[r-man]

As has been already mentioned, the commentator was not the same bloke as the one in the last comp which people referred to as "the shouty man". For the purpose of accuracy, this one should be called "the less shouty man".

Tape was daft, but entertaining for its silliness. I'm sure the route-setters won't want to replicate that entertainment anytime soon. It didn't have a major influence on the results, so just an oddity.

Great to see Nathaniel do so well. Second WC and he gets silver! Bet he's chuffed. Just looking through the list of US team members lined up for Vail - it's a shame none of the big name outdoors boulderers are booked in  (Woods/Webb/Graham/Traversi) but should be interesting to see what Nathaniel and other young guns can do.

Shauna mentioned on Twitter that she was ill on the day of the semis, which explains a sub par performance. No mention of finger injury holding her back, so good news for Vail. I don't see much evidence that the chasing pack has caught up - Stohr, Noguchi, Wurm, Puccio. 1,2,3,4. And Shauna ill, so places 5 and 6 were open to the field.

As someone else mentioned, lighting was an issue. The big spotlights used in most finals do add a lot of drama. Do the IFSC issue guidelines to hosts? A basic practical ticklist like - use spotlights, keep judges from blocking cameras, etc.? Seems like if they don't, they should. It's a shame that while each comp often does a few things right (this time the camera work was better than usual) they often fail on things which were done well in previous rounds. Obviously there are various teams at work - Comp hosts, Route setters, Camera team, Tech guys etc. so I wonder if there is someone in the IFSC making sure that lessons are learned and written down, without relying on the various teams to figure it out from scratch each time?

Looking forward to Vail. The high altitude always adds a bit of interest. And I see Tyler's going to be there.

[Durbs]

...it's a shame none of the big name outdoors boulderers are booked in  (Woods/Webb/Graham/Traversi)

Purely speculation, but er... might all fail a doping test?

As Graeme hasn't answered yet, the official rules state:
"11.7.4   The maximum number of results counting toward the World Cup Ranking shall be:
a)   When five (5) or less competitions are organised, all results shall count;
b)   When six (6) or more competitions are organised, the number of counting results will be the number of competitions less one (1). If a competitor has competed in more competitions that the number of counting results, the competitors’ ‘worst’ result shall be discarded in calculating their World Cup Ranking."

So unless there's a last minute sixth WC added (any prospects Graeme?), Shauna has to make up 63 points to get level with Anna (for context a 3rd place earns 65 points).

If that's the case, assuming no sixth round is added - that's pretty devastating, for both Shauna and the Russians in terms of points to make up.

[tim palmer]

...it's a shame none of the big name outdoors boulderers are booked in  (Woods/Webb/Graham/Traversi)

Purely speculation, but er... might all fail a doping test?

performance enhancing or recreational?   
I wouldn't imagine there is a very strict out of competition testing programme so I doubt any organised performance enhancing doping / edit: anyone with half a brain would be caught.

[Muenchener]

I wouldn't imagine there is a very strict out of competition testing programme so I doubt any organised performance enhancing doping / edit: anyone with half a brain would be caught.

Dunno. Pooch in her interview on Training Beta mentioned receiving a surprise early morning dope check visit at a place where she was staying in Switzerland.

[Durbs]

Oh, recreational - not PEDs...
http://newsletter.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/about-ifsc/anti-doping

[Fiend]

Do the IFSC issue guidelines to hosts? A basic practical ticklist like - use spotlights, keep judges from blocking cameras, etc.? Seems like if they don't, they should. It's a shame that while each comp often does a few things right (this time the camera work was better than usual) they often fail on things which were done well in previous rounds. Obviously there are various teams at work - Comp hosts, Route setters, Camera team, Tech guys etc. so I wonder if there is someone in the IFSC making sure that lessons are learned and written down, without relying on the various teams to figure it out from scratch each time?

 

[Grenade Steamer]

surely more important to keep cameras out of the way of judges - if they are to do their job?

[r-man]

Think you are getting the wrong end of the stick. They both have to do a job, and the comp should be set up so neither interferes with the other. That particular problem has only occasionally been an issue. My point was that getting these small practical details right should be on the checklist of things to make sure of each time round. From where I'm sitting (ie. audience of live feed) there doesn't seem to be such a checklist, and every comp we seem to say X went well, Y was messed up, why did they do Z?

[Durbs]

I would guess that a lot of the logistics are down to the venue themselves, rather than IFSC.

Venues offer to host the comps, and I doubt they're really money-spinners, so things like cool lighting which would cost the venue aren't obligatory. Given Grindlewald was cancelled due to lack of money, I don't think IFSC are in a position to say "you must have X, Y & Z", or they risk the venues turning round and saying "well, we can't host it then".

IFSC could (and indeed might) supply a list of things they would like to see (rather than expect to see), but it's down to each venue to make it their own. Look at Azerbaijan last year, where the camera crew fucked off, the roof blew away and the matting turned up the day of the comp...

This is all supposition, but would explain why WC comps vary so much venue-to-venue. Note sometimes they're part of a larger event (Vail is part of the GoPro Mountain Games), other times standalone. For larger events, which presumably are profit making, you also have the economies of scale to absorb the costs of better tech, more staff etc etc.

I'm quite surprised a large sponsor, in particular over-caffeinated sugary drink company, haven't sponsored the entire World Cup series... They sponsor a few climbers, and think they sponsored Munich World Champs last year? (Or something similar). With some guaranteed funding, I think you'd then start seeing a coherent "feel" to all the World Cup events.

[Oldmanmatt]

Oh, recreational - not PEDs...
http://newsletter.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/about-ifsc/anti-doping

I may be N=1 on this, but the specification and test for recreational (non-stimulant or PED) drugs pisses me off.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Muenchener]

I may be N=1 on this, but the specification and test for recreational (non-stimulant or PED) drugs pisses me off.

 

[moose]

I may be N=1 on this, but the specification and test for recreational (non-stimulant or PED) drugs pisses me off.

 

Seems a bit bizarre (especially when you consider that a sport as potentially lethal as boxing basically has no out of competition testing at all, and bugger all "within competition").

Incidentally, this was the first climbing competition of any description that I have watched.  I was surprised by how sustainedly interesting it was (more action and less lengthy waiting than I expected).  If this was in fact a pretty poor show, and others should be better, I'll definitely try to watch more.  That said, I agree about "tape-gate"; okay, the tape was there for all to see but it would have been a shame if it had proved to be deciding - like a crappy trick question deciding an exam.

[fatneck]

Good to see Ty will be at Vail...

[erm, sam]

better watch the qualliys though, I don't think he has made semis before..

[Nibile]

With regards to PED or recreational drugs, the fact is that for some people, even recreational drugs could have a performance enhancing effect: think about someone who suffers heavily from competition pressure, who is anxious and can't express his best due to mind games. Cannabis could have a very positive effect for him, to the point of enhancing his perf.
Mind games are a very crucial part of competing and top athletes must be prepared also in this field.

[rodma]

better watch the qualliys though, I don't think he has made semis before..

Ahem

http://www.icc-info.org/pstambl.php?person=6724&cat=16

[jwi]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

[Muenchener]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

Frankly I don't believe that's the main motivation for the ban on e.g. cannabis. Sure, if you a priori want to ban cannabis then you can make Nibs' argument for the mental "performance enhancing effect", but surely nobody seriously believes that's the primary reason?

[Oldmanmatt]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

The idea of PEDs at all, strikes me as nebulous and I'd have to say it seems such a sliding scale that starts in a very "off white" (what about a cup of Camomile tea and a few puffs of O2 during warm up and IF Meditation  is effective, how about that?).
The scale then bumps a squiggles it's way through several murky and indistinct hues to the darker shades of anabolic steroids et al.

Once again we slam down a human construct, an arbitrary  line in the sand and bleach some of the greys and tint others.

I've always felt the real objective of such rules should be protection of athletes from themselves and unscrupulous coaches/agents/parents etc etc, from those "drugs" that might cause harm.

I honestly don't view a puff of dope prior to competition as any more "unfair" than a protein shake after training.
Or, come to that, why is transfusion doping any more unfair than protracted high altitude training?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oldmanmatt]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

The idea of PEDs at all, strikes me as nebulous and I'd have to say it seems such a sliding scale that starts in a very "off white" (what about a cup of Camomile tea and a few puffs of O2 during warm up and IF Meditation  is effective, how about that?).
The scale then bumps a squiggles it's way through several murky and indistinct hues to the darker shades of anabolic steroids et al.

Once again we slam down a human construct, an arbitrary  line in the sand and bleach some of the greys and tint others.

I've always felt the real objective of such rules should be protection of athletes from themselves and unscrupulous coaches/agents/parents etc etc, from those "drugs" that might cause harm.

I honestly don't view a puff of dope prior to competition as any more "unfair" than a protein shake after training.
Or, come to that, why is transfusion doping any more unfair than protracted high altitude training?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jwi]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3654312/

[tim palmer]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

The scale then bumps a squiggles it's way through several murky and indistinct hues to the darker shades of anabolic steroids et al.

Once again we slam down a human construct, an arbitrary  line in the sand and bleach some of the greys and tint others.

I've always felt the real objective of such rules should be protection of athletes from themselves and unscrupulous coaches/agents/parents etc etc, from those "drugs" that might cause harm.

I honestly don't view a puff of dope prior to competition as any more "unfair" than a protein shake after training.
Or, come to that, why is transfusion doping any more unfair than protracted high altitude training?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I totally agree, the focus should be protection of athletes especially young impressionable ones, I suppose that draws into question the dangers of cannabis.

I suppose the altitude vs transfusion, you could argue that altitude just exploits your natural physiology but it is very grey line especially when people sleep in altitude chambers.

[erm, sam]

Ahem

http://www.icc-info.org/pstambl.php?person=6724&cat=16

I am wrong.

[rodma]

I suppose the altitude vs transfusion, you could argue that altitude just exploits your natural physiology but it is very grey line especially when people sleep in altitude chambers.

bagsie the top-bunk before the next comp 

[Lund]

Wada doesn't ban drugs without evidence that they are performance enhancing in certain doses/situations etc.

The idea of PEDs at all, strikes me as nebulous and I'd have to say it seems such a sliding scale that starts in a very "off white" (what about a cup of Camomile tea and a few puffs of O2 during warm up and IF Meditation  is effective, how about that?).
The scale then bumps a squiggles it's way through several murky and indistinct hues to the darker shades of anabolic steroids et al.

Once again we slam down a human construct, an arbitrary  line in the sand and bleach some of the greys and tint others.

I've always felt the real objective of such rules should be protection of athletes from themselves and unscrupulous coaches/agents/parents etc etc, from those "drugs" that might cause harm.

I honestly don't view a puff of dope prior to competition as any more "unfair" than a protein shake after training.
Or, come to that, why is transfusion doping any more unfair than protracted high altitude training?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Soz, this is abject bollocks.

The things on the list are banned because they are performance enhancing.  Because they are viewed by most people as cheating.

You talk about arbitrary lines.  Life is full of arbitrary lines.  Life isn't black and white - it's shades of grey and judgement etc. but sport is an attempt to simplify things.  In the modern world, we view it as a fair, equal, competition, based on the rules - the codification - and the spirit of the game.

Doping rules are part and parcel of that sport.  Just like not being able to use your hands in football, if you don't like the rules, if you don't want to play the game, fuck off and play on your own or find your own game.

What if you don't want to smoke dope, but all the other competitors are doing it to win and so you end up having to smoke dope or find another sport?  Sound fair?  Not to me it doesn't.  Unless you entered it knowing that it was all about spliffs.

That's without even getting into the health aspects of it.

Transfusions - you bring them up.  I love the way these always get brought up.  Usually with argument about how it's totally fine to have someone take your blood out, centrifuge it, stick it in a fridge, then re-inject it into you just when you need it because the other guy has the funding to live on mount fuji for a month and the other bloke is on argon anyway and yeah it's totally fine and undetectable anyway and you're on my team too, so by hell you'd best shut the fuck up and get out or open up your veins in the same way because by God I'm not going to lose because you aren't man enough to commit to this team and have transfusions.

For fuck's sake.