Paid Rounds

[Oracle]

So really: gentlemen v players?

I am not sure: the problem I have is the justification given "ethos" does not match the solution: "ban paid rounds" for reasons I cite.
Many rounds fail the ethos test which are not paid.

I actuallly see this in the same light as numerous other disputes that have plagued amateur athletics over the years, broadly described as a turf war over "ownership". It has happened at the highest levels ending in two rival uk title championships, down to clubs arguing over right to host events and at all federation levels in between.

One group set themselves up as the "true believers" resisting encroachment on what they see as "their turf" (and forgive me if this sounds critical Graham, but FRA refusing on occasion to list other peoples races is just that).

If there were a lot of paid rounds (there are virtually none) they could argue it is hurting the ecology, which in extremis is back to front. If the only rounds were experienced guides, far less traffic would happen over the route by those learning to support it! THe guides already know it, so don't have to learn it multiple times.

If the definition of BG completion were different by the paid organisations you could understand the reluctance to validate their rounds. (eg the arguments over what consitutes a valid hour record) But the rules are the same.

If the "ethos" issue were actually pursued (show us proof you support, before we will allow your round) then maybe that would have a legitimacy. It doesnt. There are many rounds of people from abroad, doing a round never to return, and never learn the route or support anyone at all. So it is not about ethos either.

I rest my case.

Whether it is spoken or not, or even subconscious or not, the BG club has adopted "ownership" of the BG on control and completions, and has seen others getting involved in promoting the BG which is anathema to the BG club because they consider they own it. It is just another turf war, of the kind which has plagued athletics for years.

Which yet again ends in pure spite , that those who do a paid round, then render themselves ineligible to become club members, having broken the "true faith, so are now shunned". That too is a feature of athletics turf disputes.

Their club, their rules. But they cannot pretend that the reason matches the action taken. It is yet another small minded action by a small minded athletics committee who think they "own it". They dont. The are merely custodians of some records..

As I pointed elsehwere. There is no problem it seemingly solves. And if there was a problem, it is nowhere justified that this is the best answer to solve that the problem. It is arbitrary.

The question they should ask is "would bob graham have objected", or would he consider that getting round was the issue? Since the only answer to that can only be "dont know", because paid guides were the norm in the developing alpine mountaineering scene at his time so normal. So who knows if Bob would have objected to just the same in the UK?

No first or subsequent ascent of a mountain, or mountains (I know of) was ever "invalidated" by using paid guides! So The club should allow all valid witnessed rounds if it were other than a turf war.