Posts
photo courtesy of unknown author on the web
The following is a comment Mark Twight made first on the paid portion of his Gym Jones web site, http://www.gymjones.com/ and then published again else where prior to CT having Mark's permission to post it here. Mr. Twight's voice has been missed way too long from the climbing community. Please do not copy or duplicate any part of this essay. It is copyrighted material and property of Mr. Twight. It is published here only with his permission.
What The Cheaters Have Done To Us
By Mark Twight
The other day I happened across some remarks on the web congratulating someone for having climbed Mount Everest. Of course, and as is the norm, the protagonist made his way up there having hired guides, who fixed the ropes he ascended, who supplied oxygen, who mitigated the risk, who engaged local help to carry his gear and set up the camps where he slept.
One can argue that climbing is an individual sport and "he" did not climb the mountain. One might argue with equal vigor that him standing on the summit was the result of teamwork and that mountaineering is a team sport.
I could agree with the notion that it's a team sport on some levels, and that fixed ropes can have a place in some forms of climbing however the use of oxygen has no place, is cheating and overrules all other claim to achievement. Supplemental O2 is doping - without question. It is not a medical necessity, which is proven by many, many ascents of 8000m peaks without supplemental O2.
Why isn't supplemental oxygen viewed as doping? Some argue that it is a safety issue, that they do not want to take the risk of altitude illness, or frostbite. They want to, "experience climbing Everest," but can't or won't confront the challenge naturally so they modify that experience by boosting their own performance. If O2 allows one to accomplish a task that he or she otherwise could not do or was not willing to do then O2 is a performance-enhancing drug and should be treated as such.
Sadly, when someone who has climbed Everest with the aid of supplemental O2 and a "servant" to carry the extra bottles and prepare the route tells a rapt audience of non-climbers that he climbed Everest that is all he says. He fixates on the outcome and not the means used to achieve it. And if the audience isn't well-informed enough to ask about the means the speaker lets the omission slide, allowing them to think better of him. A decade and more ago I cared deeply about the way we climbed more than whether we were successful. We tried to address naturally existing challenges with a minimum of technological advantages and tried over and over to answer the question, "How light is too light?" If we had learned the answer through actual experience I wouldn't be writing this. We came real close though.
Now I see supplemental oxygen as part of a much larger problem. As human beings, familiar with the history of the species and its potential, we dearly want to believe in extraordinary human performance. Many genuine, rare and truthful accomplishments paved the way for our belief in what might be done. Back in the day when something amazing was reported our first response was awe, inspiration, and maybe the brakes we placed on ourselves slackened a bit.
Times have changed. Cheating is commonplace and doping is rampant, even at the lowest levels of sport. When I look across a variety of disciplines it is apparent that no one is special and no one is immune: when a group of human beings get together some percentage of them are going to cheat or be susceptible to the idea of it. Sadly, it appears this is true for any sport and at some point our habit as an athlete or spectator becomes one of distrust. These days most great accomplishments call up a voice inside urging skeptical review.
People lie on resumés and cheat on tests to get jobs - not caring that they won't be able to DO the job if they get it. Amateur athletes lie about their accomplishments to invite positive social feedback - without caring that a lie is being praised, instead accepting the praise out of context. Pro athletes cheat to win, or to stay competitive against other cheaters, and do so for both money and prestige. Eventually they convince themselves the dope didn't help, that they deserved the medal, the reward, the status. That doping is so common has changed how we respond to the announcement of a spectacular performance or achievement.
Sadly, our skeptical reaction further imprisons us within the limitations we set for ourselves or accept from others who set limits for us. If we greet every great performance with suspicion what becomes of its potential to inspire? What means will we use to unlock our own potential? Who will plant the guideposts along the trail? What new level of performance by one or two individuals will free the hundreds struggling just beneath them?
This is what the cheaters have done to us. It is why we must expose and oppose them whenever it is possible.
53 comments:
I wish his articles were available without the full 500$ membership. Dane, if you know Mark Twight maybe you could ask him about a separate charge for the articles or an e-book containing them ?
Alex, I suspect Mark will at east casually monitor the comments here and note yours. The guy is extremely busy. I'm thrilled to have him contribute to CT but get your point as well.
MFT attempted Everest alpine style
They turned back when his teammate got crook
Some may think he burdened others
When they used oxygen cached by another team to treat his crook buddy
Because they hadn't bought along any oxygen themselves
Classic Mark Twight, and timely given the LA confession. Thought-provoking and deep, because calling doping "cheating" stops the conversation much earlier than where Twight is trying to take us. It's so easy to end a discussion with "You're bringing the mountain down to your level" rather than look at what the effects this ubiquitous practice among our community are upon our humanity.
A related tangent:I'd love a community discussion on Diamox, in addition to oxygen. Altitude pills are used by a great number of climbers for peaks even in the lower 48 with regularity, not to mention climbs to notable peaks such as Denali and Aconcagua (yes, I picked these two mountains for the obvious reason). There's been some mention on CT before, but I'd love some brash Mark Twight comments with my morning coffee.
I've never been above 15000 feet, but I'll play the devil's advocate here. There is a major difference between O2 and illegal, performance enhancing substances. And it goes like this:
There are both legal and illegal performance enhancing substances. The legal substances include caffeine, protein supplements, Gu, whatever. They can and do enhance performance, but the medical community and thus the media and our opinion has said that these substances are common, relatively natural, and without a huge risk of adverse side effects. So these substances are legal and pretty much no one cares if you use them.
Then there are substances like EPO which is prescribed for certain conditions because it stimulates the production of red blood cells. When a physician determines that the benefits of EPO outweigh the real risk of stroke associated with that drug, he will prescribe it for someone. He'll do the same thing with various steroids that are otherwise illegal for performance enhancement but medically necessary for some people.
Those drugs are illegal in general because they have a risk of adverse side effects that is only mitigated when a doctor deems it medically necessary for the health of a person. Sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits.
So when an athlete uses those drugs for athletic benefit instead of using them for medical necessity, he is taking a risk with his health and life that physicians, the media, other competitors, and the public deem unacceptable and literally illegal. But he does gain an edge - an edge through a risk that some (most?) are not willing to take. So we call it cheating and rightfully do so.
But high altitude climbing turns that idea on its head. It's the climbing that is medically unnecessary. The O2 is basically without direct adverse side effects that harm the climber. In fact, not using it is almost certainly more detrimental to the health of a person than using it. Climbing at high altitude causes real and permanent brain damage in just about everyone ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=brain-cells-into-thin-air ).
In this sense, O2 is not cheating, but the response of someone at least trying to be a little bit more responsible for his own health. O2 is not illegal to use because it is generally safe. It's arguably safer to have O2 than to not have it. In a universe where O2 was only available with a prescription, if I were a physician, I would say that the benefits of O2 in this case outweigh the risks, and I would for sure prescribe it.
One other thing: climbing is not usually a competition in the same way something like the Tour de France is. "Cheating" takes on a different meaning when there are titles, endorsements, and all the rest that go along with an activity. EPO can get you millions if it helps you win a major cycling event. Climbing Everest on O2 will get you some social praise, but it's not even close to the same idea of "cheating" as most people understand it.
Yeah, and you cheated in life by taking chemo. You failed. You were supposed to die but you got coddled by doctors. MFT uses this sort of stuff as marketing.
HA, ha! I really doubt Mark will be here to comment although he has the ability generally less his style.
Fook the marketing. I added the link to Gym Jones he didn't.
Diamox is IMO a nasty drug. If you have to use it, my opinion is find a different sport. O2 even worse. I had at one time 9 friends that had all done Everest. All on oxygen. And all knew the difference between O2 and no O2. I've never been high enough to use O2 but I and my clients have used Diamox more than once.
I didn't use Diamox on a one day ascent of Denali from 11K. Or shots from 14. I knew the difference even back in the '80s. We all did.
O2?...nope. It shouldn't even be on the mtn...for any reason. Zap, POW! ZOW!.....long lines instantly gone from Everest...when the doping stopped. Imagine that!
Chemo and the aftermath? It is from that experience that I can so easily condemn Diamox or O2. You are right I would be dead. But I sure as shit didn't choose to have cancer. But it is my decision every time when to put on crampons. It isn't forced on me.
BTW you're an idiot. Love the discussion though :)
Exactly, it's your decision, and I'm passing judgement on your decision to take chemo instead of just die naturally. You chose to eat out some chick and got HPV. You should have accepted the consequences of your decision, instead of cheating. ZAP POW POW less people everywhere.
I'm torn on this. Having O2 on hand in case of altitude issues to save a life seems okay, but not to get to the top.
However, where do you draw the line? One could argue that the new modern clothing/boot offering affords us the chance to climb harder and longer than the guys in the old days. Shouldn't we all be doing it in leather boots with nails in the sole, covered in layers of wool?
I would say that climbing is an internal battle and an internal victory - you should summit for yourself and in a manner you feel is fair. Personally, I'll never use a guide or sherpa or O2 for anything. That's just me.
BTW the oncology Docs for the most part are dicks...no coddling there.
If I had known the danger..I might well have still jammed my head into that pussy. But then at one time I guaged objective hazards differently as well. Climbing under seracs didn't seem all that big of deal...did a lot of it. Likely will again.
I doped to get on with cancer. I've doped in the mtns. But at least I know the definition. I don't care that you decide to pass judgement on my actions. But how about we simply all agree Diamox and O2 are doping? Because we all know it is. Do I think you are a pussy for using either? Yes.
Some more interesting readings from Mark in this page:
http://www.marktwight.com/
The post seemed familiar to me, then I remember that I read it some months ago here:
http://www.marktwight.com/discourse.php?id=41
See you
Agustin
I'm under no illusion that I belong in the list of accomplished climbers at all. I've done some of the doping here - specifically, using the ability of others to improve chances for personal accomplishments. I'm guilty of a "I climbed X" - when I was guided. I'm trying to mitigate my own risk through help. However, I haven't used Diamox yet - and don't plan to. I've taken it with me for emergencies on Cotopaxi, Cayambe & Denali. But personally, I don't want to have to take it... I'd rather try to manage the effects of O2 deprivation as naturally as possible. It's not because I'd like to brag that I didn't dope - it's that I'm enough of a hypocondriac that I don't want the side effects of a dumbass drug to reduce a headache. Drink water, eat right and pressure breathe and hopefully I can do it.
Climbing for me is about personal accomplishment. I've had to struggle through guided experiences as much as non-guided ascents. If I can get my body to the top, I feel like I've accomplished something and that's enough for me. I don't have any FA's or epics worth note. I've climbed Rainier. So what. I've been to the top of Cotopaxi. Whatever. I've yet to summit Denali. Many others have done these things. I'm not an adventurer any more than someone who runs a marathon. For me, I'm proud of the accomplishments. I don't care what you think about them :-)
I dope: Ibuprofen, Gingko Biloba, an occasional inhaler for asthma, shot blox, copious amounts of caffeine, etc. If O2 is doping, what about water?
I think Mark's point is more about what are you trying to do with your accomplishment? If you're doing a slide show to show how you're such an adventurer after you paid $1700 to have RMI drag you up Rainier with the least amount of climbing skills? Ok, I get it.
"However, where do you draw the line? One could argue that the new modern clothing/boot offering affords us the chance to climb harder and longer than the guys in the old days. Shouldn't we all be doing it in leather boots with nails in the sole, covered in layers of wool?"
Hahahaha are you serious? Comparing advancing climbing gear to performance enhancers?! I mean, using better gear is a no-brainer.
Using performance enhancers on the other hand is a whole different game. As Dane said, we all know the difference between the two, and people knew it BITD too. When you do something without enhancing your performance it feels pure, feels like a true accomplishment.
PS: Dane, come on! Using drugs to deal with cancer?! You lost a lot of respect there! (sarcasm, just kidding)
I wonder, do you think Diamox is okay in any situation? I took it when trekking up to Everest base camp in Nepal, starting at 15,000 feet, because we simply didn't have enough time to acclimatize properly. Altitude sickness hits people differently, and for me, after sleeping at 15k, my family apparently found me so frustrating to be around that they made me take it. That was just trekking though. Never taken it climbing, because I've never had the need. Never had to do any technical climbing at over 14k, and at that point, you just suck it up. For climbing, I think you do what you can, and should try not to use diamox. O2 is just out, but then again, I've never used it, so I don't know it's affects.
Dane, do you ever take diamox with you just in case you get quite sick or something?
There are no rules in climbing. No one can tell you how you can or can't climb. Therefore, the word "cheating" just doesn't make sense, it just doesn't or can't apply.
There is only a question of ethics and everyone has it's own personal standards for it.
P.S: Dane, how do you feel about LA now, after his confession?
Yep, I woudl disagree there are soem rules in climbing. And labeling a cheat is a good place to start. Pull on a bolt? It is "cheating". Helicopter to the top is cheating As is the use of o2 and Diamox.
I could care less in most circumstances. Just don't tell me it is actually climbing.
Lance? How do I "feel"? Obvious he was using drugs after all the testimony. My thoughts on LA didn't change by his confession. We are all human and few won't have feet of clay at some point.
As I said, it all depends on someone's ethical standards. Not only pulling on a bolt, bolting a route is also cheating (for me). But no one can tell you that it's cheating. It's a very slippery slope we're standing on here. As someone said, using all the fancy new gear could also be labeled as cheating. Or using any gear at all. Absurd as it sound, a case for that kind of argument could also be made.
Well, you were standing behind him to the very end, that's why I ask. Do you think he spoke the truth and nothing but the truth in his interview?
Why do you think I am standing behind LA now? Not my words. But I'm old enough and experienced enough to understand him a bit. I don't have a problem admitting that.
The very end? He die or something? Makes about as much sense, as in common sense, as the comment on high tech gear. No logic to the comment.
I don't know if you are twisting my words on purpose or because of misreading?
I said that you were standing (past tense), so before, not now. To the very end - until the signed confession of that australian rider came out, you were "covering his back", although it was clear as day that he doped, since you're talking about common sense and all.
I said that it was absurd (the hi-tech gear argument), but a case for it can be made. You also bring mountain down to your level with warm and protective clothing for example. It all comes down to drawing the line. Why is caffein ok, but O2 is not, yet they both enhance performace?
But as I said before - there are no rules in climbing, therefore cheating as such is impossible.
Certainly got me on the common sense part. Obvious enough that LA was doping. I simply prefered to believe he wasn't. I believe damn near anyone until they prove me wrong. If you are a friend I'll give you some leeway before we get there. Hope......something I was a little shy on for a year or so. I had hoped LA's story was true. It wasn't but I cna tell you without a doubt his story made adifference in my own experience.
So when you ask, "how do I feel about LA". Most aren't likely to understand that answer. Too many things tied up in it to be simple.
Coffee, caffine, o2? Chewing coffee beans or drinking shots? We all know when you ingest something to improve your preformance. I never use to drink coffee. Now I drink it every day becasue it makes my throat feel better. I intentionally drank a few dbl and triple shots, till I started shaking, to help get me through a 900 mile drive this week. It wasn't the only "dope" I used last week.
But two were clearly doping...two aren't. We all make up are own mind what is and what is not cheating.
Onec we label o2 on mountain cheating...which I think it clearly is...we have a good start on labeling the rest. Diamox used to enhance your ability is another IMO. BTDT.
"Hahahaha are you serious? Comparing advancing climbing gear to performance enhancers?! I mean, using better gear is a no-brainer.
Using performance enhancers on the other hand is a whole different game. As Dane said, we all know the difference between the two, and people knew it BITD too. When you do something without enhancing your performance it feels pure, feels like a true accomplishment."
I'm comparing using 02, sherpas, etc to using modern gear as well. It's all a gray area, young Vittles. You fancy using some old Chouinard wood-handled axes when I drag you up some WI4 this weekend? Probably not, you'll use your feminine cobras. Do we respect the guys who did the FA on Widow's Tears using those old style tools and methods MORE than the few groups who got up it in the recent weeks with fancy gear? I would hope so.
That being said, the climb is yours. You should do it for yourself, with the tools/gear/etc you feel are fair. Be honest about it after. That's all.
Maggot.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I don't see how something that occurs naturally is a performance enhancer. Steroids are taken to increase muscle mass, so that you can be stronger without all the work. EPO is taken to increase the red blood cell count, so that you can take in more oxygen without working on stamina. If there's a way to increase your body's ability to deal with severe oxygen deprivation, then I would say that using O2 is doping in a way. But if you get your ass kicked every time you go up a mountain with no way to truly combat the oxygen loss, then it's not really doping. And Dane, you sound pretty judgmental, calling someone a pussy for using oxygen. We're all climbers, and we all know that some rich ass hat who pays to have all his shit hauled up a mountain really isn't one. The guy who does it all on his own though? He's a climber. And who the hell cares if he brings up some oxygen with him. Good on you for not using it, but really dude, support your climbing community, don't bash it.
Only when you climb to impress others can "cheating" be relevant.
caffeine doesnt change the height of the mountain. diamox doesnt change the height of the mountain.
they change you, but not the environment.
o2 is running 32kms instead of the marathon. personally i dont think its dope, rather something else i dont have a name for.
if people want to use it or any other drug i dont care. really.
but i do think theres more interesting ways and places to climb to 6200m.
comparing o2 to chemo in any context other than a medical one is laughable.
To me there is a pretty big difference in taking drugs for a legitimate medical reason, and taking drugs for a performance reason on a mountain. Of course, I'm a bit biased.
I attempted a new route on a 7000m peak in Nepal a few years ago. As a team we forgo Diamox for ethical reasons. I nearly died as a result of an unknown cyst in my brain.
After medical consultation I now take Diamox before going on high altitude expeditions, as in sleeping at 20,000+.
You can call it doping and not "real climbing." I call it getting to still go climbing in places I want to be.
When it comes down to it, it makes for interesting conversation over coffee sometime.
Greg, there is a way to allow your body to deal with O2 starvation. It's called acclimatizing. If you can't acclimatize properly to function without supplemental O2 at altitude, then maybe you don't have any business being at that altitude. Oxygen is naturally occurring, yes, but not at the levels inspired when using supplemental Os at altitude. Therefore it's "doping", i.e., creating an artificial environment within ones body to increase ones physical output.
The world is not here for us to conquer by any means necessary. Mountains are here to be respected, and to teach. They give us a place to find our true personal limits and maybe push past them. It is no ones birthright to stand on top of x peak; It is an accomplishment that is earned by hard work, skill, and good fortune.
So what if you are unable to slog to the summit of Everest without the use of supplemental O2, or diamox, etc? You've found your limit. Maybe one day you can push past that limit, maybe you never will. We should have to live with those limits. One cannot bring the mountain down to their level.
All this is said without me having ever been at altitudes requiring supplemental oxygen, so take my two cents how you will given that background.
It is a bit hard to listen to others pass judgment on recreational mountaineers. To do so you have to look into the soul and motivation of the climber you are judging. Are we angry that someone summits Everest and used Oxygen? Would we be angry if that person followed the Willi Unseold philosophy of mountaineering? In 1963, Willi and Tom Hornbein were the 1st traverse of Everest and used O2. He said that an expedition is a success not when you reach the top, but when you apply what you learned to life back at home. Isn't climbing a journey of self discovery? What if that summitter comes back home a better person; wiser in some way for having seen the curvature of the earth from the summit, or the stars twinkling over head at 10 a.m. What if that person doesn't consider himself superior for having reached the top, but damned lucky to have experienced the whole adventure? What if that person reached the peak and got the point?
I've guided clients to the summit of Everest (yes, I used O2 as required by my employer and common guiding practices). And I've summited K2 and 3 other 8000 meter peaks without O2. I've led over 200 international expeditions, most to peaks above 19,000 feet. I've pioneered (in pure alpine style) new routes on Ama Dablam (west face in winter) and Shivling.
I have no problem with people using oxygen or diamox or sherpas. What I am disappointed by is people who reach the peak but miss the point. Summiting will only make you a better person if you do it for internal reasons, not external motivations. I find the mountaineering experience to be a rare situation in which my very best intellectual, emotional and physical skills are demanded for my survival. Tested, I become stronger and this makes me a better husband, father and friend. It fulfills me. I would never belittle someone who summits Everest with O2, guides and sherpa support, IF they learn more about themselves in the process.
Go to the 8000 meter peaks. Sit in those base camps. What you will learn is that the folks who climb with support are some of the purest souls on the mountains. Sadly it is much more likely that the habitual mountaineers are dysfunctional. Too many hide from real life in the mountains. They may not need Diamox, but they do need help. The drugs they are using to get through life are escapism and denial, narcissism and alcoholism.
We've learned and relearned not to judge people by their accomplishments but by their partnerships. On our death bed, we'd all rather be surrounded by people who love us than by trophies.
And yes, I know that using oxygen at 2 liters per minute effectively reduces the summit of Everest by 3300 feet. And that today most clients are using 4 or more liters per minute. And yes, I know they don't carry more than a down jacket and a camera in their day packs from camp to camp, BUT they are just playing by the guiding company's rules and living up to the expectations set by their guides. The guides have dumbed down Everest not the clients. And yes, you would never get me on Everest ever again, since it is such a cluster. I've guided on Everest three times and each time I felt like the greatest danger was other people. My idea of a good time is going to less crowded peaks with small parties. But I am thankful for all I learned on Everest (and the view is fantastic).
And one more thing: you are totally overstating the effect of Diamox. Perhaps you've seen too much Hollywood Dex scenes. Diamox is a slow acting drug that helps regulate the pH of your blood. It is because of this that it aids in acclimatization. It doesn't make your legs stronger or your lungs bigger. It simply promotes the acclimatization process. It is a time saver. And it is a prudent prophylactic for too many people. Discouraging people from using it is like discouraging people from taking drugs to control their blood pressure. Had a flu shot recently?
Go climbing. As long as your style doesn't endanger others, you are welcome to share the route with me and my friends.
Well said Chris Warner. Your expression leads me to believe that you have truly lived and learned in the mountains.
Perhaps another buzz phrase is "fair means." O2 and diamox, like bolting a route that takes traditional protection, is an ascent in poor style. Similar to expeditions that leave three people dead, take one individual to the summit, and a small village of Sherpa support.
It's unfair. Sure, alpinism is an internal struggle, and as long as you aren't putting other people at risk, do whatever you want. But at least acknowledge you performed a base act; admit you took the easy way. Sure, you "made it," but I respect the teams who climb the Cassin in alpine style far more than any trekkers in the Himalaya.
Perhaps it is genetics that allows me to climb without diamox, whereas you are "forced" to use it. Well, I was not born with great ability to jump or gifted with much natural strength; I work on my weaknesses and don't let them stand in my way, but you swallow your pills and do nothing else. I work on the explosive power that alpinism demands if I am to survive through hard work and sweat; you drive to the supermarket for your fix. I could never play professional baseball (or college, for that matter), but I never thought I had the right to meet my goals by any means necessarily - I wasn't built for it, and your playing God flies in the face of my own ethical code.
Suck O2, pop your pills, sport climb unnecessarily, and "climb" mountains such as Island Peak for your own reasons, but don't ask me to respect those decisions.
We may both be on the same route, but we might as well be on different planets because you've cheated Earth's rules.
Thank you for your comment Chris Warner!
If creating an artificial environment is cheating, is SCUBA diving not a sport?
If I read Twight correctly, he's ragging on those that put success above style, and I agree with him. Myself almost a decade i went to do the Nose in a day, and after a while of pulling on gear for the sake of speed it left an aweful taste in my mouth. After rapping I vowed II'd never go back to El Cap unless I am strong enough. A. Decade later approaching 50 I feel like i am ready to do El Cap on my terms, which is free climbing. Probably will fail at firee climbing it, but atleast its in a style that doesn't want me to gag.
Same goes with alpine climbing.... If you have no business being on Everest without a guide, fixed ropes, camps stocked with supplies... Why do it. There are
SO many other mountains in the world more worthy
I think that MT was really referring to the overall cluster happening on Everest. Personally, I think it is an absolute travesty what has become accepted practice up there. And Chris makes a great point, it's the guides not the clients that are allowing the standards to fall in order to get more people to pay.
O2 was an important "crutch" for early high altitude ascents and it allowed for climbers to push a little farther past the limitations of their gear. But in this day and age it is being abused.
Diamox should be used for it's intended purpose- medically. If you run into complications at high altitude Diamox may be a great thing to have to save your life ON THE DESCENT.
I love the ethics battles among climbers (we argue endlessly over the impact of bolts even though %90 of non climbers have no idea what a bolt is.)
I think it is neat when the community comes to a sort of consensus in an area and that consensus determines the experience of climbing at that area. The current consensus on Everest is that it is OK to make it as safe as possible so as many people as possible can pay money to make their dream come true and tag the summit. Never mind that in the process the mountain is turning into a giant trash heap and that when a climber get's into trouble at the top they are unable to be rescued by their teammates because none of them have any business being up there in the first place.
Think about that- as a "real climber" would you ever put yourself knowingly into a position that if your partner is in trouble you can do nothing to help them? Would you keep pushing on?
I'm with Kevin on this. "at least acknowledge you performed a base act; admit you took the easy way".
Climing has never been fair. It has never been for everyone. As guides we dumbie down the mtn for clients. We know that and ignore it when the clients are around.
I'm glad we all get a voice but lets not try to defend something you can't. I can beat anything into summission give the time and money. Everest or the King's Line. How I do that may or may not be accepted by society. Twight's discourse is just a conversation starter. The result hopefully will be a change in how we think as a community.....eventually.
Just becasue you can do soemthing doesn't mean you should. The ultimate power is having the self restraint to not use that power.
To Chris: Thanks for joining the conversation. Your comment and perspective is much appreciated.
"It is a bit hard to listen to others pass judgment on recreational mountaineers. To do so you have to look into the soul and motivation of the climber you are judging."
My thought? I look at Everest or Denali or Rainier all in the same way. I don't need to know the soul or motivation of a climber. Don't care really. I see the results. If a 100 person queque on the Hilary step is 100 pure and concerned 02 sucking clients hanging on fixed lines...they simply have no business being there. As a guide, we know that.
I have a friend that can't climb Rainier without Diamox. Damn near every trip is endangered (individual/group/rescue staff) by the inability to acknowledge the fact going above 10K is dangerious. Heaven forbid they actually take the time to acclimitise or simply...NOT GET ON THE mountain.
Life isn't fair...no reason for everyone not to want to climb Everest but no reason it is owed to them either. Be a lot less folks climbing Everest if they actually had to bring down the exact same amount of weigh that went up to support them.....and had to do it themselves with or without O2.
I love this debate and originally wrote a bunch more, but I was limited by the comment police to 4096 characters.
Before I get lumped in with the pro O2 and diamox crowd, let me state that I summited Lhotse in 9 days from Kathmandu, having been to 22K a month earlier. No O2 and no diamox. And I summited Shishapangma (South Face, solo in 17:40, 19 days after leaving Maryland)no O2 and diamox. Like Kevin stated, it is genetics. Throw in Cho Oyu and K2 without drugs or O2. But all of those climbs were risky and I was trashed on every descent. Should everyone take those risks? Hell no. Please live for more than climbing. The people that boast of climbing Everest without mentioning their Sherpas and guides and O2 are just deceiving themselves and the few people gullible enough to sleep with them. But let's not lump all the O2 sucking climbers into the same narcissistic cess pool. It can be argued that Edmund Hillary was guided by Tenzing Norgay, who a year earlier had been to within 200 meters of the summit with the Swiss and was on Everest for the 6th time. Hillary's team brought 50% more climbers to Everest in 53 than the Swiss did in 52. They reached the summit, like modern Everest climbers, by engineering their way to the top. But do we still admire Hillary and Tenzing Norgay: YES. We admire them because they used their fame to better the lives of others. Let me repeat: Don't reach the peak but miss the point. It does not matter how hard you climb or how pure your style. What matters is how good of a person you are when you are standing on the ground, among real people. If "cheating" on the mountain turns you into a cheat in real life (the Lance Armstrong argument), than I am definitely anti cheating. But I've seen ordinary people experience extraordinary things in the mountains thanks to O2 and Diamox. Those people went back home better people because they reached the peak.
In the last few years I've guided over 100 cancer survivors and family members to the summit of Kili and Cotopaxi. We raised over $250,000 for Livestrong, and nearly $500,000 for breast cancer. Most of those people used diamox on summit day. These people were so moved, so much healing occurred, so much good was done for others. Why should we take that experience away from people because of some "rules"? They didn't cheat. Those people never endangered others. We had all the resources on hand to solve any potential problems.
There is so many great objectives left for "real" mountaineers, that sacrificing a few normal routes is hardly asking too much from the climbing community. Don't be selfish. These "tourists" are in awe of you. Live up to the respect they show you, by being respectful of them (for their non-climbing accomplishments and the risks they are taking to expose themselves to discomfort and the possibility of failure). Judge yourselves. All that matters is that you live up to your personal standards. As an aging mountaineer I know that the style I employed in the late 80s would kill me today. So I am willing to adapt to my limitations. I've let some dreams slip (I desperately wanted to climb an 8000 meter peak by a new route and failed several times). I can even see myself hiring Sherpas in the future. Why? because I value the expedition experience so much that I don't want to give it up (and I don't have to). I'd rather put my jumar on the rope than stay forever on the ground.
Thanks Dane for making us think!
Hey Chris, well thought out comments. Again much appreciated. Twight is the one stiring the pot here, not me. But my intention with CT from the beginning was alwasy to get us (as a community) to think, no matter who is doing the writting. So thank you. Chris, you are always welcome any time to do a counter point on the blog. You certainly have the experience, which I respect.
(anyone is btw)
But really fun to have your commnets follow Twight's actually and this post has drawn a audience.
Feel free to email me at rdburns@cnw.com if you have any interest. No word limits :) But ya gotta share at least one picture!
cheers,
Dane
Why the need to label? Who cares how someone else climbs?
I myself don't have the desire to ever use oxygen, Diamox, fixed ropes, or guides. If that means there are mountains that will be out of my reach, so be it. There are plenty of mountains that I can climb in a style that is satisfying to ME.
That said, I would never criticize someone else who does decide to climb something with O2, Diamox, or guides, as long as they were honest about the methods they used. If their experience was rewarding for them, and if they left the mountain in at least as pristine a condition as they found it, then who am I to say there is something wrong with that?
Remember that all climbing is really useless. There is nothing on top except a nice view, and there is no reward to be had except for your experience. It's about setting a challenge, and overcoming a challenge, the only person you can cheat is yourself.
. . . Now speaking of O2 and fixed ropes, if you approach the argument from a litter reduction standpoint, instead of the childish "hey he cheated!" argument, I think you have a much better point. The people who don't pack their O2 bottles out just suck, and shouldn't be there.
I would cheat any day to stay alive. That includes diamox, speed, helicopter rescue, the latest ice tools, and some really warm gloves. So hillary and tanseng were cheats, so was custeau for inventing scuba. Lets all get lighter and really pure and burn some gear, and some macho books. Lets invite lance armstrong to climbing, or stop idolizing herman buhl.
Chris Warner, that is a fucking blinder of a first post. About the best thing I've read on climbing in a long time. It should come as Warning with every piece of gear :-)
Having had some strong opinions in my time, particularly on guided clients etc, I also had them tempered by actually spending time in base camps with such people over the years. I found I could not look into the eyes of good, kind, honest people and tell them they are 'cheating'. Climbing is not important, not important enough to treat other people that badly. These people are making a choice and using their own hard-earned money to spend time in the mountains, trying to climb. I find that choice and self-funded effort now more admirable than parasitic 'athletes' and faux-dirtbags who keep climbing because they can't do anything else. Personally I choose to go off and climb something else, unguided, as I prefer.
There are ways in which commercial guided climbing is negatively affecting individual, unguided climbing, but Twight and others seem happy to ignore that and stay in the junior high schoolyard of debate. For one, I would maybe differ from Chris in that I don't think O2 supported climbs are justifiable because they rely on the economic and objectively dangerous exploitation of Sherpas and others for a Westerner's holiday. Our economies mean us Westerners do this every day with things we eat and buy, but I see no need to make it worse throught my climbing. Why send others through an icefall I want to avoid myself?
I think Twight 'cheated' by using Gilmore & Mahoney's stances on the CD.
I think Twight 'cheated' by dumping gear on Denali they were too weak to carry off, then spraying how strong they are.
I think Twight 'cheated' by aggregating a lot of common knowledge from others and passing it off as personal expertise in his book.
I think people who need personal trainers like Twight to overcome their own weaknesses are 'cheating'.
Plenty of people think Twight 'cheated' Crossfit to start GymJones.
But wait, I'm lying. I don't really 'think' any of that, at least not anymore. It's not worth my time. I've got better things to think about and Twight's rants simply don't cut it any more. I really enjoyed them in the 90s. Then I grew up. They didn't.
I have to admit this is one of Mark's more coherent efforts, and I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with most of it.
I've never used O2, but would carry it as part of a medical kit.
I've never used Diamox, and consider it dangerous. It's a diuretic, and dehydration is one of the prime predisposers to altitude sickness. Water has been called the single most important "drug" for altitude sickness.
When I climbed the Cassin Ridge(1981), my partner and I did not pre-acclimatize, but planned and carried for ten days on the route, climbing only every other day, and resting on alternate days. The climb was a stroll in the park done that way, and Roger Robinson tells me he uses our climb as a model for Cassin aspirants even yet.
I would, however, have a hard time calling drug use cheating. In a culture where the vast majority of world class competitive athletes use performance enhancing drugs, you can hardly make the argument that use of such substances constitutes an unfair advantage.
I just don't practice alpinism as a "competitive" sport. I honestly don't give a rat's ass about how somebody else climbs. And the only lies that upset me are the ones that a partner from the seventies has published about me. I climb because I love the places climbing takes me, and I prefer partners who aren't "keeping score".
O2 used to summit Everest is doping. Period. It is absolutely no different than the cyclist who dopes to achieve better performance. Is it cheating? It depends on the rules by which you play your game. The word "rules" might, for want of a better word, be substituted by the word style. I would think it better style to summit without O2. It is idiotic to compare using chemo to fight cancer with using O2 to climb Everest. In our culture, style, or at least the appearance of style to the uninitiated, is something one can buy given the desire and requisite long green(especially when it comes to the big "E"). Thus the debate.Chris Warner makes some good points, but I understand exactly what Twight is digging at. "I think I know what your problem is......"
Hi Damian, I respect much of what you have said. Right up to the point where you attack Twight personally. Some are valid comments for sure. But we have had this conversation before in a different context. O2 is a much larger topic.
"I think Twight 'cheated' by using Gilmore & Mahoney's stances on the CD. I think Twight 'cheated' by dumping gear on Denali they were too weak to carry off, then sraying how strong they are. I think Twight 'cheated' by aggregating a lot of common knowledge from others and passing it off as personal expertise in his book."
I don't think Twight/Backes or House would argue any of those points with you. But I would say that no one else had done like wise, training, on the CZD or focusing a discussion. That could esily be another discussion.
The tent platforms were pure luck..and thankfully they were there as were the steps from 17K up that Mark W. and Joe left behind as they went by. Gear left behind, summit missed? Style lapses? Weaknesses and the self supported press? Trust me, from my own knowledge, no one more dissappointed in that than the climbers involved.
Have you ever regreted something in the mtns? Twight is an easy target. I admire anyone willing to stand above the crowd and state his opinion...even if I may not agree on it. And trust me Twight and I disagreed on a lot of things.
The discussion really isn't about Mark or what he has or hasn't done. It is the idea of what we as a community should accept. It is too easy to confuse that I think when Twight is involved.
"Then I grew up. They didn't".
I would never assume that, as my perspective has changed with age.
Thanks for allowing the forum, Dane. I didn't mean to attack Mark personally, 'as a person', given that I've never met him - although I'm guessing that he wouldn't exactly be mortally wounded by anything I could possibly say.
I was more questioning his credibility to be so strident on matters of so-called 'ethics'. I think questioning the credibility of anyone who sticks their heads up to criticize others must realise they invite that. Me included. As you imply, we've all made mistakes, but that doesn't justify making more.
Funny how we never have to put up with Kyle Dempster telling other people how to climb. His record speaks loudly enough so that he doesn't have to. I guess Kyle got what he came for.
Tony Yeary's above distinction between 'doping' and 'cheating' might be a useful one, as the former is objectively physical whereas the latter is a subjective interpretation (or breaking) of rules or other guidelines, more appropriate to organized competition.
Clearly not everyone is playing by the same rules and I think the days of one set of rules for all are gone. I like the old rules myself, but they're just rules of a game. The only true ethics come into play when the exploitation, or endangering, of others is involved.
We all climb for different reasons. Mine have changed many times over several decades now. I am am not beyond reaching for peer approval or competition. Old habits die hard. And I am not unhappy with that still being part of my personality. Thankfully it is easier to control these days.
Comparing a writer's personality and a climber's personality thinking you have the same person in front of you my be misleading. The tiny bit of time I have spent with anyone that writes tells me that is almost always the case. The lesson for me is we generally all have feet of clay no matter how high we aspire. But climbers all most always have way more in common than they might find different.
Mistakes? Think about this...short of yelling fire in a theater how is a short essay challenging your own perceptions a mistake? Any essay...not just this one. Frightening stuff I think simply by the implied power of the word. Offering greta hope! For what ever his faults Mark has always challenged us as a community by his writing. I'd also guess that personal attacks don't flow over him without harm any more than a personal attack does you or me.
My impression...and it is only that, is Mark is willing to take that kind of abuse not because he is a egomanic...which he can be at times...but more so because he simply cares very deeply about our community. And I think he likes fooking with people by writing. Why not he is good at it. Again...just my opinion fwiw.
Twight really doesn't need defending but I have never seen him do it himself in public. Part of his mystique I suppose. Funny really because I some time belive a lot more in his shit than he does. I am less willing to bite my tongue. Thankfully I have less of a voice to bitch and rant :) I get called on my shit quicker when I do.
Guys in the last few days 15K+ people have read Twight's article here. If you feel strongly and you want to voice your opinion..get it on the front page. Easy to do. Harder yet to get our community to actually think! And alpine climbig is a thinking man's game if nothing else.
This post and the comments have triggered lots of thoughts that I'm still trying to organize before writing. But one of the last ones triggered an easier to manage comment I'll throw out right here.
Someone mentioned how "dangerous" Diamox is because it's a diuretic. Some shit about hydration being the best "drug" to prevent AMS. Please.
I'm so tired of people spreading this stupid myth about drinking being so important to preventing AMS. Hydration is important to prevent dehydration but that's all folks. It does not prevent AMS. Guides push this bullshit constantly. All this does is make their clients sleep like shit because they have to pee 5 times during the night.
We pee a lot during acclimatization. Your body is trying to accomplish something. Downing more fluid isn't going to change that. Just drink enough to remain hydrated. Clear pee is the goal, nothing more.
Diamox works because it speeds this process. No need to review the chemistry here. Peter Hackett told me long ago that all this hypervigilance with fluid is silly.
I find it interesting to read these comments describing "cheating." You can't "cheat" on an ascent any more than you can "conquer" a monutain. Style or no style the cheating aspect of this is silly and childish. You want to climb with Oxygen? Ok.(just don't endanger anyone else) Without? Ok. (just don't endanger anyone else) With heroin? Ok. (just don't endanger anyone else) Get over it. There seems to be a lot of ego and chest thumping fueling these types of discussions lately. I climb for my own reasons and you should too.
First of all, cheating in a strict sense only exists in activities with established rules - read up on the classic golfing bet stories if you want to see how people 'fudge' just enough to guarantee a win, without violating the details of a priori 'rules'.
Since climbing has no rules, per se, we only consider matters of higher style - and won't worry about steroids, HGH, etc. sneaking in the back pockets of rock stars. Real climbers 'dis those who continue to summit Everest "using", but those folks aren't climbing it for respect from climbers, they're just getting bragging rights for the office, etc.
Cheating in a larger sense could be misrepresenting your accomplishments, or the details about how you succeeded. I have no problem with "cheaters" who grab bolts, because that doesn't affect me or anyone else.
What we really need to differentiate are cheaters, versus liars. If someone uses less than noble tactics on a route, but never hides those details, we should give them more credit than one who professes the best standards but is found out after the fact. Before people realized that they'd get more bragging points by freeing routes, mixing aid and free were fine because the FA was what mattered - and it was harder to fake a FA than a FFA.
When real climbers get bored repeating the climbs of old, they push standards, in many ways. One of those involves 'cleaning up' older ascents, via lighter, faster, smaller, solo, etc. Oxygenless is in this category (circa 1950 noone knew if 29,000 ft was survivable without it) and it is as inappropriate to denigrate the achievements of Hillary, et al for its use as it is to idolize the contemporary guided summitter who also used it.
As someone who has never achieved the altitudes many of you have (I have only reached 1085m), I must say that you are causing a detrimental effect on those that idolize and look up to you, and want to better themselves in the way that you have shown. It doesn't matter if you have to use 02, it's all about the experience, about developing the necessary skills over time to be able to attempt big mountains. I for one would probably use 02 on the 8000ers, and would quite happily state that I used it, that I got to the top in the way that I wanted to, and would gladly tell all those that listened that my journey was my own, and that I didn't do it for the glory that many climbers do it for.
Don't alienate those that want to follow in your footsteps, albeit in a safer and more controlled manner!
it is entirely up to a person how one can climb at altitude,there must not be such restrictions, however fair climb could be without O2,but it doesn't apply to every body,there must be choice,likewise the extreme people can find out their routes even on smaller mountains instead of big mountians. or draw new line on 8000r even alpine style, so no matter who does what!:) climb ON
Climbing is a very personal thing and "cheating" is a somewhat personal concept. At some level, the point of climbing is to reach the top. There are multiple ways and techniques that can be used to reach the top. I don't see how using O2 can be cheating any more that wearing a coat. Climbing in high altitudes has only become possible because of advances in technology and every climber uses advanced technology in some way. Shaving 10 pounds off your pack because of advancements in gear is no different than using O2. Both are possible by current technology and both are personal choices. There are billions of people who cannot climb Everest with supplemental O2, and to them the tale of someone who climbed the mountain with or without is fascinating. Its less about cheating and more about having respect for your own abilities.
Crazy how no matter what the subject, no matter how obscure and relatively unimportant, people will always show their hind ends online and act ugly, and or pass judgement.
THAT is the real sad truth.
Post a Comment