10:20:37 am
Too late. Sloper's gone.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal