Alex Honnold response to Clif Bar & Co

Tim McCabe wrote:How would you feel if your employer one day said we don't want you any more.

I have been "downsized" before when a company I worked for dumped 10,000 employees. It sucks, your ego takes a hit for a few days, then you move on.

Tim McCabe wrote:Wouldn't you want some warning? I've never been fired but I've have heard of all of the red tape that usually goes with termination. Thus avoiding the wrongful termination suit.

In the U.S., at-will employment means you can be terminated at any time, with or without cause. There is generally zero warning unless it's an ongoing performance related issue that they've been working on someone with, and many companies require an immediate and escorted dismissal when someone is terminated for any reason, to prevent an emotional reaction resulting in the employee sabotaging or stealing intellectual property (among other things). It can seem cold.

In the case of a sponsorship, its a bit different because there's a contract in place giving the company rights to the athletes image and appearances. The terms of the contract would determine the performance requirements and how and when the contract can be terminated or renewed.

Tim McCabe wrote: 1099 or what ever ethically I still call BS, surely none of them will have to give up the dream due to this but still how about a little compassion on the corporate level. Not this oh we're done with you now. As to what ever Jake is talking about whatever.

There is no way to mathematically prove one action is "correct" or "incorrect", a lot of this boils down to what people are emotionally comfortable with, but you could argue that they are showing compassion i.e. for a n>5 number of families that might lose loved ones because they tried to emulate these soloists..

I don't live in Mr Clif's mind, so I can't say how much was genuine empathy and how much was a marketing turn towards the mainstream, hell he may not even really know himself..

t=0 sec

my time lost in sleep over this.

Occurred to anyone that this might be a very calculated and arguably brilliant marketing strategy? Clif drops these four climbers, and generates a ton of media buzz as a result. Some negative feedback in our little climbing bubble, but the rest probably falls under "any news is good news" land. Then take it a step farther.. Odds are not bad that one of these fired climbers dies soloing/BASE in the next few years. Think of the media buzz, if that were to happen. The popular media and the ignorant public goes wild, patting the corporation on the back for taking a stance against such crazy, unsafe behavior. Clif bar sales skyrocket.

Yeah, I'm a cynic. Alex is the man, I think he should run for president.

Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.

Albert Einstein

Michael Z wrote:It seems to me that "Clif" is finally realizing the consequences of their own actions. They publicized a very risky...pastime... and are now worried about fallback. To me, this is Clif coming out as a "safe" product. No risk involved. They are taking a step back from the culture that is climbing. If they want to become a mainstream product, well done. If they want to keep being a source of energy for adventure....bad move. They've made their choice.

They need to rename their whole company "Safe Bar" and instead of a rock climber have someone running or standing around in a gym. Because even with running, you could be eaten by a cougar or get hit by a car.

Stich wrote: you could be eaten by a cougar or get hit by a car.

Haven't been eaten by a cougar or hit by a car, but have definitely been hit on by a cougar.

More people die climbing with a rope than soloing.

More people die falling off a ladder around the house than soloing.

Clif just died saying stupid things while standing on level ground.

Andrew Bisharat's take:

adventureblog.nationalgeogr…

Christian wrote:Andrew Bisharat's take: adventureblog.nationalgeogr…

From this link:

“Over a year ago, we started having conversations internally about our concerns with BASE jumping, high-lining, and free-soloing,” wrote Clif Bar in an open letter to the climbing community. “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 (sic) 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.”

Seems like a fair position. While many of us may not have made the decision, it's Clif Bar's money, and they can do as they please.

In the past few days I've been in conversation with a couple climbers and, to my surprise, even non-climbers about this topic. I've heard some interesting arguments on either side, including some extremely hostile reactions aimed at Clif's decision to cut funding for those four athletes. To be honest, I'm pretty surprised by all this. The question I can't seem to get past in all of these discussions is, "why do you care about this?"

I don't say it to be snarky, I simply don't understand how this issue has tapped into such a well of emotion. I can understand that this is being held up as a microcosm of a larger social issue, or that it is being thought of as a sign of the direction of outdoor or extreme sports. Sure, I hear where you're coming from there. But it seems a little much.

The reality is that Clif has in the past paid these climbers, among many other athletes, to snag a little of the limelight that accompanies the climbers' achievements. These accomplishments include some very overtly dangerous activities which we climbers, myself included, find inspiring. That said, to deny that there is any legitimacy to the unease that some feel about promoting (or condoning or encouraging, or any of those other things that are often hopelessly tangled up with sponsorship) that type of athleticism strikes me as unfair to Clif, and to those whose opinions on a murky topic are different than our own.

I've heard it be argued that Clif is somehow penalizing them for dangerous behavior they encouraged in the past. This, and arguments like it, misses the point. Penalizing them would be demanding reparation or somehow shaming them or decrying what it is that they do. In reality, Clif simply declined to renew their contracts. This is simply Clif bar doing what they think is best for their brand (and I'm sure their own sense of ethics) in ways that are well within reason.

There's no doubt in my mind that all four of those athletes are fantastic people and it is a bummer, on a personal level, to have them take a hit to their sponsorship. No doubt it's hard to scrape together a living as a professional climber or BASE jumper and I don't wish this upon them in any way.

Having said that, I also don't think that this is somehow part of a broader indictment of them as people, us a climbers, or climbing as a sport. To imply that it is with an overly vicious reaction conflates several unrelated issues, in my opinion.

With all the cause for outrage not only the world over, but solely within the corporate sphere of this country alone, if this is what sets you off, well, I'm not sure what to tell you.

If Clif bar actually did this for moral reasons, I could understand it. When they're trying to go back on their poorly-received decision by re-inviting the athletes they cut to join their sponsored team again, any moral claims ring hollow: mensjournal.com/adventure/r…

From the Cedar Wright interview:
"Q: Is it true Clif Bar backtracked?
A: Yeah, I got the official call re-inviting me back. I said no."

Abram: agreed, fully. When was the last time a for-profit defended a branding decision with moral reasoning that didn't sound hollow? Generalizing, I know, but even that doesn't quite do enough to explain how much attention this has gotten. A moderately large company made a branding decision regarding several of their sponsored athletes and their reasoning sounds hollow? Where's the outrage there? That stuff happens all the time. They weren't particularly rude in how they went about, didn't make comments about the athletes or the sport at large, simply tried to excuse themselves from a table they'd been sitting at until this point.

It's one hundred percent okay to disagree with Clif Bar's decision, I'm not personally in their corner on this, just surprised to see everyone reach for the pitchforks and torches when, as far as I can tell, this is a fairly pedestrian occurrence.

Buff Johnson wrote:t=0 sec my time lost in sleep over this.

this

Doug Meneke wrote:More people die climbing with a rope than soloing. More people die falling off a ladder around the house than soloing. Clif just died saying stupid things while standing on level ground.

And more people die in auto collisions than climbing, but for every one climber there are probably 200 drivers. You are not comparing apples to apples. You have to look at the ratio of deaths relative to the number of participants to gauge the true risk. I dont think anyone debates that soloing is more dangerous than roped climbing on average.

So...
A corporation would pay an athlete do risky things that promote their product, and then kick them to the curb when they are done?

Shocked...

Well duh! Gone are those days of employer/employee loyalty. It's a cut throat business out there in every field. You have to take care of yourself and don't expect too much from the man. On the other hand the biggest bidder wins. I have no problem dumping the greedy sharks to suit my needs. It's all about negotiations. At least we all know that retirement in a van is not so bad ;)

20 kN wrote: And more people die in auto collisions than climbing, but for every one climber there are probably 200 drivers. You are not comparing apples to apples. You have to look at the ratio of deaths relative to the number of participants to gauge the true risk. I dont think anyone debates that soloing is more dangerous than roped climbing on average.

How many people can you name that have died free soloing? I can not think of many, many of the free soloers I know of have died or got hurt doing other things although i can't say i am an expert on it. I know of a few people I have climbed with who solo once in a while (50-500ft stuff not Yosemite but still)

I've seen enough Shane McConkey's for this lifetime. Kudos to Clif. Spend that sponsorship money on people that are not taking extreme risks just to get eyeballs on the internet. Spend it instead on people that are doing things mere mortals can aspire to. Stop the "red bull-ing" of climbing.

And those of you commenting about the legal aspects of this (e.g., claiming that Clif is trying to avoid liability or satisfy its lawyers), clearly don't understand the law relevant to these issues much at all. This move was NOT about liability avoidance, it was about being responsible for the good of the sport. Obviously, you might disagree with Clif's conclusion, but don't ascribe stupid motives that have no basis in reality.