Jump to content

TT 2022 ??


Barlow
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I think that the Everest example is trotted out because it is a very valid comparison. The number of people attempting to climb Everest annually is of a similar order to the number of people that compete on the Mountain Course (hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands), and the number of deaths over the last 100 years or so is similar. 

If you are going to call for something to be banned on the grounds that the risk of death is too high, there has to be a yardstick against which that risk is measured.

Plus the cost to undertake it from the 'competitors' are similar (10s of £1000s), it's a significant economic driver for many of the locals, it's for a relatively short timeframe annually and it's Govt 'approved'.

The only real difference for a comparison, is it's not a great spectator sport and they don't have a beer tent at base camp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Phantom said:

Plus the cost to undertake it from the 'competitors' are similar (10s of £1000s), it's a significant economic driver for many of the locals, it's for a relatively short timeframe annually and it's Govt 'approved'.

The only real difference for a comparison, is it's not a great spectator sport and they don't have a beer tent at base camp. 

If any of our politicians are reading this thread they'll be straight on the blower to Nepal with some "fantastic ideas".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I think that the Everest example is trotted out because it is a very valid comparison. The number of people attempting to climb Everest annually is of a similar order to the number of people that compete on the Mountain Course (hundreds rather than thousands or tens of thousands), and the number of deaths over the last 100 years or so is similar. 

If you are going to call for something to be banned on the grounds that the risk of death is too high, there has to be a yardstick against which that risk is measured.

Its a very valid comparison? - Its a natural feature. Its not provided. If it was a manmade mountain it would be deemed too dangerous and they (the owner) would have to make it safer.

Fundamental difference I'm afraid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Its a very valid comparison? - Its a natural feature. Its not provided. If it was a manmade mountain it would be deemed too dangerous and they (the owner) would have to make it safer.

Fundamental difference I'm afraid

You know that every year the Sherpa's have to replace a load of ropes, ladders etc?  The main route is 'maintained' to some extent.  For the vast majority of participants, they are effectively following a man prepared (albeit difficult) footpath. 

It doesn't have to be exact like-for-like, but it is a very valid comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

You know that every year the Sherpa's have to replace a load of ropes, ladders etc?  The main route is 'maintained' to some extent.  For the vast majority of participants, they are effectively following a man prepared (albeit difficult) footpath. 

It doesn't have to be exact like-for-like, but it is a very valid comparison.

errr. Not sure of the relevance of the Sherpa. He is providing a service yes, but not the mountain itself, and if you are injured as a result of his mistake (and you can  prove it) then you could theoretically sue him. If the same Sherpa had 5 deaths in a week he would probably be out of business

I didnt think the Sherpas went to the peak (the very dangerous bit).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

You know that every year the Sherpa's have to replace a load of ropes, ladders etc?  The main route is 'maintained' to some extent.  For the vast majority of participants, they are effectively following a man prepared (albeit difficult) footpath. 

It doesn't have to be exact like-for-like, but it is a very valid comparison.

Moreover, the vast majority of people who attempt to climb Everest pay considerable sums of money to commercial organisations who arrange the expeditions. It is generally those organisations who employ the Sherpas. It is all highly commercialised. It isn't just a few people who decide to go and climb a mountain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

You know that every year the Sherpa's have to replace a load of ropes, ladders etc?  The main route is 'maintained' to some extent.  For the vast majority of participants, they are effectively following a man prepared (albeit difficult) footpath. 

It doesn't have to be exact like-for-like, but it is a very valid comparison.

Is there prize money for climbing it in the quickest time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

errr. Not sure of the relevance of the Sherpa. He is providing a service yes, but not the mountain itself, and if you are injured as a result of his mistake (and you can  prove it) then you could theoretically sue him. If the same Sherpa had 5 deaths in a week he would probably be out of business

I didnt think the Sherpas went to the peak (the very dangerous bit).

You have Sherpa that literally build a new path to the summit every year.  You then have the Sherpa that guide and lug your heavy shit.  Some may well be the same guys, but two different 'jobs'.   There will also be some sort of infrastructure support to set up, maintain and supply Base Camp. 

I would imagine that if you sign any contract at all with the Sherpa directly (remember this is a third world country) there will be an exclusion from liability.  Much of it is now subcontracted out to the Sherpa by Western owned Guiding Companies who will no doubt cover their asses liberally.  It is entirely possible and likely there will be Sherpa that have lost 5 climbers.  2012 4 people from one team were killed and they were probably guided by one Sherpa.  

Some of the Sherpa do indeed summit.  There are a couple who have done it over 20 times.

I think the helicopters that evacuate the injured, dead, dying and those with acute mountain sickness (that can kill you if you stay high, but can virtually disappear as soon as you descend) are commercial ventures that rely upon insurance payout (approx $40k).  Add to that any treatments from Private Hospitals. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gladys said:

That is quite a selective quote, Roger.  Gladiators were despised as slaves, but later gained renown and status hinted at the late Republuc reference.  

I was replying to your comment that "Gladiators were invariably slaves who would die either way".  Many were, but some weren't and some retired wealthy and still alive.  Of course practice varied across the 700 years or so when gladiatorial combat exists and I suspect across the Roman world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...