UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => news => Topic started by: tc on November 05, 2010, 03:07:15 pm

Title: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tc on November 05, 2010, 03:07:15 pm
... from Wild Country's list of UK sponsored climbers. I wonder where he's gone? Perhaps he's given up climbing again.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: webbo on November 05, 2010, 03:11:54 pm
maybe he's eloped with si o'conman.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 05, 2010, 03:14:49 pm
Or maybe he got sick of playing media games.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 05, 2010, 03:17:01 pm

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_01/banksymaidMS1205_468x509.jpg)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 05, 2010, 03:17:26 pm
He's taken up street art?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 05, 2010, 03:20:56 pm
He's taken up street art?

If he has I'm certain he will be world-class
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Paul B on November 05, 2010, 03:24:31 pm
... from Wild Country's list of UK sponsored climbers. I wonder where he's gone? Perhaps he's given up climbing again.

for someone that 'doesn't give a shit' you seem to care a bit too much.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tc on November 05, 2010, 03:38:27 pm
Aw, hey, don't be like that. I'm only trying to cause trouble.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 05, 2010, 03:50:44 pm
Trolling is frowned upon (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/page,page2139.html)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tomtom on November 05, 2010, 05:14:00 pm
I heard he could spray a mile of street art in less than 4 mins!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 05, 2010, 08:24:06 pm
Not really news. About time though!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: lagerstarfish on November 05, 2010, 10:49:56 pm
Quote
Simpson vanishes

Not satisfied with conquering the wonderful world of sports climbing he has moved in to take on the mighty David Copperfield and eventually maybe even Paul Daniels and The Magic Circle.

 8)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: nik at work on November 06, 2010, 08:30:14 am
Not really news. About time though!
I'm a bit dim and rather off the scene so can you just clarify what you mean here.
Why isn't it news?
About time what?

(I've read the other channel re: his athletics claims and some people apparently in the know about such things have made some interesting observations.)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 06, 2010, 09:17:05 am
Not news in my opinion. Why should somebody getting dropped by their sponsors get any news coverage?

About time as there has been much discussion regarding the validity of many of Rich Simpsons claims - his ascent of Action Direct, Liquid Ambar, the list is long and impressive. There's no proof of any of these ascents (eg: no belayers, photos, videos, eye-witnesses) and so his sponsors have got a little concerned and dropped him, and quite rightly. Claims for sub 4 minute miles, 2h hour 30 minute marathons have only added fuel to the fire.

I couldn't care less if he is genuine or a bullshitter. What pisses me off is that many of the ascents he claims were many other climbers goals, and this can be very demotivating. An example - the climbers who were trying A Muerte prior to Rich's 'first ascent' probably never tried the route again once the prize of the first ascent had be claimed. What a shame if Rich's claim was false to have stolen that motivation from other climbers. If he has done the routes, good for him, but claiming to be a world class climber without any proof is eventually going to come back and bite you in the arse.

Not news, because I think Rich may have already had far more than his fair share of media coverage.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: nik at work on November 06, 2010, 09:40:28 am
Cheers for clarifying your point Percy.
Not news in my opinion. Why should somebody getting dropped by their sponsors get any news coverage?
The mainstream press features regular stories about which footballer/media whore has been dropped by which shaving products/expensive underwear company. It's not BIG news, but still news. I'd say this is the equivalent within our rather small and sad climbing world.

Quote
I couldn't care less if he is genuine or a bullshitter. What pisses me off is that many of the ascents he claims were many other climbers goals, and this can be very demotivating. An example - the climbers who were trying A Muerte prior to Rich's 'first ascent' probably never tried the route again once the prize of the first ascent had be claimed. What a shame if Rich's claim was false to have stolen that motivation from other climbers. If he has done the routes, good for him, but claiming to be a world class climber without any proof is eventually going to come back and bite you in the arse.
Agree with all of this completely. In fact forget I ever asked, I'm off to eat a croissant.


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: lukeyboy on November 06, 2010, 10:25:18 am
I agree about presenting the evidence to back up your claims. Not an issue if you just climb for the fun of it and happen to be a beast, but if you have sponsors and actively seek media coverage then it's a little different. FWIW, I think Simpson probably is genuine (about the climbing at least).

Obsession vid (http://vimeo.com/6848413)
The vid of him training for AD and the clips of him doing sections of it demonstrate that if nothing else then he was about capable of that level. I'm not saying for a second that it proves he did it, just that he probably was probably strong enough and not a total si o'connor.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: GCW on November 06, 2010, 11:10:52 am
Si O was pretty strong too.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: lukeyboy on November 06, 2010, 11:57:04 am
Si O was pretty strong too.

Fair enough, didn't realise that.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: GCW on November 06, 2010, 12:19:20 pm
And I note that UKC ratified his 4 minute mile (http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=45301), obviously researched thoroughly as it was a NEWS item.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tc on November 06, 2010, 12:55:05 pm
Si O was pretty strong too.

No he wasn't. See John Watson's hilarious clip of him on the mighty "Atlantic Bridge" (V14 >> V4)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 06, 2010, 04:26:06 pm
Performing sections of AD for the camera is not that difficult - apparently there is no move harder than Font 7b/+ on the whole route. Redpointing AD though is a totally different animal. Put another way, even I could theoretically make a film of me linking bits of AD, but I would struggle to redpoint 8a these days.

The film of him doing lots of one armers is impressive, but ability at specific training exercises is no indication of any ability for rock climbing (there is plenty of evidence for this :lol:)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: remus on November 06, 2010, 04:59:47 pm
No he wasn't. See John Watson's hilarious clip of him on the mighty "Atlantic Bridge" (V14 >> V4)

Where might one find this video? Searches of youtube, vimeo and here didnt turn anything up...
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 06, 2010, 05:00:45 pm
Why should somebody getting dropped by their sponsors get any news coverage?

Are you speculating that he was dropped or do you know that for a fact. He may have resigned.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: butterworthtom on November 06, 2010, 05:03:12 pm
There is that video of him climbing pinky perky at 8B in the school room though?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: GCW on November 06, 2010, 05:10:47 pm
No he wasn't. See John Watson's hilarious clip of him on the mighty "Atlantic Bridge" (V14 >> V4)

Where might one find this video? Searches of youtube, vimeo and here didnt turn anything up...

Here, but it's from StoneCountry originally (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-956540273091059522#).

Si O's been seen doing relatively awkward stuff.

There's a vid of Simpson on Staminaband (?) somewhere
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: remus on November 06, 2010, 05:20:07 pm
Cheers.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tc on November 06, 2010, 06:10:29 pm



Si O's been seen doing relatively awkward stuff.



Really? Where?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ike on November 06, 2010, 06:32:10 pm
So people think Simpson is full of shit? I was unaware of this. Well I for one would like to believe he has been honest about all his accomplishments.
I friend of mine who died a few years ago soloing in Ireland had a reputation for being full of shit too. People said he had not done all sorts of things he had claimed to, but I had seen the guy pull off some nasty hard things (like free solo F8a) in the most controlled style, so I just took his word for everything he'd claimed to have done. After all, I knew he was capable of it.
I'll take the same road with Simpson until someone can prove he's lying about his ascents.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: roddersm on November 06, 2010, 09:09:15 pm
Not news in my opinion. Why should somebody getting dropped by their sponsors get any news coverage?

About time as there has been much discussion regarding the validity of many of Rich Simpsons claims - his ascent of Action Direct, Liquid Ambar, the list is long and impressive. There's no proof of any of these ascents (eg: no belayers, photos, videos, eye-witnesses) and so his sponsors have got a little concerned and dropped him, and quite rightly. Claims for sub 4 minute miles, 2h hour 30 minute marathons have only added fuel to the fire.

I couldn't care less if he is genuine or a bullshitter. What pisses me off is that many of the ascents he claims were many other climbers goals, and this can be very demotivating. An example - the climbers who were trying A Muerte prior to Rich's 'first ascent' probably never tried the route again once the prize of the first ascent had be claimed. What a shame if Rich's claim was false to have stolen that motivation from other climbers. If he has done the routes, good for him, but claiming to be a world class climber without any proof is eventually going to come back and bite you in the arse.

Not news, because I think Rich may have already had far more than his fair share of media coverage.

Percy I think you're being very harsh here. For me there's as much evidence for Simpson doing what he's claimed as many other high profile climbers. Maybe he is full of shit but I've seen or heard no evidence to suggest he is. The few videos floating around about him show how strong and good he is and tellingly none of the top climbers he's trained or climbed with have questioned his claims, at least not publically.

The lack of web evidence to support his running and boxing claims is odd but that doesn't mean they aren't true. I can't believe anyone would make up doing a 2.30 marathon, sub 4 minute mile and being a successful boxer and expect not to be found out.

Did he actually get dropped by his sponsors or is this just speculation?

 
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: chris05 on November 06, 2010, 09:13:20 pm
Did he not have a belayer for AD? Surely it wasn't backroped (if climbed at all)?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: granticus on November 06, 2010, 09:40:29 pm
I don't really know anything about anything.... However, this all seems (to me) to be completely out of keeping with the personality and character of the young(er) Master Simpson that I came across starting out training at Warwick uni wall.  Perhaps I'm a shit judge of character but my perception of Rich was someone with a sensibly sized ego that would be honest about his achievements.  He certainly came/comes across as being a very pleasant human being, not that counts for anything.  I guess nowadays, if folk don't document their high end achievements people are gonna start questioning them.  What is being suggested just doesn't feel right to me. :-\
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: KH on November 06, 2010, 09:54:35 pm
I don't know RS and I have never met him, but the videos of him online, obsession and pinky perky, are inspirational and whilst there are no full ascents of AD, Hubble and LA, these videos IMO only go to show that he has more than enough ability to do what has been reported.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 06, 2010, 10:07:55 pm
Harsh? Maybe.
Like I say, I don't know (and don't really care) if Rich has really done many of the things he has claimed. It makes no odds to me. However, having spent a little time with one of his sponsors  recently and heard their doubts, I have to say that there is a fairly damning lack of evidence for several of his ascents. If your sponsor asks you for proof that the stuff on your climbing CV is true and you can't come up with the goods, then I expect you'll either get dropped (or resign before they drop you).

Yes, there is much video evidence that Rich could do some awesome stuff in the School, but little un-edited evidence of him doing anything exceptional on rock. (Obviously, feel free to humiliate me by posting all your Simpson hard grit videos on this forum). There is much evidence that climbing 8b on a board doesn't equate to being able to top-rope a HVS without having a disco leg . Training is training, climbing is climbing....etc, etc... The ability to do 15 one-armers just means that you spend a lot of free time wanking (see the paper, Masturbation and it's ammelioratory affect in the Rock Athlete, by Professor S O'Connor)

Wish I hadn't bothered posting now, as I can't be bothered to argue the toss. I truly hope Rich is the real deal and will prove everbody wrong. It is unfortunate that proof is required if you claim the stuff he has claimed has done, as it is ground-breaking stuff and effects other climbers significantly, but that's the nature of being at the top of your sport. Put up or shut up.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: mrjonathanr on November 06, 2010, 10:08:12 pm
Speaking just for myself, I have no reason to doubt these reputed ascents of his - so I don't.

That's not why I'm posting though: I find assertions of the 'Well he looks pretty strong on the dog so he MUST have redpointed it' variety a tad surprising. Surely you know redpointing is a bit trickier than dogging?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: roddersm on November 06, 2010, 10:38:23 pm
Fair enough Percy but it just seems, from what is known publically, that Richard Simpson is being unfairly singled out. I'm sure there are loads of examples of climbers who've claimed things with little or no evidence. Unfortunately its too easy for people to bullshit about climbing achievments on the internet these days but I think people should be given the beneifit of the doubt unless there is evidence that they are lying.

It's fair enough that sponsors ask for evidence but surely they should make some sort of statement if they remove an athlete (or they resign) to stop this sort of speculation which can damage someones reputation.


 
 
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 06, 2010, 11:07:40 pm
Why is it unfair to single Simpson out compared to O'Connor and Medwards ? How much benefit of the doubt is enough? In any case Simpson was perfectly happy to single Heason out and demand evidence from him publicly on the web lest we forget.

Its a shitty business for sure and we all want to see the best in people. But it is only the fact that he is such a wad indoors that his unverified ascents went largely unquestioned. It was only as anomalies arose that people started doubting and as the doubting continued the anomalies kept arising. How many unsubstantiated gobsmacking achievements does it take before anyone publicly cries bullshit?. In this case quite a few: AD, A Muerte, CT, The Zone (WTF?), 4 minute miles, astonishing marathon time, 8 boxing wins and roped solo of the Hasse. When does it stop?. Where is the evidence from someone who demanded it so publicly of Heason?. If it is all bullshit, then there are friends who have stood up for him whose loyalty has been betrayed and sponsors he has stolen from. Its divisive too - putting climbers in the pro and anti camp potentially setting friends against each other. Trust makes the world go round and being duped and made of fool of is shit but it is better that the truth is outed. Check out Bernie Madoff – he personally conned hundreds out millions who wanted to believe despite the consistency of his returns being statistically miraculous.

We want to believe. I do. But nobody is rushing forward with actual eye witness testimony or videoed ascents are they?. If its forthcoming it will be brilliant. I was made up to read that a Brit had at last done Action Directe and then did the FA of an open project on Campi Puigi. The balance of probabilities on the lack of evidence so far is that it was made up.   
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 06, 2010, 11:52:03 pm
Performing sections of AD for the camera is not that difficult - apparently there is no move harder than Font 7b/+ on the whole route. Redpointing AD though is a totally different animal.

I'd like to see a Font 7b climber do the first jump on Action off the monos (its miles) or the last dyno come to think of it. In the footage he does it from 4 hard moves in to the end.

Quote
Put another way, even I could theoretically make a film of me linking bits of AD, but I would struggle to redpoint 8a these days.
This i would like to see
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: KH on November 07, 2010, 12:00:35 am
Yes, there is much video evidence that Rich could do some awesome stuff in the School, but little un-edited evidence of him doing anything exceptional on rock. (Obviously, feel free to humiliate me by posting all your Simpson hard grit videos on this forum). There is much evidence that climbing 8b on a board doesn't equate to being able to top-rope a HVS without having a disco leg . Training is training, climbing is climbing....etc, etc... The ability to do 15 one-armers just means that you spend a lot of free time wanking (see the paper, Masturbation and it's ammelioratory affect in the Rock Athlete, by Professor S O'Connor)

You're right, I've seen many a strong youth freeze whilst on a rope.  In fact, we have a youngster in South Wales who equalled RS's feat of mono 1-4-7's but can't make easy moves whilst leading a sport route.  But this doesn't seem the case having watched RS confidently climbing past bolts on AD and cruising Nightmare on the Obsession vid.  He also moves very well on rock and whilst multiple one armers doesn't always equate to being a good climber, continuous one armers does equate to having a crazy level of power endurance, vital for routes like AD.

For me, these videos have proved that he moves well on rock, is confident on the lead, is more than strong enough to do most hard climbing moves and has great power endurance levels.  I may be naiive, but I have enough proof to take his word on having climbed these routes.

Also, weren't Bock and Koyomada around at the time he repeated AD.  Bock is no stranger to calling a Brit a bullshitter, but I haven't seen anything on line where he suggests that RS hadn't climbed it.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 07, 2010, 12:03:55 am
Also, weren't Bock and Koyomada around at the time he repeated AD.  Bock is no stranger to calling a Brit a bullshitter, but I haven't seen anything on line where he suggests that RS hadn't climbed it.

Koyomoadas entourage were at the crag, Dai was in the car park.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: KH on November 07, 2010, 12:05:49 am
Chris,   Were you with Rich when he climbed AD?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 07, 2010, 12:16:51 am
No i wasn't.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 07, 2010, 07:04:22 am
... but I think people should be given the beneifit of the doubt unless there is evidence that they are lying. 

What kind of evidence would that be? How do you suggest people prove that something didn't happen?

As a little excersise, i haven't done caviar. Now can you prove it?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: clm on November 07, 2010, 07:20:58 am
the results of pretty much every athletics meet are published in athletics weekly. If they bothered to publish my pissy efforts when my skinny 14 year old legs used to scurry round a track  :spank: then im sure good times like that would be in. Proper timekeepers and everything to be in there.
...and if it wasnt in a race it doesnt count.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: roddersm on November 07, 2010, 09:50:57 am
... but I think people should be given the beneifit of the doubt unless there is evidence that they are lying. 

What kind of evidence would that be? How do you suggest people prove that something didn't happen?

As a little excersise, i haven't done caviar. Now can you prove it?

Fair question. From my point of view Simpson has proved himself to be capable of doing the things he's said so there's no logical reason to doubt him that I can see. This can be seen in the videos floating around about him.  The Si Connor thing seems different because no one had seen the guy climb. Simpson was based in Sheffield for a while, surely there are loads of people who've seen him climb something?   

If people started coming out and saying they have seen him struggle on routes or boulders way easier than he's claimed to have done then I'd see this as evidence that MIGHT suggest he is lying. I haven't seen anything yet to suggest he's a liar other than a lack of evidence to support his claims, however many climbers are credited with doing things with little or no evidence.

If someone shows themselves to be capable of doing something and then claim do have done it then they should at least be given the benefit of the doubt unless theres some evidence otherwise e.g. he was spotted in tescos in birmingham  the morning he was supposed to have done AD or a muerte. Otherwise does this mean no acsents can be valid without video evidence? 

CLM: Agree on the Athletics results thing, it is very odd that he doesn't show up on any race results. He did state his boxing club somewhere though, surely it would be very easy to check out if he was lying about his boxing achievements?   

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: fiveknuckle21 on November 07, 2010, 11:23:35 am
 For what it's worth I think his ability to climb 8B in the school is undoubtebly transferrable to routes like AD which is also very steep. If the moves are 7B/+ I'm sure he found it a walk in the park.

I think Obsession, above anything else, shows how RS was motivated and the way in which he speaks throughout firmly represents how personal a goal it was. His choice to go out and redpoint the old school 8c's rather than the new school 9a's shows that he had his own direction away from the bright lights of 9a and beyond. It's also important to remember that not everyone has an in-situ camera team like Sharma/Ondra.

 I don't know about you but I find it a real shame that people are so quick to defame other climbers on the basis of 'what they've heard from people in the know (or their mates)'. I mean come on. This isn't Scott or Si'O. I really think RS is a decent role model for younger climbers and maybe for their sakes the seeds of doubt needn't be planted because there's enough evidence to show that he was at least capable of his achievements.   

Whether or not he's done the 4 minute mile and all that, I dunno, who cares, this is a climbing forum.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Paul B on November 07, 2010, 02:34:03 pm
Yes, there is much video evidence that Rich could do some awesome stuff in the School, but little un-edited evidence of him doing anything exceptional on rock.

The thing is, the one place where I found board strength translating best was the Frankenjura. You cite little un-edited video evidence but watch Obsession again and see how easily he walks up Nightmare. From what Doylo said, that day it was boiling. You don't climb on Eldorado in full sun especially on a move where you jump into that pinch and swing around. Its hard enough as it is.

Now I'm expecting a backlash here saying "Well thats only F8b and we're talking 9a" etc. but it clearly shows someone on rock, climbing well below their ability, on an 8b, in the Frankenjura. If you take a look at this 'jura ticklist it reads like a role call of routes that suit his apparent strengths (Intercooler, armstrong etc. one of which basically involves one arming a mono). Add to that you've got a video of him demonstrating large links on AD, its not cut together from one move segments.

Seriously go and pull onto or look at AD and come back saying you could make that video (its the funniest thing I've read in a while). You simply wouldn't be able to. To me it highlights a lack of direct knowledge of the routes in question.

But then again maybe I've been duped, or I'm just a Schoolroom/Simposn fanboi...
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: nik at work on November 07, 2010, 04:01:26 pm
I don't Richard Simpson at all but on the basis of the film I'm left in no doubt that he could have done AD, and I have no reason to think he didn't. Equally, extrapolating from this point, I have no reason to dooubt his other sport/bouldering exploits.
The Zone is a bit weird for a few reasons. I'm sure I remember it was only obliquely refered to and the reason behind no "formal claiming" of the ascent was due to lack of witnesses. Which doesn't exactly sit squarely with the apparent lack of witnesses for other ascents which he (or his sponsors) has happily publicised. But I might not be remembering things clearly so could be confused. Anyway I'm sure he has the ability to do The Zone. Onsight? Quite possibly, I can't comment on his trad pedigree as I don't know it but on balance I'd say I thiknk he's done it.
The running and boxing stuff seems to have caught him out. Either there's something else going on or he's apparently got a bit silly. But I don't know enough about these activities and their recording to comment.
The mountaineering stuff is also a sphere of very limited knowledge for me. I'd tend to believe but as I'm already considered the hopelessly naive sap of the forum it probably counts for little.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 07, 2010, 04:36:49 pm
Maybe every single one one of the 11-14 moves on action  (depending on how you do it) are font 7b. probably still wouldn't be 9a though would it, its not that long. Hopefully Percy will confirm when he gets on the sections. I might start a whip round to pay for his trip, can i film?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stubbs on November 07, 2010, 04:41:27 pm
Chris, did you have to go home before Rich did Action Direct, or were you just having a lie in and he slipped out and sent?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 07, 2010, 05:02:23 pm
Your spot on i was in bed as he was out the house at 7. I can't say i've seen him do something hard cos i haven't but i didn't climb with him that much when he was fully going for it. On what i saw he could do the route without question, i know this doesn't mean he did it but i struggle with the concept that someone would train in a tiny garage twice a day, six days a week for two years to then go and lie about it.  Obviously its possible but i don't buy it.  In terms of power he was was of the strongest people i've seen (including Ty, Malc, Micky). He didn't have the greatest crimp strength in the world but in terms of power and the specialist pocket stuff he was world class. He wasn't the most talented climber i've seen either but he moved efficiently and knew his body and how to postion it.  When he first tried Unplugged, another lesser known Frankenjura 9a Keith was belaying and after 5 minutes on it they were both convinced that they were on the 8a+ at the crag.  Marcus Bock had to confirm it was the right route, it took him 3 days i think (this is a route that dave graham failed on and Ondra even had a tussle with, check his scorecard).  Aparently it was like two school 8as in a row (so no surprise he pissed it). I don't know much about the athletics apart from the fact that the New York marathon was oversubscribed and that Ivan Greene (new york socialite) got him someone else's place, hence not showing up on results. I did the same thing at the Great North Run when i was 16. People are doubting that he even boxed , Alex Messenger has pictures of him fighting. Simpson is now at Cambridge University (which is probably why he's too busy to even contemplate this shite), he got straight A's in his A levels which he taught himself after leaving school with very little qualifications This is a pretty motivated guy we're talking about here.  I know in this day and age that people expect hard proof and it is naive to expect everyone to belive you on face value but i've met liars before and i don't believe he is one of them.
 
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Baldy on November 07, 2010, 05:14:17 pm
I've been reading this thread for ages and that is the first vaguely informative post I have read.

I can't lie, I don't know anything about the guy and have no reason to doubt his word,
but I'm sure everyone would agree that it all stacks up in a pretty unfavourable way for him.

The New York marathon info is interesting...

I guess I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, just a thanks for trying to clear up a point really.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stubbs on November 07, 2010, 05:21:06 pm
Thanks Chris
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: sberk4 on November 07, 2010, 05:42:08 pm
His choice to go out and redpoint the old school 8c's rather than the new school 9a's shows that he had his own direction away from the bright lights of 9a and beyond.


I agree with five knuckle; If Simpson was lying about his achievements, why would he go out and redpoint all those "hard for the grade" routes instead of trying ones with more inflation? For example when he did A Muerte he called it 8c+/9a instead of just taking 9a, which I doubt anyone would have questioned (http://usa.moonclimbing.com/rich-simpsons-training-diary-c-334_358.html (http://usa.moonclimbing.com/rich-simpsons-training-diary-c-334_358.html)).

Also--it looks like there's full footage of him doing Action on the Obsession video starting around minute 23. What am I missing?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Nibile on November 07, 2010, 05:46:14 pm
wow, this is both shocking and interesting to read.
I really don't know what to think. it's strange that he's surrounded by mystery, I remember another thread years ago, causing a big stir. IIRC Rich said he had evidence of all his ascents, but wanted to be asked to show that evidence by those who actually doubted him. simply put, he wanted to know the enemy. fair enough I think. I have always believed his achievements. he had the level.
the only reason that I can imagine, for him to lie, is that somehow the pressure got too high to bear, mentally. I mean, if you devote all your life to something, it could be hard to keep the necessary calm and cold blood to keep yourself at it, in front of some difficulties. BUT I HAVE NO IDEA.
as said, I've always believed him.
I know how I think (barely) but I am not in his (or anyone else's) mind.
should be quite easy, though, to track down his belayer, for those who want sure proof. I mean, AD and A muerte don't get climbed everyday no?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 07, 2010, 05:53:17 pm
I think all boxers need to be registered with the ABAE and I would be very suprised if there weren't recrods of every bout if only for health and safety reasons (plus I imagine the ranking is as competitive as chess).  So it should be very easy to prove his boxing pedigree. (I would rather show my card as having got belted around the ring and admit to being a little loose with the facts than have just been on a walter mitty trip.

Similarly with the New York Marathon.  sub 2:30 would probably mean what 50 competitors most of whom will be very much darker than Mr Simpson and I am sure the finish of the race will be on you tube somewhere.  Again a doddle for Mr S to prove his athletics pedigree.

If he could nail his colours to the mast and demonstrate that he's straight here then it would give people a good reason to afford credit to his other claims.

PS I wonder if the climber in question wasn't well known how their claims would be viewed.  I am afraid that having been on the side affording credence I am now with Shark and thinking that the case for the prosecution as it were has enough behind it to go past half time and unless there's some strong evidence for the defence as it were the jury won't be out for long.

Interstingly though I seem to recall Ben Heason doing one of the Wimberry horror shows on video, perhaps it's time the tables were turned . . .
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Kingy on November 07, 2010, 07:52:14 pm
I know Rich from my Birmingham days and he has held my ropes on Mecca. I believe all his ascents without the need to ask about proof, call me naive but maybe this is from an earlier era of trust in a climber's ability. I don't question his integrity as I know how strong he was/is. I seem to remember he was going out on the grit a few years back and deliberately not telling the press about routes he had done like Careless just because he was disillusioned with the climbing media, understandable perhaps! I think the Moon site said that he had gone all 'shy' or something at the time...fair enough.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: katy on November 07, 2010, 07:53:55 pm
Similarly with the New York Marathon.  sub 2:30 would probably mean what 50 competitors most of whom will be very much darker than Mr Simpson and I am sure the finish of the race will be on you tube somewhere.  Again a doddle for Mr S to prove his athletics pedigree.

Most runs are split into the pro's, club and then fun runners with the fun runners being split on PBs. Getting through the gates can take forever though. (look how long people take to start the London marathon, getting through the gates is epic, and they have two starts) If Rich was running under someone else's name then he would be under their PB and starting with fun runners instead maybe his watch timing for his run was 2.30 but the recorded time, with heavy traffic is slower? I doubt he would find a place under the pro's or club runners in a pseudonym, people would recognise he wasn't who he said he was. he'd be in the fun runners.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 07, 2010, 07:58:33 pm
As it appears to be the basis for this thread and the (quite frankly, sordid) speculation, does anyone know that he has been dropped by his sponsors or if they have actually agreed to part ways due to him studying full time for at least 3 years?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 07, 2010, 08:03:27 pm
My last post on this thread - its all based on pure conjecture and will no doubt rumble on for a while yet, but I'm out.

I can't say i've seen him do something hard cos i haven't

And nor have I. And nor have a lot of other people. I don't doubt Rich is/was a training monster and was more than capable of climbing AD, and all the other routes he claims. The point is that no-one has actually seen him dispatch any of these routes, or if they have they have been sworn to a vow of secrecy that remains unbroken to this day. If Rich is as bright as his A-levels and Oxbridge studies would suggest, he might like to show somebody (eg: his sponsors) some or all of the evidence that he has been keeping to himself and restore a little confidence in the achievements which put him right up there as one of British climbers best.

Unfortunately climbing is a frustrating sport, and often it is possible to be fit and strong enough to do a climb but for it to take a long time to happen (witness the multi-year redpoint seiges of many of the great and good - Ben Moon on Northern Lights is one that stands out). Now if Ben had told everyone he'd done Northern Lights out of frustration at being more than strong enough but just not quite finishing it off,  there might have been little doubt given his previous pedigree.
Is it not possible that Rich might have done this on more than one occasion, and relied on his form in the school to back up his claims (as opposed to producing a climbing buddy to back him up)?

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Percy B on November 07, 2010, 08:45:04 pm
As it appears to be the basis for this thread and the (quite frankly, sordid) speculation, does anyone know that he has been dropped by his sponsors or if they have actually agreed to part ways due to him studying full time for at least 3 years?

Bloody hell - this really is my last post. One quick phone call informs me that RS has been dropped by one sponsor and he has resigned from his other sponsorship contracts (before they binned him too one would think). He didn't produce the proof that they wanted to validate his ascents. His recent blog posts had ascents on them that a lot of people found hard to believe (these blogs have all now been removed unfortunately) but included achievements such as rope-soloing the Brandler-Hasse in the Dolomites in well under 2 hours. I think Alex Huber took 4 hours 20 minutes to free solo this route - unsuprising as it is one of the loosest 16 pitch complex limestone E5's you will find anywhere. Imagine doing it in less than half the time and having the faff of a rope. Needs a bit of backing up, a claim like that.
Hope this helps - I really am out now.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 07, 2010, 08:58:19 pm
Fairy nuff.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Baron on November 07, 2010, 09:05:38 pm
The pinky perky clip has an edit.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: carlisle slapper on November 07, 2010, 09:50:47 pm
Firstly what is wrong with asking a few questions? Sponsors should be the first to do this, if you sponsor a liar your company looks a bit shit.
Percy has got a bit off a barracking here of people that are uniformed and speaking purely out of the confidence of ignorance (obviously the likes of Doyle couldn't be better informed really).

So Action, I've belayed a few people on this route now for a long time (last 3 years). And have seen alot of people on it first hand (Felix knaub, Manuel Brunn (sp?) Fabi, jonas baumann, Andre (strong polish peast)). I was even lucky enough to be there when Adam pustelnik did it.
From belaying Ben and Ryan on it i have seen them both do bigger links than simpson in obsession, with Ryan doing it in 2 save for the clip in the middle (which was often wet) And Ben almost doing it in 2 around the mono. Both of them looked as solid if not more solid than simpson when they were on it. And Pustelnik looked a whole other level above that (total legend), infact his warm up involved doing the route in 2 like it was pretty easy. Watching pustelnik on the route was amazing seeing how hard he had to try. Manuel Brunn is also able to lap the route save for the initial jump (simpsons sequence is whack only windisch uses one similar and he hasn't done it yet (even though I've seen Windisch do moves i could only dream of)) If Ryan or Ben had snuck out on me when i had been belaying them alot i'd feel a bit miffed, but then they didn't because they're mates, they'd certainly have told me the name and where abouts of who bleayed them. And like i say both got very close but didn't do it. (i can go on about Jonas being a beast on it etc but i hope my point is made.

Edited footage is just that 8b climbers can do all the moves on this route (i know a few) and leaving your mates on the day of your ascent when they are there making a film about you climbing it (whilst youve been falling off the route ALOT and making alot of audible excuses in previous days) and when you havent been that close (or even had a half decent redpoint from the floor) i saw felix fall on the last moves and he hasnt done it yet).

Adding all that up on the worlds most famous route is it not ok to say, hey rich can you name your belayer (preferably someone of sound mind and body who is known to other climbers) and let your company get in touch, especially when your photo is in the guide book on it.

Ditto for Liquid, Hubble, Ascents in Buoux (i have aussie mates who were on this trip who have previously expressed similar doubts and disappointment for not being with rich on the day of the send.

As for his grit ascents they were pretty fast and ground breaking in style. I can see why no one would be there (not like you need a belayer on careless) but why claim to have a video of things like careless and not show it? (its enough of a ball ache to turn your camera on and off repeatedly, so if you have footage you'd show someone)

I used to fully believe rich and be a big fan (he was almost up there with malc mcclure and gaskins etc) then he started claiming things like a sub 4 min mile and sub 2.30 marathon. I flat out think this is bollocks. My unkle mike is a semi professional runner (profile here http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=3835 (http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=3835)) whilst his power of 10 is incomplete you can see he's pretty fast for an old man. in his hayday he could run sub 2.30 marathons. I know how much training he does and how skinny and light he is. To say you've done these things in running and have no proof (UKC thread on this was genius) whilst spelling the name of the stadium wrong where you supposedly ran your 4 minute mile in IN A RACE and having no record is taking the fucking piss. Runners dont stand for that, they have Omega timing and results for a reason. Science.

In climbing we just have rosey eyed faith. I don't know enough about boxing to comment (so i wont) and if you put huber under the brandler hasse ropeless after practice and simpson with a rope (slower!) after doing the route once, and told me to put 400 quid on who'd top out first i know who i'd back.

I'm happy to believe his climbing claims with a bit of proof, it'd take a lot of proof for the running ones (like an offical results sheet from an independent party with his name and time on, god they're hard to come by arent they after you've raced!!), 10 years of watching my uncle in local and national races has taught me that much.

Doing your a levels isn't that hard chris! my sister got 4A/ stars (and a B in an extra one) and went to cambridge and got a first (you could say she was pretty motivated) but she struggles to do a 10km under 50minutes  with her little wobble legs (she can hang a 15mm campus rung nay bother but she doesn't claim to have climbed the worlds most famous route without a credible witness) basically its unrelated, Its an awesome effort getting into top level academia but it is a world away from professional sporting claims.

I know several climbers who make rich look weak on a board, especially Leo when he's on top form :), and even on pockets. people have done 1 armers off 1 pad monos infront of my friends eyes. but they haven't claimed an unbelievable (no pun intended) polysport ticklist ever amassed without a single bit of uncut footage or definite belayers on the actual ascent.

Its a bit disrespectful to top end climbers and peers (especially in the running world) to say you are above questioning (aka  a scientific mind) and that you must have Faith and faith alone. Only in climbing can you do this and i'd like to be one who asks for some proof. In a nice way.

(if anyone wants to seriously question any of my ascents btw feel free, just state the climb and ascent style i've claimed)
I did unfamiliar ground up last weekend in really thick mist so you couldnt film, no video just photos, oh fuck ryan pasquill belayed me and nige kershaw was there. Err i did queen kong with no witnesses 5.5 years ago after recovering from pneumonia (pretty unlikely!!) oh fuck i went back 2 days later and did it with springer and got a full vid for the county.

ok enough. if you dont know all the names on that action list consider yourself fairly uninformed about the route and its recent history.

i'd prefer to be hustled and humiliated than lied too.

Good effort to scarpa and wild country for DOING THEIR JOB and trying to make sure they're credible.

Cheers Dan Varian.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: measles23 on November 07, 2010, 10:05:36 pm
Pinky perky is my 2nd fave psyche video ever, after splinter..

But that might just be because its YouTube suggestions list introduced me to Zuzana in "Hardest Pushups Ever"  :) my psyche got a little distracted after that..
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Paul B on November 07, 2010, 10:09:01 pm
I have to say Dan your A levels comment comes across as nothing short of ignorant
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 07, 2010, 10:20:13 pm
I have to say Dan your A levels comment comes across as nothing short of ignorant

In the context of everything else you pick up on that !!!! FFS

In his position it is commendable that Varian puts his cock on the block.   :bow:
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Tom de Gay on November 07, 2010, 10:23:32 pm

Boy, has this been an edifying spectacle.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 07, 2010, 10:24:12 pm
But that might just be because its YouTube suggestions list introduced me to Zuzana in "Hardest Pushups Ever"  :) my psyche got a little distracted after that..

 :o

Hardest Pushups Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZydTPxFdcU#)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: measles23 on November 07, 2010, 10:40:12 pm
Don't want to distract too much from the biatching, but I think we have a lot to learn from Zuzana - For instance "Dive Bomber Pushups" must do more for your core than yoga...


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: katy on November 07, 2010, 10:41:34 pm
I know several climbers who make rich look weak on a board, especially Leo when he's on top form :), and even on pockets. people have done 1 armers off 1 pad monos infront of my friends eyes. but they haven't claimed an unbelievable (no pun intended) polysport ticklist ever amassed without a single bit of uncut footage or definite belayers on the actual ascent.

I aint no board beast but rich is the most impressive guy i have seen on a board! he was down at the mill and had not climbed for 6months and was flashing all the hard projects and making them look piss. Maybe some stuff that he says seen far fetched but he is a very motivated guy and very driven to achieve.

Ioan Doyle
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: carlisle slapper on November 07, 2010, 11:19:39 pm
Cheers paul, I thought it was pretty flippant to use A levels and university entry acceptance to cambridge as evidence of being able to run a sub 4 minute mile, climb 9a and a reason for full blown sponsorship.
As a phd student yourself i'm sure your aware of evidence in context and relevant citations, apologies if i offended you. It was a first hand real life example used to illustrate a point, hundreds of people go to top flight universities every year. Barely anyone officially runs under 4minute miles without proof.

Clearly  "Its an awesome effort getting into top level academia" wasn't being nice enough. If Stu tried to claim a ground up ascent of careless and used his university professor status as proof of ambition/ capability you'd think it a little strange. even though that took many more years of hard graft than his A levels ever did. There are alot of climbers on here who have awesome academic CVs my point is, is that it has nothing inherently to do with sporting ability, look at chris eubank. Or Hawking on the vice versa.

How else could i make that point without taking up a massive amount of page space?






Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: hairich on November 07, 2010, 11:25:45 pm
a levels are piss
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 08, 2010, 12:13:35 am
How many people leave school with no qualifications then years later teach themselves a levels in a library get straight a s then get into cambridge? I wasn t trying to make a big thing about it but was merely trying to show that he s a driven guy. Thats all. Anyway i ve got nought else to add, im away and my phones shit for internet. I ll leave the sheffield maffia to it....
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: turnipturned on November 08, 2010, 12:57:21 am
No wonder more and more people don't publicize there achievements! Seems a real shame there is so much negativity and disbelief in climbing!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: petejh on November 08, 2010, 01:14:55 am
I'm intrigued by this shit-show, even more so because I climbed with Rich a couple of months ago and would be quite dismayed to find out he was lying about all those achievements I admired. He wanted to do some drytooling to train for his plan of trying to do speed ascents of the 6 classic N.Faces in the alps so I arranged to meet up for a climb. He told me about his 2.30 solo of the Brandler-Hasse and also told me how he doesn't climb hard any more but 'keeps his eye in' by doing one F8c per year which he's managed for 'the last few years'. I'd put him in the same category as a few other driven people I've met or spent time with, he was obviously highly charged and good company. He didn't particularly impress with his climbing on the tools - even Jack Geldard o/s'd the route that Rich didn't quite get so it can't be that hard  ;) But that doesn't mean he was/isn't a beast on the rock, however it did surprise me.

After reading this thread and the stuff on the ukc 4 minute mile thing, and seeing the clips of Rich performing various feats of indoor beastliness, the main thing that seems obvious to me is to just compare the evidence of Rich's claims against the evidence of the other climbers operating at the same level - I've never seen any clips of Ste Mac doing loads of one armers or crazy hard school-room stuff like that but he somehow manages to knock out 9a+'s. Same goes for Dave Mac, Birkett (if we're talking about people capable of E9 onsights). Never seen footage of Sharma doing any of that indoor stuff either but I'm probably wrong. Don't remember seeing Pete R doing loads of one armers and mono pullups, just immense dedication, hard work and application. Which says to me that one armers and mono pull-ups aren't a pre-requisite for climbing F8c+ and even F9a+ sport routes.
Which climbers at the same level haven't been able to have a belayer or witness to verify ascents of Liquid Ambar, Hubble, Action Directe, (other foriegn 8c/+ routes), first ever O/S of an E8 or E9, 2.30hr solo of Brandler-Hasse, for their sponsors if no-one else.
Add to that a sub 4 minute mile, sub 2.30 marathon, 16 undefeated fights (not in the same league but it most certainly would be recorded and verifiable unless Rich is into bare knuckle for cash).
The last point I'm reminded about from our day climbing is that Rich said he was on the British Olympic boxing team for the 2012 London olympics, and that unfortunately he didn't make the final cut because he had to have an operation. This must be verifiable with Sport England etc and would go some way to proving or disproving his knockers.

I hope he's the real deal  :please:
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: John Gillott on November 08, 2010, 07:58:35 am
His recent blog posts had ascents on them that a lot of people found hard to believe (these blogs have all now been removed unfortunately) but included achievements such as rope-soloing the Brandler-Hasse in the Dolomites in well under 2 hours. I think Alex Huber took 4 hours 20 minutes to free solo this route - unsuprising as it is one of the loosest 16 pitch complex limestone E5's you will find anywhere.

The scarpa blog is still there:

http://www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp?TeamID=40 (http://www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp?TeamID=40)

Maybe Simpson eliminated the nap? (around 1'30"):

adidas Outdoor Alexander Huber - Free Solo (Hasse BrandlerVIII+) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96JIohKsQVY#ws)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 08, 2010, 09:26:57 am
go some way to proving or disproving his knockers.

Has he had breast implants too? :)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 08, 2010, 09:32:35 am
Few thoughts on this saga:

Firstly as someone who's clearly not daft and been in the game long enough to know better, I'm amazed that Rich has allowed himself to get into the position of seemingly not having anything evidenceable, especially given his track record of publicly calling bullshit on Heason. Whatever you can read into having met the Rich, or what a mate of a mate might have told you down the pub, or however many pullups he can do, or that he probably was strong enough to do XXX route, or that he's driven enough to be a self-made academic, I think the fact that sponsors have dropped him is a real eyeopener. When you look at people who've had questions asked about them in the past none of them (to my knowledge) got dropped as a result.

It does surprise me (as in I wasn't aware) if its true that nobody has seen him do the routes he's said he has, there must have been belayers, and even if they'd been sworn to secrecy (why?) you'd think someone would pipe up to save the guy's reputation. The person rumoured to have been the belayer on his unreported hard grit routes for example should be able to shed some light on this. Of course its not the case that everyone needs to be videoing everything they do, but when you're talking ascents thaat are either garnering sponsorship beans, or column inches, or that are of top-level significance then I think in todays world there aught to be hard evidence, or at the very least the climbing being able to put themselves in the context of being above suspicion.

I'm glad that this thread hasn't descended into the usual "well I met him once and he seemed like a nice guy, didn't have horns or a forked tail thus he can't be a liar" crap like we had with heason and scotty, so thanks to everyone for being rational.

Would anyone care to fill me in on the edited highlights of the boxing/athletics shit cos I ain't seen the stuff on CT?

I must admit it doesn't look good for Rich at this stage, even if he could beat this shit out  of me, lap me on the track and has got more UCAS points than me.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tomtom on November 08, 2010, 09:37:58 am
I must admit it doesn't look good for Rich at this stage, even if he could beat this shit out  of me, lap me on the track and has got more UCAS points than me.

Yes, but he doesnt have dave in blue does he! eh!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: roddersm on November 08, 2010, 09:56:30 am
Cheers Dan, Percy and Chris for clarifying some of this.

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

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

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

All things considered though I think from what I've heard heard I'm still inclined to believe he's for real. There's a common theme coming from
people who know the guy and that is that he is strong enough to do what he's said and that he is someone of integrity.

There's not much footage either of the likes of Malcolm smith, john gaskins, Stevie Haston (not to single these guys out) etc. floating around but no one (and certainly not me either) is questioning them. I just don't understand why Simpson is different and getting such grief by comparison.
The likes of McClure, Macleod, pearson etc. have pretty much all their hard stuff on video but this is not the case for a lot of other climbers.

Also another reason why I'm enclined to believe him is that he has provided so much detail and photos for this stuff in magazines blogs etc.

If he's lying he must be the most elaborate liar in climbing history. Why would he boast about fake boxing and running credentials in the climbing media? Why head out to the Frankenjura and spain numerous times before pretending to do these routes? As Doyle said why train so hard to get strong only to claim to do these old school routes for which he got so little reward or publicity?


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 09:57:24 am
I couldn't decide whether to to get involved in this but in the end thought, fuck it, so....

This is a lot different to the Scotty situation as clearly Rich is/was strong enough to do the feats achieved of him. Also worth pointing out that a lot of these rumours get spread as hard facts by people who hear them second/third hand. For example, I recall that Si Moore saw RS do Hubble, no? Yet many people on this thread have included this as an 'unwitnessed' ascent. I think the responsibility for this lies firmly with the doubters (I.U.P.G and all that), so maybe someone who knows Si should check with him? Also, did everyone miss Doylo saying that Dai's entourage were at the crag when Rich did Action Directe? Anyone bother to chase that up before stating baldly it was 'unwitnessed'?

I'm not saying it's wrong to ask for proof of ascents; I think climbing is important enough to all of us to make that fair enough. I do think if you're going to insinuate public that someone's a liar, you should make all reasonable efforts to check your facts.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 08, 2010, 10:02:13 am
I must admit it doesn't look good for Rich at this stage, even if he could beat this shit out  of me, lap me on the track and has got more UCAS points than me.

Yes, but he doesnt have dave in blue does he! eh!

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 08, 2010, 10:09:17 am
Good point from Stu there about checking facts. I'm probably as guilty as anyone of taking stuff stated on this thread as fact. Sport routes have belayers and hence if they happened then they have witnesses, so producing witnesses for sport route ascents shouldn't be a problem.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: nik at work on November 08, 2010, 10:10:58 am
Dave a brief athletics/boxing synopsis:

Rich said he'd done a 4 minute mile at some venue, he was originally pace making but "felt good" so went on to to finish the mile. Can't remember the specific venue but blah blah. Anyway sone athletic knowledgable types on the other channel said they hadn't heard of him and their mates hadn't either. Also his time didn't appear to be recorded anywhere. The feeling was that a 4-minute miler wouldn't just pop up do the deed then walk off into the sunset but that there would be paper trail of results which is apparently absent in this case.

The 2hour 30 marathon was apparently done in the New York Marathon however his name doesn't appear in the results. Dolye has revealed he was running under someone elses ticket so that makes sense. However again the feeling was amongst the athleticophiles that a 2:30 marathon doesn't just happen and there would be a paper trail, which again fails to materialise.

The boxing is 16 bouts all won I think he claims. None of the UKCer's who've looked have found any evidence that he's stepped into the ring.

Not sure whether this say more about Simpsons record or the competence of UKCer's to research on the interweb...

Anyway I'm still prepared to accept his climbing claims, although I must express similar surprise to you regarding the apparent reticence of witnesses, but his Brandler Hasse solo (or whatever it was) is maybe looking like a shakier claim??? I don't know anything about this type of climbing(mountaineering?) but some of the above comments have given pause for thought...

P.S. I agree with Stu, he seems pretty smart.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 10:28:03 am
I think that there are two issues here,

One is, as has been pointed out Rich Simpson set him self up a la Jonathan Aitken as the bearer of the sword of truth and the shield of fair play.  As such his claims need to be viewed in that context.

The second is that he's made extrodinary claims of athleticism which do not bear the slightest scrutiny.

Similarly with the boxing, as I understand it you have to be registered with the ABAE to box and there are records kept of all bouts for health and safety reasons as well as rankings.

If you have fought 16 fights I am sure you'd be able to name places, dates and your opponent.

The academic qualities have no relevance to the veracity of the claims that he's made.

If up at cambridge he gets a double blue in boxing and athletics his claims will take on a different hue but until then the only rational conclusion is that his claims of athletic prowess are not to be believed and by inference his claims as to the routes that he has climbed are substantially undermined.

If he can't name one belayer, one good witness, or indeed any other evidence then why should we believe the claims?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: John Gillott on November 08, 2010, 10:31:24 am
1hr 37 for the BH is very impressive, but not that outlandish I'd have thought if we assume something approaching Steck's ability to speed climb - and it's Steck that he was / is training to match not Huber. Not unreasonably from most people's point of view, Huber's approach as shown in the video was very steady and cautious, but then he wasn't training for speed climbing as far as I know. The climbing itself is well within both of their capabilities.

As someone who knows nothing about this - and let's face it that must go for many people including his sponsors - the claim that leapt out at me was the four minute mile. The runners posting on UKC found it hard or impossible to believe that such a result wouldn't have been recorded. Maybe that's what has tipped the balance?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 10:46:59 am
The second is that he's made extrodinary claims of athleticism which do not bear the slightest scrutiny.

Similarly with the boxing, as I understand it you have to be registered with the ABAE to box and there are records kept of all bouts for health and safety reasons as well as rankings.

If you have fought 16 fights I am sure you'd be able to name places, dates and your opponent.

The point is, your argument doesn't bear the slightest amount of scrutiny until *you* contact the ABAE and check that he isn't registered, or hasn't boxed, or lost his fights, or whatever. Otherwise your argument goes

Similar to the belayers; as a bare minimum you should check the belayers/witnesses named in this thread, before coming on the internet and saying that Rich can't produce a single belayer or witness for his climbs.

I'm all for subjecting extra-ordinary claims to scrutiny, but some of this thread is a witch-hunt by rumour and scuttlebut. At their worst, the threads about Ben Heason and Scotty were just as bad; it's what happens when the nasty side of crag gossip goes public, and it looks pretty unedifying.

Just to re-iterate; I'm completely fine with people discussing claims and evidence in public, but we should always remember we're talking about real people who actually give a shit, and err on the side of fact, rather than speculation.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 08, 2010, 10:47:19 am
How about we go back to basics and keep it fact based to find out we is factually known.

There are a lot of people here who know and have climbed with Simpson. Yes?

Who can give personal eye witness testimony of a successful ascent of an 8c or harder by Simpson ? Please
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 10:51:44 am
as an aside; that video of Huber on the Brandler-Hasse is the scariest thing I've seen in ages.  :o
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Probes on November 08, 2010, 11:04:31 am
His recent blog posts had ascents on them that a lot of people found hard to believe (these blogs have all now been removed unfortunately) but included achievements such as rope-soloing the Brandler-Hasse in the Dolomites in well under 2 hours. I think Alex Huber took 4 hours 20 minutes to free solo this route - unsuprising as it is one of the loosest 16 pitch complex limestone E5's you will find anywhere.

Hubers eyes on stalks... love it.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tomtom on November 08, 2010, 11:09:28 am
as an aside; that video of Huber on the Brandler-Hasse is the scariest thing I've seen in ages.  :o

 :agree:  solo-ing tottering choss. OK, its slightly (not much) better than tottering choss, but I wasnt inspired by the rock quality during my (puntering) Dolomite forrays...

More seriously, if he making things up then the only person he's cheating is himself! (now that he has resigned/lost his sponsors) What video/pictures I've seen of him in action are pretty inspiring (apart from the action direct wet dream sequence... which was cringeworthy) but they're just vids etc.. and I personally wouldnt feel cheated/let down if they were false... so - so what  :shrug:   in climbing if you make stuff up your'e only really lying to yourself at the end of the day...

Secondly, its possible he just couldnt be arsed with the sponsorship? My only brush with watching the hand of sponsorship in action was chatting to someone (un-named climber) at Almscliff who was 'having' to make some videos of some of the harder problems he'd done there with the name of his sponsoring bouldering mat manufacturer in prominent view. He'd rather not have done it, but the sponsors wanted their pound of flesh (which is fair enough). Perhaps RS just couldnt be bothered with the whole sponsorship shizzle now he was doing something different  :shrug:
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 11:13:13 am
Stu,

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

My reference was to the criminal trial process whereby the prosecution has to adduce sufficient admissible evidence to allow a jury to properly return a guilty verdict whereupon it is then for the defence to adduce evidence to refute that case or advance an 'excuse'.

In this matter the allegation (complaint) has been made and there's been more than sufficient evidence, even if circumstantial, to make out the allegation to the necessary degree.  There is nothing inherently 'bad' about circumstantial evidence and in some ways it would be surprising if there wasn't a preponderance of circumstantial as opposed to direct evidence in a matter such as this.

There is also a general presumption that, where a party can adduce evidence with great ease and the other party cannot reliably adduce that evidence or only with great difficulty then the onus on the party who can evidence the matter at issue becomes even greater than before.

Rich could answer the question in a short post with verifiable evidence.

As to the discussion being nasty and based on gossip and innuendo, that's a direct consequence of the fact that Rich Simpson set himself up as the inquisitor general and that the gossip and innuendo was used to advance the claims.  You can't have it both ways.

I'm sure these revelations and the discussion must be fairly devastating for him but let's remember this, he has the means to settle the critics within his gift. 

That he doesn't exercise this option might lead one to the inevitable conclusion that he has no means of answering the charge because it's true.

If we were talking about some minor embellishment (eg stating that the route was only worked for two days rather than a week and that's after a prolonged assault on a model in the cellar) then he might be considered to be exercising the 'today's news is tomorrows fish and chip paper' position but given matters generally I do not find that credible.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: cofe on November 08, 2010, 11:24:29 am
as an aside; that video of Huber on the Brandler-Hasse is the scariest thing I've seen in ages.  :o

you're not wrong. it's scary enough in the dolomites with gear etc. jesus.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: carlisle slapper on November 08, 2010, 11:32:17 am
Ok so here is an exerpt from UKCs badly researched article.


"With regards to the mile. It's been a lifelong ambition (I came from a running background). I'd previously run several miles under 4.05 minutes, but never broken the 4 minute barrier. I ran 3.58 whilst pace setting at the Alexandre Stadium (I was supposed to drop out after three laps, but felt strong so continued). Just a 2.30 marathon to go now, which I hope to do in New York this November."

The name of the stadium is the Alexander stadium it is the home of birchfield harriers (http://www.birchfieldharriers.net/news/ (http://www.birchfieldharriers.net/news/))

I've rung them and they can find no record of a richard simpson running such times, there are results for richard simpsons aged 40+ and 20- and a Richard Simpson who ran half and full marathons (nothing exceptional though). To be fair they can't be 100% sure until the event is known (perhaps someone can ask rich this as its ruddy hard to find it out without asking him!)

http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/athleteslookup.aspx?surname=Simpson&firstname=&club= (http://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/athleteslookup.aspx?surname=Simpson&firstname=&club=)
This basically ties in with what power of 10 says

But they have no record of a richard simpson running a 4minute mile. Unless he ran that under someone elses name too
(http://www.birchfieldharriers.net/club/records/club-records-men/ (http://www.birchfieldharriers.net/club/records/club-records-men/) maybe he ran it under the name of robbie harrison!!!)

So being as objective as possible, i'm not going to believe a 4minute mile claim when none of the story checks out at the minute, i'll try and find out the race type off someone

I've sent an email to someone who should be able to confirm whether Dai's entourage was at the crag or not, i hope they were.

If i was going to solo the brandler hasse quicker than huber (lets not forget Huber holds speed climbing records on el cap, can do mono front and back levers, and climbed the worlds first 9a+ and is just about the most accomplished big wall climber in the world) with less practice and a rope to slow me down i'd take a photo of my watch at the bottom middle and top, then you can pair the internal camera clock against the watch as pretty solid proof (granted you could alter the times on them but the sync would change slightly).

He must have been seen doing hubble evolution or stamina band PUTP, its the Tor there's nearly always someone there. I never seriously doubted any climbing ascents but if you're prepared to pad out the truth about being one of britains fastest runners then you'll have started somewhere.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 11:56:21 am
Stu,

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

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

And Rich's actions in the Heason debacle is absolutely no excuse for adopting the same behaviour in dealing with him. It's your own moral standards that should concern you, not his. Or, put more starkly, two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't your mother tell you that?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 08, 2010, 11:59:29 am
Some background for those of you wondering why this has come to a head recently, some background on the Hasse-Brandler.

The Cima Grande di Lavaredo is one of the six classic north faces of The Alps. Unlike the others, though, its is a huge overhanging pure rock wall rather than the mixed alpine terrain more typical of the Eiger or Matterhorn.

The first ascent of The Direttissima  (http://www.up-climbing.com/en/contributions/mountaineering/hasse-brandler)was in 1958, after many attempts and failures, and took four days of sustained hard aid climbing, and left 180 pitons in situ, plus bolts, wedges threads etc. The second ascent followed immediately, and added another 40 pitons. 

It wasn't climbed free until 1987, by a strong German team led by Kurt Albert. Over the next twenty years it became one of the most sought over free routes in The Alps. For a personal perspective by an 8c climber, see here.   (http://thesphericalcow.blogspot.com/2009/08/and-now-for-something-completely.html)

Dolomite limestone is inherently loose, friable - not your typical continental bolted limestone, more what the french call 'terrain d'aventure'. The route is not an obvious choice for free soloing.

Quote
On August 1 2002, I climbed the Direttissima (5.12a, 550m, Brandler-Hasse-Lehn-Low, 1958; FFA, Albert-Sprachmann, 1987) of the Cima Grande di Lavaredo free solo, with nothing more than climbing shoes, chalk bag and helmet. I started climbing at 7 a.m. and reached the summit after approximately four hours. The route is eighteen pitches long, with one pitch of 5.12, four of 5.11 and four of 5.10. I had spent six days on the route before my solo. The first time, I climbed the route onsight with Guido Unterwurzacher. I then trained on the route for five days with Michi Althammer until I knew the route and its difficult passages well and above all until I knew which holds I could trust in the not-always-solid dolomite typical of the Cime di Lavaredo.

The rock in the Dolomites is quite friable. Don't you feel that you are stacking up the odds when free soloing on such rock?

As the rock on the Direttissima is friable, I was forced to avoid many questionable holds and instead use many small but solid holds. This made the route harder than its normal grade. Even more, I had to climb three consecutive overhanging pitches in a row, with no rests, since that section is protected by hanging belays. This made the route significantly harder than its guidebook grade, 5.12a.

- Alex Huber, Germany

Huber's ascent included a twenty minute rest on a ledge below the crux section, where he calmed down from the inital pitches and considered whether to continue onto the irreversible crux pitches. Despite having 'spent six days on the route, studying the sequence of the most difficult sections and marking with chalk crucial holds', it still took four hours.

Simpson's account is here (http://www.scarpa.co.uk/team/blogs.asp?TeamID=40).
Quote
Approximately 1 hour 37 minutes later I arrived at the summit, having climbed the last five or six easy pitches in roughly twenty minutes

Removing the twenty minutes for the top six pitches leaves 1hr 17m for the other 12 pitches of sustained E2-E5 climbing - 6.41 minutes per pitch. In his own words, 'that pace is outstanding'.

So is Huber slow by nature? No, in '07, when he and brother Thomas held the speed record for the Nose at 2:45:45 (since broken twice, current 2:36:45, Leary/ Potter) working out that 'they ascended at an incredible rate of almost 6.1m per minute'.

Assuming only 25 metres per pitch on the Hasse-Brandler, Simpson was moving at speeds not dissimilar. On the crux three pitches he also had some ropework to contend with:

Quote
I threaded the rope through the belay anchor and tied into both ends; when arriving at the next anchor, I’d untie one end and pull the rope through

Knocking off time for each pull-through, plus coiling and uncoiling ropes - say ten minutes total - leaves 67 minutes for 12 pitches. Lets say each pitch is 25 metres (Stu -  is that reasonable?) leaves him climbing at ~4 metres per minute.

Compare the videos of speed soloing on the Nose and Huber on the Hasse-Brandler, and consider the difference in speed. Why? Friable limestone is not an obvious choice for speed soloing; granite cracks are. Trying to climb fast on that rock is suicidal - even with the solid holds tick-marked.

Simpson's claim should have been the climbing news story of the year, and yet it has been ignored by every site or magazine in the world (except Climb). Why? Its simply not credible. 
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: John Gillott on November 08, 2010, 12:16:57 pm
That's very persuasive JB, and could be seen as part and parcel of the generally incredible nature of the project that Simpson was setting himself - to turn himself from a rock climber into a speed alpinist. But just to ask:

I had assumed that Huber was most definitely not trying to speed climb the BH? In other words soloing it was enough of a challenge. Do we know? Everyone seems to be agreed Simpson is smart; how smart is it to claim to have more than halved the time of one of if not the best in the world?

Maybe an odd question to ask on a bouldering forum - but is speed climbing the BH (friable rock) any more crazy that speed climbing mixed north faces (Steck)?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 08, 2010, 12:20:39 pm

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

Why is it relevant?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 12:21:44 pm
Johnny - 25m a pitch sounds reasonable. Only a few are longer than that; one is a long and very easy (Fr 4+) traverse. It's certainly gob-smackingly fast for that terrain.

With Rich, there's clearly a massive claimed ticklist of incredibly impressive achievements in many fields. I'd agree with both your characterisation of the Brandler-Hasse solo's importance, and the reason as to why the climbing press hasn't picked it up.

And of course, with Rich there's also the running, which doesn't seem to stack up, so I can see why people are dubious and want more proof. I understand that, totally. I still think going beyond a simple request for clarification, particularly in public, is unwise.

Even if he has told porkies about his running, or the Hasse, it doesn't necessarily mean that he hasn't done the other things, like A Muerte, AD, and Hubble. And it's still not established he has been dishonest about anything; for example I know several runners who run under assumed names, for a variety of reasons.

Hopefully some of the verifiable facts in this thread will firmly establish that Rich did indeed do Hubble and AD, as he was certainly capable of doing so.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 12:25:14 pm

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

Why is it relevant?

Presumably it's relevant because it's the Hasse solo that seems so incredible. But we believe Steck, don't we? So if speed soloing the Hasse is roughly equivalent in nutter-levels to running up the Eiger then it's at least a plausible level of crazy. Makes it easier to believe.

It's surely a hypothetical though, as I can't imagine anyone qualified to answer such a question...
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: John Gillott on November 08, 2010, 12:27:25 pm

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

Why is it relevant?

I'm wondering whether we should be any more amazed at the adoption of a speed climbing mentality on alpine rock compared with alpine mixed north faces. Huber's style seemed more cautious and controlled than speedy to me.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: tc on November 08, 2010, 12:28:58 pm
The crux pitch (VIII/VIII+) on the Brandler Hasse is 20 metres. The rest are between 30 and 45 metres.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 08, 2010, 12:34:05 pm

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

Why is it relevant?

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

Not really. I've seen Guides in Chamonix frontpointing at incredible speeds. These guys cover tens of thousands of vertical feet every year and have done so for decades. They can get into a rhythm and practically run up moderately hard terrain.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 08, 2010, 12:41:45 pm
If you look at the heli footage of Steck on the Eiger he's basically sprinting frontpoint up the snowfields at an incredible pace, well above the average pace of the route, which in effect buys him time for the more technical mixed shit. Obviously soloing an all-rock route limestone isn't like this at all, you've still got to look for holds and climb carefully, you can't just sprint up with your eeys shut like dan osman on a layback crack.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 08, 2010, 12:43:27 pm
Word. Fact that there is footage of him at all should be enough.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 12:49:08 pm
Stu,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 12:55:22 pm
Seriously, why can't people use the quote system properly?

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

Thats why I compared your behaviour to Rich's in the Heason thread.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 01:03:36 pm
I don't know I asked John Cox for some help and he told me to fuck off. :lol:

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

You don't seem to get it do you? 

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

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

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

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

Anyway, I'm off to The Works.


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 01:22:18 pm
I don't know I asked John Cox for some help and he told me to fuck off. :lol:

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

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

You don't seem to get it do you? 

I think I do get it, to be honest. I'm aware that there's some decent circumstantial evidence that puts Rich's running career in doubt. You don't seem to get that there's no good evidence that his boxing doesn't bear muster, or that he didn't climb AD, Hubble and others. All there is is the same rumours, hearsay and the like (to borrow a phrase) that was used in the Ben Heason case... So your argument about when the burden of proof shifts doesn't really apply to his climbing now, does it?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 08, 2010, 01:33:43 pm
Or to put it another way...

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 08, 2010, 01:49:34 pm

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

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


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

Can anyone categorically name a belayer for any successful ascent of a route at 8c or above ? Please...   
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 08, 2010, 02:02:43 pm
I realise its not necessarily that easy (which is why I put double quotes around the "all" part), but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried before the claim is questioned (and is perhaps why you at least have attempted to do so?).

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

Not I, but I'm sure that those who have climbed the grade remember who belayed them.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: butterworthtom on November 08, 2010, 02:05:30 pm
These witch hunts don't often ever reach a conclusion it seems, so it is good to see that people seem to be seeking facts regarding the validity of some of Rich's claims. I would love to find out that he has always been telling the truth, however it gets progressively more difficult to believe him after some of the information posted on here.
Presumably Rich will find out about this thread, and I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Barratt on November 08, 2010, 02:25:33 pm
These witch hunts don't often ever reach a conclusion it seems, so it is good to see that people seem to be seeking facts regarding the validity of some of Rich's claims. I would love to find out that he has always been telling the truth, however it gets progressively more difficult to believe him after some of the information posted on here.
Presumably Rich will find out about this thread, and I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.

what he said
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dobbin on November 08, 2010, 02:32:24 pm
Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?
We really don't need the back and forth arguments about what constitutes a fact or rumour. We just need some good evidence, there is no need to go behind his back and bitch.
Rich, if you read this it can be fixed simply by backing up some of your claims. I want to believe what you are saying as you are a great inspiration.

we've been here and asked before. It didnt yield fruit. The argument then was that he wouldnt divulge or show the videos as he wanted the doubters to confront him directly or somesuch.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 03:42:44 pm
Stu, let me try and explain again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have the later being substantially diminished.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Stu Littlefair on November 08, 2010, 04:48:06 pm
 :furious:

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

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

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

Anyway, that was my last attempt to get you to read what I'm writing, rather than what you think I'm writing. Hope you enjoyed the works.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: account_inactive on November 08, 2010, 04:52:43 pm
Sorry Stuart but can you explain that again?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Sloper on November 08, 2010, 05:16:19 pm
:furious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the works, indeed not a bad session, I managed to haul myself up some black and yellows, although no doubt Alderson will be on to say that I didn't match the finsihing hold of the one facing reception . . . which does happen to be the truth . . .
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: i_a_coops on November 08, 2010, 06:14:30 pm
I am sure some people who post on here know him? abarro81 perhaps? Since he will inevitably hear about this, would it not be simpler to contact him and ask about belayers etc before this thread gets any more out of hand?

For what it's worth, abarro81 and Three Nine (who have both climbed with Simpson) are in a van in Spain for the next couple of months, and are unlikely to be checking ukb regularly.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: butterworthtom on November 08, 2010, 06:28:27 pm
Barrows can't keep away
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: clgladiator on November 08, 2010, 08:15:43 pm
Its quite sad to see so much attacking of one person happening and it needs to be resolved for the better or worse.
There are quite a few pictures of RS on the Moon site doing hard stuff in the 'jura, surely someone would know who the photographer for those shots was?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: deadhead on November 08, 2010, 09:21:32 pm
Dan I agree that Sponsors should check for evidence for there athletes achievements.

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

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


Imyho the real problem is that climbing is a trust sport and that I'm sure most sponsors take people at their word because there has never been a duty to provide hard evidence and there are so very few people who do lie or cheat exactly because the rewards are less than in footy or climbing.
However, with a trust sport surely there is a reciprical burden of truth and when asked directly (i'm sure we'd all agree) an athlete should reward the faith of the followers of the sport with evidence for what he has done - especially as it is such a simple thing to do - simply by giving a belayer or twos name...
Now i am presuming two things with his sponsors A. they've asked him and either don't like what they've heard or he has refused to answer them much like he won't come on forums anymore and B. If it's simply that he won't answer they can certainly drop him from their team but I would be pretty certain they're not going to go round accusing him of anything in public especially with no evidence. Refusing to answer questions is no proof of guilt - it may make people suspicious and that may lead to something but I'm pretty certain that major companies would have one eye on litigation and aren't going to be posting on websites.
And by the way has anyone asked them??
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: mark s on November 08, 2010, 09:37:30 pm
out of interest ive just google "new york marathon rich simpson" nothing apart from 2h30 is 20 minutes slower than the best in the world!!!! :o

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

there is no doubting he had talent and was a strong little yoth
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Paul B on November 08, 2010, 09:42:28 pm
maybe you should read the thread through in its entirety!

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: The Sausage on November 09, 2010, 08:00:32 am
However why did Wild Country and Scarpa choose to sponsor him if there was so much doubt about his credentials? Why the sudden change of heart as from what you and Percy are saying there was no evidence before and there is no evidence now. From an outside perspective none of this makes any sense.


I don't think companies are asking for proof of ascents. What seems to happen in these situations is that it gradually seeps out over time that nobody has ever witnessed climber X doing an actual ascent. We're not talking about lack of video proof, and I'm only speaking generally here because the facts haven't been verified (were Dai's 'crew' there for the AD ascent?)

At that point, doubts are voiced and then the burden shifts to the climber in question to do nothing more than name a belayer. It's not difficult. I mean, I have done nothing impressive ever, but I could provide witnesses and/or belayers/spotters for pretty much anything I have ever done. I could tell you who belayed me on Resurection in 1994.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Snoops on November 09, 2010, 09:01:56 am
I've never met RS.
Seems to me very clear - that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that he is bullshitting about some of his achievements.
Also seems very clear that there are a few apologists, whose main theme is that we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

It also seems very clear to me that if someone (RS in this case) is going to claim all these (some of them incredible) achievements, he needs to provide a bit of backup (otherwise known as evidence).
Seems clear to me that there is not one tiny bit of this evidence.

In summary I find it incredible that not one belayer can stand up and say 'I was there'.
On a side issue - some would say you shouldn't have to  need to video ascents etc. However if you can find the time to video clips of yourself working AD, you would go back and get a clip of you climbing it.(Especially if you were a said person calling bullshit and criticising others for lack of evidence at the time  :whistle:)

I'm an atheist, when Jesus appears I'll start going to church.
When I see some evidence I'll believe RS has done this stuff.

Snoops
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Barratt on November 09, 2010, 09:26:22 am
Personally I would rather the matter be settled in a more dignified manner than a on an internet community forum, since when has it been acceptable to carry out character assassination without the contribution of the guy himself?

This all seems a bit 'reality tv' and is representative of everything I dislike about faceless online communities.


Or maybe I woke up in a bad mood...
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 09, 2010, 09:28:15 am
I phoned ABAE (The Amateur Boxing Association of England). The records of previous members are held at a regional level. Would he have boxed in the West Midlands ?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 09, 2010, 09:32:11 am
Why don't you ask Alex Messenger which boxing club he took photos of Rich fighting at that were published in Summit?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 09, 2010, 09:36:18 am
Personally I would rather the matter be settled in a more dignified manner than a on an internet community forum

I'm sure we'd all love to sit in the drawing room of a country house in button-backed leather armchairs smoking a pipe but it ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 09, 2010, 09:39:51 am
Quote
I would rather the matter be settled in a more dignified manner

What exactly do you have in mind? Personally I would rather everything was in the open so folk can assess the 'facts' and form an opinion. I'd far rather that than just being told he's been dropped by his sponsors, with them offering no public explanation.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 09, 2010, 10:27:53 am
Why don't you ask Alex Messenger which boxing club he took photos of Rich fighting at that were published in Summit?

Cheers. I'm on it.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 09, 2010, 10:45:35 am
In fact why don't you just contact Rich?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 09, 2010, 10:53:46 am
Because it would be an utter waste of time. As Percy said he's not providing evidence to his sponsors on request why on earth would he provide it to me.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 11:02:11 am
'Cause UKB is far more prestigious than Wild Country or Scarpa  ::)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Barratt on November 09, 2010, 11:18:17 am
My work place is an old country house, that has button backed arm chairs... my god what have I become!?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 09, 2010, 11:30:25 am
Because it would be an utter waste of time. As Percy said he's not providing evidence to his sponsors on request why on earth would he provide it to me.

Perhaps it would. You'll never know if you don't try. And askings easy.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 09, 2010, 11:37:33 am
My work place is an old country house, that has button backed arm chairs... my god what have I become!?

If they ever want to freecycle any of 'em, hit me up.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Baldy on November 09, 2010, 11:41:10 am
since when has it been acceptable to carry out character assassination without the contribution of the guy himself?

Well I believe he has been invited to this conversation,
where do we stand if he chooses not to join in...?   :shrug:
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Nigel on November 09, 2010, 11:50:16 am
I couldn't decide whether to to get involved in this but in the end thought, fuck it, so....

This is a lot different to the Scotty situation as clearly Rich is/was strong enough to do the feats achieved of him. Also worth pointing out that a lot of these rumours get spread as hard facts by people who hear them second/third hand. For example, I recall that Si Moore saw RS do Hubble, no? Yet many people on this thread have included this as an 'unwitnessed' ascent. I think the responsibility for this lies firmly with the doubters (I.U.P.G and all that), so maybe someone who knows Si should check with him?

I don’t want to get involved in this either Stu, but I think I can stretch to clearing your query up. At the time myself, Doyle, and Si were working together on an access job in Leeds. I quite clearly recall Doyle getting a text from Rich just before we joined the motorway saying that he’d just done Hubble. Given that we always set off at half six then this must have been at about a quarter to seven-ish in the morning? Si was in the car so I’m certain he didn’t witness this.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Barratt on November 09, 2010, 11:55:31 am
since when has it been acceptable to carry out character assassination without the contribution of the guy himself?

Well I believe he has been invited to this conversation,
where do we stand if he chooses not to join in...?   :shrug:

On a nice soft bouldering mat? Or if you're old school a little bit of bathroom mat... flippant maybe, but does 'believing' he's been invited have real bearing on this conversation or its nature.

Edit as got work to crack on with: nothing more to contribute really, point made.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 12:12:38 pm
since when has it been acceptable to carry out character assassination without the contribution of the guy himself?

Well I believe he has been invited to this conversation,

Just because someone has explicitly said "post up evidence" doesn't mean that the intended recipient (Rich Simpson) will have been told about this thread and the request, or will have bothered to read it if he has been made aware of it.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 09, 2010, 12:16:04 pm
Anyone who thinks this can be cleared up by simply by 'asking Rich himself' might do well to remember the farce we had when we tried this over one single ascent  - his ground-up of Careless Torque. The layers of bullshit were remarkable - and yet he could have made us all look stupid just by posting his supposed video on youtube.

Ditto the supposed 'evidence' he had that Heason lied, to be revealed only to those who promised to back Rich up. Never appeared, despite Rich being made to look very foolish in its absence.

Rich's sponsors have already 'asked Rich himself'. His response prompted them all to drop him. Even Accapi. From what I've heard, this included contacting Koyamayada who was unable to corroborate Rich's story.

From the UKC thread, its clear his four-minute mile 'whilst pace-setting at the Alexander stadium' is a flat lie.

His Hasse-Brandler solo is so outrageous that it has been flatly ignored by the entire climbing world.

All very sad: clearly he was one of the strongest climbers Britain has produced in the last ten years, and with a remarkable talent for training. You have to ask - Why?

You have to wonder is this is giant 'fuck you' to the climbing community for refusing to listen to him on the subject five years ago. If you're not interested in the truth, lets see just what credulous fools you are then...
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Luthor on November 09, 2010, 12:18:36 pm
my god what have I become!?

Think you already know the answer to that mate!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Bubba on November 09, 2010, 12:25:19 pm
since when has it been acceptable to carry out character assassination without the contribution of the guy himself?
It's the internet - it's perfectly acceptable to discuss anything under the sun so long as it's not going to land ukb in legal shit.

Simpson has an account here. Whether he chooses to join in or not (assuming he's bothered) is up to him.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 09, 2010, 12:30:16 pm
Has anyone who knows him actually tried PM ing him? PMs might get flagged up in a hotmail account.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Moo on November 09, 2010, 12:36:28 pm
I think it's safe for us to assume he knows about this discussion
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 12:47:29 pm
I think it's safe for us to assume he knows about this discussion

To 'assume' makes an ass out of [yo]u and me.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Probes on November 09, 2010, 12:54:44 pm
... from Wild Country's list of UK sponsored climbers. I wonder where he's gone? Perhaps he's given up climbing again.

He's not vanished he's become a camper.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=426350&v=1#x6040223 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=426350&v=1#x6040223)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: ghisino on November 09, 2010, 01:01:51 pm
I could tell you who belayed me on Resurection in 1994.

off the main topic...

@punter or even "wannabe" levels, what about people doing their top ascents on trips and exchanging belays with "unknowns"? Would you believe only if you're provided with an e-mail and the belayer (or spectator) confirms?

or again, other case. A few boulderers are "shy" and usually climb their hardest when they are alone : i guess they either suffer the presence of "competitors", or the presence of people in general (they get distracted or sth like that). Do you believe only if they flood youtube with still-camera cheap edit videos?

Finally. what about someone who only climbs hard with a few very close friends or with their partner? Does that invalidate the "belayer's proof"?

I mean, in all these cases (that happen) what are your criteria to consider the climber genuine vs liar?
(i stress, again : talking of levels that won't bring any major sponsorship)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: dave on November 09, 2010, 01:17:17 pm
I could tell you who belayed me on Resurection in 1994.

off the main topic...

@punter or even "wannabe" levels, what about people doing their top ascents on trips and exchanging belays with "unknowns"? Would you believe only if you're provided with an e-mail and the belayer (or spectator) confirms?

or again, other case. A few boulderers are "shy" and usually climb their hardest when they are alone : i guess they either suffer the presence of "competitors", or the presence of people in general (they get distracted or sth like that). Do you believe only if they flood youtube with still-camera cheap edit videos?

Finally. what about someone who only climbs hard with a few very close friends or with their partner? Does that invalidate the "belayer's proof"?

I mean, in all these cases (that happen) what are your criteria to consider the climber genuine vs liar?
(i stress, again : talking of levels that won't bring any major sponsorship)

As I said, it all depends upon the person in question already having a demonstrable track record of being honest.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: nik at work on November 09, 2010, 01:31:01 pm
And also it doesn't matter. Different people will think different things.

When people are taking sponsorship I guess there is a need for a general concensus of belief for a sponsor to continue providing support (why would a sponsor support a widely doubted climber?). The basis of this belief probably varies from person to person, I'd guess a sponsor would look for a young unknown hotshot to provide video etc established climbers probably have more ability to trade on reputation to an extent. I dunno.

If someone doesn't want sponsorship/publicity/whatever then they don't have any onus to prove anything and they probably don't care if A N Other person believes them or not. Whether you believe will be based on your personal assessment of what they tell you (and whether they have a trustworthy face).
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: sjw on November 09, 2010, 01:35:06 pm
I could tell you who belayed me on Resurection in 1994.

off the main topic...

@punter or even "wannabe" levels, what about people doing their top ascents on trips and exchanging belays with "unknowns"? Would you believe only if you're provided with an e-mail and the belayer (or spectator) confirms?

or again, other case. A few boulderers are "shy" and usually climb their hardest when they are alone : i guess they either suffer the presence of "competitors", or the presence of people in general (they get distracted or sth like that). Do you believe only if they flood youtube with still-camera cheap edit videos?

Finally. what about someone who only climbs hard with a few very close friends or with their partner? Does that invalidate the "belayer's proof"?

I mean, in all these cases (that happen) what are your criteria to consider the climber genuine vs liar?
(i stress, again : talking of levels that won't bring any major sponsorship)

If said "punter or wannabe" is questioned about an ascent, I don't want proof because I don't give a monkeys. If someone who I respect and has inspired me in climbing and training has lied about significant ascents and achievements then I do care. I would prefer someone proven not to have lied, but I'd equally like to know if one of my climbing inspirations is a fool.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: chris on November 09, 2010, 01:44:28 pm
Unfortunately sponsorships are provided by businesses; said businesses do not want any adverse publicity associated with their brand, athletes and products. Whether wild country and scarpa have pulled their deals due to some previous accusations, or RS not providing evidence, they'll probably thinking its a good job they did given this internet thread!

It would be a real shame if his efforts on the rock are false, RS was a nice fella and a very strong committed climber and provided many with inspiration. It does strike me as odd that no-one has a vid of hubble, as his goal was always to emulate moon/moffat and tick the real hard classics, especially being a sponsored climber to boot. I would have thought providing evidence and media showcasing your skills and your sponsor's gear would only increase your value to them? saying that no-one seems to question John Gaskins and his shunted ascent of VNB (or however he climbed it) which he did alone! Hopefully a belayer will come out of the woodwork and conclude this affair....well the climbing part anyway. Re: running and boxing, sounds a little too good to be true to be honest!

it would be interested to see for what exact reasons he was dropped by both teams.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 01:57:02 pm
it would be interested to see for what exact reasons he was dropped by both teams.

Scarpa (http://www.scarpa.co.uk/contact/)

Wild Country (http://www.wildcountry.co.uk/ContactUS/)

Knock yourself out, perhaps post details here to stem the speculation too.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: T_B on November 09, 2010, 01:58:48 pm
People who climb a lot see other people and have belayers and take photographs, apart from bouldering sometimes. As The Sausage said, you just don't go around doing your hardest routes without someone snapping a photo, or happening to be there, or belaying or whatever. It don't need to be videoed (though that is increasingly the expectation), as if someone is clearly having it, there's usually a psyched bystander snapping away (result  = convincing sequence of photos). My direct experience of sponsored b*llshitters makes me doubt anyone who hasn't got evidence for claims of significant ascents. There are soooooo many ppl climbing thesedays. I've been at the Tor on the mingingest day in March and watched Foundry Rob do Mecca on a day when he must have thought no-one else would have been there to witness it. We've seen it all before - sponsored yoof gets mum to sew logos onto shorts, then feels under pressure to come up with media-worthy results month-on-month. Have to say that those doing the sponsoring do like to put some of their younger 'athletes' on a pedestal sometimes, claiming they are the next big thing. So it's no wonder we end up with stuff getting made up. If they do terminate a high profile climber's contract it would make sense to put out a statement saying why, as it's not fair on the climber, nor the buying public and it does the brand no favours as it potentially makes them look underhand. All that said, I personally believe RS did some of the routes claimed, cos I can't believe he would have invested all the training/emotion to do Hubble/Action Directe etc and then lie about it. Let's see whether a belayer/photographer steps forward. Plus I've re-read what he wrote about BH on the other channel (his post was zapped at the time) and it's a pretty convincing diatribe about "wanting the truth" from someone clearly disillusioned with the whole climbing sponsorship game and how those who shout the loudest are generally the ones rewarded the most. As to the recent alpinism/running claims, they have been shown to be almost certainly unture, which is very sad to see. But we'll see it again no doubt. Perhaps the sponsors identifying the gifted climbers early on should have a quiet word and tell them that they're in the wrong sport! (I got the impression that RD had realised this, and bowed out. Maybe he found it more competitive on the track/in the ring and decided to come back to be a big fish in the small climbing pond? Who knows? If that was the case then life at Cambridge might come as a bit of a shock!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 09, 2010, 02:16:18 pm
Because it would be an utter waste of time. As Percy said he's not providing evidence to his sponsors on request why on earth would he provide it to me.
Perhaps it would. You'll never know if you don't try. And askings easy.

If this thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6478.125.html) is anything to go by, the ongoing dialogue could prove tricky.

As he says:

Until people present themselves as doubters, I have no intention whatsoever in allowing them to save face by me putting up climbing videos on the net. It is the reason there is nothing up on the net at the moment and the reason nothing will ever go up. Like I said, until people outright question me, I will be doing nothing to prove them wrong. It would be unfair for me to present proof and never know the full extent of who these doubters are and exactly what they doubted.

I shall not be replying again. Unless you have anything constructive to say, then I suggest you don’t bother either.
Based on the above if I was to contact him I would need to present myself as a doubter of his ascent of AD, AM, CT, 4min mile, 2.30 marathon and the BH solo.

Any suggestions how one would go about doing that tactfully ?   
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: roddersm on November 09, 2010, 02:18:02 pm
I think anyone deserves to be scrutinised if they publically claim to have done something way beyond their general standard of ability, regardless if they are a punter or a
sponsored pro. Climbing relies on trust and if people are going to bullshit it destroys the credibility of the sport.  Anyone can put anything on their 8a scorecard, UKC logbook
or blogs and a lot of it is embellished or worse total bullshit. In my opinion the
internet is helping to foster a culture of deceipt/delusion with people trying to out do each other by embellishing their climbing credentials through their cyber profiles.
I'm sure there are a lot of honest people about of course.

In Simpsons case after reading all this I probably doubt his credibility more than I did before
especially when you hear some of the people who don't believe him. However from what I've heard about him or seen in videos etc. I don't think anything he's claimed is beyond the level of ability he has demonstrated. That doesn't mean he's not a liar just that there's no  conclusive reason to believe that he is.

I hope this gets sorted one way or another because like others have said Rich has been a real inspiration to people and it would be shit if it turns out that he's a liar.


 
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 09, 2010, 02:34:30 pm

Any suggestions how one would go about doing that tactfully ?

Preferrably choose somewhere near a boxing ring.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: rginns on November 09, 2010, 02:45:23 pm
But that might just be because its YouTube suggestions list introduced me to Zuzana in "Hardest Pushups Ever"  :) my psyche got a little distracted after that..

 :o

Hardest Pushups Ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZydTPxFdcU#)

My god, this is the best post on this thread... :o  :shag:  :bow:
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: BB on November 09, 2010, 03:27:06 pm
I'm not going to comment either way as I don't feel qualified. I've only met RS once at a beach party in Swanage and I may have had some ales!

What does occur to me is that sponsors wants to get something out of their arrangement with the climber. That usually takes the form of pictures or video of the climber showcasing the sponsors gear while doing something noteworthy. If for whatever reason, the climber is either unwilling or unable to provide any material showing their gear off then they get nothing out of it, so why bother continuing to sponsor that person. Seems like it's more likely to be a commercial motivated decision to terminate the sponsorship rather than one motivated by doubt over the RS's claims.

Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 03:34:59 pm
What does occur to me is that sponsors wants to get something out of their arrangement with the climber. That usually takes the form of pictures or video of the climber showcasing the sponsors gear while doing something noteworthy. If for whatever reason, the climber is either unwilling or unable to provide any material showing their gear off then they get nothing out of it, so why bother continuing to sponsor that person. Seems like it's more likely to be a commercial motivated decision to terminate the sponsorship rather than one motivated by doubt over the RS's claims.

Just my thoughts.

I've an Inifinity Ropes poster that bears the caption...

"Rich Simpson grimaces
and bears down on
the third ascent of
Liquid Ambar 8c
LPT, Wales, UK
Photo : Ray Wood"

It certainly looks like him and he's got a good grimace on.

Infinity Ropes is owned by Wild Country, so there is another source to check the veracity of the ascent of this particular route (i.e. Ray Wood although the belayer isn't mentioned) for those that are bothered by this.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Nigel on November 09, 2010, 03:48:58 pm
I imagine the likelihood is that he went back specifically for photos.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: rodma on November 09, 2010, 03:55:10 pm
Are you sure he wasn't dropped by his sponsors due to generally supporting the DFBWGC thread  :shrug: ;)
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 09, 2010, 03:57:14 pm
I imagine the likelihood is that he went back specifically for photos.

A common practice that I'm aware of, but it would seem strange to then caption the picture that way (unless sponsors are not adverse to bending the truth to their advantage when going back for such pictures).

Only one way of verifying this though....Climber carry a contact page for Ray Wood (http://www.climber.co.uk/contributors/contact.asp?id=53).
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: cofe on November 09, 2010, 03:59:33 pm
I think Ray's pic featured in one mag, while another, earlier photo featured in the other mag. I might be wrong.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: ghisino on November 09, 2010, 05:06:36 pm
I imagine the likelihood is that he went back specifically for photos.

A common practice that I'm aware of, but it would seem strange to then caption the picture that way (unless sponsors are not adverse to bending the truth to their advantage when going back for such pictures).

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: petejh on November 09, 2010, 06:00:49 pm
out of interest ive just google "new york marathon rich simpson" nothing apart from 2h30 is 20 minutes slower than the best in the world!!!! :o

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

I'm sorry but comments like this are just bullshit and make a mockery of this thread.
I too thought it odd that there's no no internet history of Rich's boxing and running career. Then I thought I'd test the accuracy of googling for someone's boxing career, so I googled four boxers with whom I once served in the army - the result:
Only 1 out of the 4 people I searched for showed up any trace of an internet boxing record, yet I know that all 4 of them were 'proper' boxers who boxed for their local clubs and the army. Go figure.

Just because there's no record on the web of Rich's boxing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The only sure way to verify stuff is to actually ask Rich which club he boxes at and take it from there. I tried calling him today but he didn't answer. I'll try again because you can't seriously doubt someone without first talking to them. These comments by Rich from a previous internet shit-show on ukb strike me as very apt:

'Again, if your idea of 'normal verification' as you quite eloquently put it, was the same as mine, then I believe that neither of us would be in this situation. I believe that in order to verify something, you must make an effort to speak to the ‘organ grinder’ as opposed to the ‘monkey’ (no offence Keith/Chris), or in this case, approach the climber in question in the first instance. I do believe approaching me outright would have helped matters substantially, saving both time, effort and more importantly, enabling you to obtain reliable and accurate facts, as opposed to hearsay. I hope that we can both learn from this.'

and:

'I told James I would not be willing to give him a copy of evidence to use solely to pass onto anonymous doubters, who were not willing to ask for a copy themselves. Instead, I told James to refer the 'anonymous’ doubters to me, where I would be more than willing to provide them with evidence and put their minds at rest. Hardly an outright refusal in anyone’s book. '

and:

'All I ask is that if anyone does still have sincere doubts about my climbing, please approach me (preferably after x-mas) and I will try my best to put your mind at rest. If you are not willing to approach me, then can I urge you not to continue the mindless gossip and pub rumors, which are both upsetting for me, and a bad reflection on the climbing scene. Can’t say fairer than that, can I?'

They strike me as the words of perhaps the worlds shittest candidate for climbing sponsorship, but not those of the Uk's biggest climbing bullshitter.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Pantontino on November 09, 2010, 06:21:29 pm
I've an Inifinity Ropes poster that bears the caption...

"Rich Simpson grimaces
and bears down on
the third ascent of
Liquid Ambar 8c
LPT, Wales, UK
Photo : Ray Wood"

It certainly looks like him and he's got a good grimace on.

Infinity Ropes is owned by Wild Country, so there is another source to check the veracity of the ascent of this particular route (i.e. Ray Wood although the belayer isn't mentioned) for those that are bothered by this.

I asked Ray about this just now and he said someone else (he wasn't sure who) captioned the pic incorrectly. It was (like pretty much every hard climbing shot you see) a return visit after the event.

That neither proves or disproves anything though - just a standard scenario for a sponsored climber.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 09, 2010, 08:10:28 pm
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. Ultimately he doesn t care if people think he s a liar but he might write something in december when term finishes. And you can keep googling rich simpson boxing/running til the cows come home but i assure you you won t find anything.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Neil F on November 09, 2010, 08:50:14 pm
Please can someone post a link to the UKC thread?

Ta!
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 09, 2010, 08:55:34 pm
If this thread (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6478.125.html) is anything to go by, the ongoing dialogue could prove tricky

That thread is 4 years old.

Any suggestions how one would go about doing that tactfully ?

You have a public website with 7 pages of posts accusing him of lying and you're worried about how to speak to him tactfully? You're probably well past that stage. In the circumstances I think at the very least he should be contacted to give him an opportunity to respond.


Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 09, 2010, 09:26:28 pm
I'd presume they mean e running one from three weeks back, which sparked all this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=429267 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=429267)

Quote
Today I did some checking.
I contacted someone I know in the administration of Athletics in the Midlands, based in Birmingham.
This person is not only a full time employee, but also is involved in;
1) The local club - Birchfield Harriers.
2) Team management & coachingh the West Midlands (B'ham) Schools athletics.
4) Team management at Midland level.
5) Team Management at England level.
6) Keeping the records and (inc power of 10 I believe) in the Midlands.
7) Organising meetings (League, cup and open) at Alexander Stadium.
8 ) Seeding of athletes at meetings of all levels.

You can therefore take it that this person should know what's what, particularly regarding both the supposed level of the performance, and the fact that my contact had fingertip access to ALL the records on the computer sat on their desk.

This person could NOT find;

1) Any meeting late summer 2008 at Alexander Stadium that included a mile.
2) No mention of the supposed athlete anywhere at 1500m/mile.
3) There were NO meetings anywhere else with any such performance.
4) NO record of this person at ANY time having been at such a level.

Furthermore the track is AlexanDER Stadium, not AlexanDRE, a bit like saying you'd climbed all the E5's at StanEDGE.

Quote
I've just been on the phone to another mate of mine - a senior official/coach at his local club - she'd never heard of him. That now makes the 2 most knowledgeable persons in the area he lives in, who are responsible for the coaching and meeting organsations not having heard of his name.
Considering he claimed to have finished a mile in 3:58, having pacemade, and then being overtaken by the rest (?) of the field in a time FASTER than the fastest oficially recorded by a briton that year.
And what happened to all the others in the race ?
If I'd run 3:54 - 3:57 and been ignored, I'd be complaining like mad.

There won't be any "results" shown - I've already checked and found that there wasn't any such race.

Also, in 2008, only 1 British runner broke 4 minutes for the mile - Andrew Baddeley.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Huffy on November 09, 2010, 09:42:30 pm
Man, this is depressing

If Rich does get to read all this i'm sure it will just re affirm his decision to leave climbing.

Adios gossip mongers.

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: carlisle slapper on November 09, 2010, 10:22:31 pm
I'd just like to point out that i sent Rich a facebook message saying i doubted his running claims the day i posted on here about it. As i thought it was the least i could do. I also had in mind what he said about the argument being between him and his doubters in 2006,( very smart of him to hold onto that FA footage of the ground up on carless torque for 4 years, it'll almost be worth as much as the county footage when it comes out!)

Chris, Rich must have said to you or Keith who belayed him on Action? and where did the guy (or girl) go afterwards?, did you not all go for a celebratory beer or cake or something? also was the "ascent" day footage (with the decent conditions and the Unkle track) filmed after or before the ascent?

I better point out that that last question is loaded somewhat in that those links he does (assuming you cut when he falls off) are pretty small, and going from the pinch to the top is roughly about 8b (although i'll double check on the consensus for that) but everyone i've seen (in person with my very own eyes) seriously trying it has done this link and atleast 5 of them (Felix, Manuel, Ben, Ryan, Andre) haven't done the whole route yet (all of whom have climbed 8c+ or 9a). Infact the best bit of footage from the ground in the film seems to be from doing the jump to the 2nd pocket after clipping then you cut. Did you have any bigger sections which you left out the film or just weren't filming when he did them etc?

If you can't be arsed going through it then just send me a pm and i'll drop it as i don't want to wind you up. I appreciate if Rich is busy in his first term at cambridge and his exams are coming up too.

Comments that rich doesn't care if we think he's untrustworthy are a bit playground though. I dont care if he cares or not, but for the sake of future guidebooks (the only permanent influence this might have) and 100s of potentially mislead young climbers who have him up on their bedroom walls (they should choose a squeeky clean Robins (he's been bloody awesome this year on UK sport) or Mcclure in future). For the sake of the international reputation of English climbing.

I would quite happily volunteer for an ascent audit, whereby i produce witnesses, videos or statements or photo sequences from belayers and spotters of my 5 hardest ascents. As a show of solidarity and how much of not a big deal it is to get these things out in the open. I'm pretty sure i could ask some other high profile (sponsored) athletes to volunteer this too. UKB or C could run an article/ thread on it. After all its only fair tit for tat and all that, and if Rich has been fibbing it might help restore the faith of the average naive bumbly in british climbers.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Doylo on November 09, 2010, 11:24:00 pm
My memory is a bit hazy on the germany stuff as it was 5 years ago that i was out there and made the film.keith had gone by the time he d done action.i was out there with someone else (who simpson didn t get on with hence we didn t go to the same crag often.frustrating for me as i was hoping to get him doing it for the film). I don t even remember asking him who belayed him. This may seem strange but i was just psyched he d done it. I think he was there with a german friend. Can t remember which stage the footage used for the final edit was filmed. Pretty sure i don t have any footage of bigger links but will see if i can find the tapes. Some people may have done the same link and still not done it. Don t see why that means he can t of done it. It may be playground that he doesn t care what people think of him but thats what he said.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 09, 2010, 11:39:06 pm
I think this thread has gone as far as it can.

I've spoken to Rich. You may think that everyone checks UKB twice a day whether they climb or not, but in fact he was unaware of this thread until today. He's currently busy at college and will not respond straight away, if he will at all. I hope he will.

Dan: this analysis of the AD footage is a bit pointless. We know it's not ascent footage - a move by move breakdown of how hard he makes it look (to you) compared with how hard some other people make it look (to you) when doing it by a different sequence is not going to achieve anything. The fact is that the belayer and/or witnesses are unknown. If a belayer or witness was available that could testify to the ascent then that should be enough. Finally Dan, I'd drop the inquisitor role. I'm sure you only have the greater good of climbing as your intention, but it didn't make Rich look good when he did it to Ben and it doesn't become you either. I don't think an article would be a good idea.

As Doyle says, no-one will find any running or boxing records by Googling or ringing Alexander stadium. Speculation about this will not achieve very much. Either Rich will respond and all will hopefully be clear, or he will not - with the consequence that inferences will inevitably be drawn. Again, I hope he will.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: ferret on November 10, 2010, 03:45:29 am
as ive said before i hate these threads

i just wadded ru for saying enough is enough. i can understand peoples concerns as to how false claims can effect our sport, but i think threads like these are in their own way equally damaging. in my opinion it would be better to stop further postinguntil rich comes forward and says his piece or somebody has some kind of meaningful communication with him thats worth passing on.

i will say that as these threads go this wasnt hasnt been too bad, people have put their opinions forward thoughtfully and any potential "accusers" if u like have been forthright not hiding behind internet nicknames etc. that said it hasnt achieved much either, hopefully the weather will be good this weekend and we can all go climbing and forget about this, for a while at least
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: mark s on November 10, 2010, 07:28:52 am
This mass doubting of a respected climber seems a regular thing now.
How many times have the masses been proved wrong?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 10, 2010, 07:43:10 am
Any suggestions how one would go about doing that tactfully ?

You have a public website with 7 pages of posts accusing him of lying and you're worried about how to speak to him tactfully? You're probably well past that stage. In the circumstances I think at the very least he should be contacted to give him an opportunity to respond.

The thing is though that the postings of users do not reflect the opinions of the sites owners. As made clear in the About UKB (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/page,page2139.html)

Quote
Moderation policy

We like freedom of expression and are proud of our light moderation policy so the overly-sensitive may wish to click away elsewhere. We think the overall tone of the site (friendly, humourous, irreverent) is a more important focus than fretting over specific content. However posters identified who troll, threaten, spam, promote hatred (sexism, racism, etc) or post illegal content will be banned and have their posts removed. As on all web forums, the views and opinions expressed by posters are their own and UKB has no responsibility for them.

...although clearly the tone of this thread isn't "friendly, humourous, irreferent", but it has remained fairly sensible as Ferret points out.

Perhaps it is because of the nature of the posts that Shark is seeking to clarify the situation in a tactful manner (I don't think such efforts are put into confirming other "news" of ascents or "significant repeats").


The alternative is to have deleted this thread and all subsequent postings which isn't really in keeping with past moderation of the site and would be more akin to UKC policy which this site isn't (thankfully).
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Ru on November 10, 2010, 08:25:54 am
The views weren't Shark's, but he was still proposing to do some digging and phoning round. The website is still his and Toby's.

Whilst it is lovely that Shark was concerned about how to approach Rich tactfully, it was, I think, a secondary concern to contacting him at all. Anyway, it doesn't matter, Doyle spoke to him yesterday and I did last night.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 10, 2010, 08:44:05 am
slack--line, Your loyalty to the site is tremendous. I should point out that the 'Heason' thread was pulled here but retained on UKC something that I disagreed with at the time as an observer.

Ru - On reflection my reference to being diplomatic was too flippant. Sorry. The point I was trying to make was that Simpson positioned himself so that you could only legitimately ask him for evidence if you stated you doubted him. Either this is because he is difficult and prickly or it is a way of deflecting the need to supply it or both. You said it was easy to ask - the way he has positioned himself makes it very difficult to ask. Simpson has been asked and had the opportunity to respond with evidence in the past and more recently with his sponsors. He hasn't come up with the goods yet. As a UKB member he still can now.

I also think that you describing this thread as being 7 pages of posts accusing him of lying is overstatement. The lack of evidence so far to support specific claims has raised serious doubts which have been expressed and explored here. I don't describe that as 7 pages accusing him of lying. That is the type of polarisation that Simpson was forcing in that quote. The evidence I am talking about being the naming and testimony of  belayers/witnesses or video of actual ascents. Not even all of them - though I hope that if offered it would relate to AD as I personally think this is the most important claim. Notwithstanding witness or video evidence of any hard ascent would help support his other claims. He has claimed numerous ascents in the 8c and above category. If he has done what he has claimed then there will a belayer and therefore a witness for each one. Given the crags they are on in all probability there will have been bystanders too.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 10, 2010, 08:52:07 am
The views weren't Shark's, but he was still proposing to do some digging and phoning round. The website is still his and Toby's.

It doesn't matter who's site it is!

The fact that one of the owners appears to be making reasonable and rationale attempts to obtain FACTS is a good thing as it will hopefully stem the speculation by others (and being polite/tactful in going about that is good too as its civilised).

Whilst it is lovely that Shark was concerned about how to approach Rich tactfully, it was, I think, a secondary concern to contacting him at all.

Yes it was secondary as Shark's posts in this thread show he'd already started making efforts to corroborate information (in the absence of having Rich's phone number himself) before he posted the "tactfully" question (several posts prior to yesterdays (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,16327.msg285405.html#msg285405)).

Anyway, it doesn't matter, Doyle spoke to him yesterday and I did last night.

Yes I clocked that, not everyone has his contact number to be able to do this (as you had previously suggested Shark do).  Lets see if his attitude has changed (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,6478.msg95287.html#msg95287).
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: Snoops on November 10, 2010, 10:10:45 am
Man, this is depressing

If Rich does get to read all this i'm sure it will just re affirm his decision to leave climbing.

Adios gossip mongers.

I find statements like this ironic considering he instigated and contributed to the internet gossip hunt of Ben Heason. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1)

Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: slackline on November 10, 2010, 10:16:32 am
I find statements like this ironic considering he instigated and contributed to an internet gossip hunt of Ben Heason. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1 (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157884&v=1)

Not read that before, but Rich's first post seems in-keeping with what has been suggested in this thread as sufficient evidence about his claims..

Quote from: R Simpson on - 03 Dec 2005
After all recent goings on with Ben heason,

i ask on a well read forum, would anyone who has witnessed Ben heason climb anthing of upper difficulty please contact me via email through this site or a post on this thread. It is important that a full name is given otherwise important information will not be taken seriously.

Please keep this post free of rants and uninformed information. It is important that anyone who has important information speaks out and help to bring out the truth.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: mark s on November 10, 2010, 10:24:39 am
Wonder if this thread will put an end to a UKC news headline like "simpson gains the lucasian chair at cambridge"
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: SA Chris on November 10, 2010, 10:32:48 am
in my opinion it would be better to stop further postinguntil rich comes forward and says his piece or somebody has some kind of meaningful communication with him thats worth passing on.

What ferret and Ru said - Lock or Logpile time?
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: carlisle slapper on November 10, 2010, 10:39:42 am
Well put Ru, i realised this when i first posted here, and this seems like a decent time to stop, it'd just be nice to hit something concrete rather than permanently pig swilling because every time a question is asked it produces nothing (which only leads to the desire to keep asking), however it looks like the only way that can possibly happen is for it to come from Rich, so i'll drop it.
Thanks for the reply chris.
Title: Re: simpson vanishes...
Post by: shark on November 10, 2010, 10:45:50 am
Seems fair and appropriate.

If Simpson wants to respond or other evidence comes to light we can unlock it.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal