Originally Posted by
Bob
There's a lot of deflection (non)arguments there @Oracle.
Whether someone is partly or wholly a sponsored athlete has nothing to do with paying someone to take you around the BGR. When I climbed the North Face of the Eiger many years ago I was on the dole. Are you suggesting that my ascent was state sponsored? After all they were paying my "wages".
Kilian Jornet knew about the BGR from several years ago (at least) when Ben Abdelnoor of this parish had a chat with him and gave him a copy of the 42 Peaks booklet. There was a thread on here wondering when he'd attempt the Round and if his sponsors would even "allow" him to attempt it since it wasn't a race and didn't have the associated hullabaloo that is a feature of events like the TdMB that he was dominant in at the time. In subsequent communication between KJ and the club it was obvious that he had respect for the ethos of the club and traditions of the Round and that he only wanted to attempt the Round with those in mind. He arrived here with one of his running friends and only got the full local help when Rob Jebb decided it was too hot for his attempt at the record (RJ is already a club member - #2035) and offered his help. He wasn't simply "muled around" either, since he carried his own kit and food for the whole Round.
As for KJ not helping others with their Round, who's to say he won't? It's an aspiration, not a requirement. I know Club Members who support lots of attempts and others who only ever did their Round with a group of mates and don't figure in any other attempt.
I've no figures how how common existing members helping others on the Round is, it's actually very difficult to work out - as an example members #1580 and #1581 are both called Peter Murphy. This is not an accidental duplication, two different runners of the same name completed their Round on the same day though one went clockwise and the other anti-clockwise. If a "Peter Murphy" appears as a supporter on a ratification form which one do I mark it against? What happens if the Peter Murphy is a different one who isn't a member or becomes a member several years down the line? There are currently over 2200 members (some of whom are deceased) do I trawl back through all the records updating each one for every new applicant?
Solo Rounds: neither I nor anyone in the committee has a problem with these, the Round is on public land after all. Since the inception of the Club it's been a requirement that your attempt be witnessed. Some people have a problem with that, others don't. I've received ratification forms with accompanying emails saying that they realise that being solo means no Club membership but it's just for the completeness of records and other similar forms with what amounts to "trust me I did it" attached.
The "I don't know anyone", lack of connections, excuse doesn't hold water either. When I made my first attempt on the Round in 2004 these forums didn't exist, Facebook had only just started up in the States so that wasn't available either. I didn't know anyone in my running club who was interested so I asked for help on the UKClimbing forums and a couple of total strangers stepped forward to help. Goodness knows how people managed before the internet. Although I'm originally from the Lakes, I'm now a couple of hours' drive away so the logistics and costs of my reccying and attempts weren't dissimilar to those living in Manchester, West Yorkshire and the like.
I'm not on Facebook but when the same posting as at the start of this thread was made on the BGR group page there was near unanimous support - there were only two (as of Easter) dissenting voices, both of whom are employed/associated with commercial concerns offering paid Rounds.
The Round itself has very few "rules", basically start and finish at the Moot Hall and traverse the 42 tops on foot within a contiguous 24 hours. The Club currently just adds the requirement for that effort to be witnessed. The proposal is whether to limit that to voluntary support/witnessing.
As a Club the Round has our name on it, any problems tend to land at our door whether they are associated with us or not, and we have to deal with it: a couple of years ago there was a Sunday Times journalist looking at problems with erosion in the Lakes and making a big deal about it - interest waned when it was pointed out that annual footfall on the Round was under 1000 when compared to 14 million day visits to the Lakes. We don't want to have a big problem to solve in the future when we are able to sort it out now. We can't stop commercial activity about the Round (maps, books, etc.) but we have a duty* to protect it for those to come.
* "Duty" sounds a bit grand but I can't think of a better word.