Clif Bar drops sponsored athletes for free-soloing?

Elementary, Alex's mom sues the bar for wrongful death because he was soloing to get higher ratings. But...I'm sure they had them all sign wavers.

Red Bull is not a US company. Austrians do that crazy shit like all the time.

Miike wrote: probably depends on how much vodka they put in it

True dat!

20 kN wrote: Or going with the other scenario where a kid sees Honnold, eats a Cliff Bar and then goes soloing. I doubt that would hold up in court unless Cliff Bar advocated that eating the product made you capable of soloing, which they dont.

lawyers can make anything possible and I think we all know this boils down to legal advice.

I wonder what kind of sponsors Evel Knievel had(edit- seems he had trouble finding sponsors)

Andrewww wrote:Red Bull just settled for $13M because, OMG, it doesn't really give you wings?!?!

That's not fully accurate, but I dont blame you as the news is only telling half the story as they normally do. The core of the lawsuit actually focused on specific claims Red Bull made with regard to the product: increased athletic performance, reaction time and concentration. The plaintiffs argued that there was no evidence to prove that consuming the product yielded any of those claimed benefits. The slogan was part of the lawsuit, but without the other false claims, I think it would have been harder for the plaintiffs to win.

^^^^
(trollsonice2014)

Ahhh the triple post...

showing yer true colours...

Ever think it may be just as simple as, they changed their criteria for who they want to represent Clif Bar and decided that daredevils were not in line with the company image.

20 kN wrote: That's not fully accurate, but I dont blame you as the news is only telling half the story as they normally do. The core of the lawsuit actually focused on specific claims Red Bull made with regard to the product: increased athletic performance, reaction time and concentration. The plaintiffs argued that there was no evidence to prove that consuming the product yielded any of those claimed benefits. The slogan was part of the lawsuit, but without the other false claims, I think it would have been harder for the plaintiffs to win.

Oh yea, I just like the whole "We're gonna sue you because we didn't sprout wings!" hahaha. But yea, it's the same claims that 5 hour energy and all those companies in the same market make. No real data or studies to back any of it up. I think Red Bull just seemed like the easiest target because the amount of profit they make in a year is ridiculous and they throw money at pro athletes to push limits.

I still remember the first Red Bull I ever had and thinking, "This is gross, it tastes like liquid Smarties." Now I think they are the best tasting of all the energy drink options. They say you sense of taste changes as you get older, guess it's true.

The climbers will still keep climbing and cliff bars will still sell their bars to people (until they try a KIND bar).
Not a big deal.

Mike Belu wrote:The climbers will still keep climbing and cliff bars will still sell their bars to people (until they try a KIND bar). Not a big deal.

Second that. Switched to Kind bars and Jolly Ranchers a year or so ago and never looked back.

rocknice2 wrote:Ever think it may be just as simple as, they changed their criteria for who they want to represent Clif Bar and decided that daredevils were not in line with the company image.

+1

Seems kind of douchey to have had Alex wear the Clif Bar logo while soloing on Squarespace's recent commercial...and then cut him a few weeks later. Kinda strange in my opinion.

youtube.com/watch?v=itIRdx1…

Benjaminadk wrote:who cares?

+++50

Bill M wrote:Sounds like I am in the minority, but I have always thought that commercially promoting soloing was wrong. This does not mean I think people should not solo – it is a person’s right to live their life as they see fit. However, having business executives in suits – Clif Bar is a $500M company - making money of people who are risking their life, seems - well – wrong. A fellow taking about a recent death in an X Games event summed it up pretty well, "Sport was conceived as a means to improve body health and quality of life," Brookens said. "As currently practiced, the X Games appear designed to - for the competitors - maximize the potential risk and injury. Certainly the same athletic skills can be developed and displayed with less potential for harm, even permanent, to the athletes without sacrificing enjoyment for the spectator. In reality, this is all about risk, not about performance.” denverpost.com/ci_22495062/…

Insert almost anything here especially college ball and the NFL. Love football but they are making billions off the literal backs of their players.

But...if you are signing up for it and taking the paycheck can we really blame the companies 100%?

Clif's response is gold if I've ever seen it.

Clif Bar wrote:Over the past few days, there’s been a heated dialogue about our recent decision to withdraw sponsorship of several climbers. We’ve watched, listened and been humbled by the conversation, and wanted to share with you where we are on this topic. Our hope is that we can provide clarity around our climbing sponsorships and to demonstrate our continued commitment to supporting this great sport and the climbing community. Climbing has been a part of our company’s DNA from the beginning. Over a year ago, we started having conversations internally about our concerns with B.A.S.E. jumping, highlining and free-soloing.

We would like to start with a bunch of meaningless rhetoric in hopes that you don't continue further into our statement proclaiming our lack of sense of adventure and progression in the sports with which we started.

Clif wrote:We concluded that these forms of the sport are pushing boundaries and taking the element of risk to a place where we as a company are no longer willing to go. We understand that some climbers feel these forms of climbing are pushing the sport to new frontiers. But we no longer feel good about benefitting from the amount of risk certain athletes are taking in areas of the sport where there is no margin for error; where there is no safety net.

Regardless of the commitment to climbing that its earliest pioneers undertook--the risks, rewards, and sacrifices--we step away from all of the aforementioned. The first ascentionists of yesteryear had no safety nets; we believe they should be installed below every chunk of rock over 25' tall!

Clif wrote:As such, going forward we will not be sponsoring climbers who are primarily recognized for free-soloing, B.A.S.E. jumping and high-lining. This change in sponsorship approach did not come without great debate. Ultimately, this decision came down to a sense of responsibility to our own story, what we endorse and the activities that we encourage – which is largely reflected in our sponsorship of athletes. This responsibility extends to adventurers of all types – climbers, outdoor enthusiasts, as well as children.

We've come to believe that our future niche will be selling marginally nutritious, exceptionally poor-tasting, and over-priced chunks of cornmeal to mothers and fathers looking for stocking stuffers for their 12-year-old sons and daughters who took a very recent and intense interest in bouldering. (Please look for us in the check-out line at REI on Black Friday)

Clif wrote:We have and always will support athletes in many adventure-based sports, including climbing. And inherent in the idea of adventure is risk. We appreciate that assessing risk is a very personal decision. This isn’t about drawing a line for the sport or limiting athletes from pursuing their passions. We’re drawing a line for ourselves. We understand that this is a grey area, but we felt a need to start somewhere and start now.

We're just realizing this....even though we've been around since 1992.

Clif wrote:This is a new path for us and we haven’t been perfect in the way that we’ve communicated or executed the change in sponsorships. For that we’re sorry and take full responsibility. Climbing has been a big part of Clif Bar’s history and we remain as committed as ever to the sport that we love.

But please, please, please.. always wear a helmet. Indoors. And don't ever push an envelope. Even to the other side of a desk. It might fall off; we can't risk that.

- The Clif Bar Team

Those who give money away have the right to take it away as well.

If any you would like to see your favorite athletes get more funds to push the limits feel free to use gofundme.com

I thought Clif Bar's explanation was thoughtful and made sense. It is pretty much how I would feel in the situation. You are free to solo and what not; it is a very personal decision, but I am uncomfortable encouraging it by adding an unnatural financial incentive. It was good to see a company make a moral decision and not be completely ruled by the economic imperative. The mob howling over it is ridiculous. I will still rarely eat their product (I would rather eat a piece of cheese and an apple or a squished PB&J sandwich), but I respect the company more now.

Jake, I think you are making a bunch of jaded assumptions, not hard to do when we have seen the actions of a lot of big corporations, but I am seeing no evidence supporting those assumptions. So they may have changed their minds? What is wrong with that after further reflection.

If there is a financial reason why they stopped the sponsorship (though I don't see i), there is nothing wrong with that in itself. The reason for the company and the obligation of the officers is financial. Again, nothing wrong with that as long as they don't abrogate their other social responsibilities. If corporations are going to be considered people then they better have the full responsibilities of people too.

I joined my company when they had 20 people, we have like 400-500 now and i have seen them do the same sort of stuff.

M Sprague wrote:I thought Clif Bar's explanation was thoughtful and made sense. It is pretty much how I would feel in the situation. You are free to solo and what not; it is a very personal decision, but I am uncomfortable encouraging it by adding an unnatural financial incentive. ...

Agreed 100%. I can only imagine some young kid hoping to make it in climbing, looking at Alex Honnold, and feeling they had to free solo in order to make the big bucks. That sucks a bit and any sponsor should realize that they play a big part in that perception. If a sponsor is ok with that, I fully respect that decision. Likewise, if they, like Clif, decide not to encourage that behavior, I respect that as well.