|
5.13leadsalot
Deleted
Sep 7, 2001, 4:17 AM
Post #1 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Is it really true?????????
[ This Message was edited by: 5.13leadsalot on 2001-09-07 13:48 ]
[ This Message was edited by: 5.13leadsalot on 2001-09-07 13:52 ]
[ This Message was edited by: trevor on 2001-10-06 19:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Sep 7, 2001, 4:42 AM
Post #2 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
Chris tested positive for marijuana and had his first place finish, at the Munich World Cup bouldering event, revoked.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Sep 7, 2001, 5:38 AM
Post #3 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Which serves the dumb ass right. He knew the rules...
|
|
|
|
|
iclimb512s
Sep 8, 2001, 1:39 AM
Post #4 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2001
Posts: 108
|
pot is bad. loser. i cant believe a pot head climbed a 15
|
|
|
|
|
5.13leadsalot
Deleted
Sep 8, 2001, 6:01 PM
Post #5 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
For that I guess I won't look up to him any more!
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Sep 10, 2001, 12:44 AM
Post #6 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
Ok, I have to step in here. This is my opinion, not something I do (marajuana) but the way I feel:
I can see were testing for marajuana is bad, illegal, against rules, etc. But how can you say it possibly inhanced his performance? One reason I can think of; pott would ease the pain that comes to the fingers when bouldering for a long period of time (my fingers start to hurt after a couple hours in the gym).
Now if we are talking about steriods, speed, etc. enhancement is possible but by no means did pott help him win 1st place at Munich. One other thing that pott couldn't have helped him out is because from reading the article on the homepage of this site I know that he was using it BEFORE the tournament and not during, so how in the hell could it possibly of helped him out?
If they are going to give drug tests at Would Bouldering Comps they should go ahead and start on the local level. I've never got one or heard of anyone getting a drug test at the local level.
I'm not a freedom fighter for pott or anything like that, I'm not going to say that I've never done it but it was at least a good 5+ years ago. But seriously... if I climbed 5.15 I would probably feel like a phatie too! LMAO!!!
Cheers and good laughs
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
tomanox
Sep 10, 2001, 1:33 AM
Post #7 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2001
Posts: 10
|
I agree how could he climb better with pot. Id say it would probably lesson his performance. and whats up with giving first place to the other guy. He isent gonna feel any better now that he is first place because he knows Chris would kick his ass!!
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Sep 10, 2001, 2:21 AM
Post #8 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
Hey, I brought up this point in another discussion on this subject a few days ago, but for anyone who didn't see that one:
The point is not whether or not Sharma's Marijuana use was performance enhancing, but that it was against the rules. We all have to follow the rules, whether we're climbing 5.6 or 5.15. I'm not even totally against pot. I've never used it. But he broke the rules and he has to face the consequences. When you perform at that level, you have to hold yourself to a standard that is a little more strict.
|
|
|
|
|
kelv^
Deleted
Sep 10, 2001, 3:55 AM
Post #9 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
i agree with Talons..
its not about whether the drug helps u perform or not...but it is a DRUG..i think the disqualification will help deter other people from doing any sort of drugs especially during or before a competition.
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Sep 10, 2001, 4:07 AM
Post #10 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
Thanks. I think it's just about responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Sep 10, 2001, 4:41 PM
Post #11 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
They are actually considering suspension??? What the hell. ok ok, I don't want to sound dumb, I know they are suspending him from the UIAA bouldering comps but just think for a second what the conversation between Sharma and the person telling him he can't climb for 3 months...lol
"Chris, no climbing for 3 months. Do not and I repeat Do not put up anymore 5.15a's for 3 months!" LMAO!
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Sep 11, 2001, 4:23 AM
Post #12 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
Of course, there's no way they'll keep him from CLIMBING for three months, but you for sure won't be hearing about his winning any competitions in that time. I think he'll get back in and this will all blow over. He made a mistake, but so do we all, so I'll still respect him and keep up on what he's up to.
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Sep 26, 2001, 2:44 AM
Post #13 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
Woa!! I never knew that!! I always suspected Chris as being a pretty good guy, but I never suspected him doing that, especially when he knows he can get caught. That is really wierd!
|
|
|
|
|
crackheadclimber
Nov 14, 2001, 2:50 AM
Post #14 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2001
Posts: 27
|
I think what chris does in his own time is his business. People need to mind their own business. chris is an awesome climber and that's what we should be talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
stardust44
Nov 14, 2001, 3:48 AM
Post #15 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 108
|
i agree with crackhead. Chris isn't hurting anyone by smoking pot. Live and let live.
|
|
|
|
|
talons05
Nov 14, 2001, 4:36 AM
Post #16 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2001
Posts: 1435
|
it's not about hurting anyone, it's about following the rules.
Aw
|
|
|
|
|
captainprozac
Nov 14, 2001, 6:07 AM
Post #17 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 91
|
Wake up people...first of all what Chris does is his own business, and if people would mind their own business this world wouldn't be so messed up. Personally, I have more respect for him now knowing that he smokes grass...in our country the law says it's illegal, but does that make it wrong? This kid is one of the greatest climbers of our time, but because he chooses to make his own decisions that some don't agree with, all of a sudden he is some kind of deviant. Marijuana is a plant, but because it is illegal in our country, oh my God, it must be wrong...bullshit. Meanwhile we fill our youth with all this war on drugs propaganda, then they go home and sit in front of the boob tube and see 20 commercials a night for this pill and that pill, but because these mega corps are making millions it's OK, how absurd is that? Everyone has their drug of choice...whether it be alcohol, cigarettes, T.V., running, coffee, power, money...whatever it may be, rock climbing for example...people are going to do things that give them their "high"....it's not a question of right or wrong, but one of personal choice...the only way we are to evolve is through change, and sometimes this envolves breaking the rules. I smoke grass almost daily, and have also been arrested for it...but not once did I feel that I did something wrong. I'd rather die standing on my feet than be living on my knees. Climb on Chris...while we still can...and if we should ever meet, I hope we can burn one and have a chill bouldering session
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 14, 2001, 7:28 AM
Post #18 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
You're arguing a point that can't be argued.
There were rules to be followed, and one of those rules were broken. Plain and simple.
Scenario: You sign a contract to climb at an indoor gym (if you never do this, just play along anyways). Included in this contract are rules regarding belaying. While belaying, you break the rules, and have your priveleges taken away. No arguing.
Now, the same sort of situation is what happened to Sharma. No arguing.
Now, does anyone else wan't to be ignorant and TRY to debate me? If so, let me say you're wrong before you try.
|
|
|
|
|
captainprozac
Nov 14, 2001, 3:12 PM
Post #19 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 91
|
I wasn't trying to argue any point there "arrogantmahnn"...I was trying to make one...Chris got DQ'd...and it was that governing body that chose to do so, nuff said...but it bothers me that this kids accomplishments are far too many to mention, but because he smoked a joint
he's now a bad person, lets put him on a pedastool just to knock him off...isn't that what everyone wants? He is a person like all of us...no better...no worse...and because he got DQ'd, it does not make him any less of a decent human being...so be careful what you say your
holiness...people are waiting and watching for you to slip up, just so they can pounce... and that my friend is too bad...this is my point.
Pete
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 14, 2001, 3:39 PM
Post #20 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
'Tis the life of an individual in the public eye. If you're famous you give up certain rights. He's going to have to understand, and so will everyone else, that being criticized for everything he does is part of the game. Being a well known, well respected, well liked individual, his criticizms will be much less than others while at the same time much more publicized.
It's all part of the game, and he needs to learn how to play it.
On another note, marijuana is lame.
|
|
|
|
|
veggieclimbr
Nov 14, 2001, 4:02 PM
Post #21 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2001
Posts: 5
|
I'm sure you can't say you've never broken the rules before. I personally don't smoke pot and never have but I have no problem with other people doing it. Chris is an awesome climber and nothing else should matter. Yes, he is a role model but I doubt he would have chosen that title for himself. He didn't ask for people to look up to him and those that do should not have the right to judge him. If you disagree with what he did, that's fine, you don't have to support him anymore, but who are you to say what he did was wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 14, 2001, 8:24 PM
Post #22 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Any person knows fully what position as a role model they will hold when they sign on with sponsors, and get world wide attention. Only if you live under a rock, and never move, are quite comatose, and extremely moronic would you not understand this.
I'm not dicussing Chris Sharma's character; wether or not her is a good or bad person for smoking pot. I'm arguing the fact he was grossly unintelligent with his actions.
Chris Sharma, wether he wants to be or not, is a businessman, and business men need to follow rules. As long as he partakes in activities people deem inappropriate, and as long her breaks rules organizations deem inappropriate, he will be criticized.
Once again, I am not debating his character, that I will not judge.
|
|
|
|
|
stardust44
Nov 14, 2001, 9:56 PM
Post #23 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2001
Posts: 108
|
Just a thought, maybe it shouldn't be rule.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Nov 14, 2001, 10:12 PM
Post #24 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
I like debates..so why do you think it shouldn't be a rule?
|
|
|
|
|
climb512
Nov 14, 2001, 10:34 PM
Post #25 of 107
(50498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2001
Posts: 468
|
what would you expext from someone called crackheadclimber. it doesnt matter if it is only pot, he knew the rules and broke them, no different than any other pro athelete getting busted and fined,suspended. if we want respect for our sport thaen we have to follow the same rules as any other sport does. sharma just isnt any smatter than the cowboys leon lett. hope he learns from it, no doubt he is one of the greats. lets see him pull a 5.15 without chillin' on dube first.
|
|
|
|
|
stardust44
Nov 14, 2001, 11:29 PM
Post #26 of 107
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11234 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 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
(11238 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 37
|
abcd
|
|
|
|
|
howieehrlich
Nov 18, 2001, 11:57 PM
Post #50 of 107
(11238 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.
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 19, 2001, 10:38 AM
Post #51 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey Everyone!
Well, this has turned into quite a debate! Lots of good points too. After my last post I dont think that there is much else for me to say. Talon and rlkelley- I can see where you are coming from, but we seem to be arguing two seperate things here, and to be working on different premises.
Anyhow, you guys seem to be explaining what DID happen- he broke the rules, and was DQ'd. I'm arguing: what SHOULD, idealistically, have happened; and why it should be that way. I am making a moral argument, and you are making a realist argument. We are on two different pages in that respect.
Along with you, I agree that Chris should have been DQ'd according to the rules. I am saying that the rules are wrong, for many different reasons, so Sharma should not, in a moral sense, have been DQ'd. The existance of an unjust rule doesnt change the moral reality of the situation- in other words, it is not immoral to break an immoral rule. It is more unjust to enforce an unjust rule than it is to break it. If you think that the rule IS moral, then see my last post and try to explain to me why the rule is moral.
I also agree that breaking the rules doesnt make somebody a revolutionary, and that Sharma wasnt trying to make a political point by getting stoned with his friends- he doesnt seem like a very political guy... just someone who likes to climb, and likes to get high on his own time. What's wrong with that? Again- a distinction needs to made between what is legal and what is moral.
I'm not quite sure why nobody who has disagreed with me hasnt actually tried to counter my arguments- from all of those philosophy and logic classes I took back in college, I think that my argument is pretty solid (assuming of course that the point of the comp was to determine the best boulderer and that pot isnt a performance inhancing drug). You guys seem to keep falling back on "yeah, but he broke the rules". I have already admitted that- in fact, I think that the point that he broke the rules is REALLY obvious. However, again, breaking immoral rules is not immoral- was Gandhi immoral for breaking the rules of India's British colonizers? The fact that SHarma wasnt trying to make a moral or political statement doesnt change the fact that he did actually make one.
The monolpoly analogy is a decent effort... but re-rolling the dice until you get the right number is definately "performance inhancing" in terms of the rules of monopoly! That would definately effect the outcome of the game (like- there is no way you couldnt win!!!). Smoking pot is not to bouldering what re-rolling dice is to monopoly! I think this is pretty clear, so I wont go on about that.
What I am taking issue with is those people who have posted messages indicating that what actually happened is what should, morally, have happened- based on the premise that "rules are rules and should be followed" merely sake of the fact that they are rules. As I have said before, there are lots of rules- many of them are good, many of them are not. I am advancing the idea that the particular rule in question is not a good one, in light of the purpose of the Munich World Cup, and that we should show our support of a fellow climber by denouncing what is basically an unjust rule.
Saying that Sharma deserved to be DQ'd because he knew the rules and broke them would be a fine stance to take if the rule were a just one (in situations such as a weight lifter taking steroids, or the re-rolling of dice in in a game of monopoly). But this is not a just rule because smoking pot, especially days before the comp, has no impact on the purpose of the Bouldering World Cup. If Sharma had been stoned during a donut eating contest I would totally agree-he should be disqualified, as being stoned allows a person an unfair advantage in donut eating. But this is bouldering, not donut eating.
Soooooo, the issue here isn't actually about following or breaking rules in general, it is a about breaking a specific rule in a specific situation, and that specific rule is unjust in this specific situation. We need to further the idea that comps should be about determining who the best climber is, not about determining who can follow pointless rules the best. Sharma was the best boulderer, getting high with his friends didnt make him a better boulderer, so Sharma SHOULD have won. Why would anyone want to defend an unjust rule?
JCS
PS- Maybe for all of you "rule followers", we could hold a special rule-following comp, where the person who follows silly rules the best wins :0)
[ This Message was edited by: jcs on 2001-11-19 02:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 19, 2001, 8:42 PM
Post #52 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
JCS, I think you're the only one trying to talk about any moral content in this situation, and no one can effectively argue against anyone else's moral beliefs. Neither you nor I can win an arguement about differing moral beliefs. Morals can't be justified by reason. I don't think anyone said Sharma is immoral, but that he was justly disqualified. Nobody said "rules are rules" is a moral position. I will say it's a position of fact, and competing in accordance with the rules is a position of character.
And, there is a PROFOUND difference between the "rules" of Nazi Germany and a climbing comp. The victims of Naziism did NOT know the "rules" and the consequences. Most of the people who complied with the laws of Nazi Gemany did NOT know the consequences of their compliance. The vast majority of those who did protest did NOT know the full extent of the consequences of their protest. No one at the time fully knew the consequences, and could freely choose to accept them. Simple-minded hyperbole can assert that there is a parallel between climbing comp rules and a brutal oppressive regime, but that doesn't make it so.
Sharma's behavior is not a political statement. Perhaps you or someone else can take hold of what happened to him, and use it to make you own political statement, but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sharma has made one of his own. If there was no intent to make such a statement, it can't be 'thrust upon him' after the fact to fit a political agenda.
Ghandi did not start out by aggressively challenging the British (and the South Africans), he started first by searching for remedies in the law, the courts, and through political means. He escalated to riskier and more high-profile protests only as needed. And, he didn't do it on somebody else's dime.
Do you genuinely believe that any comp anywhere will establish who is the best boulderer or climber? That is NOT what these events are about; they're about being a viable commercial venture, and about competitors making money. They ARE about rules, such as out-of-bounds, and they are about advertising and sponsorhip and selling tickets and products; they are commercial. The people and companies investing time and money in them set up their parameters for the event to maximize the return on their investment. It's reasonable that the rules and guidelines that they set up are going to be founded in the rules and guidelines of other, more major competitive sporting events. Some of the same sponsors that other sports have are also sought by the climbing comp industry. If they want to be taken seriously, then they, of course, conduct themselves with a similar 'seriousness' as the other major sports businesses.
These questions about the 'morality' of rules and laws prohibiting pot are irrelevent to the facts of Sharma's DQ. To a large extent, he has accepted the business-like responsibilities of a sponsored climber, and his character may fairly be questioned, in light of the poor judgement and/or carelessness he demonstrated so publicly.
The issue is about following a specific rule in a specific situation, and when you can afford to stage a climbing comp and pay the competitiors, and when you can afford to sponsor a climber, then you can decide what is an "unjust" rule. And then you can also notify them that can break any rule they choose, as long as they personally, morally, feel that it's "pointless", "unjust", or "immoral", and they won't be DQd. It sounds like the scenario that you'd prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
miker
Nov 19, 2001, 9:45 PM
Post #53 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2001
Posts: 170
|
OK, so here is more of a technical question.
Is alcohol illegal for the competition's? I would assume so for safety sake, but if you have a beer the night before you will have traces of alcohol in your system, so you should be DQ'd, right? They have blood alcohol limits for driving and presumably you could institute the same for climbing, now what would be a limit on THC content in the blood or urine which would be below any performance enhancing or impairing level?
Now I know they have certain classes of drugs that are used for bodybuilding/strength training, like steroids and numerous others, but does anyone think that Marijuana is a training tool?
ATTENTION ATTENTION
New on the market, the way to beat out all the other homies on the rock.
STONED GAINER 2000-now with the freshest green buds. Also try our new energy bar, brownie flavored of course with enough THC to last you through the longest all day climbs.
I must say that smoking does not enhance my climbing so I do it after or on the peak, but I am still just as impressed by Chris's career and his choices in life and I hope he keeps on doing what he will for as long as his tendons o' steel hold out.
miker
|
|
|
|
|
jcs
Nov 20, 2001, 9:24 AM
Post #54 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 127
|
Hey JDS!
Some nice points there. However, I believe that this is a moral argument, and that, while Sharma being DQ'd is obviously an imperical fact, the stance that each of us takes towards his disqualification- in other words what each of us proposes "should" have happened- is a moral statement. Anytime the word "should" is used it implies a value judgement, and values always, ultimately, boil down to morality. So "rules are rules" implies that rules SHOULD be followed, and is therefor a moral position.
Likewise, any comment on the "character" of Chris Sharma, or anybody else, is a moral judgement- what else could "character" be? For you to say that Sharma was "justly disqualified", justice being a moral/ethical ideal, not an objective fact, is to make a moral judgement- not to state an objective fact. So this IS a question of morality and ethics, because the question I am concerned with is: SHOULD Sharma have been disqualified (not WAS he disqualified). And I continue to assert that, for the reasons that I have mentioned above, the only way to argue that he "should" have been disqualified is to support "the rules" which are, for reasons that I have already stated, unjust. Thus, because the rule that resulted in his disqualification was unjust, Sharma was unjustly disqualified.
All of this is based on the assumption that the World CUp was held to determine who the best boulderer is. You assert that it is a purely financial venture. While the financial aspect is definately a major component of the comp, it is only half of it. There is nothing contradictory about holding an event to make money and to determine who the best climber is- the ideas are not mutually exclusive. So yes, I genuinely believe that the purpose of the comp is to determine who the best boulderer is. Are you going to argue that the Olympics has nothing to do with determining who the best athletes are, that it only exists as a commercial venture? And in regard toward other sports and there rules on marijuana- remember Ross Rebegliati, the olympic snow boarder?
And once again to Germany. Firstly, the point was made to demonstrate that not all rules/laws are just. The Nuremburg laws were unjust- and well known in Germany and without. I can think of lots of other examples of unjust laws. The point is that just because something is legal or within the rules doesnt make it right- so "rules are rules" doesnt hold up to anyone who thinks about it. Germany serves as a perfect examples of this- though the specifics obviously differ, the logic is the same. Chris broke the rules, but that doesnt mean that he justly deserves to be DQ'd, unless you believe that the rules themselves were just. Germans helped Jews by hiding them in attics (for example) knowing that they were saving lives but that it was against the law-when those Germans were caught they were punished according to the rules that they knowingly broke, but there is a big difference between saying that they WERE punished and that they SHOULD have been punished. OBVIOUSLY the scope is VASTLY different, and on a PROFOUNDLY different scale, but the point is that there are rules that are unjust- like the one that caused the best boulderer at that comp to be disqualified. You can claim that that is "simple minded hyperbole" but look at it in the context that I meant it in and you should, I hope, be able to see the logical similarity.
Supporting rules simply because they are rules is ignorant. Comparing the marjuana rule to out of bound hold rule misses the entire point- if they were the same we wouldnt be having this debate. As for moral arguments being unable to be won, I ultimately agree with you. But I dont hear anybody saying that the ban on marijuana at bouldering comps is in anyway just- I think that most people agree that the rule is stupid, but that for some reason Sharma deserved to be DQ'd anyway- as if there is more respect for the letter of the law (no drugs!) than its spirit (level the playing field).
As for your last paragraph, you seem to be suggesting that the person with the most money, and therefor the most power, decides what is just or unjust- and the tone of your message indicates to me that you support that line of thought (like when I have enough money I can decide what is just?). By that logic Hitler had a monopoly on morality in Germany? Or is it possible that there is a higher principal at work that the rules/laws should conform to? I am inclined to believe that what is right has little to do with how much money and power a person has.
As far as each person making their own morality and myself prefering that situation, I think that you have missed my point again. I think that the rules should exist in accordance with the purpose of the comp, which I (naively?) think is to determine who the best boulderer is. I am not saying do away with all rules, just ones that make no sense- like the one in question. DO you think that the rule is justified, or just that it should be enforced because it is a rule? Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
rocmonkey
Nov 20, 2001, 10:11 AM
Post #55 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2001
Posts: 292
|
In South Africa pot is called DAGGA. Our miners in the gold mines use it to enhance their work and make it more acceptable.
It DOES enhance them and on pot some dudes work for days without rest. The feeling of euphoria makes one forget pain and tiredness and it keeps you going. When you smoke it at leisure it makes you bum out.
BUT when you smoke pot while intensely focussing on something you have so much drive that you wont believe what you've accomplished when its all over.
So if Chris smoked pot right before the competition it would enhance his performance...
breathe stone
RoC
|
|
|
|
|
awkward
Nov 20, 2001, 10:09 PM
Post #56 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2001
Posts: 64
|
He made a personal choice to use the drug. Unfortunately, it is not legal, and being in the spotlight will cause people to try to make an example of him. I didn't read through the umpteen pages of posts on this one, so I am not sure if this has been said or not. Hopefully, he will be able to keep his dignity through all this. Personally, I see nothing wrong with what he did, but I am not in charge, so my opinion does not matter in this situation.
Please donate to the Put-Bryan-In-Charge fund.
-Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Nov 21, 2001, 10:23 PM
Post #57 of 107
(18130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
JCS, I think I define "morals" differently than you, making just a finer semantic distinction between, say, "moral", "just", "ethical", "reasonable", "fair", "sensible", and such. It's a spectrum of value-loaded concepts, that, for me is often contextually dependent. So, judging character doesn't have, for me, have the same weight as a moral judgement. For me, the use of "should" sometimes has the weight you assign it in this discussion, and sometimes it doesn't, depending on the subject and context of actions. For me, for this discussion, a "just" law is one that is legal, not necessarily one that is right. I never wanted to debate the merits of the law.
The comp is not "purely", in the sense of "only", about commerce, but if you take away commerce, there will be no comp. Commerce is not sufficient for the comp, but it is necessary. Bouldering and climbing are neither necessary nor sufficient for commerce. They're not mutually exclusive, but climbing is certainly more dependent on commerce, than is commerce on climbing.
As to the Olympics, all I'll say here is that I miss the way the Olympics were when I was a kid, 30-35 years ago, when real amateurs competed. That's what was so nice about seeing Rulon Gardner (USA) win in wrestling. Okay, a little more: it often seems that the Olympics are more about some high-profile USA athlete trying to get commercial endorsement contracts with Nike, American Express, etc. etc.
My point about referring to Nazi Germany was, again, made to emphasize that the victim/participants did NOT know what the consequences of their actions would be (whether they went along or not).
My "comparison" of out-of-bonds rules and prohibiting pot is made to say that in the view of the comp authorities, it was probably the case that breaking a rule earned a DQ. The nature of the violated rule would probably be immaterial. (I don't know for a fact that that would have been the case, but that was the source and purpose of my comparison.)
I'm not saying that I support the system that basically allows wealth to establish power, I'm saying that that is pretty much the free-market system we are in, and in which the comps are, mostly, staged under.
Hitler and the Nazis did have a monopoly for awhile on the legal justice in Germany, as did Pol Pot in Cambodia. Hopefully that knowledge leads people to consider how different things might be if the "bad guys" had ever won. Or, perhaps to some people, maybe the bad guys already have won, and they're trying to get rid of them and their (our) justice. That is how contextual these concepts are: is "right" really right, or is "right" right because that side happened to win power to make that determination?
I agree that "right" and "morals" and all those similar aforementioned concepts do (dare I say, "should"?) refer -defer- to something well beyond money and material, and well beyond myself. I just don't think that's what Sharma's DQ was about.
I think this thing will blow over (no pun intended), and no one can question his preeminence in the climbing world. The DQ cast a worse pall on the comp than it did on him, and it has to be somewhat embarrassing to the competitors who all moved up one notch after the DQ. But, that takes me back to asserting that Sharma should have taken into account and consideration all the effects of his actions (whether his actions were deliberate or just careless).
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2001-11-21 14:27 ]
|
|
|
|
|
hincking
Feb 18, 2010, 4:14 AM
Post #58 of 107
(14356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2010
Posts: 29
|
people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high
sheeeesh
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 18, 2010, 4:18 AM
Post #59 of 107
(14352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
hincking wrote: people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high sheeeesh
It took you 9 years to come up with that response?
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Feb 18, 2010, 4:48 AM
Post #60 of 107
(14330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
zeke_sf wrote: hincking wrote: people are missing the point. pot makes u high. climbing is all about getting high sheeeesh It took you 9 years to come up with that response?
He was high. Heck, in the Law School world 9 years is Kentucky derby status.
|
|
|
|
|
deltav
Feb 18, 2010, 5:13 AM
Post #61 of 107
(14301 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Posts: 597
|
You can tell who smokes pot here and who doesn't. Let's take weed out of the picture. What if he had shot smack? That certainly would not have enhanced his performance. Would that have been morally acceptable? Look at it this way, would you want your kid looking up to someone who does heroin? Most likely not. Pot is the same thing. Illegal or not, it is a drug, it screws with your body. Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. Do I think any less of him? No. Do I think he got what he deserved? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
hincking
Feb 22, 2010, 11:58 PM
Post #62 of 107
(14179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2010
Posts: 29
|
in marijuana time maybe 9 years
|
|
|
|
|
Moose2994
Feb 23, 2010, 12:19 AM
Post #63 of 107
(14166 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2009
Posts: 15
|
Dude listen to any of the rock climbers talk who are pro! ? There all a bunch of hippies! Wake up people He is not the only one to smoke pot! Yea he broke a rule but that could have been a few weeks ago. He may not have been high at the time of the comp! Pot is not his secret too hahaha do some research if you cant tell from experience! Does any one have an article or something actually confirming this?
|
|
|
|
|
jcrew
Feb 23, 2010, 1:26 AM
Post #64 of 107
(14124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2006
Posts: 673
|
deltav wrote: You can tell who smokes pot here and who doesn't. Let's take weed out of the picture. What if he had shot smack? That certainly would not have enhanced his performance. Would that have been morally acceptable? Look at it this way, would you want your kid looking up to someone who does heroin? Most likely not. Pot is the same thing. Illegal or not, it is a drug, it screws with your body. Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. Do I think any less of him? No. Do I think he got what he deserved? Yes.
what if he had a few brews in him? would that be o.k. ? would the kids be warped by looking up to someone who drinks?
|
|
|
|
|
Potts875
Feb 23, 2010, 1:33 AM
Post #65 of 107
(14120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2009
Posts: 52
|
Wow so many straight edge climbers here. I quit smoking dope a couple years ago because of personal reason but what ever happened to seedy climber behavior? Geesh..... People here are judging his character??? WTF please.... Sorry those with your head in the clouds, all your little heroes puff. Many here including myself have smoked with these guys.
The only people that will be affected by this DQ will be the comps themselves for not having the worlds greatest climber at their comps!
|
|
|
|
|
holdeddie
Feb 23, 2010, 1:37 AM
Post #66 of 107
(14113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Posts: 92
|
Who cares if he smoked some herb? He climbs harder than most, and he is great at it. Weed didn't make him climb harder, he still should have won.
It is beyond me to think that just because Sharma smokes herb, the climbing community will cease to support him. Come on people, do not be ignorant. If you cease to support climbers that smoke then you must also look down upon those who drink.
The end.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 23, 2010, 1:45 PM
Post #67 of 107
(14031 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
hincking wrote: in marijuana time maybe 9 years
You're going to quibble with 8 versus 9 years? Fucking stoner.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Feb 23, 2010, 3:05 PM
Post #68 of 107
(14002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Feb 23, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #70 of 107
(13962 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
zeke_sf wrote: mturner wrote: [image]http://ownedirl.com/misc/Thread-Crap-Die.jpg[/image] Oh, come on, isn't it entertaining to see people respond to this topic like it happened yesterday? Tokin' 'n postin', ain't got no time for lookin' at the time stamp.
It *is* funny how the stoners are so clueless. But I'm totally on board with the die-thread-die picture - mostly because of the irony - it's a very 90's thing to post. (RIP dirtineye).
GO
|
|
|
|
|
jhernand
Feb 23, 2010, 4:47 PM
Post #71 of 107
(13935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2006
Posts: 55
|
Down with Dope! Up with Hope!
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 23, 2010, 5:02 PM
Post #72 of 107
(13926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
jhernand wrote: Down with Dope! Up with Hope!
You in here for some marijuana?! Boo this man!
|
|
|
|
|
jhernand
Feb 23, 2010, 5:12 PM
Post #73 of 107
(13915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 16, 2006
Posts: 55
|
Mother F-er
Sorry... note the rev's Up with hope, down with dope hat!
sucka! Get me a life vest cracka... I's B on a boat fool!
(This post was edited by jhernand on Feb 23, 2010, 5:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Potts875
Feb 24, 2010, 12:48 AM
Post #74 of 107
(13854 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2009
Posts: 52
|
OMG sorry....yeah I didnt realize this was only 9 fricken years old!
Kinda clueless huh?
|
|
|
|
|
Dynosoarus
Feb 27, 2010, 7:28 PM
Post #75 of 107
(13709 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2010
Posts: 83
|
I guess all people who smoke pot are potheads.
Then that would mean everyone who drinks beer is an alcoholic.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Feb 27, 2010, 7:53 PM
Post #76 of 107
(6154 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
Dynosoarus wrote: I guess all people who smoke pot are potheads. Then that would mean everyone who drinks beer is a n alcoholic hophead.
fixied. yore welcum.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 27, 2010, 8:09 PM
Post #77 of 107
(6146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
The Nazi Germany analogy is totally ridiculous. Any reasonable person would agree that genocide is morally wrong wheras plenty of reasonable people ar on both sides of the pot debate. Jcs if you can't see the difference maybe it's time to lay off the weed ;)
|
|
|
|
|
airscape
Mar 5, 2010, 12:31 PM
Post #78 of 107
(6090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2001
Posts: 4240
|
WHAT? Chirs Sharma Disqualified?
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 5, 2010, 1:11 PM
Post #79 of 107
(6082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
airscape wrote: WHAT? Chirs Sharma Disqualified?
Naw dude, he got high and went to Dairy Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
cush
Mar 5, 2010, 1:52 PM
Post #80 of 107
(6068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2008
Posts: 320
|
ugh. why the hell are we still posting in this thread? can't you people let it die?
yes, i know, that was just another contributory post.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Mar 5, 2010, 2:54 PM
Post #81 of 107
(6057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
So what if Sharma was a pothead nine years ago... I don't care! So what if he's a pothead now... I don't care. If he got DQ'ed... too bad. I doubt missing the win at one boring comp actually deflated his career.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 6, 2010, 10:12 AM
Post #82 of 107
(6002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability.
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 6, 2010, 10:14 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 6, 2010, 4:52 PM
Post #83 of 107
(5981 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)?
Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand.
Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Mar 6, 2010, 6:07 PM
Post #84 of 107
(5968 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
I_do wrote: USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)? Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand. Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods
I'd no sooner look to Tiger Woods for moral guidance than I'd look to the Pope for advice on my short game. I think no less of Tiger than I did before all this infidelity crap came out, because I never considered him a role model in the first place. Rankly, the companies, parents, media, etc. that feel let down by the Tigers, Sharmas, Jordans, etc. of the world brought it upon themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 7, 2010, 3:00 AM
Post #85 of 107
(5941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
shimanilami wrote: I_do wrote: USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)? Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand. Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods I'd no sooner look to Tiger Woods for moral guidance than I'd look to the Pope for advice on my short game. I think no less of Tiger than I did before all this infidelity crap came out, because I never considered him a role model in the first place. Rankly, the companies, parents, media, etc. that feel let down by the Tigers, Sharmas, Jordans, etc. of the world brought it upon themselves.
That takes nothing away from the fact they recieved money for being a role model. Whether or not the people that view them as role models are idiots is a completely separate issue.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 7, 2010, 3:32 AM
Post #86 of 107
(5934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
I_do wrote: shimanilami wrote: I_do wrote: USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)? Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand. Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods I'd no sooner look to Tiger Woods for moral guidance than I'd look to the Pope for advice on my short game. I think no less of Tiger than I did before all this infidelity crap came out, because I never considered him a role model in the first place. Rankly, the companies, parents, media, etc. that feel let down by the Tigers, Sharmas, Jordans, etc. of the world brought it upon themselves. That takes nothing away from the fact they recieved money for being a role model. Whether or not the people that view them as role models are idiots is a completely separate issue.
I agree with you about the role model thing in the extent that a certain code of conduct is expected because of endorsements, but Sharma smoking pot does not hinder his ability to be a "role model" to rock climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Mar 7, 2010, 9:02 AM
Post #87 of 107
(5905 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
I_do wrote: USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)? Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand. Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods
You should be a lawyer. I can see it now. "Your honor I request this charge be dismissed on the account that I am not famous and thus cannot be held to the same moral accountability's as famous people".
(This post was edited by USnavy on Mar 7, 2010, 9:06 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 7, 2010, 9:48 AM
Post #88 of 107
(5897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
USnavy wrote: I_do wrote: USnavy wrote: deltav wrote: Sharma is a great guy, but he is in the public spotlight and therefore needs to follow a certain code of accountability. No, not really. Public status is completely irrelevant to moral or legal accountability. Being famous has no baring on one's accountability and responsibility. Just because I am not famous does not mean I should be less accountable for my actions then someone who is famous. Actually its more the opposite if anything. How many famous people do you know who serve same prison sentences as average Americans who commit identical crimes (hint: Michale Jackson)? Yes, yes really. He recieves money from his sponsors. In return they can expect him to be a good ambassador for their brand. Just look at what happened to Tiger Woods You should be a lawyer. I can see it now. "Your honor I request this charge be dismissed on the account that I am not famous and thus cannot be held to the same moral accountability's as famous people".
You can be held accountable by the ones you owe responsibility i.e. your friends and family and if you have one a spouse and in your case probably the navy.
Sharma can be held accountable by his family and friends evolv and prana.
Is this really all that different or hard to comprhend?
I mean me personally? I don't care if Sharma smokes pot of Tiger fucks women, or clinton bones lewinski for that matter, but they all accepted a postion which comes with being in the public eye, although obviously some more then others, and made a commitment to thier sponsors.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Mar 7, 2010, 5:10 PM
Post #89 of 107
(5877 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
I_do wrote: That takes nothing away from the fact they recieved money for being a role model. Whether or not the people that view them as role models are idiots is a completely separate issue.
Do they receive sponsorships/money for being role models, or for being the best golfers, climbers, basketball players ... in the world? Certainly, sponsors are trying to sell an image, but are athletes responsible for holding true to that image?
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 7, 2010, 5:24 PM
Post #90 of 107
(5874 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
shimanilami wrote: I_do wrote: That takes nothing away from the fact they recieved money for being a role model. Whether or not the people that view them as role models are idiots is a completely separate issue. Do they receive sponsorships/money for being role models, or for being the best golfers, climbers, basketball players ... in the world? Certainly, sponsors are trying to sell an image, but are athletes responsible for holding true to that image?
they're usually paying for both. and yes, if an athelete is getting paid for both then (s)he should be held accountable for both. That obviously isn't always the case (think Kobe Bryant vs that chick in Colorado), but for some athletes (Woods, Federer) it certainly is true.
|
|
|
|
|
mturner
Mar 7, 2010, 7:53 PM
Post #91 of 107
(5851 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2005
Posts: 980
|
I seriously can't believe this thread won't die. It's not even funny anymore, I'm concerned for your sanity.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 7, 2010, 8:46 PM
Post #92 of 107
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
mturner wrote: I seriously can't believe this thread won't die. It's not even funny anymore, I'm concerned for your sanity.
|
|
|
|
|
i_h8_choss
Mar 7, 2010, 9:15 PM
Post #93 of 107
(5829 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2007
Posts: 694
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: mturner wrote: I seriously can't believe this thread won't die. It's not even funny anymore, I'm concerned for your sanity. bump
bump 4:
*Chris and 5.15 sends
*money in climbing
*pro climbers giving slide shows, teaching clinics, helping to design gear and ideas in climbing.
*ice hash and big buddah cheese indica.
but I say pay the alpinists more. That shit is the real deal. Alpinists probably think a lot less about sponsers and more on well...climbing. FA's, remote regions of the globe, etc.
I met Chris in joes valley a few years ago. Super nice guy. he was just having a good time, looking for some good energy to feed off of so he can go f*ckin send!
And I looked at this thread a few times. Didn't want to get involved. But this seriously has to end. It's a lame topic. Gossip. You all sound like junior high girls.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 7, 2010, 10:11 PM
Post #94 of 107
(5819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
i_h8_choss wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: mturner wrote: I seriously can't believe this thread won't die. It's not even funny anymore, I'm concerned for your sanity. bump bump 4: *Chris and 5.15 sends *money in climbing *pro climbers giving slide shows, teaching clinics, helping to design gear and ideas in climbing. *ice hash and big buddah cheese indica. but I say pay the alpinists more. That shit is the real deal. Alpinists probably think a lot less about sponsers and more on well...climbing. FA's, remote regions of the globe, etc. I met Chris in joes valley a few years ago. Super nice guy. he was just having a good time, looking for some good energy to feed off of so he can go f*ckin send! And I looked at this thread a few times. Didn't want to get involved. But this seriously has to end. It's a lame topic. Gossip. You all sound like junior high girls.
bump
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 7, 2010, 10:15 PM
Post #95 of 107
(5817 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
So, uh, did he really get disqualified? I actually don't know.
It must have messed his career up badly.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Mar 7, 2010, 10:22 PM
Post #96 of 107
(5816 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I'm just gonna come out and say that I think you're being a
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 7, 2010, 11:02 PM
Post #97 of 107
(5802 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
i_h8_choss wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: mturner wrote: I seriously can't believe this thread won't die. It's not even funny anymore, I'm concerned for your sanity. bump bump 4: *Chris and 5.15 sends *money in climbing *pro climbers giving slide shows, teaching clinics, helping to design gear and ideas in climbing. *ice hash and big buddah cheese indica. but I say pay the alpinists more. That shit is the real deal. Alpinists probably think a lot less about sponsers and more on well...climbing. FA's, remote regions of the globe, etc. I met Chris in joes valley a few years ago. Super nice guy. he was just having a good time, looking for some good energy to feed off of so he can go f*ckin send! And I looked at this thread a few times. Didn't want to get involved. But this seriously has to end. It's a lame topic. Gossip. You all sound like junior high girls.
Nonsense some people here are arguing a legal binding contracting doens't mean you have obligations. I'm telling them they are wrong. I don't give a crap who did what and with whom, noone made me any promises.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 7, 2010, 11:52 PM
Post #98 of 107
(5784 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
zeke_sf wrote: It must have messed his career up badly.
Obviously
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Mar 8, 2010, 3:21 AM
Post #99 of 107
(5735 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
johnwesely wrote: zeke_sf wrote: It must have messed his career up badly. Obviously
Somebody really is into one starring you. I wish it were me.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Mar 8, 2010, 4:27 AM
Post #100 of 107
(5722 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
zeke_sf wrote: johnwesely wrote: zeke_sf wrote: It must have messed his career up badly. Obviously Somebody really is into one starring you. I wish it were me.
Nothing is stopping you. You can take this one if you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Samiam277
Mar 8, 2010, 4:55 AM
Post #101 of 107
(3120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2007
Posts: 51
|
RABBLE! RABBLE! RABBLE!
|
|
|
|
|
Samiam277
Mar 8, 2010, 4:57 AM
Post #102 of 107
(3117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2007
Posts: 51
|
Few things finer than a South Park reference for the 100th post of a pointless nine-year-old thread
|
|
|
|
|
xmesox
Mar 8, 2010, 12:56 PM
Post #103 of 107
(3099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326
|
I'm soooo close to locking this thread just to be the one that finally kills it. I wouldn't even bump it.. If this wasn't at the top I wouldn't even be posting this.
I've got my eye on you Mr Thread.
|
|
|
|
|
I_do
Mar 8, 2010, 1:26 PM
Post #104 of 107
(3089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2008
Posts: 1232
|
xmesox wrote: I'm soooo close to locking this thread just to be the one that finally kills it. I wouldn't even bump it.. If this wasn't at the top I wouldn't even be posting this. I've got my eye on you Mr Thread.
And how would you lock the thread? Multiple persona FTW?
|
|
|
|
|
xmesox
Mar 8, 2010, 1:29 PM
Post #105 of 107
(3087 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326
|
Don't let the lack of green text fool you 
I'm the Webmaster/Content Manager (No E-Spray Intended).
I'm actually going to lock this thread for a few reasons.
1. It's 9 years old and was randomly bumped.
2. There aren't even any lulz anymore.
3. It's kind of misleading due to the title being REALLY old news. Many people seeing the topic for the first time may assume it's actually news.
Good Riddance.
(This post was edited by xmesox on Mar 8, 2010, 1:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
xmesox
Mar 8, 2010, 1:40 PM
Post #107 of 107
(3077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326
|
Reasons mentioned above :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Sharma DQ'ed Is It True?
. 
