UKC

Tom Livingstone and Matt Glenn have made the first ascent of a 1400m route up Tengkangpoche's North-East Pillar (6487m) in the Khumbu region of Nepal. The pair have suggested 'Massive Attack' as a name, but have not yet decided on a grade.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Yerrrr Tommy!!!!! 

In reply to UKC News:

In other news...:

https://eveningsends.com/poaching-tengkangpoche-a-slimy-first-ascent/

In reply to Brian in SLC:

Ouch! A pretty damming article allthough I've no idea of the accepted ethics of use of gear/camps on these big Himalayan projects by various teams, the use of food and gas seems pretty harsh, especially if they knew the American team would be back out in the spring! I'm still eating energy bars left over from a 2016 trip to Alaska, I'm not sure they go off!

Hopefully a communication cock up rather than the underhand tactics the article says?

In reply to Brian in SLC:

Wow.

Maybe 'Massive Hijack' would be a more appropriate route name.

In reply to ebdon:

While I understand communication errors might account for this, the text message quoted in the article (no way of verifying, of course!) seems to acknowledge how poorly this was likely to be taken by the other team. And then not to credit the equipment ‘borrowed’ appears a bit off too. 

In reply to Jayhigh:

Yeah there seem to be multiple levels of douchery going on here. 

Getting beta off a team about their project without disclosing that you would be going for it (or that you had a permit to go for it).

Using their kit and supplies on route without asking (aka stealing).

And then not crediting them at all.

Using their gear on a high altitude route could potentially be excused if it was desperate and weren't for the lack of credit.

All round bad form from someone who seems to pride themselves on style of ascent. Is there a Framboise D'or? 

There's a separate argument about the other team leaving their kit on the route for extended periods of time, mind.

In reply to UKC News:

Reads article. Presses "Like"

Reads thread. Presses "Dislike"

Perhaps UKC need to balance the reporting a bit?

Not sure how you can read that text as a "communication misunderstanding".  Looks like dickery plain and simple.  I doubt the offer to "replace" includes hauling the kit up to high camps on the route.

In reply to UKC News:

They are getting slated by some pretty high profile climbers in the Instagram comments, can't delete them fast enough!

In reply to Brian in SLC:

Complete and utter contravention of rule 1 from the climbers there.

Gobsmacked

Love this from Tom's website:

In reply to UKC News:

Let me rewrite the headline for you:

”Theft of Tengkangpoche's North-East Pillar by Tom Livingstone and Matt Glenn”

In reply to TheGeneralist:

He also wrote an article on style of ascent for ukc a few years back. Worth a gander.

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Perhaps it does need a re-write or another article investigating completely, but I think Bisharat only published his pieces a few hours ago, so when UKC published the news presumably they weren't aware of what seems to have happened. 

It puts the interminable UKC debates on crag swag into perspective, doesn't it?!

In reply to TobyA:

I've just got back home from COP26 events, so was unable to look into this earlier. We're waiting to hear more information from Tom.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

It's interesting that Bisharat is now asking on twitter for this not to be one of those cyber mob moments with everyone piling on and trying to get them dropped by their sponsors or whatever. I'm not wanting to blame Andrew for starting that either, his article seems fair minded, but that does seem to be sadly the way these things go now.

In reply to TobyA:

Publishing that article and then expecting anything other than a massive internet kicking seems shortsighted from Bisharat.

In reply to Will_Thomas_Harris:

Perhaps, but should he not have published what he had because of that? There are lots of scathing comments on Tom's instagram post from leading alpine climbers from all over - so I guess he's not deleting the comments or, perhaps deleted some but gave up? I have no idea. But while it is a bit of a pile on, so far what i've read wasn't much beyond heavy sarcasm and various versions of "you shouldn't have done that."

In reply to Will_Thomas_Harris:

So the rest of the climbing community should've remained in blissful ignorance? I think honesty in reporting one's own ascents is pretty important, and when facts are left out then someone in the know is right to try to correct things. 

In reply to UKC News:

Tom has written a response now:

https://www.tomlivingstone.com/climbing-blog-1/2021/11/3/tengkangpoche-2021

In reply to Will_Thomas_Harris:

I don’t think anyone is asking for them to lose their sponsors. I’d be surprised if UKC/ the wider climbing community supported cancel culture just because of some dodgy ethics.

It seems poor form to raid caches when presumably they’d been stocked with £’000s of quids worth of spend and this should be called out (if true). However it’s the high mountains - we’ve seen far worse ethics over the past few years (at least they didn’t carry a bolt gun).

Let’s hope Tom and Matt can return the favour in the near future.

Edit: I hadn’t seen Tom’s response before I posted. Seems a bit more balanced.

In reply to jezb1:

Doesn't really hit the spot though, does it?

A bit of "it was trash", a bit of "they should have known" etc., all defensive; and a hollow half apology

And if you've got all the gear at base, why not use your own?  Especially since it's so trivial (apparently) to get it to the stash point.

And a mail that admits it was a dick move.

In reply to TobyA:

I'm definitely not arguing that there's not room for healthy debate and calling people out for ethical failings in climbing.

Bisharats article is pretty damning though, particularly as Tom's response shows that there's some nuance to what went on.

Bisharats own comments on a recent runout podcast about climbing cancel culture, and his post about his regret at not defending Joe Kinder, were what I had in mind when saying that he was surely aware of the online climate before publishing.

In reply to Moacs:

Yeah sounds like some reverse engineered bollocks to justify some shameful tactics.

Although I do love the juxtaposition in the suggestion they were on their 6th night of an alpine style ascent in the greater ranges and were checking the sell-by date of a stolen energy bar on the wall! The offer of replacing it is a slap in the face. No one cares about an energy bar...it's an energy bar at a camp at 6000 meters. 

In reply to Will_Thomas_Harris:

Yeah - you get the feeling this is going to run and run. Another

There was an interesting BBC documentary last year I think about 'cancel culture' in small specialist communities of interest - IIRC young adult literature and (literally!) knitting. It did sound quite bizarre - both the vehemence and the degree to which is was angels on a pinhead sort of stuff. But I guess climbing is not really any different. I suspect the charges of entitlement flying in both directions will soon quite easily be scoffed at when everyone involved has a job that involves literally flying around the world to the hobby they love in a delicate environment threatened by climate change. But we're all hypocrites like that I suppose, it's just a question of degrees.

No more than 1.5 hopefully.

In reply to UKC News:

It’s funny because of Tom’s previous articles on pure ethics… 

But Im not sure leaving stashed kit is great ethics either, and would Quentin and Jesse have really returned to remove it if the route had already been done? Maybe they would have… leaving stashed kit seems a little “towel on the sun bed” but maybe it’s the done thing?

Either way I can definitely sympathise with Quentin and Jesse being pissed off, but more  because their project has been done by another team and they directly aided them in the process. I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Tom and Matt should be climbing another team’s,  and by the sounds of it previous friends, line… 

Incredible effort either way, even if the ethics were dubious. 

In reply to jezb1:

Oh dear. His response seems very knee-jerk and aggressive. Definitely should have slept on it. He’s also blocked any comments which doesn’t help.

I mean, you can’t ‘bagsy’ a FA so the beta/permit issue is arbitrary. I think the question he needs to ask himself is could he have climbed it without using someone else’s cached gear? From what I’ve read I don’t think so or he wouldn’t have used it? 

And he says the reason he didn’t mention this was he used up his 2,200 Instagram character allowance telling everyone how amazing his route is. That should have been the first thing he said.

In reply to Liam P:

Tricky one, isn't it. Hard to see how the Evening Sends article isn't at least a little knee jerk - really can't see why TL wasn't approached before it was put out. Seems v poor journalistic ethics, no?

Looks like 3 wrongs not making a right to me. 

In reply to UKC News:

The only real issue I have with this is that Tom didn’t mention this in his Instagram post (could just have said - we used some of the other team’s stashed gear, will provide full details on my blog). It comes across as dishonest, though it seems that he was going to provide full details later. At best, it’s rather naive not to mention it, having already mentioned it to the other team. It’s not the actual style which matters, it’s being honest about it.

It seems that the gear was stashed at the start of the route proper and they didn’t take much (indeed the gas may have gone to waste anyway). Taking climbing gear is a bit more questionable. However there’s a part of my which says it was fair cop, as leaving gear stashes on mountains for extended periods isn’t exactly good practice.

As a friend has said, neither side comes out of this well. I would add, nor does Bisharat - he could and should have asked Tom and Matt for their side of the story. At the very least, he should have checked and specified where on the route the stash was, as that was a fairly obvious open question.

Edit - it was also rather naive of the other team to provide lots of beta and not expect people to then try ‘their’ line. Clearly it wasn’t really ‘their’ line anyway. I get that if someone has put a lot of effort into cleaning and/or bolting a route, it’s fair to leave it as a closed project, at least for however long is considered to be a reasonable time (which will depend on the route and where it is). You don’t get closed projects in the big mountains though - that’s a ridiculous concept. If you don’t want someone else to try it, keep quiet about it. It seems some pro climbers want to have their cake and eat it - get publicity by talking up their unfinished projects but not want anyone else to try them. 

In the interests of transparency, I do know Tom and Matt a bit, so perhaps there’s a bit of inherent bias in their favour on my part. 

In reply to Liam P:

In his response he says "We sincerely apologise for using Quentin and Jesse’s out-of-date food and for borrowing their equipment without their permission." But it's buried in the middle of his blog with 7 paragraphs of prelude saying how he has nothing to apologise for. Then a couple follow up paragraphs calling the other climbers resentful.

A Dominic Cummings level of apology: "I'm sorry...that you feel I have something to apologise for because I don't"

In reply to UKC News:

Crag swag rules innit

In reply to UKC News:

They cleaned up junk that some sponsored climbers had left on a mountain and then flew back to the states.

I can’t imagine it going down well if David Lama had left food and fuel and bolts on a wall in the Himalayas… What’s the difference?

Congratulations Tom and Matt! You’re at the cutting edge of Alpinism, anyone who disagrees is jealous of your achievements.

In reply to IainMay:

Is it alpinism if someone else stocks camps on the way?  

In reply to PaulJepson:

Only if the camp is stocked with Scotch and Champagne. Like back in the Golden Age. 

In reply to UKC News:

So basically there's four issues I can see here.

1. Snatching a FA from someone's project. This would be very bad style if we were talking about a rock route, but AFAIK there are no such rules in mountaineering. Apparently Quentin was going to make a new attempt in the spring, but as we all know with the mountains, there is no guarantee that he would have succeeded in that attempt, due to weather, conditions, altitude sickness, permits etc etc. So I tend to say this was fair game. Also I didn't see anybody commenting anything negative about this issue before Bisharat's piece.

2. Poaching stuff from Quentin. Tom's argument seems to be that they had everything they needed for the ascent themselves, but on the first try noticed some of the stashed stuff would become bad by the time Quentin returned, so they just made a choice of using that, and that it was very little and low on the route anyway and didn't really matter in the big picture. Now obviously, if this didn't matter, why did they do it in the first place, and why take their aid gear (which obviously was not in bad shape) if they had their own. The real reason seems to not have been disclosed yet.

3. Not crediting Quentin. As they benefited immensely from his beta and to a disputed extent of his gear it is quite bad form to not mention anything of this in the insta post (and instead in length talk about the trek away from the mountain).

4. Doubling down instead of apologizing. This as we all know is seldom the smart choice in a situation like this. Tom claims the gear was either going to be useless by the time Quentin returned (rusty gas canisters) or that the whole stash was actually abandoned ("discarded on the wall"), and continues by making accusations about Quentin's ethics (having a hand drill and bolts in the stash).

In reply to UKC News:

A slightly more balanced view from Colin Haley.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=410329843885441&id=10004725...

In reply to UKC News:

"We wish them the best of luck for Tengkangpoche’s north-east pillar."

Assuming they still want to do it! This and the suggestion that they could improve on the time come across as a slap in the face. Would Tom and Matt have picked the climb if it wasn't going to be a FA? Unlikely. I know in theory climbers should want to do something for its own sake but a lot of objectives are picked because they haven't been done before, and repeating a route absolutely has a different feel to climbing into the unknown and breaking through a route's barriers under your own steam. Not to mention investing time in a project which may well bring back negative feelings.

In reply to Jubjab:

You've hit the nail on the head here.  Regarding the borrowing gear issue I agree that there's something missing.  Why not stash their gear from the first attempt on the way down? Sounds like there was one bit of kit they didn't have.  I'm guessing they dropped/lost/forgot something crucial. You can read that between the lines here:

The first time Matt and I attempted TKP we had everything we needed..

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

It's a good read, but Colin is only really examining the alpine ethics of the climb, he ignores the human ethics aka 'dick move'.

In reply to maxsmith:

Yeah I agree. Weirdly if it was the result of poor planning or got caught in a storm or whatever, I would have much less issue with it. I think it's the fact he had direct communication and didn't ask despite deliberately planning to use their kit. If he asked and they said no, then just take your own kit and if they say yes, then no problem either. 

But, as they apologised after, clearly knew they were doing something wrong and deliberately set out to do it. 

In reply to Kemics:

Yeah exactly, and to the people giving me dislikes above: Tom has described his own actions as a "bit of a dick move" - that's his words not mine!

In reply to UKC News:

Person sleeps with someone they know their housemate is really hung up on, deliberately and without talking to them first, drinks the last of their milk in the morning and steals their favourite hoodie on the way off on holiday, and offers to return it several hundred miles away.

When you put it like that, I'd hope that we all recognise that that isn't really okay. It's not a question of mountaineering ethics, it's a question of basic right and wrong. Poor show.

In reply to maxsmith:

From what I could tell, on the first attempt they had aid gear but tried to free climb the whole thing. The second time, they left their aid gear behind but then realised (because Tom injured himself or the conditions had changed or something?) that they actually would need to do some aid climbing.

In reply to jezb1:

Goodness me. What a lot of utter shite. Well, the first half was... I couldn't bear to read the rest...

In reply to UKC News:

Regardless of the climbing ethics I think, if it was me, I’d come down very contrite and try to make things up with my friend. Restocking the stash or offering to remove what was left would be the decent thing (we are told it was easily accessible) rather than telling them they can go and pick up their stuff up from a different location than where they left it!
What I definitely would not do is make a sarcastic non-apology to make it look like I really didn’t give a shit. I mean, why say “We sincerely apologise for using Quentin and Jesse’s out-of-date food”, why not just say “Quentin and Jesse’s food”? If you ate it it doesn’t matter whether it was out of date, didn’t taste great, not your favourite brand it’s still just food. 
That said this is an amazing effort, the mountain and line look brilliant. 

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Only more balanced if you accept his argument.  I don't.  This wasn't abandoned gear; it was carefully stashed kit with all the gear needed for a known, scheduled visit in March 22.  That there was a firm plan in place to return and have another go.

It clearly wasn't abandoned; and Tom clearly wasn't clearing up.

And the double think about having everything and the cache being easily acceptable vs. taking the stuff just doesn't reconcile

In reply to Moacs:

But isn't stashed gear frowned upon under modern lightweight alpinism ethics?

Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup to me, and the cover up is way way worse than the crime (i.e. if they'd just been honest with the initial info of the ascent it would have been a much smaller story)

In reply to UKC News:

In 1953 Hamish MacInnes and John Cunningham headed for Everest aiming to make the first ascent using food and equipment left on the mountain by the Swiss the previous year. They certainly did not ask Andre Roche for permission to try the route or use the Swiss gear. Tenzing and Hillary got there first but MacInnes and Cunningham are now regarded as folk-heroes by UK climbers. Can anyone tell me what is different about this? 

I mean on the face of it what is the situation regarding crag swag in the mountains?

No one argued with Twight and co. raiding an abandoned duffel bag on their epic fight to descend the Rupal Face!

In reply to r0b:

I think this is the main issue. If Tom had just had a bit of humility and thanked the other team for the beta, gear, supplies, etc. then it really wouldn't be a massive deal. If it wasn't vital for the ascent then don't take it. If it was vital for the ascent then it deserves credit. 

Tom's reactionary 'apology' only digs a deeper hole. 

"I was a dick" - Tom

"Hey, that was a bit dickish" - the world

"NO IT WASN'T" - Tom

In reply to Removed User:

That was a very different situation, IIRC. The kit on the Rupal Face was abandoned (a number of years before?), the team had lost their ropes and they were retreating in a storm. That equipment saved their lives. In this instance, the kit was left with an obvious intention to return, seemingly near the base of the route, and was raided on the way up. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Quite, but it mirrors the same crag swag arguments applied everywhere - how do you determine if it was stashed or abandoned?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

amen 

In reply to Removed User:

You've rather answered your own question with the reference to 'epic fight'...

In reply to PaulJepson:

So what the whole issue is the guys aren't humble enough for people's taste? Come on. They used some food/gear left at 1st bivi spot of a 6 bivi route. The other team may not have come back or might have come back in 2/3/4 years etc. Haley is spot on in that both teams ethics are not in purest style. Otherwise all we are debating is how "nice" someone is eg. internet storm in a tea cup 

In reply to r0b:

The key is being honest about the style in which you made your ascent, isn't it? For the same reason, I don't understand why a hand drill is a big deal and I really don't understand why Tom would think to take a photo of it 'for evidence'. Evidence of what? I'd have thought that having an emergency drill might be considered sensible on such an objective — it's not proof that they planned to bolt ladder their way to the summit or proof that they planned to lie about their use of bolts or stashed gear.

Really poor attitude from one of our leading alpinists.

In reply to Only a Crag:

Can’t help but agree this is all totally ridiculous. I can get that some of the people involved might be annoyed, but others should get a grip.

I am saddened too that the climbing community is showing itself to be no different to society in general in its willingness to say very hurtful things online about/to people they don’t know, about events they weren’t involved in and at best have partial knowledge of, in domains they have limited experience of (I’d include myself in this).

But more importantly, the highly personalised insults attacking Tom and Matt’s characters, and general hyperbole that seems to me aimed at “cutting them down to size”, outrage me. 

I’ve never met Tom Livingstone (or Matt Glenn) but this must be horrible for them both. If you’re reading this (hopefully you’re not) - hang in there mate, I know this must be hard. Try not to pay too much attention to what people online say (easier said than done I’m sure). Social media brings out the trolls and even though might look like it, I’m sure most people don’t think badly about you. In fact I find reading about your exploits and seeing all the photos very inspiring. And you’ve done something incredible most people could never dream of achieving here (probably goes some way to explaining the vitriol). Keep doing it!

In reply to UKC News:

Good post from Quentin basically telling people to calm TF down 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CV2OOZyLlBT/?utm_medium=copy_link

In reply to UKC News:

Quentin's idea - that it is unethical to climb a mountaineering route that someone has declared as their own, and has failed on - is ridiculous. Moreover, is he *genuinely* surprised that the reason that Tom asked for beta about the route was that he wanted to climb it?

However, using someone else's cached gear seems wrong if not it's not being used purely to stay alive (i.e. on the way down). Tom's omission to mention this action on social media, and credit Quentin with making his ascent possible, suggests the sort of egotism which is characteristic of many top-level mountaineers.

In reply to OG:

Wholeheartedly agree, nobody except the protagonists know the full picture and unless you are a top level alpinist operating in these areas, one also has no idea of the domain. All comments not knowing these things are armchair puntering and per Quentin's post many of above have shown themselves to be such. 

Feeling one has to cut someone down to size, while having no existing relationship with the person betrays an insecurity and jealousy that many should work on. Perhaps reading one of Mark Twight’s essays on ego/ shedding of ego required to operate and stay alive in the high mountains would serve many well.

In reply to Only a Crag:

I don't think it's necessarily as clear cut as that. These climbers at the cutting edge are not only leaving a climbing legacy but also make their living through their name and sponsorship. If you're not entirely honest about your exploits then it isn't just a bit disingenuous, it's a bit fraudulent.  

If you live by the 'gram then be prepared to die by it. 

In reply to OG:

Well said. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Matt doesn’t make a living out of sponsorship, as far as I know. 

In reply to Myr:

There are plenty of examples of Team A failing on a route which is then done by Team B. That’s just how it works. To suggest otherwise is indeed ridiculous. However I don’t think Quentin is actually suggesting that in the post linked above. It’s a very reasonable post. His key point is about being open and honest upfront about the style a route is done in.

Leaving a gear stash on a mountain to come back the following year is also ridiculous in my view but that’s a question of ethics. 

In reply to Misha:

Perhaps not but presumably he makes some money from it, and his other income will be enhanced significantly by his climbing achievements. If the Bisharat article wasn't posted, everyone would be complimenting the pair on an outstanding alpine ascent of a difficult line. As someone else said, you only get one chance to report a FA and omitting both the important details and any acknowledgement of the assistance received from the other team is rightfully being called into question. 

If you posted news about flashing a cutting edge trad climb then it would rightly cause outrage if it came to light later that you'd done it with your mates gear already in. 

In reply to Brian in SLC:

Two sides to every story etc...

https://www.tomlivingstone.com/climbing-blog-1/2021/11/3/tengkangpoche-2021

In reply to PaulJepson:

‘Presumably he makes some money from it’ – in the same way Bisharat ‘presumes’ they are entitled rich boys (utter bollocks for anyone who knows Matt, I don’t know Tom personally), the way he ‘presumes’ they turned up completely unprepared with no aid gear (false), the same way the American climbing media ‘presumes’ it was Quentin and Jesse’s line to complete (just a modern version of manifest destiny), the line had been tried before and there is even an article asking if that pillar is even climbable on climbing.com from June, which if you ask me is just a red rag to the alpine climbing bull. The way most commentators ‘presume’ they couldn’t have done the line without the stash (which Tom’s blog disproves). I’m not trying to get at you personally, just trying to point out that enough damage has been done to these two by presumptions, can we all just work in facts – they took a bit of stashed gear – can see how that could rub some people the wrong way but it barely helped them as per Tom’s article and they are offered to repay it before this became a shitstorm. After that, they literally did nothing wrong. The real villain here is the incredibly irresponsible senior editor of one of the biggest climbing magazines who set off this entire chain of events with nothing approaching a fair story, making a steaming pile of unfounded character slurs along the way.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Matt Glenn didn’t make a ‘look at me’ Instagram Post so I’d like to assume he would have been more honest when/if he did.

I think you’re right though, part of the problem is his Social Media ‘influencer’ Business Model. It’s all ego-stroking in a bid to gain followers to satiate your sponsors. Might be time for a book and the lecture circuit!

In reply to PaulJepson:

Whatever anyone thinks about climbers using some stuff that a previous group left up a mountain, or someone climbing a trad route with the gear in, the outrage is much more of a problem than the ethics.

In reply to George Ponsonby:

I bet they now wish they’d just taken all the food and kit they needed from their reportedly well stocked base camp and just climbed past the stashed stuff without touching it. Why they didn’t just do this, with it not being any extra hassle at all (from Tom’s account), which would have made their ascent completely self supported is the odd bit. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Paul if you have to live or die by the gram what about the steaming load of bollocks you posted earlier. Want to walk any of that back?

User Profile PaulJepson17:13 Wed

In reply to Brian in SLC:

Wow.

Maybe 'Massive Hijack' would be a more appropriate route name.

Post edited at 17:24

In reply to ebdon:

While I understand communication errors might account for this, the text message quoted in the article (no way of verifying, of course!) seems to acknowledge how poorly this was likely to be taken by the other team. And then not to credit the equipment ‘borrowed’ appears a bit off too. 

User Profile PaulJepson18:51 Wed

In reply to Jayhigh:

Yeah there seem to be multiple levels of douchery going on here. Getting beta off a team about their project without disclosing that you would be going for it (or that you had a permit to go for it).

Using their kit and supplies on route without asking (aka stealing).And then not crediting them at all.

Using their gear on a high altitude route could potentially be excused if it was desperate and weren't for the lack of credit.All round bad form from someone who seems to pride themselves on style of ascent. Is there a Framboise D'or? There's a separate argument about the other team leaving their kit on the route for extended periods of time, mind.

In reply to UKC News:

Im in full agreement with Misha on this - Im not sure about the ethics of claiming a Himalayan 'project' as your own with the inention that at some time 'soon' you'll be back to do it. Also the ethics of leaving kit on the mountain.  Livingstone does state that the limitations of 'the gram' (as people seem to call it) prevented him from sending a fuller initial report. 

Interestingly I first came across this controversy on the Gripped website which just happens to be based in Canada.

In reply to Misha:

I think they are going further than that - by suggesting that Tom and Matt should have postponed their ascent until Quentin and Jesse were themselves ready to make their (next) attempt.

"...if they had told us they were psyched on this route, we would’ve invited them to come climb Tengkangpoche with us next spring and we could’ve all done it together."

I have read the Evening Sends account as well as Tom's own response on his blog and I think neither are the best reflection of either authors' good disposition and character.

The initial reaction leaves a bad taste in one's mouth, but this is ultimately visceral. However, after consideration, I am still left feeling morally 'uncomfortable' about it. 

Labelling Matt and Tom as 'poachers', 'cheats' or 'slimy' may palliate some readers' offended sensibilities, but isn't instructive in uncovering exactly what makes the ascent morally 'icky' and whether such feelings are justifiably held or not.

Climbing is a game, and games have rules; typically players of the game are bound to adhere by the rules of the game, and this is what constitutes concepts of a 'good game' and 'fair play'. The game consists on and in its rules. This is why we have a low view of game players who break the rules of the game to their own advantage.

Rules are best understood as either; - a set of 'special conditions' , or - as moral carve outs. Actions which break the rules of a game may not be considered wrong by normal ethical prescriptions, but are wrong because they break the special conditions ('rules') of the game; for example ball tampering in Cricket. Alternatively, when a carve out, acts which are typically impermissible are permissible in the game; combat sports, duels, gladiatorial spectacle.

Outside of a competition, climbing could either be understood as a global game or a game played with oneself. Personally I am inclined to accept the latter. I realise many would disagree with me here, and I suspect this underpins most of their objections. However, under this formulation, the only people Matt and Tom could 'cheat' would be themselves. Reading Tom's blogpost, it doesn't appear they would claim they cheated themselves.

However, there does seem to be reasonable grounds for moral debate here outside of the context of a 'game'.

If it is the case that Tom had failed to disclose he was interesting in trying the route before asking for crucial beta, then this is certainly bad. Deception is a sub-genre of lying as far as I am concerned, but I am sure others will feel differently.

More tricky is the use of cached gear. Generally using personal property without permission from an owner is theft, but how practically how wrong it is depends on the context. The time, I ‘borrowed’ Mum’s car to go winter climbing when I was 17 is very different from Phillip Green ‘borrowing’ from the BHS pension.

In this instance, by ‘borrowing’ Q&J’s gear, Tom and Matt deprived Q&J to make an FA of TKP, -and this renders the unsolicited borrowing morally dubious. It is reasonable to propose that you shouldn’t use others’ property to deprive the owner of an achievement. ‘Borrowing’ research to publish first was once commonplace in academia, but is always regarded as wrong in retrospect.

The context is more unpleasant if it is true T&M did not have sufficient equipment to aid climb; Tom goes some way to deny this in his blog. However, the record of gear borrowed in the first text messages differs to that given in Tom’s blog post, especially in respect to aid kit used. This is curious.

Either, Tom overstated the amount of gear he used in his text to Q&J, or he is understating it now.

It is beyond me why he would overstate how much gear was borrowed in his initial text, however it is not an impossibility.

But, if it is true that Tom is now understating how much gear was used, especially with respect to jumars, etriers and pegs, then he is lying, and lying to excuse his questionable conduct.

It is also possible that Tom is lying in his blogpost when he said he told Q&J he had a permit for TKP before asking for crucial beta. Again, if this is not true, then he is seeking to mar Q&J’s character to save face. For me, this would be the most objectionable charge.

Beyond what is right or wrong, I do think Tom’s blog post terminally misses the mark.

He could have disputed Q&J’s claims, whilst apologising for upset caused; instead he chose to accuse them of lying and being resentful. Personally, I find this to be really poor.

An apology, even one which does not accept responsibility, should not be turned into an attack on the aggrieved. Although, as 6/7 years Tom’s junior, perhaps this is the naivety of youth?

He also makes a confused points about not leaving gear as ‘litter’ on mountains and calls on LNT principles, yet himself took only what he needed from the cache and left what he didn’t on the mountain. Presumably he regarded this as ornamentation not litter? A trace worth leaving?

In reply to steveb2006:

Out of curiosity, what was their take on it? 

In reply to UKC News:

I find this thread so full of bigotry and double standards really staggering. But as I’m bored, I’ll voice my own opinions as well.

First, let’s tackle media reporting. Some say here that Eveningsends should have asked Tom and Matt comments before publishing… forgetting to require the same standards from UKC. The fact is, that neither is “real” press in the sense that the need to follow press ethical rules. Can they, yes…but they are not required… so they both acted on the information they had available and ran with that… now if they are really good, they’ll update their articles with the new information (preferably with comments from all stakeholders)… but they don’t need to do it (unless I’m ill informed and either or both are actual press entities that need to follow good press guidelines and ethical rules).

Now the other fact. We believe what climbers report (albeit there has been some controversy in the past). So with that in mind Tom and Matt just did the FA of this pillar/mountain.

Then it’s time the head into murky waters. Let’s start with “reserving a project”. AFAIK there is no such thing for mountains. Only common courtesy if you know that someone has put considerable effort in it. It’s a bit more clean cut with say sport routes. The common ethics often state that who ever put the effort to clean and bolt the line, can reserve it (for a reasonable time)… again this is about courtesy, and there are cases where someone has nabbed the FA despite the project being “closed”/red tagged.

Then what about stashing gear. Again, not the cleanest of styles… but actually not that uncommon. Heck, people stash pads for boulders or gear for single pitch trad routes. So not good style, but not strictly frowned upon either…

Last one to pick, taking someone’s gear without permission… well, the law uses some different terminology for this. The matter of fact is do you consider it booty (generally found gear, of who’s owner is unknown)… this was not like that, they knew exactly who’s gear it was.

and then the bonus round… reporting. From the original report it was clear that without the stolen gear (see above), the line would not have been climbed. So as purist as Tom in his webpage and report makes himself… not giving credit where it is due, is breaking one core reason I mentioned above… it’s trust… as climbers, we operate on trust basis. If you leave important stuff out, then how can we trust any of it? Note, I’m not stating that Tom and Matt didn’t get the FA (I do believe the climbers it). But omitting important facts is not a great start… that being said, if they did not need the gear, why did they TaKe it… again the initial report from Tom states that they needed to do considerable amount on Aid and jumared… Now as per Eveningsends, jumars, pins and aiders were ”borrowed”… thus again this point out that without them, they would not have succeeded. Of course perhaps what Eveningsend reports in not correct. But again, the trust thing pops up… thus far there is no evidence that Bisharat is lying… but the evidence points out that Tom and Matt have not been all that forthcoming… so they have a ”weaker” claim, since they have already admitted that they have not been completely truthfull (in the Sense, that they did not give all the information… only after they were called on it).

In reply to tehmarks:

Really? So at what point on the scale from "a bit scared" to "I'm staring death in the face" would it be appropriate to use an "emergency" hand drill?

I suppose it is a bit like loads of people in the US having guns as a last resort for self defence doesn't result in high rates of gun crime.

The absurdity of the idea seems to me to have been wonderfully summed up Mick Fowler in a talk; words to the effect of: "Our predicament was so extreme that I seriously considered drilling a bolt. But then I remembered that we hadn't brought a drill".

Sorry, I digress. Back to the internet lynch mob.......

In reply to Robert Durran:

Do you ever see in shades of grey, or do you have binary rods in your eyeballs?

We can't agree on a universal policy towards fixed gear in the UK, so why should it be any better on a 6000m mountain that'd never before been climbed? Is it okay to bang a peg in instead? The end result is the same.

In reply to duncan:

Yeah they didn’t make it to Everest 

In reply to Robert Durran:

In Quentin's defense, he did state that they backed off because they didn't want to bolt their way up it: 

"The slab would have gone with a hand drill, but it’s an incredible piece of stone to leave pristine. It’ll go in the right conditions... "

In reply to UKC News:

I’m sure Matt and Tom will be consoled by the fact that when the French lent the British a few pegs on the FA of the Central Pillar of Freney the controversy over who was entitled to claim what blew over in not much more than 30 years….

In reply to Tyler:

I thought the main controversy (if any) was that it was Bonatti's route having had several of his friends die on an earlier attempt.

In reply to tehmarks:

I just think it is obvious that if you don't think bolts are appropriate on a route then you don't carry a drill.

Oh dear....... 

In reply to Robert Durran:

a) If you read Rene Desmaison’s book he’s very bitter about not being credited as part of the FA team, never heard anyone saying it was “Bonatti’s route”

b) Thanks for the reminder not to attempt humour on any thread where you are discussing ethics. 

In reply to Derry:

You can guess from the title... https://gripped.com/news/huge-himalayan-pillar-climbed-with-borrowed-stolen...

In reply to Tyler:

I must have forgotten all that part of it. I was thinking of the mention in Bonington's book of encountering Bonatti guiding on his way to the pillar.

In reply to steveb2006:

Actually the article is pretty balanced (given the information Now available), and (as ”real” press) being updated when more information is found.

the only big bias is actually on the title. But no matter how Tom and Matt try to slice it… it seems to be true. If you’re nice, then you say borrowed gear… and those not so nice, would use the term stolen gear.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Great quote!

In reply to George Ponsonby:

I think that's great, but if we're going to do that perhaps you should note that Quentin Roberts is Canadian, and the climber he nearly did the route with, Juho Knuuttila, is Finnish. So your manifest destiny point seems a bit of a stretch.

Definitely deceptive dickery.

Energy gels and dehydrated meals expiring? Those are probably good for 50 years. If they had 'gone bad' why would you risk your own trip by eating them? They knew they'd be fine and they wanted to save weight, so they ate them.

Borrowed gear? Hardly. That gear was clearly cached and it won't be returned to the same spot. The fact that you left your own gear at the base just means your 'borrowing' was pre-meditated, which in my view is worse.

Not mentioning the route was on their permit while milking all the beta they could get? Truly devious.

Many famous climbers have 'stolen' first ascents from other climbers. That doesn't make this feel less slimy. It will be how the climb is remembered now, and I hope that's a choice Tom will always regret.

In reply to Removed User:

when you know who’s gear it is, and message them after the fact… that stashed gear.

now if you find some random gear with no clue who’s it is… that abandonned or often also referenssejä as swag.

In reply to HeMa:

Anything published (whether on the 'gram/Twitter/UkC or in a newspaper) is subject to libel/defamation laws.  So although Eveningsends is not bound by a press specific regulator (for example IPSO) they could still be sued for causing reputation damage to a person or company. (I'm not saying this should happen!).  A TV doctor who libelled Arlene Foster on Twitter was ordered to pay a six-figure sum earlier this year.

In reply to maxsmith:

Judging by Tom's response, it doesn't appear that they've published anything that isn't, at the heart of it, factually correct?

In reply to TobyA:

Yeah, I know that, I wasn’t really talking about them (as mentioned previously in this forum Quentin asked everyone to calm down about it), I was talking about the original Evening Sends article that set this off, written by the senior editor (or ex-senior editor, not too sure if he is still in that position) of Rock and Ice Magazine. Also, Jesse Huey is American, and while Quentin is Canadian, it’s pretty common for UK media to claim Irish sportspeople, celebrities etc. as their own, Americans do something similar with Canadians at times...

Anyway, that really is not the important point in the previous post, the important point is that these two are having their names dragged through the mud, being called things that should be reserved for true malicious people, well out of proportion to anything they have done, and ‘presuming’ things about them really doesn’t help.

In reply to PaulJepson:

Here it is:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/tom_livingstone_-_style_matters-69314...?

Thanks for reminding me of this. That article grated on me then and I criticized it, mostly stylistically, but I also wrote: "... there is also, for my taste, too much which borders on pathos and, yes, self-praise". Exactly the same feeling strikes me now. 

In reply to McHeath:

I loved the segue into a debate about the dislike button (classic!), then this excellent comment:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/tom_livingstone_-_style_matters-69314...

(I'm biased as I'm also a Damo)

In reply to PaulJepson:

You’re making assumptions which are almost certainly incorrect.

This wasn’t a single pitch in Pembroke. I do agree though that upfront honesty is key and said that above.

In reply to Myr:

May be, I just read that as being friendly / conciliatory. 

In reply to Misha:

Apologies, I thought we were talking about Tom at the time. I've just realised you said Matt in your comment. 

In reply to UKC News:

A few people have said it’s deceitful to ask for beta without saying you’re thinking about doing the route. Whereas I think it’s really naive for a climber to give beta to another climber who is capable of doing the route and not assume that the beta is being requested with a view to at least ‘have a look’. Otherwise why on earth would someone ask for beta? I don’t mean a general ‘what’s the route like’ out of curiosity, I mean beta which is actually useful for an ascent, which is what was provided by the sound of it. 

In reply to PaulJepson:

Fair enough. 

In reply to Misha:

I often chat in depth beta with partners and friends for routes I'll almost certainly never climb, I think it's pretty normal.

More importantly though, I thinking you're discounting the significance of the permit and how it makes this situation 'special'.

In most regions, the point you make is valid. However, in the Himalaya the permitting system affords some protection. Unless the person you're speaking to also holds a permit for your objective, you can be pretty safe in the knowledge that they're not going to rock up and give it a bash next Tuesday. This is why Q felt fine disclosing some beta through various channels over the years.

Had Quentin and Jesse been aware that Tom held a permit they would have been less willing to volunteer additional critical beta, beyond that they'd pushed out on their own public channels; Q said this himself. 

If it is true that Tom withheld the fact he and Matt held a permit when he asked for additional beta, then it's pretty deceptive of him. Tom denies this clearly in his own response. So, short of definitive proof, it comes down to who you think is telling the truth.

In reply to GGD:

Fair point on the permits but it was still pretty naive. If you don’t want other people to use your beta, don’t give it to them. Once you’ve given it out, you can’t complain if someone then does the route.

Yes, we all talk about certain moves or gear or route finding on particular routes which we might never do but that’s just natural curiosity. Nor are these routes unclimbed. Whereas here there was a top alpinist perfectly capable of, and conceivably interested in, giving the route a good go, plus it was an unclimbed route.

In reply to Misha:

It might depend on how the question is asked. Obviously if someone says "can you give me some beta on finding a way through the headwall?" then alarm bells are going to start ringing for your average new router. But if someone asks more subtely about the route and your repeated attempts then I imagine it could be easy to go into a lot of detail out of enthusiasm.

However it happened, personally I think eliciting all the key route-finding beta from someone about their multi-year project, knowing that they planned to go back to it in less than 6 months time, precisely so that you could use all that hard-won information to your advantage and beat them to the first ascent, is cold, mean and greedy. There's also the question of whether they really would've eventually given the full story or just hoped that the other team would stay silent, but that will never be answered.

In reply to simes303:

How can that have got seven "dislikes"?

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I think fa route snaking happens more often than people think, you just don't hear about it in the media.

I know when I've got a cleaned route ready to go but haven't done it yet, I wake up in cold sweats thinking someone will beat me to it! Giving away enough information for an ascent to go smoothly was naive if you didn't expect someone to beat you to it.

Was credit due in Toms post? Probably. Does the same happen on UK fa's (uncredited new ascents of other people's bolted or cleaned project)? Definitely. Is it all part of the game? Possibly.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I guess this also depends on exactly how much beta was given, which we don't really know. We know for a fact that Quentin and his mates have talked publicly about the route, so a fair amount of beta was already public, and we also know that Tom & Matt went up the route unprepared for the amount of aiding needed, so it also seems they didn't have all the beta they would have needed (or, as Bisharat implies, that Tom had the info but didn't believe it).

So I fully agree that this was a dick move if they milked Quentin of as much beta as possible without revealing that they intended to try the route, but it could also be that Quentin is exaggerating the amount of beta that he provided.

Also worth noting is that Tom did in fact credit Quentin for the beta in the original insta post, although it did get quite hidden in the other text.

"More recently @quentinclimbing attempted it twice. His first effort with @juhoknuuttila was agonisingly close and impressive. We’re very grateful for their beta. Our line avoided their ‘blank slab’ high point by going up right-trending cracks in the wildly steep upper headwall."

In reply to simes303:

Because the blog post was linked much earlier in the thread. I guess people are disliking the fact you're either repeating information, or more likely that you haven't been keeping up to speed with the discussion.

In reply to Derry:

Ah I see. I read it all from the top but I obviously missed that bit.

Si.

In reply to Brian in SLC:

That's a poor article, regardless of the ethics of Livingstone and Glenn's ascent. It's nothing less than shit stirring.

In reply to TobyA:

I didn't think so, I thought it was pretty poor and said so in the comments. Bisharat had the opportunity to write a genuinely interesting article about ethics and "ownership" of big routes in the mountains, and instead he went for intentional shit stirring in pursuit of clicks. For example:

"Slimy is a good word here, but I would also add entitled. I don’t know much about the background of these two climbers, but..."

It would have taken him five minutes to actually find out about the climbers he was posting about, and maybe write something a bit more informed.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Similar comments could be said for UKC article, which paints a rose picture and leaves out key bits of information…

both UKC and Eveningsends acted on the (new) information available. And without it we would not be having dialogue of ethics (can you claim a mountain route as a closed project or is it ok to steal gear to succeed vs steal gear to survive).

Me thinks the truth lies somewhere between the two articles. And none of the stakeholders come out in a good light. Well, to be fair Quintin and Jesse come out (currently, with the info available NOW) less of  douchebag, but not clean by any means.

my biggest gripe in this malarkey is for Toms report… he omitted leaving critical info off from his post, and while that is not lying it is not being open and trusthworthy. Since as a climbing community we work on based of trust, breaking that can actually have some serious kickback. Wasn’t there a few UK climbers that made some pretty big claims which have not held under scrutiny. What actually makes things even sadder, is Tom’s past outings on ethics (even on the his FA report he raises this up)… but I guess omitting relevant information and stealing is ok.

In reply to GGD:

I think the permit thing is a bit of a red herring,  these days you can get whatever permit you want in Nepal, with well connected agent able to get you a permit for a different mountain if you make a phone from base camp (or at least this was the case a few years ago).

In reply to HeMa:

Why doesn’t QR come out of this clean?

He cached gear for a Spring 22 attempt. This was subsequently stolen and TL text him saying ‘we knew it was a bit of a dick move’. I don’t know TL so won’t say what I would think of him. However, you can’t blame QR for sharing a text like that. Especially when TL failed to mention any of it.

The Bisharat article is almost schoolyard in its language and is a poor attempt to fan the flames, but I can’t see what QR has done wrong. If anything he’s rose above TL and asked for it not to get out of hand.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

We don’t actually know how much beta was provided. I assume it was some info on where the line goes. 

In reply to mountainbagger:

I still find the opprobrium heaped onto that article of Toms bizzare when compared to the psycho babble in this: 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/climbing_and_social_fears-683717

The exchange at the end of that thread, between RockSteady, jon and Mick Ward, is telling in the context of what happened to Tom's article.

Back on subject I find this permit focus odd. The key issue to me is Tom wrote that he said he was interested in that climb when asking for beta: either he is lying or any concern on permits seems irrelevant to me. The borrowed gear and food focus also seems massively overblown unless Tom is lying about what they used.

A clear villain to me is Bisharat (and not for the first time).... people too easily forget generating over-hyped controversy brings money to his organisation. I don't give climbing journalism free passes on ethical standards... such a major publication should always contact those they plan to publicly criticise first for their position.

In reply to Liam P:

If you read Toms blog he clearly claims some of what Jesse said is factually incorrect. Again, I'd ask is Tom lying? I've cut and pasted the three areas below:

'Tom and Matt hadn’t brought ascenders, aiders, or pitons’ – this is false. We brought all these things to base camp, and on our first attempt.

‘Tom allegedly asked Quentin about the route without disclosing that he had a permit for it’ – this is false. I spoke to Quentin and expressed our interest in TKP and the region long before we even applied for a permit or set foot in Nepal.

‘If you consider how much seven days worth of food, fuel and climbing gear weighs, it’s the difference between 50 pound packs and 20 pound packs’ – this is false. We saved weight on the second and third days by using 10 bars and energy gels in addition to our own. This is about 1 kilo. 50 pounds roughly equates to 22 kilos, and 20 pounds equates to 9 kilos. The article is about 11 kilos off.

In reply to Offwidth:

Not sure what major publication you refer to? Bisharat is as far as I know one guy that has a blog, and a podcast together with Chris Kalous. He is well known and probably has quite a bit more readers than any random blogger, but that's it. 

In reply to Jubjab:

Shouldn't having a large online following come with some responsibilities anyway?

In reply to Offwidth:

This isn't Tom correcting Jesse (Or Quentin for that matter) and pointing out incorrect facts. This is Tom's response to the Bisharat article which at times seems highly speculative in parts e.g. the amount of food taken. Of course, yes he still could be lying, but I feel he is correcting a few misconceptions that have been published and broadcast in the climbing community. 

My hope is that Tom, Matt, Quentin and Jesse have all made contact behind the scenes to say "wow, that escalated quickly, we're still cool though right?" "Yeah of course, just don't do that again"

*Edit for typo

In reply to Jubjab:

Evening Sends is not a hobbyist climbing blog, it's a business and highly prominent in US and world climbing journalism. He has also worked as a climbing journalist in major climbing magazines. He should know better.

In reply to Derry:

How do the 'incorrect facts' come to be in that article? Bisharat seems to me to be exploiting the controversy but I doubt he is making such things up.

Thought I should add that I totally agree with your final paragraph.

In reply to UKC News:

I don't think people should be conflating Tom's professed actual climbing style and ethics with the alleged wrongdoing in taking the food and gear. If the other team had said to him "by the way there's some stashed food a day up the route and some abandoned kit higher up - feel free to use it", I don't think anyone would be criticising his style - they would be universally congratulating him on a fantastic climbing achievement. The controversy should only be about how justified he was in taking it without express permission. 

In reply to UKC News:

People love a good dog pile. I've read the article and Toms response, seems like a storm in a tea cup. No one owns the mountain, they cleaned up some tat and left it cleaner than it was when they started so kudos to them for that. As said above, leaving a bag of gear on expecting people to leave the route alone does seem very "towel on the sun loungers".

It's very rich of Bisharat to call the pair "slimy" when his journalistic technique here is to dog whistle the climbing community then try to distance himself from the pile on, cowardly behaviour in my opinion.  

F@cking Vultures on social media smell the carcass meat and come swooping in, virtue signalling about ethics to make themselves look better.

I thought the climbing community was better than that, seems a lot are as knee-jerky as many others when the blood's in the water.

Well done Tom and Matt.

In reply to Boris's Johnson:

Well done Quentin and Jesse for pioneering the vast majority of an amazing line. Climbers get too hung up on FA's.

In reply to Offwidth:

Again I don't think it was Quentin and Jesse who pioneered the line. It was Quentin and Juho Knuuttila who did. 

https://www.instagram.com/juhoknuuttila/

His last few post from recent days, some  ice climbing in Sweden, are pretty cool.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, apologies, that was an oversight on my part. Well done to all involved in conquering the mountain- Quentin, Juo, Jesse, Tom and Matt. Fair play to you all for the amazing effort involved, its a shame its left such a sour taste in everyones mouths, mainly due to some piss poor sensationalist journalism if Toms response is taken into account. 

I agree that the vision and effort required to explore these lines deserves a huge amount of kudos, as well as the kudos deserved by the first ascensionists. Hopefully this will be a sea change in how climbers view how ascents are made, including myself in that sentiment.

edit: typo

In reply to Boris's Johnson:

In reply to TobyA:

Yes ...all three of them (and maybe some before them). Apologies.

On some US sites folks are sort of saying, "case closed" after Colin Hayley and Roalndo Garibotti spoke up in support of the climb. 

I have huge respect for Colin and Rolando, but I have to say, in this instance, there are other very experienced climbers, like Jon Bracey and Ines Papert, who don't view the ascent in a positive light.  Or, to say this another way, just because Colin and Rolando give it the thumbs up, doesn't mean that's is, or should be, the final word. Being a great climber doesn't mean you have a perfect moral compass. Great climbers can and often do disagree.  

I think there will always be an asterix or two after this ascent, first because it wasn't entirely free, however you want to define that, and second because there definitely seems like there was some duplicity and back stabbing involved.  

All is far in love and war, I suppose, but succeeding the way they did is not something I would be proud of.  

It would have been really cool if the four of them could have teamed up and climbed it together.  

It would be even cooler if the four of them go there next year, clean all the crap off the wall, and make a true fast and light ascent.  Or just clean the gear.  Leave the summit alone.  That would send a really cool message--the last generation(s) left crap all over the mountains.  We want to work together to overcome our differences and make things better.

In reply to brunoschull:

What's so good about fast and light? As long as the style is good (ie alpine style), I'm far more impressed by slow and heavy - the fact that such strong alpinists took a week means it is nails; far harder than anything they could have run up in a day or two. I'd be even more impressed if they had taken two weeks.

Why?

In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree with you.  I love when climbers take the time they need.  I recall Paul Ramsden (or maybe it was Mike Fowler?) saying something like, "The secret is, you just take a big heavy pack and tent and everything, and go for as long as it takes."  Super impressive.

The reason I said "fast and light" above is that, since its already been climbed using "slow and heavy" tactics, the next logical step would be to improve/change the style by going faster, more efficiently, and so forth, which is, for better or worse, the direction of modern alpinism.  Leaving room for this--doing the climb again in a better or just different style--makes another ascent a worthwhile objective.

Regarding "leave the summit alone" I love summits, and I think they are important and worthy.  But what I think would be really cool here would be a collaborative effort to clean up a mountain and make a statement about community and responsibility--the summit, if reached at all, would, or could, be secondary. 

Would that be worth it for these young tigers?  Who knows.  But it would generate a huge amount of discussion and recognition, it would mitigate a great deal of the negatively this ascent has precipitated, and in many ways it would represent a different kind of step forward for the younger generation. 

I've always through that, if I ever did go to Everest (which I don't have the desire or means to do anyway) it would be to go purely to ascend to camp whatever, and carry down some empty oxygen bottles, and then load up on shit and garbage in base camp, and hike out. 

Bruno

In reply to Liam P:

Reserving a mountain line is not really part of the scope of things. And his Pentagram post sort of implies that. So was it a dick move Tom and Matt, sort of, but nothing that hasn’t been done numerous times and is considered fair game. 
 

stashing gear is sort of frowned upon, but again not unheard of. 
 

hence almost clean. Shades of gray and all that.

In reply to brunoschull:

Sentimental tosh, the British invented the game of mountaineering and one upmanship, a form of colonialism, you plant your flag on the summit for queen and country, good show boys! 

In reply to UKC News:

Some contrition, but mainly doubling down from Bisharat https://eveningsends.com/broken-discourse-the-tengkangpoche-story/

In reply to UKC News:

The question from my POV is what happens now to that bag of shit hanging off a Himalayan wall. Is someone going to retrieve it?

In reply to brunoschull:

youtube.com/watch?v=Uq_Ih_r7QLk&

Just shy of three minutes in. Always gives me a chuckle.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

A very good post-article article, with the best sentence IMHO being "And if you are the kind of person who reads this story and it turns you into the kind of frothing lunatic who wants to try to destroy someone’s life on the internet, then you need help."

In reply to Derry:

I think it's really poor, to be honest. It's standard practice in journalism that if you're going to write a story about someone, you give them a right to reply. I don't really have an opinion on whether what they did was acceptable or not but he posted a hatchet piece and didn't give the guys in question a chance to have their say. He also made factual errors which would have been corrected if he'd spoken to them. 

"And if you are the kind of person who reads this story and it turns you into the kind of frothing lunatic who wants to try to destroy someone’s life on the internet, then you need help." 

I thought this was really disingenuous. Whether it's acceptable or not, he knew that would be the likely reaction to his piece. He had a duty to give the guys their fair say.

In reply to Brendan:

Yeah I agree with you (in the first part). Standard practice would be to give a right of reply, and he mentions in a few cases that he got this wrong or worded things poorly that they could be misconstrued. But in the fall-out we got Tom's side of the story so I don't really think much more needs to be interrogated into it otherwise it just go's over and over who/what you believe. 

The second part I don't find disingenuous at all. Even if he knew the reaction, does that mean an article shouldn't be written? Perhaps it could have been worded differently, but then so could have Tom's instagram post, Quentin's text messages, Colin Haley's facebook comment etc etc. In a world where every comma and metaphor is scrutinised beyond its original meaning, it's a wonder anyone wants to put stuff out there. The reaction of some of the forums was just some of the worst climbing trolling I've seen (which admittedly is not much). But completely unacceptable IMHO and as we know from many other mediums (e.g. racism in football) needs to be called out. I'm glad he did. Perhaps a few of those people have since simmered down and thought "Yeah that was a dick move too."

In reply to Derry:

When I say it's disengenious, I mean that he is distancing himself from the reaction that his article caused, even though he knew full well what it would be.

If he had just stated the facts then fair enough, but he didn't. He accused them of being entitled etc, and didn't give them a chance to defend themselves. He also got some of the facts wrong.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have written the story, he just should have done a proper job of it in the first place.

In reply to Brendan:

You now have double standards...

why wasn't  a much bigger media player (UKC) asking Quentin for how he felt (and then perhaps could also have spilled the beans that perhaps the ascent wasn't done as clean ethics as originally published).

You can't require a higher standard of reporting from one media and not the other.

Media acts on the information they receve. UKC on Toms IG post. Bisharat from hearing about the the behind the scenes action from Jesse/Quentin.

And as per his latter reply, he actually sat on the story (not that common) to see, if there is any need to write about it. As is quite evident from this dialogue, there was and here we are.


Had he not written about it, we would not be talking about what is considered to be acceptable and whats a dick move in high class mountaineering.

In reply to Brendan:

Yeah 100% agree he should have done a better job of it. I feel he still would have published it, as the main reason for doing so, was that he had borrowed gear and not credited it in his report. But yes it would have eliminated a lot of speculation.

In any case, I do think it has opened up a good discourse about what is and isn't acceptable (subjectively of course) in the mountains. The vast majority of us will never climb at this level nor have the gumption to invest so much time into a route so far away from home. I know I get frustrated when someone turns up and flashes my long term sport project like it was no big deal, so I've no idea how I'd feel if someone did this to me. 

In reply to HeMa:

I think you're comparing apples and oranges, or more specifically, a news report with an editorial. Bisharat's article is clearly the latter, and as a journalist should have done more than just act on the information he received.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Well, editorials are in fact opinions. So they actually have less requirements then factual news articles.


So in fact, UKC article (and such) are the ones that have a higher requirement of quality. Editorials less so.

In reply to HeMa:

Completely disagree, any fact stated in an editorial is subject to all of the checks and balances of facts stated in straight news stories.   Bisharat's first article was part news story, part editorial, which is why he should have given right of reply before publishing - or been 100% confident the 'facts' he was publishing were correct.  

In reply to HeMa:

I think there is also a difference between something marketed as a "newsflash" reacting to and highlighting that the event's occurred and a piece specifically criticising the specific actions of a person. 

In reply to maxsmith:

When you write and editiorial, it is an opinion (and in this case based on new information). You are not required to get any other comments on it, even from the persons it involves.

Is it good practice, yeah... but you are not required. Then again neither is stealing a good practice... 

Note, it the person that editiorial deals with, thinks it is not factual. They can actually go to court, it's a simple civil case... to nit pick, actually they can sue the publisher that is responsible of all the content they publish (but in this case publisher and the writer are the same person).

In reply to HeMa:

The only expectation on a news report is to be factually accurate, which the UKC report is - as far as it goes. If the controversy over the ascent is deemed to be out of the scope of the news report then the journalists are not under any expectation to dig deeper.

Bisharat on the other hand deliberately set out to write an opinion piece - and as such there's a reasonable expectation on him to cover his bases in the event of a robust response.

In reply to stevevans5:

yes, and actually my first reply was about this (to an extent). News is about reporting new information. I'm not expecting UKC and Natalie to read minds, they report what they saw... Toms IG post.

And even if Bisharats News/Editiorial was not all that nice to read. It did report new information. And as his second opinion/editorial already points out... he was the second voice. The original IG post was the information he acted upon. He called (righlty so) Tom about his practices, which he neglected to inform. And only disclosed the facts after the cat was out of the bag.

Had Tom originally disclosed the information readily, we would not be having this dialogue.

The old proverb of "Don't shoot the messenger" holds really true in this case.


People are already sharpening their pitchforks and planning on putting Bisharat on the stake... Yet complete miss out the real question. Was it Kosher to "nab" a line they new someone was putting considerable effort... omit to disclose that they had already a permit for it when asking for info (btw. the permits are dated, so easy to check if it was issued prior to the correspondence about the line... which also have a timestamp). Then proceed to steal some of their gear. And not mention anything about that... any of it.


These are the questions we should be looking into. What is cool/kosher/courteous and what is not. Oh, and naturally when you claim your ascent, what should you relay in that info... Again, we as climbers work based on trust. We trust it when you say you climbed it... sure a video is not but not required. But when you betray our trust... either by lying or omitting (key) parts of information...  well, you loose that trust.


Then we have the case of the partly raided cache up on the mountain. If you claim you clean up the mountain... you take all of it of the mountain... not just what you needed to get the FA. So this is again a bonus discussion point... is it really cleaning litter, if by only taking part of it (that you needed) you actually make the remaining part just that. After all, Quentin and Jesse has everything lined up for their try on March 2022, when most likely they would have taken it off the mountain (had they succeeded). Now, I kind of doubt that they are going there to clean it... So I could argue that infact the litter is there now due to the actions of Tom and Matt... before that, it gear planned to be used in March... now it is just litter.

Oh, and for the last time. Tom and Matt are the examples that initiated the need for these discussions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (I will go with Toms own words... a dick move), but the core matter is that some consensus about these issues should be formed by the climbing community. And if that actually happens, that is really good.  Something akin to what Messner wrote some 50 years ago or so.
http://web.mit.edu/lin/Public/climbing/Messner.txt

In reply to planetmarshall:

Yes, and that's what I have written now three times already. UKC acted on the information available.

And here we disagree. If it is an editorial, then it is and opinion and there are no requirements to have Toms voice heard. As Bisharat has written, Toms voice was heard load and clear... it just happened to undisclosed potentially important information.

And if it is considered as news, again he's reporting new information.


The only culprit to this whole shebang is Tom. Had he been originally truthful and induced all the relevant info we would be more focusing on the real issue that needs to be discussed... not who was more of a dick, Andrew or Tom.

In reply to HeMa:

There's no *requirement*, but it would be a reasonable expectation of a good journalist, which is why the UKC report is perfectly good journalism - within the scope of a news report - whereas Bisharat's article is not.

In reply to planetmarshall:

there actually is.

I recall it's called good published media ethical guidelines or somehting along those lines.

They list out numerous good practices and requirements, staring from simple facts as when you publish a portrait of a person, it is good practice to have the person fill out a model release form...

But again, stop shooting at the messenger. look at the real issues (forget about Bisharat and Tom).

But true to nitpicking and missing to point completely in UKC form, lets continue to disagree... and blaim Bisharat for reporting that Tom was a dick... or rather made a dick move.

In reply to HeMa:

Apologies for not following your forum rules on what can and cannot be discussed, but I'm neither nitpicking nor missing the point.

I'm responding directly to your assertion that those objecting to Bisharat's article are adopting a double standard - given that UKC's news report and Bisharat's article are two completely different kinds of article, the standards by which their journalism is judged *should* be completely different.

In reply to HeMa:

That seems a very odd parallel to draw.

In reply to planetmarshall:

You're right... I've seen the light...


Andrew is the bad guy here... he wrote that Tom stole 26 energybars... where as actually as per Tom, he only stole 10...

I see the logic now...

In reply to Robert Durran:

sorry, perhaps it didn't come out right.

my point is, that if we were (as a climbing community) to focus on the real matters at hand. something like Messners manifesto might actually be created.


so starting with:
Is stashing gear on an unclimbed mountain (or face) kosher or no, when you have already booked your next appointment?

Can you "reserve" a mountain line?

Is asking for beta on a line that requires a permit (which you do not disclose to have) from someone having done considerable amount of effort cool or no?

Is stealing someones gear (or rather only what you need) the greatest thing?

And then proceed to claim you "cleaned" the mountain, where as you just actually created litter on the wall (as seen above, the were left there on purpose with scheduled return back date). Now some of it is missing and the face climbed... it is in fact now litter.

And a few other potential questions or ethical guidelines.

For what it is worth, I'll start with my feeble opinions.
Stashing is not  a good practice, and imho it should not be done. But then again siege style expeditions and guided ascents in the greater ranges should also be frowned upon...

No, you can reserve a mountain line "project"... but if you know someone has put a considerable amount of effort in getting it done... it's a bit of a dick move to nap it. But as said, still fair game.

This beta thing, well it boils down to your intentions. You can do it and not disclose that you have already the permit on the bag... that is you being dishonest... not a great start, so kind of being a dick and should be frowned upon. But such things are what get's us to the next level and drives us forward. So not cool, I don't like it... but it has happened in the past and I'm sure it will happen in the future as well... 

Stealing someones gear, not kosher. You have access get permission... the proverb, easier to ask forgiveness than permission, comes to my mind from the actions. the only exceptions I can think if this rule is that in the high mountain you needed to survive... generally this means on the way down.

As for cleaning the mountain... well if you're gonna do it, do it right. get all of it off the mountain. if you only take parts of it, it's not cleaning, it's stealing.


Oh, and bonus question and answer. If you ride the high horse, you bloody well need to also show it in your actions. Otherwise you're simply a no-good fraud. So this is for Tom, don't try to claim moral superiority and then resort to shady tactics. The proverb that we should use here is "put your money where your mouth is".

In reply to HeMa:

At the point when the UKC article was published, there was no controversy because that was before Bisharat published his piece, so no one else knew about the stashed gear or the circumstances around the beta sharing (a non-point in my view for the reasons I stated above). Tom just said thanks for the beta. That’s not unusual these days. There was no suggestion of a controversy based on the available info. So there are no double standards here.

In reply to HeMa:

I do agree that some good might come of this storm in a teacup. Climbing ethics are not static - they evolve for all sorts of reasons, partly in response to ‘high profile’ controversies such as these. Hopefully going forward people (1) will be more honest / complete in their reporting, (2) will not leave gear stashes for extended periods with uncertainty over when or whether they will return (is anything ever certain with Covid etc?) and (3) if they do find a stash, either leave it alone or clean it up, depending on the circumstances.

In reply to Misha:

I've been thinking about this a bit more, and will partly have to revise my opinion from before. The debate I think has gone off track for the reason that when looking at the issues from a general point of view, Tom's ascent is fair game. But in this particular case, it's not.

Generally in Alpinism, there is nothing as a closed project, and it's ok to loot abandoned gear. There are numerous examples of both, with different teams competing for the first ascent of a route (for example the first winter ascent of K2 to take a recent example), and taking a kilo or two of stuff from a stashed bag is not a huge deal.

However, what makes this particular ascent a "dick move" is that the ascent both before and after seems to have been done with bad intentions. Especially damning is that Tom milked beta of Quentin without revealing his intentions. He supposedly was Quentin's friend (they had climbed together), but didn't tell what he was up to until after the ascent, and he was very well aware of how invested Quentin was in this route. That is in my opinion the beef of this whole thing, somehow this gives me the vibes of sleeping with your friend's GF. 

As a somewhat related story, remember when Chris Sharma was projecting La Dura Dura. He was shut down on the route, and to keep motivated invited some friends to try the route together with him. All this was well covered in the climbing media at the time. Now, Nalle Hukkataival was at the peak of his strength, and went down to Spain to also try the route. However, he was not part of Chris' inner circle, and Chris politely asked him to stay the f*** off. Nalle was a bit upset but read the situation right and left, as the public opinion then (and I'm sure would be the same today) was that the route was Chris's closed project and Nalle had no business trying it. Later Adam Ondra would do the FA of the route (also invited by Chris).

In reply to Jubjab:

Why are you still taking this line when Tom was clear in his response that it was one of the specific inaccuracies:

Are you saying that's a lie, and if so how could you know that?

In reply to Offwidth:

I based my conclusion on the chain of events that happened and that have been made public (it's not like I have any insider information or so). Why did Quentin get so upset that he contacted Bisharat to get out his version of the story if Tom did nothing wrong? It's most probably true that Tom and Quentin texted each other about the TKP line much before he came to the Khumbu region, but how come Tom didn't keep texting him when he was there? To me it looks very obvious that Tom knew that Quentin would not have approved of his plans and therefore Tom resumed contact with him only after the FA. 

One interesting question is what the reactions would have been, if Tom would have texted Quentin and specifically asked for his permission, and Quentin would have said no. Would we have had a thread with people bashing Quentin for being selfish? I think we would, and that's the reason why Quentin gave so much beta and didn't proactively tell Tom to stay away from the route even though he wanted to make the FA himself.

In reply to Jubjab:

The impression I have is most people here felt the most likely explanation is Bisharat probably exaggerated Quentin's concern's and having a permit is pretty irrelevant if there is a clear intention to try and climb it (obviously a permit at some point being part of that). Either way, as there is no other record, you're just publicly speculating on someone's honesty.

What likely motives might a top alpinist have in discussing a known prospective route with one of the prospectors? I think its odd that climbers give away beta but want to hold such a line for themselves. If they had explicitly said to Tom we don't want you to climb the route until after we have tried again I personally doubt we would be discussing it at all.

Too sports routes are not comparable because of the effort to equip them but even some of them get gazumped on a FA.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yeah, of course it's not comparable but I thought it has many things in common still. The main difference actually in my opinion was not that one is a sports route and one a mountain route, but that Sharma very clearly told Nalle to stay away, while Quentin was much more vague. Which brings us back to my whataboutism about what might have have happened had Quentin straight up told Tom to stay away. 

And yes, of course this is just me speculating, I'm not trying to claim anything else.

In reply to Jubjab:

Interesting analogy. I think the idea of closed projects in the big mountains is fanciful, including in this case. As I’ve said before, if Quentin didn’t want to encourage others to try the line, he shouldn’t have given out beta or even publicised his attempt. The idea that another team has failed can make other people more keen to try it themselves.

Didn’t know the background to La Dura Dura but if that was the case, to me it sounds like Nalle did the honourable thing but it was a case of double standards for Chris (let his mates try it especially if he knew they weren’t good enough to do it, but ward off anyone he doesn’t know especially if they have a decent chance of doing it).

In reply to Offwidth:

Precisely.

If they had explicitly said to Tom we don't want you to climb the route until after we have tried again I personally doubt we would be discussing it at all.

Even then, I think Tom and Matt would have been fully justified in trying it. In fact, I think Quentin would have been a bit of an ass to say that. You can’t ‘reserve’ a project in the big mountains. Whether you give away beta is up to you but once the cat is out of the bag, it’s going up the tree!

In reply to Misha:

Double standards? If you've gone to the trouble of bolting a route, I don't see what's wrong with allowing some folk on it without it being a free for all. It's not uncommon for climbers to invite friends to have a play on their project, e.g. MacLeod, Robbie, Iain Small etc on Scottish trad, McClure on Gresham's Pavey line. You could hardly blame someone for not wanting to invite a climber who might just nick it rather than waiting until they get the FA or give their blessing otherwise.

In reply to Misha:

Perhaps as friends they didn't think it needed to be said?