|
|
 |
2007-06-12 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Czechclimbing.com reports that Adam Ondra has been penalized by the Czech mountaineering association for using chalk in a sandstone area. The association will reduce his grant with 10 %. Why is chalk forbidden?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 13:08:48 |
|
|
|
I must say that this sounds strange. First Alexander Chabot was penalized by the French association and now Adam. Shouldn't these committees be more proud by their super athletes instead of going official with things like this.
What will happen if I go to these areas and use chalk? Couldn't they have given him a warning first? It seems like many climbers are using chalk in the area but they choose to penalize a 14-year-old. My god! This is really bad!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 13:08:59 |
|
|
i think the area they refer to is is known to me as the Elbsandstein, and i believe both the climbing ethics as well as rules regarding preservation are very strickt due to the fragile nature of the rock. Perhaps they believe that the use of chalk will have a negative effect on the rock and have therefore disallowed it.
I know that in Fontainebleau the use of chalk is sometimes frowned upon, but there it seems that the rules are variable according the level of your climbing.
perhaps Adam, or other local climbers could provide a more definitive answer?
I dont think associations should shy from penalizing their top athletes. It swings the other way as well (which seems to be the case here); when penalizing your foremost athletes, the one action that communicates the organization's stance will get the message out across the broadest group. This way, only one penalty will send a message across the world through media like 8a.nu. If this was their aim, then they have succeeded already
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 13:30:54 |
|
|
|
what does 'penalized' means?
and 'reduce his grant with 10 %.'?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 13:38:25 |
|
|
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/penalized
"To subject to a penalty, especially for infringement of a law or official regulation."
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 13:45:12 |
|
|
Hi Everyone.
This is only my understanding of the ethics, so I do not represent CHS, the Czech climbing comunity or anybody else for that matter.
The area spoken about is on the czech side of the elbe valley. The sandstone ethic is shared with the german areas across the border. This means no metal protection, rings places quite far apart, and an apparent ban on magnesium. In germany this is very strict. It is more or less strict in Czech depending on the area. Offically magnesium is banned on all sandstone, but there are places where this ban is openly ignored, e.g. the labak.
The Ethic has quite a long tradition, dating back into the 19th century, and refects the ideas and methods used before the advent of modern free climbing. Indeed it has a rich history and interesting chapters and charicters, but it's history has been largely cut off from that of the rest of the climbing world, due in part to the political history of the Czech and East Germany.
The argument against chalk, as I understand it, is that it is not part of this tradition, that it can chemically destroy the rock, and it is unsightly. The first is certianly true: people had been climnbing Czech sandstone 100 years before the introduction of chalk. To my knowledge the second is not supported conclusively by scientific testing, and the third is certianly true.
Interestingly enough, modern ropes, karabiners, belay devices, sticky rubber shoes, nylon runners and harnesses and the like are allowed on Czech sandstone, despite the fact that they too are not part of the tradition, can degrade the rock, and are unsightly if left on the rock. So the ethic is not a complete abnigation of modern climbing.
Hope that helps a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 14:27:47 |
|
|
|
And why not penalize someone for chipping holds? Or having a shit at a crag? Or having his baby screaming around? Or climbing naked? Stop, stop, stop, where are we going??? And is really chalk that bad? Of course it leaves marks on the rock and polished it as climbing shoes do. Should we only climb indoor not to damage rock? As we should stop driving cars, taking planes etc... cause of the pollution. What to do and don't? Life is too short, climb now, use chalk if you want and have fun. Cause fun is the most important thing, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 16:32:22 |
|
|
hallo the old discussion....
chalk and sandstone and tradition! we live in the 21. century have plasma flat screen ipods fast cars and chalk. that ist called progress.
to the destraction of the rock...well chalk might damage the beautiful sandstone but birds do too and climbing shoes as well and believe it or not co2 emission from cars ist not really rock friendly.....
we should respect rules and tradition and take care of what we have, however awaring stupidity is a different story....props to the young and the wild...you change the world
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 20:01:33 |
|
|
|
"Cause fun is the most important thing, isn't it?"
I don't think so, you can have fun smoking joints during all your life but you'll loose many years with dying before so what do you prefer? leaving much time and having fun with some moderation or having fun every time you can and dying before?
That's just a point of view and it is the same with this crag...maybe in 10 years you'll not can climb on this one because you haven't been moderated with the chalk, the birds's shit and all the stuffs we know.
More than it your sentence is just egoism for the next generation as well as bush..his politic:"ok , in 40 years i'll be dead so why do i have to care about the planet?" smth like that...Sure that's not out topic but it is egoism also.
I don't say that i agree with the prohibation of chalk but when rules exist to preserve nature, try to respect those rules.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-12 20:42:16 |
|
|
progres and fun...
well, i'm neither in a federation, nor a regular climber of the elbsandstein. but i can't follow all the arguments presented here. environmental problems show us, that progres must not be good. and if we like it or not, there are also other people than climbers living in this world. and it's way easier to argue with them about climbing in national parcs, if we respect te rules of the areas we climb in. somethimes they might even make sense...
the effect of chalk on limestone for example is rather positive, neutralising the acid of our sweat and therefore preserving the stone. on sandstone, chalk is closing the micropores of this stone, impeding the necessary "respiration" of this stone and making it more slippery at the same time. if we all want to continue climbing often climbed sandstone routes -especialy on a soft one like the one in elbsandstein- it is a good idea not to use chalk. by the way, it is forbidden to climb soon after rainy days (the sandstone is even softer, breaking easily and also to use any protective gear like stoppers, but over all friends. friends are a big progres in climbing, but unsuited to this sandstone, as it would literaly break the stone. threrefore the traditional use of slings and slings with noods used as stoppers are the best way to do.
not every rule there is makes sense to me, but if it makes sense, why not respect it?
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2007-06-13 12:05:26 |
|
|
"Cause fun is the most important thing, isn't it?" - Wake up! Speeding cause fun, too.
Breaking the rules should be penalised.
Of course it's this "tradition" question. But it's not only a problem of ancient ethic from times long-ago. This rule was confirmed on 1st of May 2007 (yeah, only two moths ago) by majority of votes of generel meeting of the Czech mountaineering association. This means that nobody is allowed to use chalk on czech sandstone and the majority of czech climbers probably agree with this rule.
Doesn't matter if the rule is stupid, it's still the rule we should respect - we can change it as soon as possible. Just vote for using chalk on general meeting.
--
I know this is stupid politics - it can be a little bit difficult, just because it means to argue our delegates into a voting for permitting of chalk. But it mustn't stop us.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 12:57:49 |
|
|
|
Probably, many of the guys voting from an mountaineering very seldom climb on this sandstone. These guys don't have monopoly of making decisions. Start the Czech sandstone association and you will have more votes for permitting chalk.
However, my biggest concern is why and how they choose 14-year-old Adam Ondra to make a statement. In Sweden, you can not penalize any child under 15 for anything.
Is there any chemical evidence that chalk destroy the sandstone?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 13:14:39 |
|
|
So in Sweden, a 13 year old kid can kill his mom and he wont EVER get any form of punishemnt for that?
i find that really hard to believe.
In the end, the current governing association in Czech have decided for this 'law', IF it is a law, a governing body of the country must have granted them the right to decide upon such matters. Whoever gets off his ass and goes to the meetings where such things are decided (if it is a decision made by popular vote) will influence it. You could say that whatever was/is decided is a fair representation of the opinion of whoever was interested enough to actually back his opinion with a vote.
Whether the punished climb 9a or 6a, doesnt matter. if that person cannot climb without chalk, then go somewhere else, where it is allowed.
What is really so difficult to understand about all this?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 13:40:31 |
|
|
|
lhabia - Don' you read my comments?
Who says the the Czech Mountaineering Ass is a governing body over the sandstone areas. I guess they have appointed them self and such behaviour is in fact dangerous.
There are several climbers who each day are using chalk in the area but they choose a 14-year-old. Don't you see the problem with this behaviour? There is a big risk that ordinary media in Czech will make a criminal of Adam Ondra. Or let's hope they make a criminal of that association.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 14:12:03 |
|
|
jens - yes i do, hence my reply which refers and replies to several parts of your comment. Without my reading it, i couldnt reply to them, correct?
Even if theyre not the governing body over the actual rockformations, doesnt quite matter. I suspect they grant Adam a monthly/annual allowance due to his (sports) climbing ability, by which they try to support him in becoming (more) successfull in his occupation. In return, he is the posterboy for that association, or at least thats how i understand it.
In other words, he could be perceived as their employee. Now if your company has an employee that goes to the media and advocates the use of your product in a manner that goes against your company policy, then you reprimand him, fire him, and in the least take some form of action to change such behaviour.
From the initial article you could see that the ass. maintains that adam has been in the news with pictures of him climbing (in a way, representing the ass.) using materials that go directly against their policy. they are merely penalizing their 'employee'.
like i said initially, if the complete disclosure of all details is wished i suggest asking Adam to join this discussion or explain through e-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 14:53:36 |
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 14:53:38 |
|
|
|
lhabia - Your responses are in favour of the Czech Mountaineering ass, meaning that you don't care that your writing affects and hurts a 14-year-old.
I actually started this thread in order to show Adam that I and others supports him. It seems you don't and that is sad. Image any 14-year-old at your club sitting in this hot chair.
I do not think Adam should be active in a thread like this. You can be damn sure that the association will use anything he writes in order to clean their skin. We are talking one 14-year-old vs. several adults who run the show of maybe 5 000 members. However, I would like to read the official explanation from the ass.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 14:53:52 |
|
|
I agree with Ihabia poster boy theory and by this you also have the reply why the "choose" him. Normaly I quite agree with jens, but here you go quite "dangerously" offside. You state : "Probably,
many of the guys voting from an mountaineering very seldom climb on
this sandstone. These guys don't have monopoly of making decisions.
Start the Czech sandstone association and you will have more votes for permitting chalk." and "Who
says the the Czech Mountaineering Ass is a governing body over the
sandstone areas. I guess they have appointed them self and such
behaviour is in fact dangerous. There are several climbers who each day are using chalk in the area but they choose a 14-year-old."
Without presenting any proof, you try to discredit the members of the association, who seems to be the only legitimat "decider" at the moment by stating they probably seldom climb there, appointed themself and anyway don't know what they are doing. You try to dislegitimate an association, just because you don't like their recent vote, and the decision they took with ondra. Even if there are other climbers who do wrong -are there? i don't know, do you?!- this doesn't make adams use of chalk right. and there is a huge difference between legislation/ court and the rules (and recut of support) an association has and how this is handelded.
by the way, the only sandstone association i know, the german one of the elbsandstein has by far the hardest climbing rules and ethics I ever heard of (and i don't agree with them) and never ever will permit chalk.
what's so difficult in accepting these rules? that we don't like them?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 15:06:21 |
|
|
@ jens
is your point really that the decision of the association would be alright if it were an adult?
when in your opinion is the right moment to teach a child then about the rules?
it's amazing what ondra is able to climb at his age. but does your support help him. if the message is that he can do whatever he wants because he is a child and damn good climber, I guess you won't. he broke a rule and gets 10% of his support from the ASS cut (for how long?), does this and the writing here hurt him that much?
If you have proof, that it is common use of most people climbing there to use chalk or he didn't knew the rule and was deliberately "choosen" as an example, things would be different. but as long as there is no evidence of this...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 15:14:29 |
|
|
"Your responses are in favour of the Czech Mountaineering ass,"
If what i said is in fact the case, then yes: i do agree with their actions. Business is business.
"meaning that you don't care that your writing affects and hurts a 14-year-old."
Hurts him? How, by sympathising with someone who enforces their rules (both neagtive and positive) on their members/employees? Like i said, business is business, in climbing its no different, it's not charity. You want to get paid? Then do the work. You screw up? Face the concequences. Its part of growing up.
"I actually started this thread in order to show Adam that I and others supports him. It seems you don't and that is sad. Image any 14-year-old at your club sitting in this hot chair."
They dont get paid, and if they were in this same situation i'd give them advice, but still tell them that its their own action that caused them to be in that situation. Action. Reaction. Fundamental rule of life in general.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 15:22:55 |
|
|
|
@ chrescht
1. My main point is that the association did something like this against a 14-year-old. There are so many better ways of teaching a 14-year-old than penalize him officially.
2. I have proof that many climbers use chalk through my personal contacts in the area. Surely he was deliberately chosen and the guy is 14-years-old.
3. Is there any chemical evidence that chalk destroys the sandstone?
PS On czechclimbing.com there are now 320 comments on the subject.
@ lhabia
My good. Don't you remember being 14-years-old? I am not talking about the 10 % grant but being officially penalized!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 15:37:35 |
|
|
|
1. Ethics are ethics. If you don´t like it, go climbing to another place.
2. Chalk polish the rock. Do you really need a study from NASA to prove that? Look at all this polished classic rutes, it is obvious that chalk destroy the rock.
3. People from Czech like their rock, at least, respect.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 15:40:14 |
|
|
yes i do remember, albeit vaguely. In my situations i was penalized for my wrongdoings as well, and it pissed me off. It was, however, an incomparable situation as i wasnt someone's sponsored star, i wasnt a posterboy and therefore couldnt be reprimanded on a financial/official level for my actions.
I take it Adam has parents, peers or a manager; if so, they fucked up. Sadly, he takes the blow. Lesson learnt.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 16:15:58 |
|
|
|
Hey guys, there r some facts about this:
1. Adam is a member of CHS (czech mountaineering ass)-a nongovermental association.
2. Adam gets some money from this association as a representant of Czech Republic- the grant is 10000 czech crowns.
3. 10 percent are 1000 crowns- about 35 Euro.
4. The rules of CHS dont allow using chalk on sandstone.
5. A few months ago the members of CHS decided to leave the ban of chalk in the rules. The decision was democratic.
Thats it
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 19:23:36 |
|
|
|
@ Unai
I do think that your logic referring to polished routes and the use of chalk is dead wrong.
I think that the reason why routes get polished is mainly do to climbing shoes and repeatedly grabbing with hands on fragile rock. I assume that the situation would be more or less the same with or without chalk. Weather chalk has a positive or negative impact in small doses, we don't know.
Based on your logic, climbing should be forbidden. Further more is it not true that limestone routes get more polished than sandstone routes. The most critical fact for sandstone is to not climb shortly after rain. That can break holds I have heard.
However, I don't know I just would like to have some clear evidence that chalk is the main destroyer for sandstone, but I clearly doubt it. My guess is that the climbing itself, with or whith out chalk, stands for 90 % of the destruction.
If the popular routes in this sandstone area is not polished, I am dead wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-13 23:29:30 |
|
|
hello yens,
maybe you didn't get what I posted in my first message for my poor english.
"the
effect of chalk on limestone for example is rather positive,
neutralising [part of] the acid of our sweat and therefore preserving the stone.
on sandstone, chalk is closing the micropores of this stone, impeding
the necessary "respiration" of this stone and making it more slippery
[polished] at the same time." I read a long article about this some time ago, unluckly I didn't remeber more of it.
but there's another reason too, we climber are not alone on the planet. limestone is in general quite lite and grey, so chalk is hardely seen on it. limestone, at least on the german side of elbsandstein, is quite dark, so chalk is very "flashy" there. as it is a quite sensible environmental and touristic area, leaving the least visible effects on the stone is the best way of not having all climbing there prohibited in 10 years time.
What is the consecuence of an official penalization except for the grant?
maybe they could and should have teached adam differently, but if they wanted to spread the message that using chalk on sandstone is prohibited, they largely succeded.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 00:00:38 |
|
|
chrest: "if they wanted to spread the message that using chalk on sandstone is prohibited, they largely succeded." - well-said.
Well, you all ask why was Adam Ondra chosen? In my opinion because he had taken part in two biggest chalk scandals in the last eight months. This could be message to the others who violate the rules - nobody have exception.
I uploaded some fotos and video which have driven the public opinion mad (video was taken back shortly after release). I like Adam, I love fotos of his ascents, but sometimes I don't understand - see 4'51'' of the video - chalk and wet rock - both is prohibited. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
--
http://smaky.cheese.cz/adam/adam.zip
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 07:50:10 |
|
|
most of the comments seem quite confusing to me, just like to be for or agaist Adam...
that is not the point
if you are a member of an organization, and this organization democratically set a rule, you are supposed to respect it, whatever your age is
if you act against the rule ( your own organization democratically set ) you just pay for the consequences ...
let the kid free, till you teach them respect !
ps my comments is just on the discussion, not about Adam.
I do not have enough details to express an opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 09:38:42 |
|
|
CHS was mainly upset that he published photos on internet from these ascent where he used chalk.
Pic from this ascent is there http://euroclimbing.com/?p=382 where is also link on the next website where is more pics.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 10:35:55 |
|
|
|
From that euroclimbing link,
"Most of the climbers at Elbe Sandstones use chalk and Czech Mountaineering Association (ÈHS) is upset for “anarchy” in this area. Many Czech climbers leaving Czech Mountaineering Association (ÈHS) because they are dissatisfied with working of ÈHS. They entering to Österreichischer Alpenverein (OEAV). Czech sport climbers often say that ÈHS is sinking like a brick, it’s association of old trad climbers. They feel better in Austria association OEAV."
If most climbers use chalk, I do think that picking a 14-year-old and officially penalize him in order to advertise the news is way below the belt. I am also not happy with the photographers, who actually get paid for a Ondra picture using chalk on sandstone.
It should also be underlined that Adam was 13-years-old when some or all of pictures where taken.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 12:14:23 |
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2007-06-14 12:14:37 |
|
|
This sounds truly idiotic...
I don't know anything about the effect of chalk on sandstone. I don't know and in this case I don't care.
I work a lot with kids in the same age as Adam and what I do know is that if a climbing association feels they must penalize a 14-yoear old boy and furthermore make this official they are clearly on the wrong track. If one reason for doing it is, like assumed in some comments above, to state an example and spread the message using the fact that the boy is talented and famous they have passed all borders for common decency.
If a kid breaks a rule - talk to him, tell him he is wrong. If he does it again - talk to him again and give some kind of warning. If a kid repeatedly and consistently keep breaking rules there might be reason for some kind of "penalty" but you should never, ever, go public with it.
For God's Sake, he is fourteen...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 13:35:58 |
|
|
ok the discussion is getting really funny
first of all if a 14 years old kid breaks a rule than his parents should be in charge
...
we all were 14 and did stupid things that is part of the game and it's also called expierence...
to the chalk or not chalk case...well there are pros and cons for the use of chalk...in other sandstone areas the use of chalk is quite common (pfalz in germany, alsac, blau ...) no one really knows the exact effect of MgCo3 on sandstone even the mighty ass...conclusion there is a tradtion and this lead into a permission...
lots of climbers don't support it and ignore it
well and the ass is quite proud about hard routes graded 8b+ or more...without chalk almost impossible to do...hey wake up, open your eyes
one eats the other...education and real facts might help
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 13:46:29 |
|
|
|
In another famous climbing zone with sandstone, Fontainebleau, where chalk
is officially prohibited, almost everybody uses chalk except maybe the people
from old school. The zone is intensively visited and I could say that the main
reason that the holds get polished are the bad cleaned shoes loaded with
sand.
When I wanted to climb an old, classic route (Marie-Rose in Bas Cuvier)
somebody told me that the holds in critical part, the exit, are polished due to
a big number of ascents on the route. After all it is the first 6A in Bleau,
should be there from the sixties (first 7A was opened in 1970) and climbed by hundreds of thousands of times. When I climbed
it, it was in day after a raining day. The holds were dry, clean and
adherent.
So, a good rain will clean the holds no matter how loaded they are
with chalk.
We could see famous climbers in movies about Bleau ascents.
Everybody is using chalk, nobody gets penalized.
Just to forbid chalk
because it was not used when people started to climb in that area (beginning of
19th century) is way into the ridiculous territory. To base a rule on some
statements like "it is said that the chalk bla bla" and have no real proof about
it, shows that somebody has the power but no brain.
With the wet rock I
agree 100% but Adam was almost at the top of route when rain started. What
should he do: make a 10+ meters jump or just wait for the rock to get dry? And you need more than some drops of rain to get the rock really wet in order to break the holds.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 14:04:09 |
|
|
I have -never- heard about chalk being prohibited in bleau.. reference that kind of thing please.
furthermore, even if you don't agree with a rule, you still have to abide to it! because I think driving 180km/h on the freeway is ok, doesn't allow me to do it...
adam has been climbing for a long time, and should be aware of the rules, just as is expected for the rest of us.
next to that, he is a (semi-)professional climber (because he gets paid to climb!) and a role-model and as such should be aware of the implications of his actions. him being 14 does not have anything to do with it..
and the reason that he is fined, and not "all the other people" who use chalk, is that he was dumb (yes, I called him dumb. the guys life as a climber is longer than mine) enough to let pictures with incriminating evidence be published.
now read that last sentence again, and say again that they shouldn't take some action.. to quote another poster earlier in the thread: "...he had taken part in two biggest chalk scandals in the last eight months."
so this isn't a first offence against the rules made by the association he gets paid by.
to put it simply: break rule, get penalty, don't whine.
and now, everybody go out and climb some beautiful lines!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 14:25:37 |
|
|
In Fontainbleau, there are signs placed in parking places which forbids the use of metal brushes and magnesia along with other interdictions. How official is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 21:06:54 |
|
|
I want to apologise to people who would like to see the ascent we discussed. I removed it at the request of Adam's mother, who had threatened me with criminal prosecution in case of infringement of copyright law. I consulted this with a lawyer and I probably have not broken any law, but I'm so disgusted that I don't want to continue in this stupid would-be-outlaw-game.
--
Good luck, have fun and climb a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-14 21:15:52 |
|
|
Czechclimbing.com confirms some of the 8a thoughts in an article.
1. Many members in the Czech ass very seldom climb on sandstone as their main activity is trekking, ski-touring and expeditions etc.
2. A large majority of the active climbers use chalk even if this is against the 'rules'.
3. In most sandstone areas in the world, chalk is allowed: Red Rocks, USA; Red River Gorge, USA; New River Gorge, USA; the Grampians, Australia; and The Peak District, England and actually in some areas in Czech.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2007-06-15 09:03:26 |
|
|
Stefan says: "him being 14 does not have anything to do with it.."
But hello, wake up!! This has everything to do with it. For how long time he has climbed, and if there are pictures published hasn´t. NOt even the fact that he is "professional" has anything to do with it.
You sound like you are assuming this kid are consistantly and intentionally breaking laws and regulations. But grow up! He is 14. Maybe his parents or trainers or some other leader is donging something wrong but get of his back...
This is clearly a case where an association wants to make an examplo of something and in this case they have the possibility to. Other climbers doing the same "crime" dont "get paid" to climb so they cannot be penalized.
This is stupid and disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 09:08:27 |
|
|
Stefan says: "him being 14 does not have anything to do with it.."
But hello, wake up!! This has everything to do with it. For how long time he has climbed, and if there are pictures published hasn´t. NOt even the fact that he is "professional" has anything to do with it.
You sound like you are assuming this kid is consistantly and intentionally breaking laws and regulations. But grow up! He is 14. Maybe his parents or trainers or some other leader is donging something wrong but get of his back...
This is clearly a case where an association wants to make an examplo of something and in this case they have the possibility to. Other climbers doing the same "crime" dont "get paid" to climb so they cannot be penalized.
This is stupid and disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 11:08:13 |
|
|
come on!
kids are not innocent and understand rules just as good as adults (but seeing this discussion I'm not so sure anymore.. pfft).
thinking that they should be treated otherwise is a narrow-minded bs-stance.
I am -not- implying he "is consistantly and intentionally breaking laws and regulations"; those are your words. I merely quoted someone else on this matter. every climber should be aware of the rules of a crag, even 14-year olds. he didn't, and as he's a high-profile climber, he gets the boot for it. though luck kid, should've played by the rules.
and "Other climbers doing the same "crime" dont "get paid" to climb so they cannot be penalized."??
that's just bs. of course you can penalize them, only not the same way. I don't know the rules, but how about a ban for that area? or suspension of membership. there's a lot that you can think of, but I don't really want to start a discussion about legislation or precedents of any sort.. that goes a bit to far in this forum..
and yes, next weekend in font I will search for those signs. I've never seen them, so they're not very obvious.. probably ;)
and how official they are? no clue, I can whip up a pretty nice sign if I wanted..
I hardly use chalk myself (but resin), because I agree that it looks like crap..
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 12:12:12 |
|
|
Wait a minute here, fellas.
Let's keep this civil.
Anyone got hard evidence to support the claim that chalk destroys rock? If not, then there is no basis to support the ban. Then it becomes a matter of opinion, and in opinion there is no right and wrong, only yours and mine. the only wrong about opinion is trying to force it upon others.
To say that one should follow rules simply because they exist is assanine. If there is no merit to the rules, there is no reason to follow them. One example of this would be the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. I for one am glad that there are people in the world who don't obey rules simply because they exist.
Oh, and if you would like to see some pictures of people using chalk on czech sandstone, all you have to do is visit the CHS website.
Cheers,
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 12:33:37 |
|
|
I am only interested in the way the association behaves against a kid.
Obviously there is a reason that you don’t get "of age" and that you haven’t reached lawful age when you are 14. OK, there are lots of kids acting like they were grown ups but they aren’t. Practically their parents are responsible for everything they do. That’s part of being a child…
I don’t say that you should ignore kids breaking a rule just because they are kids. No way, let them know they are wrong but don’t do it in public.
If you decide to “penalize” in public you don’t punish the actual breaking of the rules. You mean something else which is quite obvious when you read all comments. That is no way to treat a kid. If it is true that lots of climbers break the same “rule” and don’t get penalized then it is proven to everybody that they couldn’t be or wouldn’t be – makes no difference. Someone has decided not to penalize the others, just the kid. That is truly illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 12:55:36 |
|
|
Hi,
Yes, it is absurd.
It goes further to damage the CHS's reputation within the active climbing comunity in the Czech. That's what most of the 400 odd comments about the issue express on Lezec.cz (czechclimbing.com), disgust not with Adam, but with the actions of the CHS.
First they maintain rules that are unfouded and largely ingnored by it's members, then they make matters worse by trying to enforce those rules on a young boy to prove a point to the wider commuity.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2007-06-15 14:04:19 |
|
|
just an aside @ titifrig, and I'll leave it at that:
http://bleau.info/cleanup/magnesium.html
there appears to be no official prohibition against chalk in font.
they are, however, very strong guidelines, to which I wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 14:26:35 |
|
|
|
chalk can actually destroy sandstone. but to which extend is dependent on several factors like pore size of the sandstone, binding agent between the sand grains etc.. in this case (Elbsandstein) there is a hard cover layer on the stone where the grains are hold together by iron and manganese oxides and as you can see from its dark color its mainly manganese oxide. when the sandstone becomes wet and the water can not evaporate from the stone for some time, e.g. because it is cover with magnesia, the oxides are reduced and iron and manganese are dissolved. the sandgrains lose their binding agent and the stone gets destroyed. you can see this effect in every kind of sandstone, it always breaks much easier when it is wet. the sandstone in the Elbsandstein has a rather fine grainsize and therefore a high waterholding capacity what makes it vulnerable for this process. beneath the hard cover layer the sandstone there is most of the time very soft and only bond by carbonates which can dissolve easily when in contact with acid (for example from rainwater or sweat). because of this the chalk you use (but should not) can not replace the iron and manganese oxides as binding agents (and it is not enough). sorry for the chemistry but some guys asked for it.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 14:48:16 |
|
|
|
@ rainer rees
Thanks for some chemical info but I don't understand with the logic.
You say that there can be a problem when the sandstone evaporate (dries out) after rain if it is covered with chalk.
Wet sandstone is not covered with chalk after rain. The rain makes the chalk disappear!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 15:56:13 |
|
|
@ jens: I said that there is a problem when the sandstone can not dry! And the chalk is in the pores of the sandstone not only on the uppermost layers of the surface (together with skin particles, sweat etc.). And it can not be washed out of the pores easily.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 16:11:10 |
|
|
|
I was also referring to 'not dry.' Rain certainly clean away most of the chalk. However, I can see your point as rain have hard time to clean away 'pof' in Fontainebleau, rubber from shoes and skin particles that have been squeezed into the crag.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 16:45:31 |
|
|
|
This association can decide what to do with its possesions. Thats what the grant is- possesion of ÈHS. Woodnt it be absurd to give the money to a guy who doesnt follow your rules? Not giving Adam these 10 percent is not a penalty. By the way these its all about 35 euro (1000 czech crowns)- its just symbolic.To all those who are concerned, that a 14 year old was penalized: do you thing that its gonna influence his budget or the budget of his parents?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-15 17:28:05 |
|
|
Hi Rainer,
Is you assumption based on an actual study of the effect of magnesium on sandstone? Is there something you can reference it too? I mean if chalk is banned in the Elbe how is one to know its effects? Inquiring minds must know.
I don't have any study that says chalk destroys the rock or doesn't, I only have my own experiance of climbing on different types of sandstone. And from my experiance I know that chalk washes away in the rain- except under big overhangs. And if it rains enough you cannot even see a trace of it. So to say that it doesn't allow the rock to breathe properly sounds nice in theory, but I have found otherwise in real life.
You are correct in saying that when sandstone is wet it is significantly weaker. But climbing on wet sandstone and climbing on dry sandstone with chalk are two entirely different things not to be confused.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
2007-06-16 15:17:18 |
|
|
Hi, I will try to explain little bit the problem of chalk prohibition in the area of Elbsandsteingebirge (bigger part is in Germany and smaller part is in Czech republic - the rules are same in both areas).
At the beginning of climbing (some 120+ years ago) climbers thought that moral aspect is also part of the climbing and they used for protection rings (where distance between them is sometimes quite impressive - sometimes there is none, sometimes one) and partly because of protection of rock, partly because of lack of material those days, for securing the route there are only knots and slings allowed. It is quite normal that you climb route two, three, four grades below your max just because you are scared to do same moves as in route where the protection is each 2 meters and you had preclipped 1,2,3,.. runners in advance for security. So it is not like pure gymnastics and focus on the difficult move with no danger at all.
As it was stated in discussion the assembly of all members of CHS decided just few weeks ago, that the majority of members want to continue with the tradition that there is prohibited 1. using metal protection except the rings set up by first ascender 2. chalking 3. climbing on wet sandstone 4. guiding the rope without regard on damage of rock 5. there are set minimal distances between the rings,...
The biggest discussion rose about chalk (as expected). The "elite" climbers complained about two things - minimal distance of rings (they thought that in rockclimbing there is no part of moral aspect of route and it only matters if you can do the move) and the biggest problem called chalk. Within their arguments there was that sweat damages rock (not supported by valid research), cause it slippery, disallows climbing at their max. Within the arguments against chalk there was that there is no true OS when you are climbing on white spots, chalk damages rock (not supported by valid research), semi-wet chalk makes rock slippery unless you are also chalking, is ugly. As you see none of the parts was able to support their arguments by some valid research and the whole discussion was just lot of yell without sense. Few of the arguments for keeping the anti-chalk rule was that already in some exceptions from government.
Furthermore there was also concern if chalk was permitted newbies will climb with chalk routes that were climbed hundred years ago without chalk because they will bring some of the habits and "mistakes" from gym.
This issue became more important since more climbers come and also because of internal quarrel about how money are divided (majority of the members complained that grants based only on number of members are being used for supporting top 5 climbers and let's say some 25 climbers more without regard that those money are for all the 12000+ members). There were in last years complaints about awarding ascents of years which were in conflict with the rules and for the last year there were strict notice that those climbs in conflict with rules will not be awarded (to dismay of those 30 top climbers). Because the majority thought one third of all money for top 30 climbers is quite big piece of cake they banned proposition for raise (since it was raised in last years constantly). And because from the base of members there were signals about leaving CHS (and therefore CHS will lose money from annual membership and also from government because lot of grants are based on number of members) to different association abroad (since the amount for reprotecting the rocks and methodics is lower then amount of money being spend on few top climbers quite a lot of members think, that the assossiation is not fulfilling their goal and don't feel the necesity of spending money where there is no payback. And with the regard that as a member of DAV, OEAV climbers are insured and get discounts on refugees in whole Europe there is a reason why lots of members of CHS are also members of DAV or OEAV and they consider membership in CHS as charity and after too many years of promises of change they are getting sick of just promising and no acts.
This year there were few scandals of those top climbers about chalking and climbing during restricted period and Adam was unfortunatelly the one who was punished first.
I want to say that as a common member I don't fell hate or something like this against those top climbers, but they will have to understand that the rules are for all same without exceptions just because of being the best. The situation of "toleration of chalk" comes from lack of human researves of law enforcing agencies not from tolerating it. So we could say the rules are same as in Germany and the ban of chalk there is quite strict and well enforced.
There are few possibilities that might happen after CHS will again surely discuss the topic of chalk (as last 20 years) and the members will democratically decide to 1. allow chalking 2. keep the ban and enforce it 3. some will stop being members.
There is continuos discussion about how much should the top climbers be supported (since the money awarded thanks their achievements are minority of their piece of cake) for so called "propagation" - because the trend of being in and therefore doing climbing it is disputable whether with diminution of support of top climbers there will be less people becoming members of CHS.
I personally will do the same as majority of people I know. Since we all are members of CHS and OEAV for the next year we will pay just for membership in OEAV with its benefits and stop wasting money on local climbing assossiation because we disagree with the trend that could be simplified as "is giving as much money as possible to few top climbers" with lowering the service for "common" members.
Still I think the rules should be either obeyed or changed and democracy should not be mistaken with anarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-16 17:50:32 |
|
|
|
@ Jan
Thanks for your comment but I don't get your point and it seems like you are missing a lot of info and we are not debating a democracy issue.
Most climbers in the are use chalk. There are pictures on sponsored climbers on the association webpage where climbers are using chalk in 'prohibited' areas.
How on earth could they choose their biggest climbing star, Adam Ondra (for chalkclimbing he did when he was 13-years-old), to make a statement. This is the problem, not any old 'democracy' rule that is not any longer valid by the association itself????
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-18 02:05:46 |
|
|
Jens - Why there disappeared article with Andreas Bindhammer???? You got suggestion from Czech mountaineering ass. to delet it?
I hope that it is only error in my web browser and you didn't delet it :).
We would rather congratulate to Adam that he won international bouldering competition - Hudy boulder Cup that was held this weekend.
Cheers,
Dimitry
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2007-06-21 19:17:45 |
|
|
From my experience climbing on sandstone in Bleau & the South of England chalk is not removed from sandstoneby rain. I have been the first to climb at an area after many days of rain & the white marks are still there. I assume therefore that it chemically bonds to the surface in some way. Now a layer of chalk reduces the possible maximum friction which is always between clean/dry hand or shoe & clean/dry rock.
Chalk on sandstone therefore makes the hold slippy forever (or at least for a long time) & those involved are to be applauded for taking this step to defend their local climbing area.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
2008-06-21 20:38:34 |
|
|
Cool
|
|
|
|
|
|