UKC

After all recent goings on with BH,

i ask on a well read forum, would anyone who has witnessed BH 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.

In reply to R Simpson:

If anything was going to be aid it would have been said here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=157844

I think you should take your witch-hunt elsewhere, the internet has a great reputation for spearious (sp?) shite ...

In reply to R Simpson:

Of particular note: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157844&v=1#2243092

In reply to Removed User: Don't know the guy, but have been following that other thread from earlier today, and it's a big bag of pish. Read the bouldering thread too - it's a slightly lesser bag of pish.

Nothing should have been said until there was somthing substantial to say IMO.

spurious btw

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:


I completely agree, its all a it pathetic really


Thanks

In reply to R Simpson: I read your post in it's entirety but figured it's not your webspace. Premier post it and lock it if you're really serious.

Looks like busybodying to me. No offence - but that's what it looks like.

This all just smacks of the fanatical, obsessional competitiveness that obsesses those at the top end of any sport. Reason and moderation? Lost long ago by the looks of things. Yes, it's better if people tell the truth, and it can f*ck things up a bit if they don't, but this is all a little out of proportion. Climbing is not at stake here. A couple of people's egos may be. Yes, investigate, yes challenge, but not in this rather embarrassingly obsessive fashion. If there is evidence, then let it shine forth! It will probably all seem a bit silly when we're all 60 years old.

Respect to Rich Simpson's recent achievements, however.

In reply to R Simpson:

Alway happy to afirm people suspisions, it helps them stave off insecurity!

In reply to R Simpson: I think it's the way you've done it, don't you? You seem to be running around like a bat out of hell, desperately trying to notch up some points, and it doesn't look pretty. Chill out. If you're right, then it will out! You're not doing your reputation much good by approaching it in this way.

In reply to Steve Parker:

his reputation for being strong as... will be unaffected.
Rich of all people in the UK has nothing to prove to anyone.

Climbing is at Stake here. If the inspirational story (you want to believe it don't you?) of a bunch of top end routes having been done on Gritstone, in unprecedented good style turns out to be a lie, then that's a bit important to you if you care about climbing.

In reply to Paz:

Dear Paz

I posted this on the other thread "The issue is honesty, not bouldering. It does not matter if it is a boulder problem or an 8000m hill, we expect honest reporting of a route. Luckily dishonesty is not widespread, it should be exposed when found out.".

Norrie

In reply to Paz:

I don't think so, I climb to enjoy myself and to escape the stress of modern life, so I find this completely irrelavant. That said if it matters to some people fair play to them ...

In reply to Paz:

If one person turned out to be lying about his/her ascents, that would have rather little effect on me, actually. There are still (and have been) any number of great climbers who have told the truth,and continue to be inspirational. There was an episode in Wales in the 70s where someone claimed several hard first ascents, and was later shown to have been lying. I don't think it did any more than briefly p*ss a few people off. Not nice, I agree, but hardly a seismic event in British climbing.

But I'm not up there in the top 10 (or top 1000, probably!), and I don't have a reputation or sponsorship to consider, as others might. So I'm probably best keeping out of it. But the whole affair might benefit from a little more moderacy and calm on all sides, however interesting and explosive it all is.

In reply to Paz:
No, not as a climber - that's a given. But there are other things people have to prove, like circumspection and moderation. I don't know him from Adam, and I have no opinions about whether he's right or wrong, but I don't think he's helping himself by his approach. And that is a purely political/human issue, and one I can comment on. I agree entirely with Norrie (and yourself) that if there has been dishonesty that it should be exposed, but I would advise a little more diplomacy until it has been established.

In reply to Steve Parker & FraserHughes: I think the point here is that if this is so unimportant to you why have you posted on this thread? indeed why have you posted on this subject at all? I'm with Norrie and Paz on this, it is about honesty and integrity in the sport and should be taken seriously.

In reply to Richard Simpson: Perhaps you should think twice before describing people as idiots on a public forum. If you are trying to earn a living from the sport then you require sponsors. Those sponsors depend on the 'punters' to buy their products. Many of those 'punters' are the people who se sites like this so going round callng them idiots is not going to endear you to said companies.

In reply to Dave C:

You quite magnificently missed my point. I said it wouldn't be that important to climbing as a whole, and should maybe not be quite so important to the OP as to make him pursue it in such an antagonistic and immoderate fashion. Strange that you question why I'm posting, and then post pretty much the same thing yourself.

As you then went on to agree with another of my points, I'll have to agree with you there too.

In reply to Dave C:

If this is important to Rich then why has aired it in such a undignified manner and with so little tact. I'd assumed the entire thing was just point scoring (it stinks of that a mile off) and thus have responded as I saw fit.

In reply to Removed User: Supportyou on that. My gripe is not the issue, but the manner it's being conducted in. More tact would be good!

In reply to R Simpson: I posted this on UKB, but thought others might be interested to read it too...


I kind of assume that all the people who read and post on these forums knows the word on the street in the sheffield scene. I forget that there is a world beyond sheffield, and so there are people who might not be as clued up as to why this has all come about. Rich has kind of explained but I'll try to clarify further, and perhaps comment on a few people's posts.

For a few years now there have been rumours circulated that Ben has lied about some of his ascents. You hear a lot of shit living in sheffield, and you learn to just listen to whatever shit people go on about but keep doing your own thing regardless. It was a long time ago that I first heard rumours about Ben. I initially assumed that it was people who were jealous trying to bring him down, as so often seems to happen on the sheffield scene. I'm not heavily involved with the scene, but I am around it enough to know what's being said and by whom.

Many many people would tell me various stories about Ben, about the controversy surrounding his ascents and making out he was a liar. All this was before I met Ben. I'm not one to judge, I give everyone the a clean slate upon which they etch themselves. When I did eventually meet Ben I thought (and still do think) that he is a nice enough guy. He's never been rude to me, or done anything against me. However, the rumours still circulate. I wasn't on one side of the fence or the other. It didn't matter to me, liar or not, I could still go climbing everyday. My position now is that I think many of his ascents are seriously clouded in controversy, so clouded that I am unable to believe him 100%. This is a seriously sad state of affairs, and this is why it needs to be cleared up.

I'm rather suprised by the lack of posts on this thread from the people in sheffield who originally told me he was a liar. There are so many people who seem like they are quite happy to slag him off and then I see those very same people climbing with him the next day. There are numerous people I know in sheffield who think he's a liar who haven't even chipped in on this thread, for fear of what I don't know.

A couple of months ago Rich did confront Ben about all this. Rich isn't in on the sheffield scene, but he had heard all the rumours that were floating about, and instead of just continuing to spread them, he went straight to the source. This should have happened ages ago, by the original people who started the rumours. Rich questioned Ben and did not get satisfactory answers to his claims. We all climb for different reasons, i'm sure we've all climbed something quite difficult on our own before, but what is going on when someone claims that every single difficult thing they have ever climbed was done alone. How is this possible? I know that the possibility exists that this could be true, but then how does it correlate with the fact that there is a huge difference between was is witnessed and what is unwitnessed. The people who I climb with tend to know roughly the level of my climbing. If I started going out and climbing things 3 grades harder than anyone had ever seen me climb, and this happened a lot, people would wonder. To be honest, I would expect my friends to say something, perhaps like "take a video camera with you!".

Since this has all come to light, has anyone come forward anywhere to say they have witnessed him climbing anything towards his level of achievement. Ben Heason has climbed 8b+ sport routes, where are the witnesses for all his 8a onsights? Ben Heason has bouldered 8B, where are his many witnesses of mere 8A boulders? Ben Heason has climbed E10 (according to himself), where are his witnessed ascents of numerous E8's and E9's? What's going on? I've seen him climb, many people have seen him climb! But what have they seen? I've seen him climb some v7 and v8 boulder problems. That's it. However, it is possible that all this is actualyl the case, that this huge differential exists. But if that is the case then how can he justify recieving sponsorship for achievements no one has EVER seen? How can he make a living from climbing when no one has seen his achievements? This clearly isn't fair. I love to climb, I want to be able to climb all the time, should I make up some ascents and get sponsored on teh back of them? I doubt I could get any sponsorship money if I had a resume with many 8B boulders that I'd climbed totally unwitnessed.

As Rich says, the ball is in Ben's court. All he has to do is provide some witnesses. Who belayed him on all his hard sport routes? Who belayed him on his many many E7 onsights? Who spotted him on his many V11/12 boulders? He needs to present this information, or relieve his sponsorship deals and move away from the public realm of climbing.

So, there you go, my real name and email address are there for anyone who has anything to say to me.

In reply to R Simpson:

I think you're asking a lot - by asking the post to be kept free of rants and uninformed information, that is...

However, I was around in the 80s and 90s and there were similar accusations made then about several people. Undoubtedly some of them were correct. Undoubtedly some of them weren't.

Richard, I've never met you as far as I know. Be very very careful. Some of the cases I mentioned above almost ended up in the courts. That they didn't was due to some backtracking, some confessing, and some finding of middle ground. Some climbing down on all sides. If I were you, no matter how frustrated and angry you are, I would not say anything else until you have real, watertight proof. Not evidence, proof.

In reply to Just askin':

I agree, in law the burden of proof lies with the prosocution. Don't see why it should be different here.

In reply to Removed User:

I doubt its as simple as that. Rich has made some claims and sounds a bit pissed off to be honest. However hes not substantiated them but hes only making public statements, not trying to prove a case in a court so there isnt really a requirement for him to back up his claims. His argument is actually impossible to back up due to the nature of the argument (i.e. nobody saw him do anything). If it were to get to sourt then it would be a libel case from BH against RS, in which case it would be up to BH to prove that RS had libeled him. that would be up to BH to prove and hence produce evidence. I dont actually think RS is in the wrong here (not read the UKB thread as its a bit long) as hes pointing out facts and trying to get something concrete. Hes not directly said that BH hasn't done what hes claimed, hes pointed out that no one seems to have seen them being done. There is a big difference between the two.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

I think you've missed the point somewhat. What I said to Richard was, be very very careful and don't say any MORE until he has proof.

I'm serious. In the late 80s solicitors were engaged in a very similar case. People were willing to pay money to defend their reputation.

Hence my warning.

In reply to R Simpson: This reminds me of scenario's I remember about in the past where top climbers claimed ascents, which others claimed were unsubstantiated (Dunne on Parthanon Shot, many of Gibsons first ascents). The truth is often murky in this sport of ours, and honesty is sometimes in short supply. I hope the truth is revealed and if Ben is proven to have climbed the routes he say's he has then this issue will be dropped. The flipside is that Ben should come clean if he has falsely claimed ascents, or alternatively actually make the ascents he has claimed to clear his name.

Andy F

In reply to Keith Bradbury:


No it's not. The ball is in Rich's court- and he's making a bit of a tit of himself trying to do something with it. Should have kept it schtum.

In reply to Just askin':

I did get your points and it is all a bit untactful but it does smack of someone whos got a bit fed up of the amount of attention the small clique gets around climbing magazines (hence why i dont bother with climbing mags or planetfear). As long as he sticks to asking if anyone has actually spotted any of these ascents and not actually chucked any direct accusations at BH I would think he would be ok legally but its still a bit risky to try and stay so near to the line, especially since BH has a career totally founded on the back of his reputation i.e. heason events and sponsorship, it would be very surprising if he didnt go as far as he could to defend his name regardless of whether he is falsely caliming anything.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Exactly. Never get between a female bear and her cubs.

In reply to andy farnell:


I don't see why proof needs to be brought that he has climbed those routes. It's like ancient Rome around here the last couple of days - people creeping about with rumours and daggers.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: He's not just asking, is he? He's saying he's 'certain.' That makes it a direct accusation in my book.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=4731&postdays=0&posto...

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

I would have thought it was obvious why. Because someone has suggested he needs to. Therefore, if he doesn't, he won't be believed.

And I think Rome looks a cool place to have been.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: Wrong. If someone has claimed to have done at the current limit of the sport it is important that claim is backed up with evidence, be it spotters, belayers or photographers, or just someone walking along the crag.

Andy f

In reply to Steve Parker:

ok i'll take that as potentially libelous. I take it hes pretty pissed off and pretty certain then. How the hells he planning to prove a negative though?
p

In reply to andy farnell:

I'm not sure if it's right or wrong, but the de facto is the crucial bit, surely?

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Unfortunately for him, by asking the person he may have libelled to prove the positive. Not a well thought out strategy!

In reply to andy farnell:

Sheer fantasy - If a tree falls in the woods...

Maybe he can't prove that he did those routes - doesn't make him a liar, and unless someone can prove that he didn't do those routes I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - because my standards are at least that high.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

sloper made a good point on ukbouldering. Circumstantial evidence can be good enough to prove that he didnt do it. Saying that end of the affair wasnt in condition on the day that he claimed to have done it might be legal proof that he hadnt climbed it. Anyway has anybody been to curbar on a perfect grit day and not seen other people about? Even midweek
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: I'd agree, enough circumstantial evidence can put together enough of a case to cause reasonable doubt, and more. Weather conditions, blocked access, an illness Heason had at the time etc... all good.

It's a far cry from what these guys are saying too - chiefly that Heason has to come out and prove that he climbed those routes.

In reply to andy farnell:

Dear Andy

It is not always the case of a route. If the climber has a well respected track record of climbing at the grade with evidence, then if, he/she does a similar route without evidence, then doubts should not be raised. There is doubt in this case because there has been a track record of no evidence of climbing at the upper grades.

Norrie

In reply to R Simpson:

Seriously...I think you're being petty. If he's climbed it, he's climbed it...if he hasn't, he hasn't.

In reply to Keith Bradbury:


Never met any of the people concerned, nor am I overly bothered what the truth is, but nevertheless John Arran appears to suggest the Ben has onsighted E7 here:

"Only the day before I'd felt a little dissappointed that fate hadn't delivered an onsightable E7 pitch. Both Ben and Miles had been dealt such hard challenges and done spectacularly well to get up them"

"Angels with Dirty Faces" Climber July 2005

So its hardly like the guy can't climb at all. If the chap can onsight long E7 pitches on a huge jungle wall, after days spent in portaledges etc. it doesn't seem much of stretch to think that he could do E8 an E9...

In reply to R Simpson:
Just a couple of points:
E5 6a, E6 6a, E7 6a/b onsight, E7 6b redpoint on pre-placed gear, several witnesses
www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/Climb%20July%2005%20p.%2047.jpg

It sounds like Final destination (E8 6c) was witnessed and FA photo (www.heason.net/HTML/Galleries/BenHeason/HeasonEventsBenHeasonGalleryFinalDestination.html). Drummond base (E8 6c) should have been witnessed as he TR'd it first. (www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=62).

I could believe the fact that he is wearing a harness under his trousers (does my bum look big in this??) on EOTA (E8 6c) but is the accusation that he was actually tied in or there was a rope waiting?(www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/UP%202003%20page%2052.jpg)

But is this supposed to be staged aswell? - looks F&%&ing scarey if it is...
(www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/UP%202003%20page%2061.jpg)

'If' he is lying about some ascents he certainly has balls considering he has fallen off the E7 simon mentioned, narcissus (E6 6b) missing mats and breaking ankles and an E7 in llanberis (www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=99).

Also about 'how' much money he makes from sponsers - seems he isn't exactly rolling in it and has other ways of saving.
(www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=390).

Refreshing to have some actual climbing discussion on here for once, albeit not in the best circumstances. I would have like to see a less definite/accusing stance until RS had comfronted BH for a second time. Hopefully this doesn't drag on like those of the past.

In reply to R Simpson:
Just a couple of points:
E5 6a, E6 6a, E7 6a/b onsight, E7 6b redpoint on pre-placed gear, several witnesses (as TobyA mentions)
http://www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/Climb%20July%2005%20p.%...

It sounds like Final destination (E8 6c) was witnessed and FA photo http://www.heason.net/HTML/Galleries/BenHeason/HeasonEventsBenHeasonGallery...
Drummond base (E8 6c) should have been witnessed as he TR'd it first. http://www.freakclimbing.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=6...

I could believe the fact that he is wearing a harness under his trousers (does my bum look big in this??) on EOTA (E8 6c) but is the accusation that he was actually tied in or there was a rope waiting?http://www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/UP%202003%20page%2052.j...

But is this supposed to be staged aswell? - looks F&%&ing scarey if it is...
http://www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/UP%202003%20page%2061.j...

'If' he is lying about some ascents he certainly has balls considering he has fallen off the E7 simon mentioned, narcissus (E6 6b) missing mats and breaking ankles and an E7 in llanberis
http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=99

Also about 'how' much money he makes from sponsers - seems he isn't exactly rolling in it and has other ways of saving.
http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=390

Refreshing to have some actual climbing discussion on here for once, albeit not in the best circumstances. I would have like to see a less definite/accusing stance until RS had comfronted BH for a second time. Hopefully this doesn't drag on like those of the past.

(with working links...)

In reply to Matt: Final Destination was indeed witnessed so that is good.

Drummond Base has no witnesses, but does have people who were there that day and who are convinced he DIDN'T do it.

EOTA, he was tied on I believe (but I could be wrong).

Knocking on Heaven's Door, he is hanging from a jug. I could get a photo in that position to prove how easy it is.

Many many many people have fallen off E7's. To fail on something "easy" does not mean you can complete something "hard".

And the money thing, he makes enough that is makes a difference.

to be honest, the best outcome of all this would just be the truth, whatever it may be. I only hope that it is reached. I am totally open and willing (and actually hope) that Ben can prove his ascents.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

hmm, havent read the whole thread, but people like you seriously piss me off. (ukc is full of people like you)

a situation you arent even remotely informed on, and you are willing to give your opinion. you dont know simpson. you dont know heason. you dont know what basis the claims were made on.

simpson is asking for EVIDENCE to support the claims, read the post.
and why would simpson be busybodying about ben heason anyway? simpson has climbed 9a, you idiot.

In reply to R Simpson: if for instance ben brandsby made these claims we wouldn,t be having this discussion ! because of his "track record" HOWEVER it does in my eyes look suspicious that major assents have no witnesses.

before anyone slates rich on this, first realise where he,s coming from. the amount of training commitment and time he has put into what he has done and still doing must be incredible and for someone to state they had done similar feats "by themselves" would be damn annoying.

if some sprinter did 100 mtrs in 9.0 secs by himself would he be believed ?

In reply to Anonymous:

If you want to post any more on this thread then please could you register or tell us who you are.

Alan

In reply to Keith Bradbury and matt:
Drummond base was unwitnesed. There was no visible chalk on the route after it went dark at the end of the day, make of that what you will.

He has a rope round the corner on EOTA

Keith iscorrect about the staged pic on Knocking. No witness despite claiming it on a busy sunday at Curbar, also did not know about key hold having broken off that morning, leaving an orange scar. I certainly noticed it.

Many people have fallen off and broken bones, doesnt mean they can all climb E10, just that they pushed themselves too far.

And he takes a big handfull out of a little pot.

I would be very interested to see any unstaged photos of ben on an E8 or harder.

In reply to Alan James - UKC: jason wood (registered)but cannot log in because of new p.c blocking cookies which i cannot sort yet have emialed yor good selves for advice

In reply to Anonymous:

Ok, we'll see what we can do. Turn off your firewall and see if it works first.

Please sign future posts. I think it is pretty important for the integrity of one's opinions in debates like this.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC: have tried firewall off my brother seems to think it could be my browser
but your right should have signed and usually do

jay

In reply to Anonymous:

Unlikely to be firewall. What OS and browser are you using?

Maybe better to take this to a separate thread..

boB

In reply to J-Pearson:

he was wearing a harness on EOTA, i was holding the rope that he was hanging on around the corner.

The day he did KOHD, he was seen struggling on a shunt to do the moves.

The same day he claimed to do drummond base, my climbing partner watched most of the day. He left at dark, but the last thing he looked at was that route. he says that there was no chalk on route.

i would like to know who belayed him on the routes he climbed in pembroke this year.

critics choice e7 6c
boat to naxos e76b
Boss hog e76b
Breaking the habit e7 6c
Black is back e76b

All onsight

also the fin e76b ogwen

onsight.

Just on the off chance that anyone knows

In reply to R Simpson:

Sorry i am simon moore

In reply to Anonymous:

lol - what does that mean?

I'm informed enough to know how people should go about there business - and this is the way it was done in the playground, before we had 'people skills', Mr Anonymous / Rich Simpson.

Your last sentence makes no sense at all - busybodies are busybodies regardless of what grade they climb. What age are you, 12?

In reply to verukaclimbs:
'If' he is lying about some ascents he certainly has balls considering he has fallen off the E7 simon mentioned, narcissus (E6 6b) missing mats and breaking ankles and an E7 in llanberis


its funny that the only things he was apparantly seen on, he fell off and broke his ankles

The Ben Heason thread has been pulled from UKBouldering:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=4770

In reply to verukaclimbs: I think ( as an interested by-stander ) that this is what the thread needs more of, and what Rich Simpson is asking for. PROOF. That photo was shown as proof of him soloing the route. At least from what other posters have said. I don't know if BH has claimed this himself. Verukaclimbs has proven it not to be.

I think RS has either got it badly wrong and shot off at the mouth too soon or he knows it to be true and is trying to get people to come forward. Hopefully they will one way or the other, and soon to put a stop to this.

In reply to John Seamons: Lets see if UKC has more balls !!!
;0)
How can a web-site dedicated to people discussing their own points of view be held responsible. We do live in a silly world.

In reply to biscuit:

the latter

In reply to John Seamons: They should pull it from UKC too. Irresponsible IMO.

In reply:

It might be a distasteful thread to read but it has as much right to remain as any other thread where personalities are brought into conflict. Hopefully the moderators will continue to accept the important role of this site as a medium for free speech and not get into censorship.

Well done to them so far.

davie ( the kiss ass)

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:
Hopefully the moderators will continue to accept the important role of this site as a medium for free speech and not get into censorship.


Julie robert's armpits were distastful - these threads have influenced 100's maybe 1000's of people to cast doubts over a man where there has been no good reason to.

I hope Rich and others find themselves on the receiving end of this behaviour some day.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: Hopefully ( from your point of view - i'm not bothered either way )he will get a taste of his own medicine when Ben and all the people who have witnessed what he's done come out and prove it.

Either way i'm afraid one of them is going to end up looking like a w**ker at some point in the future.

Don't think this is the right way to be doing it though.

In reply to idiots:

It's easy for you to go on about censorship and free speech when you're not in a position to be taken to court over it.

Unfortunately, the website owner can be considered liable for libelous postings on the site, even if they were not posted by themselves.

That is why the threads have been pulled. If this site continues to keep them open then good luck to them - I suspect they have deeper pockets than me if Mr Heason decides to get legal on their ass.

In reply to John Seamons:
That is a shame as it had a lot more informed and reasoned comment on it than these ones, Grimer, nik at work and keith B spring to mind.

Interestingly the last post I saw from RS seemed to suggest that most of the people who had been spreading these rumours lacked the balls to put their name by them.

It made me think of a situation at school where everyone was slagging a kid off and mouthing that they'd all chip in and give him a good kickin. However, step forward one brave kid, step back the big mouths leaving the brave one in hospital.

Anyway, I digress, hopefully these rumour spreaders (or truth tellers) who obviously seem to have convinced RS will hopefully either admit they are just rumours or come forward with their evidence or have the balls to confront BH direct. Whether this really needs to be done in public is another matter (although I'll follow the outcome with interest).

In reply to Matt: I agree. Now that Rich Simpson has cast doubt, it is time to prove the issue one way or another.

In reply to ukb:

Great news. Now shut your forums and just have advertising space. If every contentious thread gets pulled that's all you'll have.

Yours

Davie (apparently an idiot)

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:

It's common knowledge that website owners can get f*cked over by people who have been slandered on their forums. A letter from someone's solicitor dropping through your door is rarely a good thing. Bubba and ukb just don't need that kind of hassle. Making this kind of accusation is not really what the site's for. It's provided for free and makes NO money from advertising.

Bubba - I'm glad you pulled it dude. I think you did the right thing.

JB

In reply to ukb: If you read the reply carefully you should see an ironic smiley after it and a comment on how stupid it is that a site such as yours can be held responsible for others views.

I am assuming you were also commenting at me as you were addressing 'idiots' and there have only been two of us who have responded on that subject.

Cheers

Idiot

PS can i sue for being called an idiot when i can get people to prove i'm not - and probably just as many to say that i am ?

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: No man, if you pull every libellous thread, you'll have forum devoid of slanderers.

Most of us can get our kicks without stabbing climbers in the back. Get them to take the dirt elsewhere.

RT (apparently an idiot too)

In reply to biscuit:

fair enough, I didn't see that and I apologise.

In reply to ukb: No probs

and i'm not going to try to sue

On a good point i hadn't been on your site B4 and it looks good. Will be back again.

Andy

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:

Whatever. Ukb doesn't have any advertising btw.

I don't pull threads lightly, but i have been adivised to do so in this case by a solicitor. When you are in the same situation whilst running your own forum, let's see what you do, smart ass.

In reply to ukb:

I think you did the right thing - any liable or slander should not be ignored, but if you have legal advice to not be involved - then I whole heartedly approve on you pulling the thread...

Si

In reply to biscuit:

>PS can i sue for being called an idiot when i can get people to prove i'm not - and probably just as many to say that i am ?

Doubtful, it is a persons opinion, and sometimes we all are and others are not..

(runs away not wishing to get embroiled in this silly argument . Now I know how wars start.)

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

What makes you qualified to reply to this thread?

From the OP

"Please keep this post free of rants and uninformed information."

Did you not read this, many mindless posts have been made by people with "uninformed information". Will you shut up and let people with some real information step forward.

In reply to ukb:

>let's see what you do, smart ass.

Right, first things first. At no point did I get persoanl with you. I was advocating free speech and so far I've been called a smart arse and an idiot. I'll see you in court.
(joke).
I sympathise with your predicament but do you ever read Scottishclimbs? For months there it was wall to wall Si O'Connor is a liar type threads and although no legal action has transpired (thank fcuk for sanity) I am sure the boys od SC would have received plenty of donations if they were targeted by law suits. That's what you should hopefully be able to rely on with your site's membership.
I am not kidding in any way by saying the above.

I think those who run websites like this SC and yours doa great job but I hope you will be able to support free speech in the future.

Davie

In reply to Anonymous:

Seems to me that if someone decides to go public about something on a public forum, then they have to expect that the users of that forum might just take an interest and start debating the issue, whether it's about falsehood or anything else. That's the nature of internet forums, whether you like it or not.

The ensuing debate will be various and diverse, informed and ill-informed, sagacious and stupid, probably in equal measure.

If someone wants to avoid the 'idiotic' interventions of the users of UKC, they might be better advised to conduct their enquiries by email. Rather trying to have your cake and eat it otherwise, isn't it? If you find UKC so wearisome and so full of idiots, perhaps you should look elsewhere for your stimulation.

In reply to xarr:

Actually - I think I'll post more often on this issue thanks very much...

Screw the original post - it shouldn't have been started. Thankfully there are people here like me with common decency, and don't want to see dirt thrown around behind people's backs.

Go crawl back - I didn't add information, I only showed how it wasn't for Heason to prove anything.


Sooner the thread closes the better, and takes the slanderers with it.

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: Have you any idea how much a libel suit funded by a conditional fee agreement would cost?

Most punters have £50k worth of legal expenses insurance with their household policy but none (statistically speaking) have any cover to defend an action.

Perhaps you'd care to send UKBouldering £100,000 on the off chance?

Can anyone prove that I've not climbed font 7a? Or that i was once below 11 stones and strong as f--k?

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre:

Dear God

One thing in common is the sniping and name calling by anonymous Sheffield based boulderers. Rich has the bottle to use his own name.

Norrie

In reply to ukb:

Bubba,

Are you calling I am the God of Strathyre a smart ass. Hopefully this will have little effect on I am the God of Strathyre's capability to earn a crust. If it does be prepared no doubt to receive a cease and desist letter from his lawyer....at the very least.

Best regards,

Mick

In reply to sloper:

Dear sloper

If, you were born a human, you would be just under 11 stone, unless you are a whale.

Norrie

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

And why shouldn't it have been started? These forums are for people to ask questions and get answers. Richard wanted some information, more personal than asking about shoes or a rope but still information. Usually peoples wishes are respected and this is the OP wish that people don't post useless crap. am sure Ben will find out about this sooner or later, he is involved with the scene somewhat, but making claims pertaining to high end climbs that people make a living off are serious, like blagging your CV more than the usual 2-1 instead of a 2-2. Ben has nothing to prove but silencing these rumors would do wonders for general opinion of him, which seems to be going down the pan, even though in my experince he a pretty nice guy, liar or not.

In reply to Norrie Muir: I'm not so sure Rich has kept his bottle. Some of the anonymous posts are well, not dissimilar, and aside from Rich, the anonymous poster is the only other person to call UKC'ers idiots.

Coincidences - of course they are.

The Si O'C stuff is entirely different. He doesn't make a living out of climbing and would have little basis to bring a legal case against Scottish Climbs, or wherever.

Norrie, sorry to break this to you, but anyone can use any name that they like on the internet, it doesn't mean a thing. Until you get down to ISP records, whether somebody posts anonymously or via a username makes no odds.

In reply to xarr:


Welcome to the world. That's the point. He shouldn't have to silence the rumours here - because they shouldn't have been started. Why? Because they are unsubstantiated.

Penny?

In reply to Norrie Muir:

I dispute the "strong as f-ck" though, and was he talking Font 7a or Sport 7a or English technical 7a? You would think that someone wiith his legal mind would at least be clear on that point.

Shit, I haven't slandered him have I?

Mick

In reply to Keith Bradbury:

First off good post. You have taken the time to articulate yourself about a very difficult subject so respect from me for that.

However I do disagrea on a number of points.

1. "As Rich says, the ball is in Ben's court."

I dont think it is. As in a court of law the burden of proof lies with the acusser. Ben is definatly inocent till proven guilty in my opinion.

2. "where are the witnesses for all his 8a onsights? etc"

Perhaps there are none. It is possible for a climber to skip grades also everyone is different. i.e. some folk will jump grades i.e be crap at onsight but good at readpoint etc. There was a time when I could flash 6b but kept falling off 5c/6a, strang but true.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

If they were unsubstantiated then he wouldn't have started this in the first place. From my understanding Richard was not the one to start these rumors (someone will correct me if I am wrong), they were floating around the Sheffield scene but he wanted the truth and decided to take them straight to Ben. This was a request for information not a rumor starter, I hope Richard would be pleased if someone stepped forward and proved him wrong as this mess would go away, but who knows, only Ben can solve this I guess.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com: i'm sure you will soon find out of you have.

The summons will be in the post as we speak.

In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: In reply to I am the God of Strathyre: Aye Davie, & that was done with anonimity, sniping & smearing. Which for people in search of the truth, always seemed odd they would create false i.ds, emails & facts...When it comes to that, to start a campaign by first creating a falsehood it best taken like a shot of Tequila - with a pinch of salt.

Although threats of reprisal, deceptive stratagems, subterfuge, carefully worded tripwires, crafted by cowards on forums designed to ensnare & squeeze out only one answer. The one they had already laced themselves with. And when they couldnt find anything, it came down to a flawed regime of creating seemingly genuine i.ds that would lead people to believe it was also 'me' posting confessions... Luaghable, but not without effect. I would just say be careful, & deal in facts. Bens livelyhood is at stake here & we all to often focus on 1 wrong doing instead of the countless good things a person has done, & for what? A bit of sensationalist pish so you can all run away & pretend to be outraged & deeply hurt by a supposed deception that you'll forget next week?...Not everything posted on a forum is representative of a climbing communties under-currents, or the true interaction between climbers 'out there' when all this bitching is going on. Forums are just a wheelchair for the brain to talk about climbing after the event.

Throughout the dark ages women accused of witchcraft would be brought down to the local ducking stool lashed to it & submerged underwater for a given period of time, the variation of that time solely dependant on the malisciousness of the accuser & the crowd. If when the accused was let back up & found to be a lifeless corpse, she was deemed to be innocent of any dark art & crime, if on the other hand she was still alive, she would be pronounced guilty as charged, &, with most probably a following by a sneering & taunting crowd, be taken to a pre-designated place of execution & burned publically, without grace or dignity. This was considered a fair court. A court made up of the mis-informed, the bias, the fanatical & the scared. A court of level-headed objectivity it was not. A court of a cast iron fact, or free defense, it was never designed to be.

Dont let things go this way, Id thought we'd evolved a little since those days.

In reply to xarr: You know what unsubstatiated means right? Rich brought this thread here looking for dirt - looking for dirt because he was looking to substatiate some rumour.

Do you think we're bloody stupid? Asking for information in this way is starting a rumour. Especially after the threads explaning his intentions were on UKC and UKB.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Dear Mick

I thought "strong" was in referrence to his cheesy feet, but I have no evidence, so I never mentioned them. He may have a law degree, but that does mean he has a brain left after all the port he drinks.

Norrie

In reply to the smart sock:

are you implying he belayed himself

simon moore

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

A few years ago a climber in Southern California called Louie Anderson claimed a route called Refiner's Fire....a first ascent and rated it 5.14b (Fr 8c), way above what Louie had climbed before.

Randy Leavit asked him, publicly in a letter to the US Climbing mags, to put up or shut up. Randy offered him $2,000 to climb the route in front of credible witnesses.....even to link certain sections.

Louie never did. The route was sadly 'erased' soon after.

Recently Mike Reardon has soloed numerous hard routes in Southern California, often onsight.....and very tall routes. He has his doubters, often surfacing on the internet...theire only way of publicly doubting him. In the latest issue of Rock and Ice is a lengthy article all about Mike....with lots of unfakeable photos of him strutting his stuff, onsight, up amazing rock terrain. Mike is the real McCoy, although for some of his ascents there is no proof.

My take on this is will one of the climbing magazines in the UK take up the case of Richard Simpson vs. Ben Heason and using their considerable resources (money) and a decent journalist (say Ed Douglas) to get to the bottom of this.

False claims of ascents is a big problem in the UK (and the US) it has been for a long time, there are both well-known cases and some only known to a few.

Is it not about time we got to the bottom of this?

Mick

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

Have you not read the first post?

Rich posted here to try and find people who had witnessed Ben climbing the disputed routes and therefore prove that he did climb them. That is not looking for dirt.

Personally, I don't think that on a forum was the best way to go about it as after all it is Ben's livelihood at stake. However what you wrote was a load of bollocks.

In reply to Oli: have you not read everything Rich wrote on UKB?

What you just wrote was a lot of bollocks.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: Yes, but your post explicitly stated THIS thread. Therefore my previous post is correct.

In reply to Oli: My post referred to this thread - but it then refers to his intentions set out on UKB.

They call it context or something. Google it. More bollocks from you.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: Yes alright, sorry. I still don't think that this is starting a rumour, but certainly not the best way to go about settling another rumour.

I concede defeat.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: I can only assume that you are not on the sheffield scene, or friends with many of the climbers who have personal stories about Ben Heason. Although it may appear somewhat confusing, Rich started this thread looking not for dirt, but for truth. Rich wanted people to come forward and say they had witnessed Ben climbing one of the many hard grit routes he has claimed. That is what he wanted. In terms of dirt, there is so much shit floating about in sheffield that you can't help but hear it when you live there. It is not simply rumour that Rich is trying to substantiate, it is the many tales he has heard from people who climb with Ben. These rumours were originally started by the very people who would climb with Ben, both in this country and abroad. I'm not in a position to begin to recount all these stories right now, because without names it would be daft, and I am currently unsure as to whether every single person wants to put their name to this publicly. Infact, i am somewhat suprised that no one has come forward from the Sheffield scene and said what they know. I can only say that once these people do come forward you may have to retract your statements that Rich is simply looking for dirt. The dirt has been there for years, and it's only now coming to the attention of the general public.

Perhaps you would care to put your name to your posts because that way we all know who we are dealing with, and it's all out in the open.

In reply to Keith Bradbury: Forget it - I've read what he said on UKB yesterday and I've made my judgement on that.

Oli - fair play man. Didn't really want to keep that up myself.

In reply to the smart sock:

I don't think it's as straightforward as that. If I said I was a doctor and started treating people, I think in the event of a dispute I'd have to prove my qualification. How would you go about proving I'm not a doctor?

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: Well when i realised that you hadn't actually said that this thread was digging up shit, i was clearly in the wrong

In reply to Si O'Conor:

I climb because I like the experience personally. I find the 'did they/ didn't they thing' a bit perplexing.
Good luck to you for not getting the lawyers involved.
At least the internet isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch as yet.
Long may it remain so.

davie

In reply to Everyone who has posted:
Just want to remind you of the original post. Now if anybody, anywhere has ever seen Ben COMPLETE an ascent of E8 or above, now is the time to say. So far the number of people to come forward is 0.

In reply to J-Pearson: Interesting. Now, that's the same number of people who have brought evidence to proof that Heason hasn't climbed E8 or above.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

Please read the ENTIRE thread. Your responses are getting very tedious.

Rich Simpson
James Pearson
Keith Bradbury
Simon Moore

Have all given 'evidence' to question BH's ticklist.

Everytime you have taken a contadictory view several posters have had to prove that you are wrong.

STFU idiot

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

i think you should be less hasty and give the accusers a chance to gather together all the necessary information, before continuing the endless drivel of threads.

as james has stated the answer so for is NONE

s. moore

Just for the record, copied from

http://www.heason.net/HTML/PortfolioDetail/HeasonEventsLecturerPortfolioDet...

Trad Climbing

* On Sight E7 6c
* Headpoint E10 6c

Sport Climbing

* On sight F8a/+
* Solo F8b
* On sight solo F7c

Bouldering

* On sight V9
* Worked V12

Big Wall / Expedition routes

* 24 pitch E6 in Greenland, 1st free ascent, all on sight
* 11 pitch E3 in Greenland, 1st solo ascent
* 31 pitch E7 6c in Venezuela. 1st free ascent of Angel Falls

That's because Not everyone is taking Rich seriously. And not everyone reads UKC - believe it or not - that's a flaw.

There's been no real evidence. Wise up.

In reply to bobdog:

Hat to say it RT but he does have a point. I think you need to know alot more about the sheffield scene to understand the rumours that get bandied about and the general drive to be the best amongst a certain crowd. I don't really trhink this is an unjustifed slanging match against BH, theres probably a lot more to it, but its not the first time the sheffield scenes turned to general bitchiness and it wont be the last time either
p

In reply to J-Pearson:

As it has been made pretty clear on another website that the OP didn't expect anyone to come forward with said information, everyone on this thread is according with his expectations. If enough people don't come forward, what will it mean?

If the OP genuinely has proof, as he has stated elsewhere, why is he now seeking disproof? Does he doubt his proof, or does he just want to engage the attention of the climbing community?

As he has plainly stated that he is 'certain' that BH has not done some of his claimed ascents, how can he also believe that there might be proof that BH actually did them, or at least proof of a convincing track record? Certainty is certainty, and you don't have it at the same time as entertaining the possibility of uncertainty.

Ergo, this thread is not asking for disproof of his stated certainty, and a reasonable hypothesis might be that he was in fact making a point, the point being something along the lines of 'See, even when I ask on all available platforms, still nobody offers themself as a witness.' If there is genuine proof and certainty, why is this display necessary? Either way, the thread is not what it pretends to be: it's not a request, it's a display motivated by a covert agendum.

Some of the earlier posters on this thread fell into the error of thinking the OP was 'digging for dirt.' He wasn't, he was trying to suggest that a lack of evidence for no dirt means that dirt must, therefore, exist. Not a great way of proving something, especially if proof already exists elsewhere.

Ultimately the thread is a troll, as it says one thing and means something quite different.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: So technically you can't have an opinion if you aren't from the Sheffield scene - so why post on UKC? Just email your Sheffield mates and be done with it.

I'm not daft - and Rich's intentions are clear as day.

In reply to bobdog2:


Well that one - as I noted above - John Arran has vouched for in print.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

i really dont see whwere your coming at with this. Rich Simpson spends his life training to be one of the best climbers in the world. He and I expect a number of friends are not able to get much sponsorship money because someone else is getting an unreasonably large share of the pot from the magazines. They believe that that person has not done what he has claimed and is being dishonest. they've taken it up with him directly and not got an answer and they have seen it as a last resort to put this publically on uk climbing forums. Its a sad state of affairs really but it looks to me as if they've been annoyed at this for a long time to take this step. Obviously the only person to put his name to this is rich simpson.
p

In reply to HP:


and james pearson.

So far...

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

also, what the hell are you saying about not being able to comment if your not from sheffield. One of the people to actually post supporting rich is quite clearly from leicester and i'm in the next town from you, this side of the pennines
p

In reply to Oli:

sorry missed that, someone listed all 4 further up
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:
I think you need to know alot more about the sheffield scene to understand the rumours that get bandied about and the general drive to be the best amongst a certain crowd.

Dear Hotbad

Some ambition, why not try to be the best in the UK, never mind the world.

Norrie

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: He got an answer but it was 'unsatisfactory'. Not sure what that means....

To date only S Moore has anything useful to say on this thread (including me).

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: Where I'm coming from?

Rich and his cronies have already caused a lot of harm to Heason's reputation over the past couple of days because they've been allowed to run over the internet, like it's a school playground and plant seeds of doubt in 100's if not 1000's of people's minds.

There has not been a single post by Rich saying ' Heason claims that on day X he climber Y, but really he couldn't have because of reason Z.

I don't want to see this crap. Floodgates and all that. One of the best qualities of this site is that there is a base level of decency - but all that's been thrown to the wind the past couple of days. And more than a few ugly heads have been reared.

They should pull the thread.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:


That was in response to your comment, where YOU said that. Note sarcasm.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Dear Hotbad

Who and what money should not come into it. Beckham is the world's highest paid footballer, but, is not world class footballer.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

sorry norrie, I said 'training to be the best climber in the world', not 'is the best climber in the world'
p

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

Rs hasn't mentioned anything but hes also said that he has evidence but will not be revealing it so I dont really think you should expect any. 3 other people have given specific occasions though and put their real names against there comments which is what RS said he wanted to hear. If you dont want to hear it then dont read the thread.
p

What is your problem Redpoint?

READ the OP's original post. Several people have called 'bullshit' on BH's ascents.

Rich has now asked if anyone, thats ANYONE, can vouch for an ascent to prove BH's worth. Which IMOH this would have to be E8 or above (seeing as he has claimed E10)

No I don't know Rich
I don't live in Sheffield
Yes I have climbed E7 (not willy waving just showing that this is no longer cutting edge in Trad climbing)

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

Don't read it then.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: When did he say that it would not be revealed? ( think i missed that)

Surely the only way to resolve the issue is to have the aforementioned 'evidence' revealed either to prove that;

Rich Simpson is bullshitting or Ben Heason has been bullshitting.

In reply to Richard Bradley:


You're wrong. Every new post that offers no evidence is useful to the OP. He clearly neither expects nor wants evidence to contradict his stated certainty, as I stated above. You may have made the same mistake as several others above, that of thinking that the OP is genuinely asking for witnesses. How can he think witnesses might exist, and be certain that they do not at the same time?

In reply to Oli:

slight mistake. It was on the ukb thread i think though you wont be able to check. If i remember corectly he said that he had evidence that BH had not done what he had claimed and that he would let everyone know later but he was giving BH fair time to respond. He also said that he had given BH teh proof he had to be fair, and that he had done the same in the past but not received a 'satisfactory' response. Correct me if i'm wrnog and i'll retract that though.
p

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

It's obviously not just the thread I don't want to see. It's an otherwise great forum being brought down to the level of slanderers. Not reading the thread won't change that will it.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: "It's an otherwise great forum being brought down to the level of slanderers"

Come on, while UKC is good, it's always been about slander.

We've had men convicted of murder on here because they look guilty.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel:

Dear Hotbad

I know what you said in that post, however, it was not that post I was quoting from, and I was not referring to Richard.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

ok, confused now anyway.
p

In reply to Iain Ridgway: UKC has been about good cheer, and although there have been a few scrapes between members along the way - no one has set out to cause trouble that transcends into the 'real world'.

In reply to Hotbad Peteel: Yes, i believe he said that he would give it to BH then 'release' it publicly.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: You claim that UKC is this and it's that but how would you know really? How long have you actually been posting here, a week?

In reply to bobdog4: Might be helpful to the cause if you didn't call people dickheads while asking them to keep the thread free of rants. This thread has already descended several times into the nether depths of abuse and name calling, and a bit of reason and civility might be rather more useful than more of the same.

In reply to Redpoint Tokay:

Chav free? I have responded to your stupid posts with sensible answers. How can you ascertain from my writing that I am a chav? On the otherhand I have figured out that you have not read the posts, understood some posts and have no clue what you are talking about. Hence why I called you a dick head. Please don't bother to explain your answer as I don't give a shit

In response to Steve Parker... "If the OP genuinely has proof, as he has stated elsewhere, why is he now seeking disproof? Does he doubt his proof, or does he just want to engage the attention of the climbing community? As he has plainly stated that he is 'certain' that BH has not done some of his claimed ascents, how can he also believe that there might be proof that BH actually did them, or at least proof of a convincing track record? Certainty is certainty, and you don't have it at the same time as entertaining the possibility of uncertainty."

Just because RS has asked for additional evidence, this does not mean that the evidence he has already is false or in question. He is just asking for FURTHER evidence of other ascents that may be ficticious.

To refresh everyone's memories, this is the original post.

"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."

In reply to All:

I thought that this was a good point (If slightly veiled by mania - no offence, Mr O'Conor!), and one that I thought had been suprisingly ignored by nearly all posters. This fellow seems better placed than most to understand the effects of mud slinging. I would save gossip mongering and fish-wifery for talking about trivial, unimportant stuff - like E0 and how hard 3 pebble slab is. These threads could cause severe damage to certain people's lives. I don't think that this is the right place for this discussion. Can someone give Ben's phone number to Richard and let them sort it out like men?

It would do us all a favour.

In reply to Steve Parker: No, I've not made that mistake. I read the OP's post on UKB and know where he is coming from. He is certain that BH has lied and believes that lack of back up for BH on here will back up his case. He is wrong of course.

In reply to bobdog5:

Well said.

Rich has given Ben and his climbing partners the opportunity to end a lot of corrosive gossip and specualtion by simply saying who belayed him on a few of his more notable ascents.

I don't see any good reason why he doesn't do that.

In reply to Fishtrumpet:

I think you will find that Rich has spoken to him in person and found his reponse unsatifactory.

What would be a better way than the internet to find a single person who has witnessed BH climb E8 or above? There is more to lose by putting your name forward as someone who has NOT seen BH do the routes he has claimed compared with "I woz at the crag with Ben and he shot up an E10". What would a belayer or a friend have to lose?

Rich Simpson and James Pearson probably have more to lose if they are the ones found to be shit stirring. This forum is a waste of time in regards to people corroborating BH ascents. However it is great for tangents, missing the point and idiots not bothering to read the whole thread.

Goodnight and goodbye xxx

In reply to bobdog5:
No he's not. He asked if anyone had seen Ben climb anything of 'upper difficulty.' If anyone had seen such an ascent, that would support Ben and not Richard. Ergo, he's in fact asking for disproof of his own certainty. Except that that clearly isn't the reason for the thread. This thread is making a point, and it's the opposite of what it seems. If he was asking for further evidence of fictitious ascents, he would be asking has anyone seen BH fail on routes of 'upper difficulty.' Get your logic sorted.

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Good, at least someone has got it. I also read the OP's post on UKB, which is why I made it clear earlier that he isn't asking for evidence, but rather lack of. I have no other opinion on the matter in the absence of evidence, and a thousand non-evidential posts on UKC won't give me an opinion.

I thought that my logic was right. Thanks for pointing that out Steve, you have added so much to this thread

Rich says that he is convinced that he know that BH is lying, but not about EVERY ascent. How could he?

Check your logic computer boy

In reply to nhdasdghags: Er, oh, okay. Cheers. Should I stoop to your level here? No, don't think I will, whoever you are. Have a good life.

In reply to nhdasdghags: All he has to proove is that BH lied about some of his ascents. Where is that proof?

In reply to bobdoggy:
I've read this thread, the other thread and the whole of the ukb thread and I still doubt the validity of using these forums to instigate what amounts to a witch hunt. To be perfectly honest with you, I think that it is a disgrace. I think that you should be ashamed of yourself for your part in it. This is bullying - no more, no less. If there is any truth in these allegations it should be sorted out in person between the two parties, in court (Although what would the charges be?) or with Heason's sponsors. Coming online and providing no PROOF (as RS has done - although much respect to the strong mutha for his own efforts) and fishing for naughties about BH is a damning indictment of the grounds for his initial accusations. I'm still waiting to be convinced that his accusations have any groundings - and a top-rope around the corner on EOTA and some unseen solos are not concrete proof of all of the accusations (fishy, but not enough to hang someone over). I am happy to discuss the issue with you, even though you seem to be in possession of a greater understanding of the facts than myself (HA!), but until you are ready to come out with real evidence to sentence this poor lad to shame and ruin I would feel reluctant to engage with your purile ramblings.

I'd hate for the whole internet climbing community to jump on an unholy bandwagon, its only mission to defame the reputation of an inoccent man. This whole thing may well come down to being a clash of personalities, or a jealous slander. I hope not - I think the RS is an inspiration, but then I think the same of Steve Dunnings, John Gaskins and John Dunne who have all had similar accusations leveled at them.

Good night, and may the god of grit bless.

A small point: I though that staged photos were extremely common and usually acknowledged. There's a big difference between staging a photo and inventing an ascent.

In reply to nhdasdghags:


On the original ukb thread he said that he had proof that BH had not climbed several routes that he had claimed - I'm still waiting to see that proof. He may have outed BH in later posts, but I didn't see them. Did anyone? If you did, could you post them here - just to inform debate?

Hi

In reply to Fishtrumpet:

Well said. The whole deal smacks of doubletalk and manipulation, and is at the very least undignified and utterly unwholesome. If there is evidence (of a negative!), then the whole thing could have been conducted rather more wisely and quietly, with the findings publicised when they were established, if that was seen as necessary.

No one has done themselves any favours by getting this one going in public, and it all feels a little Prima Donna sports personality neurosis.

One hell of a study in mindset, however.

In reply to Steve Parker:


I agree entirely with this, however there seems to be no way back now. The best course of action seems to be to get the 'findings' publicised asap.

Makes you wonder if those awful campaigns against John Dunne (for example) would have been done like this if we'd all been online back then. As Oli and many others have said, if there is evidence, then get it out. Seems the only way to redeem a thoroughly bad job.

In reply to Steve Parker etc:

You may be right but unless you have anything informative to contribute it might be an idea at least to respect the OP for the time being: 'Please keep this post free of rants and uninformed information.' It probably wouldn't have crossed over to here anyway without Mick's 'timely' link.

In reply to Witkacy:

No one has got anything informative to contribute. That was the point of the thread, as far as I can ascertain. I'm certainly not ranting, I have merely tried to dissuade a few others from indulging in excesses. Wait for this to hit the fan tomorrow!

In reply to Steve Parker:

In the fan

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Hey Mick, what did you make of this:

So back at the base hanging out under Fred he <Michael Reardon> commences to tell us how he just got back from the Brittish Isles claiming to have on-sighted, solo of course, all the Brits "headpoint" test piece routes claiming them as lite and the brits as weak!!

Must be true, huh?

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=123220#msg123822

In reply to all:
I dispair at this thread. I was going to repost some selected messages from UKB to reinstate some actual substance to this thread which has degenerated into repeated irrelevent bulls$%t posted by the uninformed and obviously illiterate few. However, they have been deleted from my history. If anyone has them (best the actual posters themselves) maybe they could post them - the most relevant ones are

- the original discussion on the potential bias of magazines which suggested there were rumours about BH

- simon panton then asking to stop spreading rumour or give name and evidence

- rich simpson stepping forward to put his name and suggesting he had/was collecting evidence

- the various posts about the sheffield scene and the long standing rumours which RS is trying to end one way or another some have been mentioned or reposted here by keith bradbery and keeg (nik at work)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157884#2243837
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=157844#2242895
Grimers post was also good but the UKB thread was pulled (would he re-post it?)

Had the few read (not skim-read) all the posts on this subject (I had a lot of spare time waiting for something at work this weekend) then they might actually have something constructive to say or at least understand the reasons behind this.

This especially applies to those who are going to read this in the next hours and have little idea of the original context (as they have been deleted on UKB) but will none the less have extensive informed opinion and arguments to share with everyone just adding to this mess.

As for settling whether these routes were done or not I think the accusers maybe need to provide a list of these unwitnessed ascents + dates so people can come forward.

Also fact should be stuck to as it does not help the case by saying there is NO evidence when the following seems to be documented.
Final destination E8 6c, witness + first ascent photo
E7 6a/b pitch (onsight) - angel falls with john arran.

Having said that it is clear there is basis for rumours on the following-
EOTA, KOHD, drummond base, 8a/8b solo in Thailand, others???

I think the real shame is that the original rumour spreaders from the sheffield scene who appear to climb with BH now lack the balls to stand by the comments and allegations they made which resulted in rich simpson (an outsider to the original rumours) come out to seek the truth in such a public and messy way. Hopefully they will at least be able to confront BH direct if not publically.

BTW - objections to my mild insults and any spelling errors please email direct to spam@hotmail.com to save everyone else the bother.

In reply to Matt:

Morning Matt, You may be able to find the thread in your history if you go to the link on this thread and then disconnect from the net then copy the link into find on your computer. That is if you havve not automaticly cleared your cache.

If not mail me and I will see if I can find it.

Save this thread too now, you can update later.

In reply to Matt: a pretty good attempt but RS stepped forward to call BH a liar and stated that he had evidence.

In reply to tobyfk:

Interestingly, Ben Heason gets a mention on Mike Reardons web site:

http://www.freesoloist.com/

Look under "Legends"

In reply to R Simpson:


Who's Ben Heason?

Anyway who cares, everyone knows Big Ron is the UK's best climber............

In reply to Steve Parker:

The Dunne campaign is a good comparison. Dawes 'just knew' that Dunne couldn't have climbed Partheon shot and that opinion was given a lot of credence. When Dave Simmonite (sp?) vouched for Dunne, he was dismissed as just a Dunne acolyte (and therefore a liar).
On the other hand, it is a bit damming if no-one can vouch for ANY of BHs hard ascents. Everyone knew Dunne was a top level climber and there was lots of evidence for it, the question with BH seems to be that there is NO evidence from ANYONE of BH climbing anything over E7. It is valid to draw conclusions from this, surely?

In reply to wert2:
Please read the thread if you are going to comment. Not to be pedantic, but there have been people backing up the Angel Falls ascent and also Final Destination given E8 6C at the Roaches (the latter i witnessed, as did a few others who will no doubt have already told Rich this). These are above E7, n'est ce pas, and so there is not NO evidence, as you stated. I don't believe that these routes are under scrutiny anyway, but they are evidence of Ben climbing above E7, so please get it right if you are going to add your opinion. Thank you.
Laura Hudson (as it says at the top)

In reply to Laura Hudson: Just to be pedantic, Angel Falls was given E7, which is not above E7.

In reply to graeme alderson: aye but he onsighted it, suggesting he can headpoint a lot harder than E7

In reply to tobyfk:

I thought he just visited Ireland. Isn't there an article on the Shortspan about his trip?

I take most things whether in print or online (or live and in the flesh) with a pinch of salt, unless I really trust the source.....and then I'd need several sources.

Mick

In reply to wert2:

You can't really draw a conclusion from lack of evidence, though I agree that it is suggestive, especially the apparent lack of belayers for routes supposedly led, rather than soloed. Personally, I sincerely hope someone does come forward to vouch for BH, as it must all be pretty unpleasant for him, especially if he's the real deal.

If he has lied, then it still all seems like a pretty ugly way to deal with it to me. It rather smacks of the US trial by press and public opinion, rather than the more dignified and discreet processes we are used to in the UK. Pretty powerful thing, the internet, maybe a little too powerful.

In reply to GDes: I was just being a pedant pointing out that E7 is not greater than E7

In reply to Steve Parker:


Fair enough.
Lets abstract a bit shall we. Lets say that someone has a source of income which is dependent upon their achievements. Further, that income is available because those achievements are vicariously enjoyed and admired by many and, therefore, the tools used to make those achievements are purchased by a subset of the many.

In such a case, were such a case to exist m'lud, then proof of those achievements would seem to be a pre-requisite. The extraordinary thing would be if someone reaped financial benefits without any concrete proof of achievement. That would beggar belief, surely?

Seems to me that regardless of BHs innocence or guilt (ok, evidence of one E8. It aint E9 or E10 though is it!), RS has a valid case concerning the actions of certain UK mags which, apparently, big upped BH without proof.

In reply to no one in particular:

I can't help feeling that all this is some sort of elaborate troll and the climbers in question are sitting pissing themselves at the vast quantities of uninformed bullshit contained in these threads.

In reply to Craig_M:


Well that's what I am hoping.

In reply to Steve Parker:

Spot on!

as said before on all the other threads,this is not a recent thing doubting his claims.people have questioned it for a while.its when he gets big money for it it becomes more important.rich and james are perfectly in there rights to ask for proof.there is evidence out there,people have seen him climb and its not like a f8b/e10 climber.o.k we all have off days but an off day to an f8b climber is still a hard day out.a couple of his ascents could well have been alone but unless you are a billy no mates somebody will be with you on at least a few of them.he has been seen toproping routes to later claim as onsights.
i am personaly not bothered,as i am not a top flight climber.but i dont like lying,as i dont lie about stuff i've done. but when money is taken from others who deserve it its not right.maybe he could top rope flash most of these routes.that would shut people up.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Here it is http://www.theshortspan.com/features/michaelreardon.htm

In reply to Dave Flanagan:

Thanks Dave.

In reply to mark1234:

Id just like to point out that nobody in climbing makes Big Money just for climbing and in a lot of cases the deals people are on are just for Free Kit and small amounts of cash.

As far as this post is concerned if those sponsors are concerned that a climber has been lieing they should discuss it with the relevant individual.

As far as the truth it will come out in time , however is this post doing anyone any favors ? No . Maybe I am being unfair but this is a subject best delt with privately for 2 reasons :
1 If these allegations are wrong irreperable damage to an individuals reputation and career may occur.
2 90% of the people posting here are Clueless Fu**ers debating things they have little or no inside information on as steve parker said " Pretty powerful thing, the internet, maybe a little too powerful".

In reply to graeme alderson: fair enough point, but i just reckon that if you can onsight E7 in a situation like that you'll probably mince up most grit E9's, and silence your critics.

In reply to GDes:


so are you calling him gay now too? actually come to think of it I have never seen any video evidence to state otherwise.

rw

In reply to j perry:

Yeah, but Steve Parker is just another Clueless F*cker, what does he know!
Seriously, that's just a rhetorical device, backed up by nothing. The internet allows forums like this to exist. The power of this forum, populated by Clueless F*ckers, is debatable. BH has been caught up in a cluster f*ck but that's just unfortunate, it isn't an example of the internets maybe-too-much power. Or is Steve recommending a less powerful Internet, where...well,what? The weakness of the argument is demonstrated by the absence of alternatives (if I may offer my own rhetorical device).

In reply to wert4:

no my argument is that for these guys they are in effect in business for themselves, and all they have is their brand (based on there claimed achievements), and a lot of people with no real concrete information are damaging that career by talking about what is conjecture .

No one has posted i was there and didn't see him do it or I was there and i did see him do it .

The alternative is the key individuals get round a table and sort it out especially as they all live within @ 25 miles of one another

Also i think with (a few exceptions in one case due to line of work), if youve got any balls stand up and be counted and post under your name and then even though your argument is Bollocks ill have some respect for you

In reply to mark1234:

surely its the people or companies who are paying these climbers who need to really worry about whether they have suceeded in their achievements or not, rather than us?

When I climbed my new line 'Tropopause' E7-7a, I didn't have a belayer as such. That is, not one who is credible in the climbing world since he isnt a climber in the sense we mean it, but the fella belayed nonetheless. He is a good trawler fisherman who goes on the Guga hunt & free climbs Sula Sgeir in the cull. Does that make my ascent any less credible becuase it wasn't Vickers, MacLeod or someone part of 'the scene' holding the rope? The same for some hard bouldering I've done - but not all. It's also true to say, that when you climb, & more so in international circles, you can hook up & travel with a fella for a week or two, be at a crag, get belayed, & years later have lost touch with him. When people start shouting for evidence you're stumped becuase you wouldn't have a scooby where to find your accomplice. You might only remember he was called Juan, & came from Spain...so what, big deal.

'Oh that's convenient' is their cry
'No, actually boy, that's decidedly inconvenient since you will childishly see that as fuel for a fire with no real flame...' is the only retort. 'feck off ya little arse'

These sort of incidents don't mean the lines havn't been climbed, whoever it may be.

I'm not gunning for Ben here, or Rich, but merely trying to point out that not everything in climbing is so fastidiously planned & set in concrete. If we are not careful in this sport, we will soon have an employed team of forensic 'scenes of crime' staff abbing down hard lines, taking swabs from holds, & doing d.n.a matches on the person who's just claimed an ascent of an E8, to see if they did indeed touch that hold. Trust seems a rarety these days - couple that with the internet & the sport opening up to just about anyone & his dog who feels they are an expert on everything under the known universe becuase they top-rope at a wall on a Sunday afternoon, & we're playing with matches...We could go back & discuss who really got to the top of Qomolangma first? Did the Slovenian team ever get anywhere near? Wether Fred Roughling has climbed 'Akira'? Chad Kellogg's Denalli speed ascents & so on...

The focus is all wrong these days & were shifting into demanding mpegs of everything, signed confessions, photographic sequences & discounting that the foundations of climbing were born in a time when someones word was enough...Pile of pish.

As an aside, in the years I wrote for O.T.E doing area reports, I would have occasional 'flights of fancy' land in my email, & after a wee bit of research, find they were indeed a complete fabrication. Nonetheless I didn't run to ANY forum & publically berate the persons whos claims had been discounted. I merely ignored them & continued with the job at hand. I could have easily done otherwise, & still could in fact. But I don't, even though I have evidence.

People are forgetting that Ben also runs a lot of good events for others & climbs at a solid level. You can - as I did when sent false claims - either forgive a dreamer for that which he dreams he had done & focus on what he has achieved, or embark on a course of loathing for all humanity, call the world a lier & scream outrage at the top of your lungs.

It's all about the genuiness of your intention or wether you indeed are lying right now, in the tiniest way, & fishing for effect.

Maybe I'm just an optomist living in hope...

In reply to Si O'Conor: Not sure if you are confusing Matt Heason with Ben Heason when you say "People are forgetting that Ben also runs a lot of good events for others"

In reply to R Simpson:

And if I'm correctPete Livesey on his ascent of Footless Crow collared somebody who'd never held a rope to hold his ropes. fact or fiction?

In reply to j perry:

I think this is the crux of the issue. Forums like this are in large part made up of people bored at work. When a thread like this starts then a large number of the posts are from people who don't really give a toss but like a bit of gossip (and I should know...). This might look appalling to anyone directly involved, but it needs to be borne in mind that the 90% Clueless F*ckers really don't care either way, beyond enjoying a good argument. This obviously does BH no favours, but I doubt it does him any harm. And a couple of witnessed E9 repeats would erase any small harm it has done...
On a serious note, Steve Parker, is 100% correct (and therefore no fun at all) when he says that rockfax most definitely isn't the place to have these sort of serious investigations. Fun though they are for us Clueless F*ckers!

In reply to wert4:

I'm not going to lower myself to retaliating to your abuse. Suffice to say that there are plenty of alternative ways of dealing with an issue like this, without using public forums until guilt or innocence has been established beyond doubt. I'm not advocating absurdities like 'a less powerful internet,' I'm advocating a little more discretion until the facts have been made known.

In reply to j perry:
i might be mistaken but aren't there people who claim to have seen bh toproping lines that he subsequently claims the onsight for?

In reply to Steve Parker:

what abuse? Disagreeing? Daring to label your rhetorical device a rhetorical device?

In reply to Si O'Conor:

I disagree with you Si. No disrespect of course.

In most cases proof doesn't matter. But if a climber is claiming cutting edge routes or repeats and stands to make money, either through sponsorship, slide shows, articles or whatever, they better have good proof whether it be videos or credible climbing witnesses, multiple witnesses if possible. A good track record of performing in front of your peers also helps. A one off un-proved ascent maybe OK, but if there are multiple cutting edge ascents and no proof I'm sorry, expect doubt.

There is more at stake these days, less rock, more climbers, a slightly bigger pot of money, and more talented climbers. The old ways are no more and I think that is a good thing. The problem is the climbing media has not yet moved forward (including UKClimbing.com). One of the problems is how ascents are reported, at complete face value by the media. It is difficult to check everything but all it takes is a few telephone calls. Then there is the language used as if everything was set in stone when really routes are claimed and grades are offered.

The internet is a cutting edge sword in all this and is not to be dismissed lightly. Reading the forums over the last few days, amongst the uniformed, is also a lot of valid points and questions that really do need to be addressed.

In the past it was the magazines and cliques who had centralised power, now it is more dispersed. I think that is a good thing, but also it has its seedier dark side. Hopefully we all gain the wisdom to sort out the good from the bad, the bullshit from the sage.

Mick

In reply to Tobias at Home:

I dont know , but my point is :
Were you there?
Were they there?

I think it is wrong to recycle hear say of which you have no quality control over.

It is up to the people who were there on both sides to standup and say what happened preferably offline.

So to summerise, Tobias if you were there Stand up and talk about what you saw and if you wernt keep out of it.

In reply to Tobias at Home:

Same with Gary Gibson.

Dear Rich,

I've rubber-necked the online carnage you created with interest.


I'd assume Bens friends and aquaintances would do no such thing out of respect for the man's privacy, a feud like this is his and your business alone. Most bystanders won't have recognised Ben either or have taken note of which route he was on at the time, we don't all live in the the world you sponsored climbers inhabit. Of course you may then decide this lack of response supports your premise. It won't.

If Ben has faked ascents you will have to do much better than you have done so far to 'prove it' and you've rather blown any chance of surrepticious digging now. Unless you already have an incriminating dossier this whole internet thing wasn't very smart was it? However a confrontational approach is a young man's game. I doubt it'll get you anywhere though?

I think it's of note that Ben's been doing this longer than you. Not that this has any bearing on ability, just that he has had years to be caught out if there was something in his character to encourage him to fake. Also he works regularly with too many top climbers who I assume would form their own opinions of his credibility. They will all probably be too wise to involve themselves in this spat or to make damning statements, but would they all continue to associate or work with him? I'd suspect not.

You need to do so much more than you are doing if there is something rotten. I have met a few investigative journalists and believe me if you want to stay at the cutting edge I doubt you'd have time? So my advice is to withdraw all this, simply say you are 'suspicious' when asked about Ben and get on with your own stuff.

My 2p worth anyway.

In reply to The Crow:

The best reply is always Lydia Bradey's. 'I didn't do it for you. I did it for me. So f*ck off.'

(I paraphrase, but not much.)

And then IIRC a witness did come forward and vindicate her.

jcm

In reply to The Crow:

Folk seem to expect that evidence will at some point be produced to settle this either way.

This isn't going to happen.

Ben freely admits he did the climbs alone with no witnesses.
A proportion of folk he has climbed with state that they do not believe he is capable of them. Its now up to Ben to either prove himself, or other similarly informed folk to come forward and state that they believe he is capable. Either way the debate will be based on opinion rather than 'proof'.

Its a shame the UKB thread was removed, I would have been interested to read Sloper's legal take on this...

In reply to anyone:

this harness under the trousers business - how does it work then? do you have to unzip your flies to tie-in? all sounds like a lot of hassle to me.

No it's not. If I were him and had definitely climbed the routes (alone) I'd not even give the subject the time of day. Neither would I re-work a project to prove a point.

Based on what? Gut feeling? Competition results - (Ben admits he's crap (relatively) at competition/indoor stuff)?

Exactly. Which is why I think Richard's witch hunt is a waste of time. He hasn't simply voiced his opinion he's decided to attempt to prove his opinion. Badly. I suspect he'll regret all this in a few years time.

In reply to Adam L:

If I remember correctly, Richard Simpson has stated that he has evidence and that it will be produced.

Having said that, I agree entirely with your post, and my agreeing with you despite the above is the same paradox that runs through this whole affair.

In reply to all:
well 200 posts, and it seems to be exactly at the same point as where it started, no one really has a clue what is going on or anything. Let just hope it gets sorted out pronto and this acusing buisness can stop.,

In reply to Adam L: When this does come to an end, sooner rather than later for both these guys sakes. I wonder if legal action will be a possability. Even if the OP's intentions weren't to put a cloud over BH's cababilities and in a big way personality, it most certainly has. This is just from the threads on the net. If he turns up and for instance can proove or redoes some of the routes claimed. It will do BH's future the world of good and I would think the magazines would be queueing for interviews with him about what has been going on and said about him over this period. As for the OP, he should realy hope that noone comes forward and he doesn't redo any of the routes as although he himself doesn't seem to have said alot he has paved the way on a site that is renowned for thrashing. It is giving lots of people who know nout about nout to get at the poor bloke before he's had a chance to come out of his corner. If he's trying to find his belayer he could be months looking for him and alot of shit has been multiplied by using the net on a matter that should have been kept to the sheffield mob (who know the guy)for now. This is a realy ugly thread with no answers but lots of posts.

In reply to Steve Parker:


Yeah right? You don't accuse someone when you have incontrovertable evidence and only produce it later. You broadside them with it. His evidence was certainly not 'proof' at the time he 1st posted.

If Ben was to repeat the routes or was backed-up in enough cases this could effect Richard's career as a climber and he's only 21. Many firms will only sponsor a liability (with ego tantrums who could implicate them in a legal mess) if they are the very best. They sponsor safer top-runners though for regular exposure at minimal risk. (I suppose for some there is no such thing as bad publicity?)

Someone should have advised Richard against this.

In reply to The Crow:

Couldn't agree more. I said all this above. If you have proof, and are 'certain,' both of which he has stated, you don't go asking for disproof, which suggests the possibility of uncertainty. You can't be certain and uncertain at the same time. This thread was a statement designed to make a point, not a request for witnesses.

This is all getting a bit cyclic, however, and it seems like a lot of time has passed since the original accusation was made, without any evidence being made public. Let's hope the OP has gone down the more dignified route of following it up privately. If he's proved right, there will be ample time to make it public afterwards.

In reply to Steve Parker: To be certain of something, implies that to the best of your knowledge, up to that point in time, you believe that idea or theory more than any other. Certainty is certainly not definitive. I've studied a bit of science and epistimology, and so know that in this case, Rich was and still is certain that Ben has lied about certain events. However, in order for a theory to be valid it needs to be falsifiable, as the great Karl Popper wrote. Rich has proposed this theory, and wants it to be falsified. If it can not be falsified then it serves to support the original statement. If it is falsified then we are left in an altogether better position where there is more truth than there was previously. This is the case in this thread. We have a theory that someone is as certain as they can be of, and we are asking for the theory to be falsified. So far that has not happened, but it could VERY easily happen.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single genuine counter-instance is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false.

that sums this up to be honest. All Rich is asking for is one (or preferably many) witnesses/belayers to come forward and say what they saw.

(note that my views on what Rich thinks are my own and not his, just thought I'd add this in case people wanted to use my words as his)

In reply to Keith Bradbury: Jesus, how long did it take you to come up with that load of boylocks!?!

On a lighter note, I have giggled several times tiday at the thought of JP's post that 'the chalk marks on climbX were not visible after it went dark'. Fantastic!

By the way, several folk have been along and said they witnessed the E8 at the Roaches. Do we need two genuine counter instances.

ps sorry but I'm bored. Wife's watching I'm a cerery get me out....

In reply to Steve Parker:

I’m not convinced by your ‘moral’ stance. We all know it’s a widespread human foible to cheat if the opportunity presents itself (we don’t take athletes at their word, even lovable ones – to the point their bloodstreams are regularly inspected). Any human endeavour where cheating becomes the norm quickly descends into farce. So if you feel convinced someone is cheating surely the moral thing is to blow the whistle? And if you prefer to do stuff on our own in private that's great but then why try to make a splash about it?

In reply to Marts: Point of order m'lud. Exactly how do you re-on-sight a route or a problem?

In reply to Keith Bradbury:

So have I.


If you're going to invoke Popper, lets do it right. The standing theory that is accepted is that Mr Heason has onsighted E9 and done E10 or whatever it is. It is Mr Simpson who believes that this is falsifiable - which is logically correct, but so far he has done little to prove this beyond say "everyone in Sheffield knows..." (Just an aside: according to my source in the Sheffield scene a few years back "everyone knew" that two leading climber were having sex together but didn't want it known as they thought the climbing world was homophobic - hence my slight scepticism about "everyone in Sheff knowing..."). So Mr Simpson has made a falsification claim against Mr Heason's "theory". The problem is that he hasn't yet shown it to be false, just claimed that it is.

In effect, Mr Simpson is, until he presents his dossier of evidence to contrary, the climbing world's "intelligent design". They just say "no! its all too complicated for it to have happened by accident. There must be a god who designed it all." This isn't a true falsification claim because it is in itself essentially unproveable. Until we get more than "everyone in Sheffield knows..." the same is true in this case, and logically Mr Heason's position remains unfalsified.

This is, of course, all total bollock as Popper was writing about science, not climbing, but there you go. If you do want to cite Popper in defence of Mr Simpson position, I would have though "The Open Society and its Enemies" would have been the more obvious choice. If we are seduced by claims to greatness, we are on the road to totalitarianism.

In reply to GraemeA at home: Easy if you have my memory. I've lead Sunset crack twice and onsighted it both times! It was only when I went to tick it off in the guide that I realised.

In reply to Richard Bradley: True, I myself have failed to on-sight stuff that I have previously failed to on-sight, I might even have on-sighted stuff successfully on more than 1 occassion.

In reply to Keith Bradbury:

If the 'certainty' rested upon a falsifiable theory, then it should have been presented as such, as is the case with the science and epistemology that you cite. I don't see how someone who has genuinely claimed both certainty (not an as yet unfalsified theory) and the possession of evidence can ask for withesses to the contrary. If he'd said 'it looks like this, but if anyone knows different,' then fair enough. But he has claimed both certainty and the possession of evidence in support of that certainty, and then suggested (through a request for contradiction) that the certainty and evidence might not exist. Logically, that is an untenable contradiction.

In reply to Witkacy:

I don't think I actually have a 'moral stance,' more of an unpleasant taste in my mouth. I'm not even really criticising anyone's approach, as I have been similarly confronational in the past.

The people involved have their own agenda, and I hope that something conclusive results. But this is a public forum, and I feel entitled to comment as I see fit. It may be easier for those not directly involved, and not angry, to comment objectively. Objectivity and proportion may be useful augmentations to this debate. Having said that, it's gone around in the same circle about 6 times now, and is unlikely to move any further without some evidence being presented.

Some people seem to be getting off on the bloodsport, however. And I don't mean you.

In reply to R Simpson: Hi Rich,
Wow, where do I start? I must say that I’m somewhat shocked by all of this. Yes I’m aware of some of the threads about me on the forums. A friend told me about them yesterday but today is the first time I have had the chance to look at it all properly. It sounds like there was plenty more ‘substance’ said on the UKBouldering thread? I’m sorry for those who may feel that I should have replied to this thread sooner but I have a lot to say. A part of me felt like just telling the world to piss off an mind their own business. I know what I’ve done, as do those close to me. But in reality, shying away from all of this is unlikely to me in the long run. If any of what I write here offends then I am sorry. Some of what I say may be deemed as unnecessarily aggressive. I am not attempting to turn the tables, but in order to defend myself some things need to be said.
A note to Bubba and the owners / moderators at UKclimbing:- I am very shocked at all the talk of this matter reaching court, and the possibility of myself attempting to sue for libellous accusations. Whilst I can understand your reasons for caution, please rest assured those kind of actions couldn’t be further from my mind.
Rich, I appreciate your emailing me privately about this earlier today, but after the manner in which it all started I feel I have no choice but to continue this in public so that individuals can make up their own minds. If you have further issues after this then I would appreciate it if we could first try to clear things up in private, but obviously that’s your prerogative.
You claimed that you had broached this subject with me in person but received unsatisfactory answers. We had the discussion (which was primarily a monologue from you) whilst I was sat on the 3rd bolt of an 8a in the Frankenjura in October this year. I was taken aback by your aggressive tone, and as you were clearly not talking sense I didn’t rise to most of what you had to say. Like how “None of your friends believe you”, and “You’ve done nothing” (with direct context to my climbing). The heat of the moment was clearly getting to you. These comments were witnessed by Chris Doyle, and whilst I do not want to drag his name into this I hope he doesn’t mind my mentioning his name in this context.
Over the trip things calmed down somewhat and you and I managed to have slightly more rational discussions, during which you said you hoped that I did something hard this winter, to help clear my name. Amongst other things, I told of my long term desire to try and flash Gaia, or at least to have a good go at climbing it ground up.
Now whilst I still want to do this, I certainly don’t want to feel that I have been put in the position to climb this to prove the validity of my previous ascents. Anyone who has climbed scary routes for themselves will know that to do something dangerous with added pressures is unlikely to help the eventual outcome. So if anyone thinks I’m going to send out invitations when I go and try Gaia, or any other routes for that matter, then they are likely to be disappointed.
As I said, there are still things I want to achieve with my climbing. My priorities with dangerous Gritstone routes lessens with time, as I want to get back into the sort of climbing that got me into the sport in the first place. Whilst I still have a strong urge for several ground up hard grit routes, and some projects, my priorities are changing to more worthy (imho) climbing goals such as the Trango region in Pakistan.
If I do not deliver at a gritstone crag this winter, by performing a daring deed with the correct people watching, then I will have to accept that a certain number of people may therefore not believe my previous ascents. But proving or not proving anything this winter will not directly alter how some people will feel. I don’t want to be marched around by a bunch of folk, seeking out things they want to see me try to re climb, whether with a top rope or without. The vast majority (the others have occurred when I have felt mentally unstable) of my harder routes have occurred during incredibly intensive spells of grit climbing, as in roughly 6 days a week. You need to be a full time climber to be able to do this so you can go out in between the showers etc to grab all the decent climbable weather. This is no longer an option for me at the moment. I am fed up of reaching 30 years old and still owing money to my parents because I’ve earned so little over the past 10 years climbing full time. If I’m not climbing as much on the grit at the moment then perhaps my chances of repeating the hard things I did in the past, and without the added adrenaline and psyche of an actual ascent, would be reduced. Some of the headpoints took me 6 or 7 days to climb and I was doing intensive footwork training on slab boards to strengthen my feet. For some of them I was able to do one arm pull ups. I have not had the time nor motivation for this kind of training recently. And so if I did fail on a route I’d done in the past then what next? Would that give people proof that I am a liar?
Some of you may have seen the Pembroke climbing video “Sea Fever”. I fall off “White Heat” an E5 right at the start of the film. I got so anxious because the cameras were on me and I didn’t perform well. It took Martin Crocker and Carl Ryan over half an hour to convince me to allow them to keep that footage to use in their video. I knew I would find the footage embarrassing. I had on sighted that very same route several years previously!!
And more importantly, I could only be expected to perform these hard things if the conditions were very good, and if I waste the few good days we get by ‘performing’ then how am I expected to try and climb more stuff to help clear my name?
It seems that for some people there will be nothing I can realistically say or do that will change their views on me.

In reply to R Simpson: I am not writing this to say how ‘Lilly white’ and innocent I am, and how everyone who doubts me are monsters for thinking and saying so. I must confess that I too have had my doubts over others achievements in the past. Living in Sheffield it’s hard not to hear things, and to be influenced by gossip. On one hand I do have to stand up and acknowledge that some people may have just cause for doubt over some of my ascents. I am the first to admit that I don’t have reliable witnesses for many of my harder ascents, specifically on the grit. And because of this I have to accept that there may be criticism or doubt. It is a little difficult to understand the exact manner in which this voice has been raised. I have lived in Sheffield for almost 8 years now and probably know most climbers in “the scene”, albeit perhaps not too well. I haven’t climbed with people in “the scene” very often.

There have already been plenty of errors, and ridiculous exaggerations written about me in the threads so far and I feel that I deserve the opportunity to put those right so that people know what really happened. If, after everything has been discussed and cleared up, some people, whether they are people who know me or people who don’t, do not believe some of the ascents I have made then I will feel sad. But we live in a society where people are allowed their own opinions. Whether or not this post will satisfy those of you who doubt me I can’t predict, but I feel that many minds have already been made up. Such is life. And if those who do doubt me are successful in tarnishing my good reputation as a climber, and more importantly as a decent human being then it will be a great shame.
Unfortunately when you enter the public eye you are open to criticisms. Journalism plays a large part in this. Whilst I am not here to slag off any magazines, individually nor collectively, there are errors in the magazines. Lots of them, and not just the climbing magazines. The errors are normally unintentional, but they remain errors and can portray a person in a bad light. I have, seemingly unwisely, not always contacted magazines when they have printed things wrongly about me in the past. This has probably left some people to believe that I have claimed ascents in styles that aren’t right. On this basis, some people may already have a somewhat prejudiced view of me.
I try to be nice to people, whether I’ve met them before or not. Sometimes, for whatever reason, I may come across as rude or unfriendly, as do most people at some stage in their lives. If the average climber meets someone at the crag who upsets them then they may talk about it in the pub later that night, or during their next session down the local wall – “did you see the way that bloke ignored me when I tried to say hello to him, miserable bugger”. Now exchange “that bloke” with “Ben Heason” and the consequences can be very different. I may have had a bad day and given someone a cloudy view of my personality. From that moment on that person may simply ‘not like me’ humans often behave exactly like that. And no-one needs explaining the concept of Chinese Whispers to work out that if you piss off one person then you piss off their mates too. Conversely, fortunately it can work the opposite way, and I’m confident that I have left a positive feeling with significantly more people I’ve met in my life, climbers and non.

The fact that Rich, James and some others think that I have fabricated some ascents in order to earn cash is laughable. Whilst they may have justifiable gripes with the way sponsorship money is allocated in the UK I feel that this is something they should be taking up directly with their sponsors. They certainly have a valid point that “talent should be rewarded”, and Rich and James are without a doubt two of the most talented young climbers in Britain at the moment. I am not in a position to be able to fairly comment on my opinion of their personalities, but I hope their climbing achievements are rewarded by the financial sponsorship they want in recognition of their achievements.
I will shortly be speaking to my sponsors about all of this, and it will be up to them to do whatever they feel is right. I make a very modest amount of money through climbing. I still have to earn money in other ways in order to keep myself fed, and a roof over my head. Even with my extra bits of work I make significantly less per annum than anyone with a proper, full time job, regardless of wage. Anyone who knows me will know that this is utter nonsense.

In reply to R Simpson: • You asked for specifics about who my belayers were for the following routes?

Le Fin E7 6b (Ogwyn). Simon Moore, who brought this route up, knows that I did this route with a tied off rope. I told him nearer the time, so his bringing this up again – as a question - seems a little contrived. The climbing starts in a gully a long way up the side of a cliff. There is no gear on the route and not really a proper belay at the base of the route. I placed some gear, roughly level with the start of the route (a metre or so above), measured out a length of rope and tied the rope off before soloing it with a rope on to stop me from going all the way if I fell. I had spoken to some people about this route (general, not specifics of moves etc) who told me it was probably only E6. I don’t know if I ever claimed this route anywhere publicly so I don’t remember if I graded it E6 or E7.

Critic’s Choice E7 6c (Avon Gorge, not Pembroke). This route is a solo and has two grades in the guidebook - it has 2 bolts, offering a lower grade of E4/5, like many routes on the Sea Walls at Avon. In the previous guide the boltless ascent was given E6 but for some reason the route was upgraded to E7 in the new guide. The 6c crux is right at the beginning, which I managed to ‘bounce’ past because I am very springy. The upper moves are ‘only’6b. I told my “friends” at the time everything I’ve said here. I told them at the time that I had bounced past the crux start and that I thought the route was only worth E6 really. Perhaps I could have reported my ascent as an E6, but I’m not the first, nor will I be the last person to claim the guidebook grade for something.

Boat to Naxos E7 6b (Pembroke). I never said that I had on sighted this route. It was a flash, which as you know makes a huge difference. I had watched Mike Weeks climb the route the previous year, and also Dave Musgrove who followed Mike. I watched very closely, and with great interest, and afterwards spoke to them both about the route. I climbed the route with Robin Williams who had stayed on for a couple of days after the DWS festival.

Boss Hogg E7 6b (Pembroke). I also climbed this route with Robin Williams, but he didn’t follow either of the routes.

Breaking the Habit E7 6c (Pembroke). I didn’t on sight this route. I never told anyone that I had, but if I unintentionally led anyone to believe that I had then I apologise. I tried at least to tell anyone who I felt was close to me, as well as those who I felt could be involved in the media in some way. I abseiled down the line before making a flash ascent. I had looked at the line dozens of times, whenever I had abseiled into Trevallen, really wanting to have a go at it ground up. The landing is awful so I could never summon the necessary to have a go. It’s a difficult route to see the holds and gear from below. I eventually decided that, rather than to never have a go at the route I may as well abseil down and have a look. I placed a crucial rp and touched a few of the holds on abseil. I climbed this route with Frank Weaver who was there with Robin and another friend. Frank didn’t second the route.

Black is Back E7 6b (Pembroke). I think Paul Twomey made the first ascent of this route? I spoke to Barry Durston about the route (I’m pretty sure he may have seconded Paul, but he’d certainly been on the route) who told me that the gear was essentially worthless and that you’d be just as well off soloing it. Like “Critics Choice” I thought E6 was probably a fairer reflection of the grade.

Shoot me down for choosing lots of soft touch grades.

Last summer I had no idea to the extent of some people’s doubts of me, because they never said anything to me, despite seeing me on a very regular basis. If they had done, then perhaps some of this could have been very easily avoided. I didn’t realise at the time that I should have taken DNA samples of the people I met in the campsite. The three guys I met on the campsite were nice enough, friendly folk, but they didn’t feel like bosom buddies that I felt I needed to keep in touch with. Much like so many climbers I’ve met and climbed with all around the world. Sure you may meet again, in which case you’ll recognise each other and have a chat about what you’ve been up to – that’s one of the richest things in climbing. I hoped and expected to do some more E7 on sight’s before the season ended, preferably with some good friends, but unfortunately I didn’t have the opportunity to climb at Pembroke again after mid July (apart from during a week of work).

I spent about 6 weeks in Pembroke last summer and was climbing very well. I was hoping to be there with a friend for a long time, but he seriously injured his shoulder so couldn’t make it down. I struggled to find many other regular climbing partners but was adamant that I was going to spend the majority of my summer climbing in Pembroke. I wanted to climb hard. I prefer that style of climbing and I wanted to prove to myself that I could climb hard in that style. I spent 6 weeks sleeping in the front seat of my Rover hatchback. Although I was already climbing well, over the first 5 days I on sighted nothing harder than E5. Then, climbing with a very good friend (Guy Hembury) I cruised a couple of E6’s on sight, both in an afternoon. Unfortunately I had to go to Bristol for a couple of days but when I returned I was raring to go. On my next day back at Pembroke, once again I was without a climbing partner. Luckily I managed to persuade Lucy Creamer to give me a quick belay on Ghost Train. I know that most who have done this route think it’s a soft E7, as do I, but I found it extremely easy and gained a lot of confidence from it. Unfortunately over the next few weeks I continued to struggle for regular climbing partners and I felt aggrieved at the routes that had escaped me whilst I was climbing well.

I did not directly attempt to publish any of the above ascents on the web nor in the mags. Some people found out about them so a small mention was made in one or more of the magazines. Despite getting some pretty decent photos from the actual ascent of Ghost Train, the photos have never been published. I could have probably got the photos published somewhere along the lines had I wanted to publicise my ascents.
The British way is very clear. We like the underdog. We like those who are less fortunate. We like those who are bashful. We like those who shy away from the limelight, taking any plaudits begrudgingly. Whilst I can empathise with this, feeling the similar way as I do, surely making a few quid and getting your photos in the magazines when you climb some hard bits of rock shouldn’t be frowned upon that harshly.

In reply to Steve Parker:

Why is this thread here? It's kind of ugly. One minute we're all saying, eek, someone's done a huge grade, all quietly.
Respect.

The next minute, the achievement isn't enough. The huge grade isn't enough: all the attention is pointed at someone else who hasn't started a discussion on this forum. And there's abstraction piled on abstraction. Speculation on speculation.

I'm not criticising, but I don't get it. I can't compare it to any other world that I know even a little bit about.

There's nothing that we can add, mere readers of the post. There's nothing that we know, from the evidence of our senses. We weren't 'there.'

This all passes.

In reply to R Simpson: • I’d like to directly address those people whom I know personally, who have made accusations towards me.

James Pearson wrote in a post on UKclimbing.
I do not have any solid proof, yet. All I can give you are the reasons for my feelings:
1) The vast majority of Bens claims are un-witnessed or have some other questionable details. Now I know that from time to time, people will do impressive things when they are alone, and that is fine, but when it is practically every major ascent, you start to wonder.
2) Whenever I have climbed with Ben, his ability, in my opinion, has been to low to have done the things he says he has done. I know people have bad days, but I have spent over 3 months climbing with him and almost every ascent he made was on his own.
3) The misleading staged photos (Soloing End Of The Affair for example, wearing a harness under his trousers and a rope round the corner) and edited videos (a boulder problem traverse in America, edited together in ~5 or 6! parts, having claimed to have done it, on his own, a few days before) do nothing but fool people in to thinking he has proof for his ascents.
4) Friends who I trust, telling me they have watched him pull on gear and then claim routes, practice something and claim an on-sight etc.

In answer to point 1 - I don’t often climb with other people, particularly on the grit because it’s so easy to be more productive on your own, and because I don’t have many close friends who do the same things as me. I can be a selfish, uncompromising climber at times. Sometimes this upsets people. I prefer not to upset people.
I don’t normally like being in big groups, whether climbing or not. If I work a route with other people then I invariably get cold in between attempts and don’t like to be forced to feel selfish by asking them not to have a go. I like to be able to be in the position to be able to make my own decisions, as and when I want to. If I feel ready to go for a route then I want to go for it.
I do not find that having people around me is conducive to climbing bold routes. People don’t know what to do or say, and so often you can feel intense negative vibes coming from bystanders and onlookers. This is not good for me before setting off on a bold route.
Simon Moore once said to me “Bloody hell mate, I don’t want to be around when you solo that!”, referring to Knockin on Heaven’s Door. Despite going out and doing bold routes himself, and belaying / watching some of his mates climbing bold things, I never received good vibes from him nor others wanting to come out climbing with me when I was doing bold stuff. It suited me too. Some climbers may find what I’m saying utterly ludicrous as they love going out in a big gang. To them all I say is, everyone is different.

I climb a greater variety of different rock types and climbing styles than most people which means that my relative performance in each facet probably varies more than most peoples. Some may feel that I’m simply making excuses for myself performing below par, but most will understand where I’m coming from. Sure, don’t criticize someone for specialising, but don’t criticise someone for trying to be an all-rounder either.
People climb for very different reasons and just because you may not understand or care about my motivations behind the routes that I have done does not give you the right to publicly deface my achievements. The routes that I have done have been very personal experiences, and they are not the sort of thing that I find easy to express, and share with my family and my closest friends, let alone the general and anonymous public. None of them have ever really asked me to talk about them in any great detail, and that’s the way I like it. I have had times of depression in my life, and I think I’d be wrong if I said that these hadn’t affected me at times. It is not easy to admit to something such as this.

In answer to point number 2 - You haven’t spent over 3 months climbing with me. You spent just over a week with me in Ireland last year - during which I climbed for just 5 days of the trip. I agree that I far from set the place alight. On the first day I on sighted an E5 as the rain came in to stop play. The second day I flashed an E6. The 4th day I made the second (apparently?) ascent of an E6 – ground up, second attempt. The 5th day I fell off an E5 first go because my arms were bolloxed from all the steep climbing, (particularly from the strains I’d picked up in my arms from my attempts at the on sight attempt of the E6 the previous day). I did the route next attempt. Whilst it was obvious, even during that trip, that you had personal ‘issues’ (from what I’ve been told you’ve had a problem with me ever since we exchanged a few emails about Knockin, when my aggressive opinions angered you. I still have those emails and still don’t see the aggression, passion maybe?) with me I wouldn’t say that I did absolutely nothing on that trip. I was unbelievably keen to climb more during that trip but imho too much time was taken up with your pre arranged photo shoots on a pre-inspected E6. You are obviously unimpressed by my efforts in Ireland, and yes to be honest I was disappointed with how little I managed to get done, but I felt it was fair to say that you had actually witnessed me successfully climbing something harder than a VS.

In reply to R Simpson: In answer to points 2 and 3. The 3 month road trip in the US. You barely hung around with me, nor the other guys. Yes I climbed on my own a lot on that trip, I felt very lonely. I was keen to go on the trip because it’s difficult to find people up for long road trips, and I thought it’d be a laugh. It didn’t take me very long to realise that I didn’t really fit in on the trip. For starters I was 9 (I think) years older than the next oldest, and 11 (?) years older than the youngest guy on the trip. I bet you probably saw me climb for less than 10 minutes on that trip, and I barely saw you climb either – that seemed to best suit the situation. I don’t like to spend time with people like yourselves who were openly rude to me.
I had been trad climbing a lot in the UK before that trip, so I was relatively fit and climbing well, but not that strong. I found the powerful bouldering hard, especially to begin with. But I found I could do relatively hard but technical problems. For their own reasons no-one else really seemed that interested in most of the problems I was doing. This is by no means intended as a dig at any of the guys on the trip but they were mainly interested in pulling as hard as they could through overhanging territory. I did a few V10’s (including a fun 1st ascent which nobody even pulled on to try, despite my enthusiasm). I also did a couple of tricky longish traverses, trying to keep some fitness for some longer problems in Hueco, later in the trip. If you ask the video maker from that trip, I did actually do ‘that V10 traverse’ (given V11 by most other ascencionists), very easily in 2 distinctly overlapping sections for the camera - whilst warming up. There were also several other V10’s of mine caught fully on camera, not all of which you will have seen.
The photo shoots on End of the Affair, Knockin etc. Once again, I personally have never ever told anyone that those – nor any other staged photos were of the actual ascent. Communicating with the magazines can be difficult, but I was never asked if those photos were of the ascent. Particularly over the Knockin photos I have since spoken to Neil Pearsons, then the editor of OTE; and whilst I apologised for what had happened, he understood that it wasn’t actually me who said anything whatsoever to lead him to believe anything other than that they were staged photos. Had I been asked I would of course have told the truth. If anyone who has bought magazines in the past is offended that many of my photos have been staged then I sincerely apologise, but I am far from the only one who does this.

In answer to your 4th point, I am interested which routes I have apparently claimed, even though I pulled on gear or pre inspected them? If there are some examples then perhaps I can shed some light on the matter?


Simon Moore. It seems a shame that somebody who I once regarded as a close friend can claim that he’s seen me do nothing impressive. Whilst I accept that these things are different and that he may not deem them as significant as some of my other ascents, for the record, he has seen me climb quite well on some occasions.
Although my ascent of Final Destination is nowhere near as hard as many of the other routes I’ve done Simon could have at least acknowledged that it was actually he who took the photo sequence of me on the first ascent of Final Destination.
Greenland. Perhaps the beginning of the problems between us. I felt let down by his climbing ability in Greenland. He had bigged himself up (having climbed big stuff in the Dolomites, Yosemite, big E numbers on the grit), but we’d barely climbed together. When it came to the crunch time in Greenland he was effectively useless. We were in trouble, and I had to try very hard in order to get us out of there. After that route Simons words to me were, “thank f*ck I was with you up there”, “ I can’t think of many other people that could have got us out of there”. Again, this is not strictly relevant to the doubts in question, but it seems only fair to mention it. Later during that trip Simon and I had our first altercation.
Despite knowing Si and being a close friend for a couple of years I very rarely actually went out climbing with him and his friends. Therefore, Like James, he has not had the opportunity to see me climb badly on numerous occasions.
He said that “the same day he claimed to do drummond base, my climbing partner watched most of the day. He left at dark, but the last thing he looked at was that route. he says that there was no chalk on route”. I would be very interested to hear who told you that information because it is quite clearly untrue and I’d be very keen to discuss this with them. Unfortunately this is where things get tricky, if someone simply says something like that. There is very little I can do, other than to give my different opinion. I can do nothing more to help make individuals minds up. I wish I could.
Around this time I spent roughly 3 hours a night, more than every other day, around at Si’s University house - I’d have thought that then might have been a good time to ask questions?
Also I’m very glad (sarcasm) that you find ” its funny that the only things he was apparently seen on, he fell off and broke his ankles”. I didn’t laugh too much at the time.

Keith Bradbury
I haven’t claimed V13 for Cave Rave, the boulder problem in Australia. It has been printed as that, with reference to my ascent but I have only ever offered V12 as my opinion of the problem, with the sequence I used. Those who know me will be able to vouch for that. Once again, the media has misreported my opinion.
I don’t know where you got the F8b+ sport route from. I told friends that I got quite close to one in Thailand but I have certainly never even hinted to anyone that I’ve climbed an 8b+.
You said you’d only ever seen me climb V8 boulder problems. I thought you saw me flash “Mooned” at Bishop? I realise that you are somewhat acting as a messenger here, this is not meant as a dig, just a minor point to show that some inaccuracies have been arising.

In reply to R Simpson: • Before I receive any more lists of routes in question I’d first like to put forward my side of the story for some of the routes which I know some people have doubts over.

Paralogism E7 6c (Roaches) My flashed ascent is often wrongly referred to as on sight. I watched Seb Grieve’s ascent, from the Hard grit film, numerous times. The conditions were overcast with some dampness on the ground, but it was chilly and there was some chalk on the holds. Someone said I had climbed this route after a long injury lay off. There is some truth in that, but there’s more to it. Like other things, I hope Simon Moore is big enough to confirm that this was the case. I injured my shoulder (tore the rotator cuff in 2 places) at Castle Hill, New Zealand in July 2002. I could actually climb properly after a few weeks off. It was another 2 months before I returned to the UK. I started climbing on the grit again and the injury flared up. Climbing on the grit was similar to the technical (and lots of mantle type moves) climbing at Castle Hill. I was still very strong so climbed a bit, both indoors and out, averaging about once every ten days or so. For me that was a ‘lay off’. My fingers were still strong and I could still do one arm pull ups, from the training I’d done in Hollow Mountain Cave in August.
Coupled with my shoulder injury, which seemed only aggravated by weird grit climbing, I had a bigger problem in my life. I don’t see that this is people’s business, but due to my circumstances I guess I have little choice but to offer some insight into my life back then. Whilst I was abroad I broke up with my girlfriend. I am now happy in my new life so the last thing that I want is to drag anything back up relating to my failed relationship. But I took the situation very badly. It seemed that my world had ended. Although after the first 6 months or so the intensity subsided, I remained in a severe mess for several years. That is not something I am either proud nor ashamed of because it was something I had frighteningly little control over at the time. Sometimes our judgment is clouded when we are in a mindset like this and we do things that normally we wouldn’t. I’m sure some people will understand what I mean. For those that don’t you’re lucky.

Knockin on Heaven’s Door E9 6c (Curbar). I may have the grade wrong for a solo of this route. I felt it was E10 which was why I said so, but it seems others think E9. I am now happy with that, if that is the consensus.
I was supposed to be in Kendal that weekend, enjoying the film festival. I had terrible food poisoning, which came on very quickly. My housemates can vouch for my sudden violent hurling. The following morning I felt ok, despite having lost about 3kg’s being sick. I watched a rugby world cup match before heading out to Curbar. I tried Knockin on a rope (using a Gri Gri to protect myself), but it was freezing cold. It was a perfect grit day, cold and crisp, but I hadn’t warmed up. I had been on the route before, but several years previously, so I couldn’t remember much about the route or the moves. After struggling for a while, working the route top down twice, I’d managed all the moves but not linked them, but my fingers were still cold. So I took down my ropes, ran around to warm up and set a top rope up on Dummond Base E8 6c (Curbar). There were people within eyesight whilst I worked and headpointed the route. After Drummond Base I then went back to Knockin and tried it on a top rope for a while longer. It felt much better the second time around, and obviously my head was buzzing and psyched. I am fairly sure that there must have been some people within eyesight when I got back onto the route on a top rope and climbed it more easily. At no stage until days after I’d solo’d it was I told that a hold had broken off. I had no memory of what the holds had looked like before, and I didn’t notice any scar on the rock. Contrary to James’ opinion that the scar was obvious – it certainly wasn’t imho.
Although for many of my ascents I have no recollection of other people being within eyesight I do know that for these two, there were people around. I hoped that someone would come forward to say they saw me climb one or both of these routes. Although the UKClimbing forums are extremely widely used unfortunately in this case there are rather more people who climb than visit these forums. Most people in the UK climb at VS / HVS and many of those wouldn’t understand or care if they saw someone solo a hard route. When I first started climbing it was pretty much impossible to tell the difference between an E3 and an E8/9. Some people may have seen me do these routes but didn’t realise they were hard, or just didn’t care about it. Eternity is a long time, and the climbing world often feels very small, so hopefully someday I or someone will meet someone who is able to verify my ascent.
If I’m being chastised here for not running around, going up to people at the crag saying, “hey, did you see me just solo that, aren’t I cool” then I guess I’ll have to take the wrap.
Those who have seen me top out on things which are hard for myself know that I rarely do or say anything, but just go about my normal business. There are never any power screams or suchlike.

In reply to R Simpson: Boulder problems in Australia. I climbed with lots of different people (routes as well) when I was in Australia. I climbed and trained in the Hollow Mountain Cave a lot, with people from Europe and Australia. One guy who I climbed with in there on numerous occasions was an Australian called Phil Blunsom, from Melbourne I think. I am sure that some well known Australian climbers saw me climbing V11’s out there. I have made absolutely no claims to have ever climbed a V10 / Font 7c+ power problem. On a worldwide scale, virtually all the boulder problems of V10 and above that I have climbed are either dyno’s or traverses.

Solo’s in Thailand. I believe my then girlfriend, and Liam Halsey witnessed me soloing some routes in Thailand, like Seafood Monos Fritas, a route given F8a that I solo’d in my bare feet in February 2002. I never said the routes were death solo’s, simply that they were solo’s. I climbed with an Indian climber named Khartik (Indian Champion in 2002 I think?) in Thailand in August / September 2002, who could vouch for how well I was climbing at the time – Although we kept in contact after we met I have not heard from him in over a year now. It was during this trip that I did a few other solo’s, the hardest being Cara Cangresso F8b.

If, as it sounds, there are further plots which may come to light I will be intrigued to hear them and endeavour to lay the matter to rest.
There is no teaching during childhood to prepare you to go through the things you encounter in the public eye. Although the climbing press is tiny compared to the real world, climbers get very little, if any support to help them handle their ‘public affairs’. In several ways I may have handled myself incorrectly, portraying an undesirable image, but I am not a liar.
I will be away from my computer, and will have no access to the Internet until at least Thursday afternoon. I presume I’ll hear something by then. Cheers,
Ben

p.p.s. Some of what I’ve said here may not make total sense. It has taken a while to write and I have tried to go through it to make sure it reads properly. But I apologise for any confusion or errors on my part.

This is a good opportunity to say that it would be better if any anonymous posts are ignored with regards to this matter, and that anybody wishing to post anonymously, please could you either state your full name when you post, or contact me directly on ben@heason.net , thanks

In reply to Ben Heason:

fair play for replying Ben. its all been ugly & It can't have been easy posting..

Si

In reply to Ben Heason:

Thank god you've finally posted. And what a heartfelt and convincing and impressive statement! Well done that man!

In reply to Ben Heason:

A very detailed and comprehensive account of the climbs in question.

Good luck with your trips to the big walls.

In reply to Ben Heason:
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave
And keep on thinking free.

Well said Steve Parker.

Stu

In reply to Ben Heason:

Bravo. Very objective. Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply, an interesting insight into the thoughts of a full-time climber. I accept that this is all very voyeuristic for most of us.

I'll continue to follow your exploits on Planetfear and good luck with future projects.

In reply to The Crow:


And hopefully in Climb, in Climber and on UKClimbing.com. Objective, fact-checked information is what we need - not favouritism or bias from one news source. The sooner we all learn that that the sooner situations like this will cease to exist.

Mick

In reply to Anonymous: Whereas you have behaved with ultimate decorum by posting anonomously.

Graeme Alderson

In reply to Anonymous: My nose, whilst being big, is clean in this matter.

What a BS response.

In reply to Anonymous: Your anonimity reflects the fact that you don't have the bootle to sign what you post.

Rich S did
Ben H did
James P did
Si M did

You didn't.

Nuff said.

i think its kinda funny, you guys are arguing about these mega hard routes and i'd be happy finishing the 5a ive been working on at my local indoor wall!! (damn overhangs!)

In reply to Ben Heason:


Ben, I don't know you and I don't have much personal interest in this thread, but I'd like to applaud you for making this statement about court action. I get deeply depressed by people's eagerness to discuss litigation over a whole range of climbing-related topics, whether ascent disputes like this, fixed anchor failure or guidebook copyright ... Climbing needs lawyers like a fish need rollerskates.

So as it stands so far (correct me if I’m wrong):

Corroboration for routes up to E8 6c and E7 onsight.

Main accusations so far concern some staged photos that were never claimed as evidence and which the accusers took part in (‘I was the one holding the rope round the corner’).

Which makes Simpson’s declared intention on ukb ‘to bring Ben down’ seem a bit sinister.

In reply to tobyfk:

I've stayed off this thread too, except for skimming it a couple of times in a sort of "fascinated and appalled" way. I hvae no opinion on the "he said, she said" rights and wrongs, but I have to say a big "hear hear" to this comment. Well done Ben for at least laying the spectre of lawyers to rest!

In reply to Steve Parker: Spot on Steve, totally agree, and agree with Ben that he doesn't need to invite crowds out if he next attempts hard routes.

The last thing that should happen is people are forced to climb the hard dangerous routes, under pressure as they need eye witnesses, reports of climbs have always been about honesty, it may not be perfect, but its the best way.

Great answer Ben, good luck for future projects.

But while I didn't like the witch hunt, I liked the way Rich didn't hide, too many others have.

In reply to Ben Heason:

A very dignified reply. It must have been excruciating to write. Any fair-minded person would thank you and wish you well.

Mick

In reply to verukaclimbs:

Si, that was a careless comment re Ben braking his ankles. I was there spotting him that evening and piggy backed him to the car and then to the hospital. There were around a dozen people out that evening in our 'group' and I don't remember a single one of them finding it funny.

I am loathed to get dragged into this petty slur campaign, but feel that I can not avoid it. I write the news for planetFear and have therefore been partly responsoble for the reporting of Ben's achievements over the years. I say this simply to explain the link between Ben and planetFeat which a few have alluded to. If Ben were the brother of Neil P or Bernard Newman I am sure he would have strong links with Climb or Climber respectively. In virtually every case Ben has written the actual news pieces himself, always carefully considering his choice of words in attempt to let people know what he has been up to without bigging himself up.

Lastly I would like to state categorically that Ben is neither a liar nor a fantasist. He is without doubt one of the most honest and loyal people I have ever known. To anybody who know him well it is lauhgable to think that others think otherwise.

He was around at my place yesterday writing the above reply. He left at 11.30pm looking absolutely shell shocked at having opened himself up like that.

To individuals who started this affair: ask yourself why you are doing this, realise your mistakes and go have a happy christmas.

MattH

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

...but we do need to invite crowds to climbing lectures!

Why not come along and give Ben a rousing cheer at Ambleside on 11th January? See UKC Events Diary for details.

In reply to MattH: Whilst the anon poster would do well to put his name to his post his comments still have a substantial degree of weight.

If your brother's 'friends' I think associates would be a better description have been stabbing him in the back and bitching, then I think this is the real issue.

It would seem that the openess of the accusation was a well intention (but misplaced) attempt to be open and clear the air. The fact that some of the eivdence on which the accusations were based (eg the staged) photo's does nothing to limit the degreee to which the fault should be laid at the fee of the rumour mongers.

Adam, Libel isn't my field and I've no intention of starting a thread called The Law of Evidence part 1.

In reply to Simon White: fly back to NZ on the 8th or would, sorry.

We won't be accepting any more posts on this thread from anonymous users. If you wish to post and are unregistered then please use your name and then register on your follow-up post after you have confirmed you registration.

Alan UKC

In reply to Ben Heason:
Well done for such an eloquent response, and for keeping your dignity in a situation where so many others are acting in such a shabby manner.

You make an excellant point about having to be in the right frame of mind for hard bold ascents - you need to be comfortable with yourself and not doing it because there are cameras on you, or worst still, because someone has cast doubts on your ability.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I wonder who's sponsors will be most worried/annoyed by this little fiasco ?

I presume that someone has had a quiet word with the Rich and James as at least they have had the good sense to stop digging ....

In reply to Ben Heason:
As to Bens working of Knocking on Heavens Door. A few of years ago myself and Ade Wong who used to post a fair bit on here but has since moved to Canada had a day out bouldering at Curbar. It was a bastard cold day with some light snow in the morning. During the day we noticed someone working on there own on the area near Knocking. I remember quite clearly as we had a good chat about what route they were on. We came to the conclusion it was knocking but had to consult PGE to be sure when we got home.
I dont know if this ties in with the time scale or type of day that Ben was there but the mention of someone working the route on there own just clicked that memory. However we didnt pay enough attention to notice if the person did finaly do the route.
As for any further details im afraid I cant help as we were just having fun pottering about and felt no need to go and bother someone who was obviously doing there own thing.
Personaly I wouldnt recognise Ben if we walked past each other in the street and have nothing to gain from posting.

In reply: I'll never climb anywhere near the grade of the protagonists here, but I feel sad that a sport like climbing, which so many people enjoy due to its essentially friendly, non-elitist and non-competitive nature (at my level anyway), is dragged down to these kind of levels due to money. Having reviewed the entire trail numerous times, I'm in no doubt whose reputation comes off worst here (clue: it's not Ben Heason's)

In reply to Chris the Tall and TRJ:

Motion carried.

In reply to MattH:


That's part of the problem, and it is not only your problem but a problem with the climbing media in the UK as a whole, and also at fault are some professional climbers in the UK.

No one should write their own news report that is published verbatim. Professional climbers should write a press release of their achievements and send that to all the climbing media. It is then up to the climbing media to follow up and fact check, ask questions, get quotes, source photos.

It doesn't help neither that certain climbers are associated with particular media - you go to X magazine or Y website to read about a particular climber.

If the climbing media had more professional standards this particular controversy would not have surfaced.

Mick

In reply to TRJ:


I was sorry to see much of the above posts, and felt somewhat guilty for entertaining them by reading them.

However I wanted to say that I think it is rare and refreshing to see a top end climber who doesn't feel the need to invite photographers / party of mates to his ascents (Hard Grit video style). I'm not sure, but with the increase in wall climbing as an introduction to the sport and sadly an increase in a celebrity aspect to the sport, this kind of lonesome climbing, which certainly cuts to the reasons and motivations I hold as important in my climbing, might become the rarer or perhaps less emphasised. I'm sure there are a number of climbers with very similar outlooks preferring to shun the crowds / mates for solo ascents or ascents with a single belayer. While these people as professionals (and what lack of professionalism here in these threads) may have to justify themselves to a sponsor, I see no reason why they need to justify themselves to others, especially as individuals who clearly do not court the media.

I sincerely hope that Ben's sponsors have not been scared off by this contemptuous affair and continue to support his climbing ventures in the future. I think it would be a loss for them not to.

j

In reply to everything above:

And they say a Sheffield Mafia doesn't exist!

Do i take it that the Sheffield mafia is falling apart.
Will this leave a power vacuum for some one to fill.
Maybe the Manchester crews might make a bid for the territory.

In reply to TRJ:

And it shouldn't be Rich simpsons either but instead the members of the sheffield scene that 'convinced' him to come out with these allegations and then so promptly dissappeared, lacking the balls to put their name by their statements/rumours, leaving him to take the $hit.

He seems to be a passionate and honest climber whose efforts have sadely been directed into a publicly messy and damaging debate of a situation he originally had no part of, but somehow now needs to fully resolve.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
Hi Mick

I find your last post interesting. I feel that the Climbing mags have really deteriorated over the years, becoming blander and with less talented columists, journos and freelancers. there used to be some really inspirational,evocative,funny and informative articles which seem thin on the ground now.

Like other climbers I know I tend to just browse the racks these days and only buy a mag if the content looks exceptional. Where as I used to subscribe.

Perhaps you could write a fuller article on UKC to rexplain the machinations and politics of Climbrer A being associated with mag A and Climber B with mag B. We all know about Hinksey and Trail which seems an above boarf bit of hero worship.

However if there are these hidden relationships in the climbing press then surely we as the potential readers are the losers as we are getting partisan and biased news and opinion?

Cheers

David

In reply to Matt: I like it, a new defence in law, It's not my fault, the voices in my head made me do it, (hang on a minute, that's not so new is it ?).

In reply to Matt: Fair point, and I wasn't so much referring to Rich Simpson's reputation as those of the invisible middle-men behind this whole sorry pi$$ fight. The beauty of the close-knit hard climbing scene is that those who are truly responsible will be obvious only to those for whom it really matters.

Maybe Ben and Rich can belay each other up some gritstone chop routes this winter as a public show of solidarity against the fools who kicked this off with their envious gossiping

In reply to David Peters:
Yes, of course peoples opinion is never influenced by peer groups or public opinion. Next time you raise the point maybe the old gem 'if X told you to put your head in an oven...' would be sage advice.

However, the real lesson to be learnt here is on the integrity/reliability of the data (or the people supplying it) on which you base your opinion. In which case RS appears to be a poor judge.

Talking about data reliability maybe this could have been avoided by using the scientific concept of peer review. In this case RS should have sent his original statement (prior to publication) and got a review such as 'not a chance, your main witnesses are gutless wan%er$ and you're going to end up being publicly shafted, submit somewhere else with a lower impact factor' (obviously reviewers are not usually so eloquent)

In reply to Matt:


Exactly. The climbing world is full of people making opinions on poor information.

The whole sponsership cash thing seems to be a huge issue with Rich Simpson.
I can;t believe there is much money outside that payed to Leo,Bonnington,Hinkes.
Regardless of the routes claims of Heason is the fact that Simpsom,Pearson are pissed off that the reality of the well payed sponsered hero is a myth.
If Simpson thinks climbing will ever buy him a Porshe he's sadly mistaken.

In reply to R Simpson:

A rather depressing post which hopefully people will learn from (though as they say, it is learned through history that nothing is learned from history); I can't imagine this will do your media image and sponsorship prospects any good. I would have applauded you staying with your face to face approach.

I am not sure that we will ever get the complete truth on this or related topics such as JD's ascents; suffice to say Ben Heason has unquestionably led E7 on-sight (on a 31 pitch route in Venezuela!) - very impressive indeed; and has the capability to do what he says.

Wishing you all the best.

Yours sincerely,

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
>The climbing world is full of people making opinions on poor information.


thats the world - not just climbers- more often just prejudices thiny disguised as opinions

(This post is written by Kate Simpson who is not hiding behind any web names, and any prejudices expressed here are all my own)

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

If you deleted "climbing" from the last sentence it would still be accurate.

In reply to Removed User:

Indeed. But the climbing media could make a bigger effort to check information that they get sent and show less bias and more fairness across the board.

At the heart of this controversy is fairness of coverage of achievements. There is too much favouritism in the climbing media, too few people writing, too many pushing their friends, their business and pet projects.

If all that changed we would have better quality of information on which to base our opinions on.

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Hey, that's what keeps UKC going

In reply to Matt: You live in Sheffield for a while and you hear lots of rumour,inuendo and pure gossip. You know who's climbed what and who's shagging who but you do not spay unsubstantiated rumours on one of the most popular climbing forums because you think someone else is getting a bigger piece of the pie than you are - no matter how much your so-called mates are egging you on. It's called common sense and it comes with maturity, it bears absolutely no relation to your climbing ability.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:


Seeing as Ben has forced to come forward & post on here - bared all and tried to be frank & honest, rather than this all carrying on still, isn't it time Richard came back with his "evidence" now?

Its been made public by Rich, & to keep Ben on the forum as being branded as a liar is no good for anyone in this situation...

Isn't it time Rich?

Si

In reply to Simon (and Mick UKC and the other UKC bods):

as a semi-aside, i thought that Ben's posts about his routes and his motivations for doing them made for very interesting reading - could he be persuaded to create an article for UKC?

In reply to Simon: I disagree. Rich has made his accusations and his absence so far may indicate that they were unfounded. The problem is that it is so easy to slag someone off online and not bear any of the consequence. Now that Ben has answered is accusers, unless there genuinely is evidence, it is probably best not to prolong this rather muddy affair.

In reply to R Simpson:

I climbed with Ben at Uni and have no doubt about his ascents. I also climbed at Burbage a couple of years ago when Rich Simpson was there too. He couldn't climb a particular problem no matter how hard he tried (neither could I for that matter), but once we moved on he re-appeared and had miraculously managed to get up it, despite being nowhere near 5 mins earlier. Both myself and the lad I was climbing with were mighty suspicious. Added to that the fact that he was kicked out of the climbing wall for repeatedly not paying - I know whose honesty I am questioning.......

Stu

In reply to R Simpson: Hey lets be positive, we all know about Bens routes now, thats a good thing.

Ben reminds me of a guy from Leicester in the 70's, he soloed a lot of routes, moved to USA, soloed loads of big routes, died doing it though, whats was his name?

Stu

In reply to CJD:

Both Ben and Rich have been asked to do just that for UKClimbing.com today.

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

good stuff.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Phew!

Can I make a suggestion. Would it be feasible for UKC to put threads like this on hold whilst an accused party like Ben is contacted so they can respond before the vitriol level ecalates out of control. The thread could be re-activated once their response was posted. However, if they refused to respond then let loose the wolves.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

Was that Dirty Derek (Hersey?)

In reply to ChrisJD: Yes thats him.

Dirty?

Stu

In reply to ChrisJD:

Derek Hersey was an extremely talented solo climber who moved out to Boulder and died many years ago in Yosemite doing what he did best. I remember him as a sincere guy full of life and in love with his girl friend who I belive helped him clean up his act.

Cheers,

In reply to simon cox: Got it now

A few years later, Derek and I climbed the Nose on El Capitan. We were Team Stink. I had just spent 7 days on Iron Hawk, and with no shower inbetween, went up on the Nose with Derek. Derek at the time had strong bonds with living in the dirt at its finest, and hadn't bathed for weeks. "Dirty Derek" was his apt nickname. We had a skimpy rack, and had forgotten to bring any extra carabiners, and we had a great time finagling gear yet ascending steadily and stinkily upwards.

Stu

Sorry if I used this thread, it jut put me in mind of him, reading Bens reply.

In reply to R Simpson: Maybe the bloke to ask whether Ben Heason climbed Knocking on Heavens' Door is the one who took a photo of him on it for On The Edge ( Issue 134 ).

In reply to Simon Moore:

Maybe it's just as well you deleted that?

In reply to Grumpycrumpy: This one?http://www.heason.net/Images/Portfolio/Ben%20Heason/UP%202003%20page%2061.j...

I think its time to call an end to this.

Stu

In reply to the Mick and Alan... I am sooooo going to lose my job for being on this forum all day watching events unfold. It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future for all relevant parties (Rich, Ben, Simon etc.) One positive thing to come from this is that the profile of UKClimbing.com should get raised in the climbing community. Hopefully we'll see an increase in traffic to the site which can't be a bad thing.

Beaver..




(Demand might get so high you might need a DDoS solution and extra security in place to keep the site up and running... which, it just so happens, I can sell you )

In reply to Grumpycrumpy: Tim Glazby I believe...

In reply to R Simpson, Ben and others:I hope this isn't going to carry on much further as it seems to have reached a conclusion of sorts.

It now seems to me obvious why/how this has come to pass:

Ben has very successfully managed to garner a strong reputation from some good climbing over the years (including a fair few easier E7s), along with a few (reckless?) solos of harder grit routes when he was going very well. A good effort and commendable. Even more so considering the very calm and well thought-out response on here.

However, to some members of the 'next generation' what they see is an older climber who has a different outlook, is a bit of a loner, whose performance is variable and doesn't tally with his 'media' image. In the flush of youth they are climbing and training harder than the previous generation and are anxious to reap the limited rewards available. When they hear rumours, one of them takes the step of asking the question directly (as only the young tend to do)!

Result:
The older climber is found to be honest and when his acheivements are anaylsed they are found to be accurate but perhaps not as consistent as others or still at the cutting edge. Perhaps he is also not the 'god' the climbing magazines try to promote.

There are plenty of people I have climbed with whom I don't rate who have (or have claimed to have) climbed harder than me. This annoys me as I'm a pretty consistent climber, and I may know that their E7 was a headpoint or their E5/6 onsight was actually a flash but I am happy to let my own climbing speak for me [normally beating them at indoor competitions]. Despite this, I also have a great respect for people who are happy to risk broken ankles (and worse) to climb 'beyond themselves' on occasion.

My main point is that it is easy to see how this has come about with no great errors on either part(s), other than the general flaws of human nature perhaps distorted by some 'media reporting'.

It is how it finishes that will really dictate how individuals involved are seen in the future and I hope it can be resolved quickly and (relatively) amicably.

Not sure if this adds anything or not,
Mark

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Why do people keep bringing this photo up, IT IS STAGED, Even The poser himself admits it.

In reply to Beaver:

Bugger all I'd wager, a footnote in a magazine.


Oh look at the self importance. This, too, is clearly bollocks.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
I think Ben has acknowledged that this photo was staged at a later date, and that no one he knows was present on the day of his ascent

Staging photos is, I believe, fairly standard practise and fairly reasonable I would say - the best conditions for a photo aren't always the best conditions for an ascent. And whilst we aren't likely to buy a pair of shoes just because X wore them on such and such a route, we are likely to give attention to an advert with a stunning climbing pic. This is why playing the media game earns more rewards than simply climbing hard routes

In reply to James Jackson: bollocks... well you can clearly see I'm consitent. You're the 7th person to say that about my posts

In reply to J-Pearson:

You may just have hit the nail on the head. No company is ever going to give you cash just for climbing hard. They want someone recognisable (call them a poser if you like) to put on shiney posters and magazine ads to persuade weekend numpties like myself to buy their gear. Whether they climb F8a or F9a is irrelevant as it is still way out of the league of the average climber.

As an aside, just seen a Helly Hanson promo ski DVD. All their 'team' are fresh faced, smiley good looking types (the sort who cream off all the chicks you fancy), the fact they were all awesome skiers was slightly less important.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell: what is hee climbing??? excuse my ignorance... it is only grit after all!

In reply to The Great Pretender: It's 'Knockin On Heaven's Door', isn't it?

This topic really is getting quite boring now - can you take it down and let the climbers sort themselves out whilst the rest of us get back to work...

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

It's funny how so many different 'conclusions' can be reached.


Honesty or accuracy has and cannot be proven that was the start of this problem. All that has been proven is that BH comes across in a likable and believable way when answering these allegations on an internet forum.

There seem to be alot of other unseen relationships and complicating stuff going on in the real world that mean this will never be resolved by posts on internet forums which will inevitably end up in a likability and popularity contest between the participants. This needs to be resolved face-to-face.

My conclusion is that climbers appear to be niave. Be that in thinking people will publicly put their name to rumours or in that there is no need for credible witnesses when operating at the cutting edge or in the public spotlight.

In reply to Topic:
Who's right and who's wrong aside, this makes one thing clear. Trial by internet is waste of everyone’s time.
There is a massive inherent flaw in these debates which makes them next to useless as a way to attain clarity over doubted ascents. Those behind the doubted automatically appear to have the moral high ground as defenders of a presumed innocent, posting anything in the doubted's defense has no cost to them and will instantly make them look magnanimous. On the other hand anyone who in not so convinced will tend to keep their opinion/questions to themselves so as not to be seen as jealous, prejudicial, or vindictive. Therefore even if many did have doubts, those without do all the talking. In time the weight of posts all point one way, each poster encouraging each other into greater vilification of the doubters. This reinforces the silence of one side and a week case is made. In time the opinions of those not directly connected with events get swayed by the apparent mass of opinions saying the same thing. And influence being what it is a consensus against the accusations will be almost inevitable.
You can't use the internet to unless you have concrete proof. Concrete proof is inherently and practically impossible to acquire. Ergo anyone unscrupulous, mad and bright enough to create a fantasy climbing career can do so with little fear of getting caught out. If stumble upon one, you’d better just grin and bare it.

In reply to Matt:

You are probably right that climbers are naïve in that they tend to believe what they are told without being given any supporting evidence on occasion. In all sports people cheat, it is part of human nature, for anyone to think that climbing is different takes naivety to a new level.

In the mysterious world of angling where skulldugerry and backbiting make issues like this one seem like a grannies party, if anyone claimed the have caught a big carp or pike without providing supporting evidence or credible witnesses they would be laughed at. No evidence and you will not be believed by the masses which is why people go out of their way to provide evidence. It makes the sport safer from cheats.

The comments above are general observations and are not a personal view to the validity of Bens climbs, or that of any other climber.

In reply to SimonW:

ACtually the world of angling has ben shaken because of cheating due to the wonders of digital photography and Adobe Photoshop .. I know cos I saw it on "A question of sport".

Full marks to Ben for responding in an articulate fashion, I have no reason to dispute his claims and even if he was an out and out liar (and I'm absolutely certain he ain't
) ... so what, the only person hurt would be himself.

And on a different subject anyone remember the "Donald Crowhurst" of the climbing world who made loads of spurious claims of first ascents at Gogarth in the sixties? He was unearthed pretty quickly.

It seems to me that there always has been a certain sort, perhaps either lacking innate self confidence, seeking to boost their ego by doing others down. I'm sure the OP is not like that but wonder perhaps if the romourmongers are.

Ultimately climbing is an intensely personal experience and that's what lasts, the thoughts and reactions of others are ephemeral.

Enjoy your climbing.

In reply to Ben Heason:

Is it just me or is it slightly odd that Rich himself started this thread, then went rather quiet. Having brought it up in public, I would think it only honourable and decent to comment to Ben's reply in public.

I've had people call BS on me in the past, then apologise in private when the truth comes to light. That's a bit one-sided, no?

Fair play, and all that...

In reply to JRobertson:


Which is why it takes more than a photo to be believed these days. Independant witnesses (not your best mate) are crucial. Cheats still abound though but less then would be out there is every catch without supporting evidence was believed.

As for climbing being a personal experience it is until you start writing to the mags with your latest achievements, then it becomes about far more that being a personal experience, you are surely wanting something more.

In reply to only me: This is more to do with who shouts loudest, not internet debates. Just look at the Bush / Gore debarcle. Bush called the election first so even though Gore had theoretically won, he came across as a sore looser. Another example is the Jon Krakauer / Bookerev (sp?). Again, Jon shouted loudest to the extent that many people think that one of the most experienced Himalayan guides was talking out of his backside. It is always the way. People are always trying to pull successful people down - especially those who aren't that successful themselves.

In reply to R Simpson:

People who talk loudly in public places should expect to be overheard.

I am shocked and disgusted at this thread. Ben is one of mine and Nic's closest friends. We have never ever had any reason to doubt Ben's ascents or indeed his ability related to his achievements.

My husband, Nic Sellers climbs at a high level (E9/8c) and has climbed with Ben on many occasions. He has witnessed him climing bold hard grit - E7/E8 and is always impressed by how good Ben's head is, admitting that despite Nic's physical capabilities being up to it, he could not bring himself to headpoint half the stuff that Ben does.

There is no doubt that one of Ben's greatest talents is his good head for bold climbing. Please, someone who doesn't agree with this simple fact say so. There is no doubt that he has the physical capabilities to climb what he has, and on top of that he has one of the best heads out of all the top climbers. Fact.

As someone who lives in Sheffield, and enjoys living here I am fairly gutted at what lies beneath. It leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouths and those posting these negative comments should really be ashamed of themselves. This is not the climbing scene I thought it was.

Well done to the both of you for getting it over and done with!
Having read both Ben's and Rich's posts with interest (near perfect spelling and grammar, i am impressed!) i can see that my original inspiration from that OnTheEdge magazine with Ben on Drummond Base has been justified (although in the editorial it does admit that the photo on the front cover and inside, on Knockin' was staged.

In reply to Jimbo:

Were wall-based climbers [scum that they obviously are] also responsible for creating the common cold by any chance?

In reply to R Simpson: If someone is performing impressive climbing feats and is making this known in the climbing media then they are making 'documented' climbing history.

The history of climbing is owned by nobody and enjoyed by most people involved in the sport. If someone is adding their bit to documented climbing history and their contribution is based on bulls**t and lies then that is the business of EVERYONE who cares about climbing. Who wants to read the historical section of a climbing guide only to find out that 'so and so's ascent of route X' was actually a pile of crap?

You have become involved in allegations about someone whose achievements have significant historical importance. Bulls**t will impoverish and damage climbing history and smear the reputation of climbing itself - and nobody has the right to do that. I would argue that in this context there is a responsibility to root any sh*t out and make it known in the same forum that the claim(s) of a particular 'climbing feat' was made.

In reply to TRNovice:

May have missed something, but why would wall-based climbers be scum?!

In reply to Jimbo:

"I'm not sure, but with the increase in wall climbing [...] this kind of lonesome climbing, which certainly cuts to the reasons and motivations I hold as important in my climbing, might become the rarer or perhaps less emphasised."

Why would one lead to the other? I realise this is probably not the place to take the issue up - there does seem to be a rather Orwellian "Outdoors Good, Indoors Bad" thread that I notice all the time.

As I said, probably not the best thread to raise this on, for which I apologise. More important things going on here than my pet peeves :-o.

In reply to TRNovice:

Aye, enough of this here. I'm posting a response on the:

Climbing with an audience/cameras watching thread

j

In reply to Oli:

Yeah, and I haven't even spouted my arrogance yet.

Kurt the Canadian.

In reply to Oli: Don't have to register to read the forum...

In reply to Redpoint Tokay: That's true, but I just couldn't resist. sorry.

I've just deleted Rich's recent post. He did indeed write it in haste and because he isn't a registered user he couldn't delete it after he'd posted it.

He says he will post a more considered response later.

I also deleted the posts replying to it, including my own. I apologise if that has offended anyone.

Mick

I would just like to point out that my recent post (about 10 minutes ago), was written in haste and isnt really a true reflection on my feelings. i am sure i will be criticised about this also, but we all know that people make mistakes and for this i apologise to anyone who was offended.
I will re post something at a later date, but in the mean time will try to sort things out with Ben personally as we both feel this is the best option.
once again i apologise for a moment of haste.

I didn’t necessarily feel I could add much by posting here. But, I felt that I needed to say something.

I have never been with Ben to climb “hard” things as he has always generously and unselfishly come down to my level when I have climbed with him. However, I can vouch that the Ben Heason I know is not a dishonest man. For me that is enough.

Steve Hodges

Like Mick says,

once the button is pressed i dont have the option of editing what i have written, unlike the majority of regiesterd users. I was in a rush going out but felt pressured to respond, wrote quickly and clicked submit before i had a chance to read through it.
Hope people can understand.

thanks rich

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

That raises a VERY interesting e-ethics debate in itself. The gravity of publication and all that. People should appreciate that when they hit that 'Submit' button, the material they've written is published. You've cut Rich an immense amount of slack doing that, and heavily influenced the direction of the debate.

This has all ended up looking very bad for Rich and should be used as an example to anyone about to question someone's honesty or achievements in public. You'd better be sure about what you're going to say, or you open up a huge can of worms and end up looking like a bit of a tw@t.

It's also generated a lot of what has ended up being quite positive publicity for Ben, although I bet he'd rather it never happened. Ben's sponsors are probably quite chuffed, as I think most people will regard this as a vindication, of sorts, for Ben's achievements.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

It does Dom. The internet and forums, although they have been around for over a decade, it is still very much a work-in-progress, especially one as big and as well-read as this one. We do have forum guidelines and try stick to them, but not everyone is totally clued up as to the nature of these forums, how to use them, what you can and can't say, and their influence. In this case yes because of the nature of the post, who posted it, the circumstances in which he posted it, I decided to delete it.

Alan deleted several posts earlier also. But the thread still stands.

Mick

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

It would be alot nicer if 1. Everyone who posted had to confirm there id in some way so they weren't anonymous, and 2. People couldn't post as much (bit rich from me). Confirming id is only really possible with credit card confirmations which is a step to far I expect for you anyway as email confirmation doesnt work. I'm sure you could write a nice sociology essay on how its progressed though
p

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:
In this case yes because of the nature of the post, who posted it, the circumstances in which he posted it, I decided to delete it.
Dear Mick

It looks like someone doing an onsight and when they get into difficulties, someone else drops them a top rope. Can it still be an onsight?

Norrie

In reply to Jimbo:

Thanks - will now butt out of more important debate here.

In reply to Mick - UKClimbing.com:

Fair point. But I feel I should point out that I once requested a post of mine be deleted due to the 'hasty' manner in which it was composed, but nothing happened. I guess it helps if you can climb 9a...

Mind you, that was years ago.








But I still can't climb 9a.

In reply to only me:
" Trial by internet is waste of everyone’s time.
There is a massive inherent flaw in these debates which makes them next to useless as a way to attain clarity over doubted ascents. etc"

Most sense talked so far on this thread. Its also worth noting that on these internet debates a pesons credibilty is hugely influenced by how articulate they are.

In reply to Adam L:

"Its also worth noting that on these internet debates a pesons credibilty is hugely influenced by how articulate they are"

AKA 'the Sloper syndrome'. Educated chap who's profession is to be as articulate as possible often comes across as a complete bumbling tool. When, in reality, I'm guessing, he's not. No offence intended...

In reply to the whole damn thread:

Wow. I have to say that it was mighty nice of UKC to kill Rich's post. AND mighty humble of Rich to admit he has made a mistake in the posting, and apologise for it.

I have posted up in haste (no...really, it's true) and wish I could have taken back what I said.

Rich, proud work on AD. Stick to the sending, and avoid being the crag police on who-sent-what-when. Remember, it's only climbing. Not really worth getting bent over.

Kurt

PS E-grades still suck.

In reply to Dom Orsler:


No, you were right first time.

In reply to Katherine:




Thats unfortunately how I feel too Katherine. I wish this had not been done so publically & now is being dragged out longer that it needs to have done.

Rich - I would Post & then ask for the thread to be archived & then do an article if you so wish.

Lets call the witch hunt off - hasn't Ben been put through enough yet??

Si

In reply to Simon:


Good idea. Maybe they can sort it out between them and post something in good time if they then feel that is right?

How was Stanage on Sunday by the way? Didn't try to get through the Manchester monsoon.

In reply to Dom Orsler:

Years ago I too once requested a post of mine to be deleted. And it was, even though I struggle to lead VS!

In reply to Topic:
Call me cynical, but I personally am not so quick to proclaim Ben wholly vindicated. Whilst Ben's long rejoinder is considered and articulate, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies "...he would say that wouldn't he". Ben's words show him to be intelligent, well spoken and thoughtful. But if the accusations were true would this not be exactly the reply you would expect? If they were totally false would you not expect a bit more? Basically very little to back up any of the questioned ascents, but much emoting and extraneous detail regarding ascents which are not in question. Nobody who has questioned Ben's claims says he is not a competent onsighter, that he is incapable of E7 in Pembroke. It certainly pushes all the right emotional buttons to appeal an audience wanting to believe he is truthful.
But how far does it answer the central questions surrounding the hard grit.? No witnesses.
The new witnesses mentioned for specific ascents amount to Robin Williams (does anyone know him, can he vouch for Ben?) belaying in one week in Pembroke.
For all the routes claimed in Australia, a name for a guy who he did some bouldering with, no actual belayers or witnesses.
For 8b solo in Thai, no actual witness, just someone who can apparently vouch for his strength at the time.
Reading between the line what Ben is saying is, I’m a nice guy, take me on trust, I can’t provide you with belayers or witnesses for any of the contested climbs, but I’m a nice guy, how could I lie?
This is not mud slinging. I think Rich was foolhardy to start this thing in the first place and Ben was not obliged to reply. I am not saying Ben has lied. I’m just saying his reply is a bit weak, when the facts are stripped of the packaging. It’s high on emotion, low on content. A lot of words, but not that much of substance.
This thread having reached a stage of fevered outrage, I will no doubt now be lynched for trying to be objective and look from an alternative perspective. Hey ho.