|
stardust44
Nov 14, 2001, 11:29 PM
Post #26 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 108
|
Maybe it shouldn't be a rule because maurijauna doesn't effect ones performance when climbing at all. If Sharma chooses to smoke than that is his own personal decision in life. I wonder why the drug is illegal in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
phyre
Nov 15, 2001, 12:51 AM
Post #27 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 120
|
first of all let me just say this whole debate has nothing to do with anyones character.
That said, I believe that it is the responsibility of anyone in the climbing community (especially someone who is in the spotlight) to represent the climbing community in a way that climbers everywhere can be happy with. I think it is a resonable request of the organization to want the atmosphere of a competition to be a drug free one (regardless of how the drug helps you climb). in my opinion this isn't just about drugs it's about realizing that, as captainprozac pointed out, people (non-climbers) are "waiting for us to slip up so they can pounce" This applies to leaving trash behind at a crag, bolting stuff that's off limits, or being known for allowing drugs a competitions. We don't climb in a world of only climbers and it is ignorant and anti-productive to act as though we do.
phyre
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 15, 2001, 12:58 AM
Post #28 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Once again, stardust, why shouldn't it be a rule?
|
|
|
|
|
greatgarbanzo
Nov 15, 2001, 2:17 AM
Post #29 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2001
Posts: 360
|
i think is quite irresponsible on sharma´s part to give such a bad example for the rock teens.... but hey... what the f"#$" i like pot too...
|
|
|
|
|
compclimber
Nov 15, 2001, 3:19 AM
Post #30 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 683
|
To my knowledge she already stated why she thought it shouldent be rule Pianomahn. We still havent heard why you think it "should" be rule. Care to stirr the debate more???
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 15, 2001, 6:17 AM
Post #31 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
No, it was stated that whatever he wants to do, shouldn't be anyone's business, and it shouldn't matter wether or not he smokes up.
It was never stated why the organization who has the rule shouldn't have it as one. But, I will give my side.
Marijuana, aside from medicinal purposes in the United States is illegal. Every sports organization has rules regarding illicit drug use. If these climbers want to be respected as professional athletes, they need to abide by the same rules as other professional sports organizations. If the organization itself wants to be respected as well, they need to keep in place such rules.
It's also a liability. Having someone toked up on marijuana for a comp is dangerous. They could be held resposible for things that were a direct result of such activities.
...more to come...
|
|
|
|
|
howieehrlich
Nov 15, 2001, 10:19 PM
Post #32 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 57
|
this is my first post on this topic, and by the lookd of it, not my last. i say, all the more power to you chris for first off, WINNING THE WORLD CUP, and secondly, for not being a damn conformist and doing what HE wants to do on HIS time, not yours and not that of the other competitors of the world cup. in no way did this effect his performance and by no means anyone else's. in addition, this whole loability thing, it doesnt matter! if he were to be hurt, the drug test would have shown pot and voided liability of the organizers, so its not even a concern of theirs! chris did what he what he like to do. mad props for chris!
|
|
|
|
|
colin
Nov 15, 2001, 11:22 PM
Post #33 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2001
Posts: 708
|
He was dq'd because he broke the rules. If he knew he was going to test positive for pot he should have not entered the contest.
case closed
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 15, 2001, 11:27 PM
Post #34 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
Okay you can't take the "conformist" argument here. In the climbing community there is as much pressure to smoke as there is not to. At aclimbign party/crag/get together afterwards I have never seen anyone pressure one way or another.
Talon had it rigth form eth start. their rules said no, he had it in his systems, well knowing the rules, so he gets dq'd. It's like using an out of bounds hold or yanking on a draw during his run. Way to do your own thing Chris! Sorry, it's "against the rules".
Sure what he does on his time is his buisness, but when it's still in his system come comp time, it's his own fault. Who loses out? He does (sponsorship, comp suspension etc.). HE broke the rules, and he has to pay his penance.
|
|
|
|
|
stardust44
Nov 15, 2001, 11:59 PM
Post #35 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 108
|
Pianomahn, i think that you make an extremely valid point as did everyone who responded. I am protesting pot in a more general stance. I think it should be legalized in in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
diegow
Nov 16, 2001, 2:52 AM
Post #36 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 39
|
I think that just smoke some marihuana dont tekes away the fact he climbed an 15
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 16, 2001, 7:51 AM
Post #37 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Buenos dias, diegow.
Yo estudio espanol en la escuela por dos anos. Hablo espanol un piquito.
Adios.
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 16, 2001, 1:11 PM
Post #38 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey everyone- lots of interesting points here, some better than others! Mr. Piano seems to be a rigid rule follower (there are lots of those out there). The point though, Piano, is that Sharma shouldnt have been DQ'd because there is nothing performance inhancing about smoking pot, so the rule is stupid. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a rule that stated that having brown hair would result in disqualificaton, would you say that Sharma was "stupid" for not dying his hair blond before the comp, or would you question what hair color has to do with climbing? My point is that just because rules exist doesn't mean that they should exist, right? Taking your argument that "Sharma was wrong because the rules said so" to its logical extreme would justify some pretty horrible things that have happened throughout history- remember that slavey used to be legal (aka "within the rules"), not to mention nazi Germany's treatment of certain minorities. Of course these seem like ridiculaous parallels to make with Chris Sharma smoking pot, but the logic is the same. So relax- its OK to question the rules. And stop voting republican :0) !
JCS
[ This Message was edited by: jcs on 2001-11-16 05:16 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 16, 2001, 3:26 PM
Post #39 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
I will have you know that I vote neither Democrat nor Republican. I think these parties are vile scum, and should be eradicated from the face of the planet.
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Nov 16, 2001, 4:29 PM
Post #40 of 107
(11257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
You can talk about whether it was a stupid rule or not till the cows come home. But entering the comp he knew the restrictions, and he still did it. Comparing this to WWII Germany is totally absurd. The Jews didn't agree to any of the ethnic cleansing THEN b!tch about it while they were being slaughtered. If sharma has a beef with the rules, then boycott.
JCS, under your logic I can drive drunk just because I may think it's a "stupid" rule. The family of 5 innocents I may kill may not think it's such a "stupid rule"
For this purpose it IS a liablility factor. The way litigation is moving, If Sharma had hurt himself at the comp whie under the influence he could sue for damages. We all know that type of situation is total BS, but it happens all the time.
[ This Message was edited by: krillen on 2001-11-16 08:42 ]
|
|
|
|
|
howieehrlich
Nov 17, 2001, 12:14 AM
Post #41 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 57
|
The logic is the same. even thought they are truly extremes, Nazi murders and chris smoking pot are along the same logic lines. it was a rule, yes, however it was a stupid rule as many people, not just chris obviously think. furthurmore, im sure chris was not the only one who had pot in their system during the comp. weather it was from a few hours, or even days ago, others still "abused and broke" the rules. and in addition, its over! the world cup board isnt goin to reverse their decision again, nor should they at this point, but they should realize that what someone chooses to do on their time without hurting others is none of their business and those who do choose to partake in these activities, such as smoking pot, should not be punished. this forum is the boycott and chris not climbing would not shut down the world cup, but it would prohibit the best climber in the world (argueably) from his fair chance of competeing and possibly winning another title.
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 17, 2001, 8:34 AM
Post #42 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey!
Krillen- you CAN drive drunk if you think that its a stupid rule... but do you? My point with nazi Germany is that there ARE stupid rules, and we, as people, have not only the right not to follow unjust rules, but the duty to fight (or argue) against them. The "rules are rules and should be followed" thing is great for sheep- but if nobody ever questions ridiculous rules, a minor example of which is banning pot from bouldering competitions (presumably because the drug is supposed to be performance inhancing????), these ridiculous rules will never be changed. So sure, you can argue that Chris broke the rules and by those rules should be disqualified- but the rule is still ridiculous, and Chris still won the comp, whether the "rules" recognize that or not. Piano, the republican thing was a joke- try to relax a bit! :0)
JCS
|
|
|
|
|
climb512
Nov 17, 2001, 3:48 PM
Post #43 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2001
Posts: 468
|
it says a ton about ones character. it shows no respect for the rules of your sport. how can you say it doesnt affect ones performance? rules are rules,sorry.break them pay the price. maybe he'll loose some sponsers then have to work and climb like the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 17, 2001, 4:58 PM
Post #44 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
There we go with the conformist "rules are rules" argument again. And how, exactly, does smoking pot reflect on someones characacter? Is Chris Sharma an ethically "bad person" with a "bad charcater" because he smoked marijuana? And, CLIMB512, if Sharma were a twenty year old kid drinking beer with his friends a few nights before the comp would it have the same negative impact on his "character"? Do you believe that because something is illegal it is immoral? By that reasoning, is everything that is legal also moral? And how can someone as dedicated to climbing as Chris Sharma not have respect for the sport of climbing?
As for performance, I'd bet that marijuana doesnt POSITIVELY effect a persons bouldering at all- if anything, I'd think that it would have a NEGATIVE impact. I'll admit though, that if marijuana does give a climber an unfair advantage over those who dont smoke, it should be against the rules. Otherwise, it shouldnt be against the rules, right? So the question here really seems to be: does marijuana inhance bouldering performance? Id be interested to know what climbers who do smoke and climb think about how it effects their ability to boulder. I personally gave up smoking a few years before I started climbing (it makes me paranoid, unhappy and overly introspective), so, despite my doubts, I cant really say for sure if it is performance inhancing or not. So, all of those of you out there who have ever smoked and bouldered- let us know what you think: does smoking pot make you a better boulderer?
The fact also remains that, even if pot IS found to be performance inhancing, a distinction should be made between those competitors who are under the influence of marijuana during a competition and those who have used the drug recreationally, prior to the competition. It is my impression that Sharma wasnt actually stoned during the comp, but quite a while before it. So, climbs512, if you dont want to smoke- dont, nobody said that you have to. But you don't need to cast those conservative, mainstream American moral "character" judgements on those who choose to do otherwise. Imagine how well the guy would climb if he didnt smoke!
JCS
[ This Message was edited by: jcs on 2001-11-17 09:02 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 17, 2001, 6:28 PM
Post #45 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
The "rules are rules" arguement applies to this discussion to the extent that Sharma entered competition climbing voluntarily, knowing that they are structured public events, with pre-existing rules. To the extent that he either did not take the care to be informed of the rules, or did not take the care to be clean by the time of the event, or apparently did not respect his responsibilities to his sponsors, and has not claimed his DQ as his own public protest, I think it's fair enough to raise questions about his "character". I would not assert any conclusions, but his behavior as a public figure is questionable. Whether he sought out the sponsors, or just accepted their offers, and whether or not he has sought the spotlight, he does have -and has chosen to keep- a position of greater public visibility, and therefore greater responsibility, than Jane and Joe at the local crags. Perhaps Sharma wanted to protest the rule against pot, and the effect of his DQ has been to raise the issue to a higher public profile. Inasmuch as he has made no public statement, though, I tend to doubt this scenario. And, if my company was sposoring him, I'd say, "Make your protest, but don't do it wearing my clothes, my gear, or on the trip to Europe that I paid for." And, "Sure, live the lifestyle you want, but not on my dime."
The arguement of the validity of the rules prohibiting marijuana is a seperate one. Yeah, he can make a choice to flout the rules, but then must accept the consequences that follow. It seems kind of silly to cry and moan the fact of the consequenses (not that Sharma is, but others are on his behalf), AFTER the viloation, when what should have been done is to address the existance of the objectionable rule BEFORE the consequenses were suffered.
And the analogy to Nazi Gemany is fallacious, in a number of ways, one of which has been pointed out; and, the logic is far from being along the same lines. The Jews and other persecuted peoples were certainly not willing participants. The Nazis did not publicize their set of "rules" to the rest of the world, nor to their own citizens, Jew and non-Jew alike. In no way did Nazi Gemany try to establish a level field of competition. A competitive environment is essentially bounded on all sides by parameters of the endevour, that all the participants willingly accept, the purpose of which is to establish an unambiguous victor. The contexts put these two concepts of "rules" on vastly different logical lines.
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 18, 2001, 10:52 AM
Post #46 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Gee, all this time I thought that the comp was to see who the best climber was, not to judge the moral "character" of each climber. What does smoking pot have to do with discovering who the best climber is? And the nazi Germany analogy IS logically correct- each citizen of that country had the choice to follow their countries unjust laws or to knowingly break the rules and defy those laws, which many German and Dutch people did, albeit at great personal risk. Had those people who heroically broke the "rules" been caught, they WOULD have suffered the consequences, but would you say that they deserved those consequences, that they SHOULD have been punished because they knowingly broke the rules, or would you conclude that the laws themselves were unjust? While the scope is certainly VASTLY different, the logic IS exactly the same.
Likewise, there is nothing morally wrong with what Chris Sharma did- breaking an unjust rule- there IS something morally wrong with enforcing a rule that has no bearing on the entire purpose of the Munich World Cup, which was (and I think that you will agree) to determine who the best boulderer is. What does smoking pot have to do with bouldering, other than the fact that a pointless rule prohibits it? What does smoking pot have to do with a persons moral character, other than that a ridiculous law prohibits it?
Sure- I'll admit in one sense its obvious: Sharma knew the rules, he broke them, so he should be disqualified according to those rules... but the argument here is not about whether those rules ARE in place (of course they are), but whether or not those rules SHOULD be in place, according to the purpose of the Munich World Bouldering Cup. It seems blatantly obvious that the rule about smoking pot (marijuana use having no impact on a persons bouldering ability) is ridiculous given the purpose of the comp. Had the comp been held in Afganistan, and the rules (and laws of the land) said that a person must have a beard of a certain length, SHOULD (not would- of course he would, the rules said so...) Sharma have been DQ'd for not having a beard of sufficient length? What does the length of his beard have to do with climbing? What does smoking pot have to do with climbing? Had the comp been held in Singapore, and there was a rule against chewing gum (gum is illegal in Singapore) at bouldering comps, SHOULD (not would) Sharma have been disqualified for chewing gum at the comp? What does chewing gum have to do with climbing? What does smoking pot have to do with climbing?
So the rules at the Munich World Cup said that Chris should be disqualified-and he WAS disqualified, but does that mean that he actually SHOULD have been disqualified? What do smoking pot, chewing gum, or growing a beard have to do with determining who the best climber is?
It seems obvious then that if the comp was actually held in order to determine who the best boulderer is, and smoking pot doesnt make a person a better boulderer, why should the rule be in place? Because it is? Would you say the same thing if the rule were about chewing gum or growing a beard- two other things that have absolutely nothing to do with climbing, but are, like smoking pot, considered either illegal or immoral by some people in some countries? I imagine that the Taliban would consider Chris Sharma's character to be very suspect- he doesnt have a beard, and he doesnt even pray five times a day... not to mention that he smokes marijuana... but does this make his character bad? You think that his character is bad because he smokes pot before competitions, but does this actually make his character bad? I dont think so.
Once again, if the purpose of the Munich World Cup is to determine who the best boulderer is, and the best boulder is the one with the most points at the end, and Chris Sharma had the most points at the end, and smoking pot doesnt increase a persons ability to boulder, then Sharma deserved to have first place. Is the guy who won second place (and later first after Sharma was DQ'd)actually a better boulderer than Sharma? I dont think so. Was he disqualified in accordance with the rules? Yes. Are the rules designed to determine who the best boulderer is? No. So, should he have been disqualified? Only if you believe that the rules are there to create rather than reflect what is truly moral. The rules are wrong, not Sharma.
JCS
|
|
|
|
|
howieehrlich
Nov 18, 2001, 6:06 PM
Post #47 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 57
|
first off on this post, i want to commend jcs. great points. and i say again, as others have that there were rules and chris did break those rules, however they were unjust. he "rebelled" against a rule in which he and many others see to not be a good rule. he is what some may call a revolutionary. if people never spoke out against a rule in which they saw to be unjust, there would be no united states, and thus no sharma. its about time that the world cup and the modern worlds as well follows the forward thinking of sountries such as amsterdam, belgium, and switzerland, who have seen the light and realized that just because pot is/was illegal, it doesnt make it bad and ammended their laws to show that. it is not a performance enhancing drug, nor does it hurt anyone. so i have to ask all of your right wing extremeists, morally, is pot bad? and i do mean morally, not is it bad because of some outdated stupid law!
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Nov 18, 2001, 7:07 PM
Post #48 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
That's a good point. However, there is nothing you can say to hide the true focus of this problem: Rules. It doesn't matter whether they are just or not. They are rules and he knew them before he went against them. If he and other climbers disagree with them, then they should pursue the proper avenues of change within their governments and within the bounds of the Climbing Comps organizers and hosts. Simply breaking a rule is not "revolutionary" it is criminal. However, attempting to change such a rule might be seen as a revolutionary and progressive act. There is still no debating that he should not have been disqualified though. He did not follow the preset guidelines, therefore he paid the price.
AW
|
|
|
|
|
rlkelley
Nov 18, 2001, 7:53 PM
Post #49 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 37
|
abcd
|
|
|
|
|
howieehrlich
Nov 18, 2001, 11:57 PM
Post #50 of 107
(11261 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 57
|
It is true that not all rules can be changed by breaking them, however some can be. In this case, I feel that it can be changed by breaking it. Sharma broke it and Im sure that others did as well, they just werent give the same crap for it that Sharma was and still is getting. And as far as the Cup shanging their rules for when it is legalized, then they should hold it in a country where marijuana is legal, such as Amsterdam, Belgium, or Switzerland, hell it could even be held in Alaska since its (for all intensive purposes) legal there too, and thats in the US!And if thats what needs to be done to make people like Chris eligable to climb and still take part in what they wish to do in their free time, I will personaly start the petition to be sent to the organizers of the cup to write out the marijuana rule, of have the cup in a country that is forward thinking enough to allowe for its use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Sharma DQ'ed Is It True?
[
