UKC

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Why would you pull the original thread?

JT

In reply to The_JT:

Which one, the initial one about this claimed ascent?

If that is the one you mean then we often pull breaking news story threads as we follow them up ourselves, usually in communication with the person who posted the thread. This is so that we have more time to get a good news story thread up which tends to stop multiple threads about the same news story.

In this case we are still waiting for some comeback communication from Scott but I understand he is in France. I notice the neclimbing.co.uk have also pulled their news story.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Thats very diplomatic.

In reply to The_JT:

Have a read of the UKBouldering thread, it gives a good idea of why the thread was pulled, pretty entertaining stuff too.

In reply to Liam Copley:

how about some?

personally i hope he has done these claimed ascents.

In reply to carnie:

General apathy felt towards the climbing community in this media based age.

In reply to ro8x:

We always try to verify ascents as far as we can. You are probably talking about comments by climbers on various climbing forums and blogs.

In reply to The_JT: the real reason the thread was pulled remains a mystery. UKC seem to have deleted a thread about ground breaking news, without reporting it in more detail themselves. I find their totalitarian approach to climbing media highly damaging to climbing and very worrying.

(Franco)

In reply to Liam Copley: Have you been smoking something?!?

Do you think the BBC would run a news report without evidence/proof from a reliable source?

Why do you think UKC as a moderated source of National and internaional Climbing news should be any different???

Try adding some substance to your rumours next time.

Keep up the good work Mick.

In reply to Liam Copley:

>I find their totalitarian approach to climbing media highly damaging to climbing and very worrying.

Do you not think that since every thread you post on tends to degenerate into a slanging match that you lot (and you in particular) are not considered very credible sources of news?

Look at the recent ascent by Ryan Pasquill. A climber with a seriously impressive track record & witnessed by many credible people. That is the difference.

In reply to Wee Davie:

He did impart that it was :

(Franco)

Which is why he was banned in the first place for bringing such news to UKC and being rather silly with it.

In reply to Wee Davie: this is franco saying this by the way Lol

In reply to north country boy: BY FRANCO > as climbers we should believe other climbers. If you have to have evidence for an ascent then you shouldn't really be climbing. I think you owe the guy an apology if he has climbed it and think it shocking you should doubt it.

In reply to Liam Copley: this is a load of bollocks..! word

In reply to Franco Copley:

>Lol

It must be the way I tell them.
You guys are just crazeeee.

In reply to Liam Copley: Get in the real world.

If you claim things at the cutting edge, then people will want to read about it. Therefore any news source which publicises it will want proof of sources and evidence etc.

Do you think the Guiness book of Records would want proof? Climb? Climber? Its all the same.

In reply to Liam Copley:

This is not the first time ascents have been reported in this fashion and it is not the first time that the truth in such an ascent has been questioned.

UKClimbing whether we want it to or not influences the news of other websites including 8a.nu and other websites further afield. They have to make decisions to remove possible false stories to protect their credibility as a commercial organisation and they have done in this case. They probably did the right thing. And even if it is true, and they report it later, all they've done is ensured accurate and honest reporting by ensuring they are sure of the facts. I don't have a problem with that.

UKB one the other hand doesn't need to protect anything, it's a different type of community, it thrives on a lack of totalitarian leadership, and guess what, they're doubting this ascent as well. What does that say?

neclimbing's credibility has already disappeared, in my eyes, as a result of this fiasco. What is damaging to the climbing community is lying. It's been done before and I'm sure it's likely to happen again.

This route may well be Font7b+, thats old news. What I will say is that this route, in my opinion (having done it), would be very difficult to flash. After all the font grade is a worked, easiest sequence grade.

Let's remember that Robins and Bransby, no slouches in the onsight game, didn't cruise it in two attempts with mats, patio and gear. And in all fairness to Jack, Jack didn't really get close to doing it. All on a day with perfect conditions.

Scott's claim is audacious and world class. If all of a sudden some unknown Jamaican youth claimed a 9.30s in the 100m sprint on a sandy track in Kingston with no evidence other than his own word and that of his mates, it wouldn't get written up a as record until it was 'officially' seen. Climbing is not as official as athletics but we shouldn't have to make a leap of faith in order to believe claimed ascents.

If I were Scott and in this position, whether in France or not, I'd be making an effort to clarify the myths surrounding these ascents and reclaim at least some credibility to my word. Come on now, Fontainebleau isn't darkest Africa. If he wanted to clear this up he could have done.

I don't believe that all these claims are false, they're all certainly possible by one with the pedigree and skill, although in this case I'm certainly suspicious. I would be more than pleased if my suspicion were proven wrong. It would be world class and I would happily eat my words and congratulate Scott.

In reply to JR: Summed up nicely JR. : )

In reply to Liam Copley:
The ukb thread not enough for you?
When he did joker/ace/pit, people wondered if there was any evidence, none was forthcoming. But hey ho, someone that strong - people will see him do some hard stuff soon enough.. However, the odd claim keeps coming and still no-one 'known' in the climbing community sees him on anything. Circumstantial evidence not being in his favour (not being that strong at the wall/on cellar boards despite it - in theory - being his home ground), people wonder if its for real. If Scott cares it should take a morning's work to prove the doubters wrong, he'd get a lift out of it too. Christ, I'd go back to repeat old problems at the drop of a hat if it meant not having to get the bus to burbage again. If he doesn't, fair enough, though it can't be much fun having most of sheffield's climbing community wondering whether you're chatting rubbish, I know an aweful lot of doubters and no outright believers here in sheff.

In Reply to everyone: NEClimbing.com is based on North East Ethics and that normally means honesty. It will report any claims anyone makes as it is the voice of climbers, not sponsers. If climbers want to lie, then they're just damaging thier own community, but I don't personally know any such climbers.

By Franco

In reply to Luke Dixion:

I literally just got back from solo'ing Indian Face.

PS If this news is not in NEclimbing in 10 minutes I will sue.

In reply to Wee Davie: in reply to Wee Dave: A predictable reply and a reply that shows all the problems with UKC and Peak climbing in general.

franco

In reply to Luke Dixion: I don't believe it's Franco. Please spell "Awful"

In reply to north country boy:
"Do you think the BBC would run a news report without evidence/proof from a reliable source?"

You may remember a little story back in October about the OMM?

In reply to Luke Dixion:

>A predictable reply and a reply that shows all the problems with UKC and Peak climbing in general.
franco

Diddums, you mean you don't like it when people pretend to have climbed things they haven't?
How 'aweful'.

In reply to stevieo10:
I don't see why everyone gets annoyed by stuff like this

If he's climbed it in such style then good for him.
If he hasn't he'll just make himself look daft and make people doubt future climbs
Anyone who wants to get sponsorship etc will need to climb at a very high standard and have evidence of it at some point so i guess it's a matter of wait and see but the jury is still out IMO

In reply to Luke Dixion:

Doesn't seem like five minutes since you were doubting whether any E5's had ever been on-sighted in the NYM, seems like the shoe is on the other foot now, perhaps?? Climbing does depend on honesty, but also a track record.

I don't know Scott and I've never been on the Promise so I can't comment on the likelihood of the claim, I would be much more likely to believe if Scott said he'd done it, openly, that would be enough for me. No pictures, no video, just his word, not that of others.

I tend to be in agreement with Geordie Kev and Anonymous.

If he did it then well done to they guy. Karma will find him out. Brad Pitt is a long term project of mine after seeing a video of it and having a tickle on it myself and i tell you now, when i do that bad boy i am gona make sure my mates have taken a picture or so. Mainly because of the positions it gets you into make for some sweet climbing pics, but like others have said; when you are climbing cutting edge stuff, people are going too want proof.

Do you think Andy green goes off with thrust ssc (or whatever the new car is called) and has a blast up and down and claims the land speed record without photo or video evidence?

If you are going to do something that is well known and at the top end of the game you will have pics and footage taken no matter what you say!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Why do we have to suffer Franco's posts when he's supposed to be banned?