Victory Whippers & Spinners

[Meadows]

of doing "victory whippers" at the end of an RRG climb by pulling out rope at the top anchors or climbing above them, then bailing off.
Rick

I will respect the wishes of Rick and not take whippers in the times I climb at Muir. [edited: victory whippers]

[Meadows]

Can't a person defend themselves on here without somebody attacking their ego or manhood for doing so? Seems kind of silly doesn't it?

I kind of feel like I was the one attacked when I asked for clarity and I was told to lighten up. I didn't know I was upset!

[J-Rock]

I kind of feel like I was the one attacked when I asked for clarity and I was told to lighten up. I didn't know I was upset!

I think that we are all guilty of this (myself included). Although I try not to throw the first punch, I will vehemently defend myself if provoked.

[pigsteak]

Pigsteak must make a ruling AGAIN....geesh people, why keep me so busy with these pissing parties???

PIGLET RULING 34C-a:

Anyone taking an intentional victory whipper must pay a "tightening fee". This fee is determined by the amount of rope pulled up before jumping. A, small sissy jump with no extra slack and the chains clipped is no whipper at all, so you must pay a "wuss fee" for telling your belayer..."I'm jumping!"

Every 8.5 inches of victory slack one feeds out will be a 75 cent fee. The belayer must pay 45% of this fee for being such a moron for letting their climber act so childish. In lieu of paying the fee, the belayer may dirt the climber, and end their "adrenaline fix" for good. (Remember, all your poser friends tell you it is about the movement "brah"...besides they are all probably bouldering anyway.)

The cookie jar will be at RRO, and please feed it when you feed your ego by jumping.

Ruling submitted and accepted August 29, 2005.

Honorable Pigsteak

[busty]

Let me point out (with the disclaimer that this is not legal advice, but merely something everyone needs to think about in this situation). Kentucky has a law which offers protection from liability to land owners who allow use of their property for recreational purposes at no charge, such as landowners who let the public swim or fish in their lake, go sledding, hike, climb and so on. But, those protections can be lost.

In fact the relevant portion of the statute says:

(a) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity;

This could be applied like this ----- if a person is taking dangerous risks that a landowner is aware of and that landowner has not tried to warn or guard against, that property owner could potentially lose the protections against being held liable for an injury caused by whatever dangerous activity occurred.

So my point is basically this....regardless of whether you think a victory whip is safe or not, let's not challenge a landowner when that person is taking steps to protect everyone involved on a variety of levels.

[Wes]

busty, Don't you think that is a bit of a slippery slope? What about people leading at their limit? First time leaders? First time / beginning trad leaders? Where would you draw the line to keep it "safe"?

Wouldn't having rules make it worse? As in, they said it was safe as long as I didn't take victory whips, and when I blew the 3rd clip and hit the ground, it wasn't my fault, and I want 10 million...

[weber]

...
In fact the relevant portion of the statute says:

(a) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity...

So my point is basically this....regardless of whether you think a victory whip is safe or not, let's not challenge a landowner when that person is taking steps to protect everyone involved on a variety of levels.

Thank you for understanding and explaining our situation.

Rick

[weber]

busty, Don't you think that is a bit of a slippery slope? What about people leading at their limit? First time leaders? First time / beginning trad leaders? Where would you draw the line to keep it "safe"?

The law doesn't require us to keep it safe. It merely states that we may be liable if we willfully or maliciously fail to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.

bustyWouldn't having rules make it worse? As in, they said it was safe as long as I didn't take victory whips, and when I blew the 3rd clip and hit the ground, it wasn't my fault, and I want 10 million...

I imposed no rules on victory whipping. But, I DID "warn" that it heightens the risk of bolt failure. Just add this to our other warnings that rock climbing is inherently dangerous... and go have fun.

Rick

[Wes]

Rick, I understand that you want to keep things as "safe" as possible, but from my expence, people don't get hurt taking intentinal falls or doing r rated routes. People get hurt because they make mistakes when lowering/rapping, when they fall on less then vert routes, get a hard catch and get slammed into the wall, when the blow the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd clip and hit the ground. If you really want to keep people safe then, it seems to me you would want to focus on the things that actually cause problems?

[busty]

Wes, its certainly a slippery slope. And it will always be a difficult issue to deal with. How do you define what is dangerous or and what isn't (or is less dangerous) when it comes to sports like this? - especially considering the multiple variables involved from experience levels to ability of gear to take a fall. How do you set limits? I guess the overly cautious defense attorney answer is this - don't let anyone come on your land to do anything, even deliver the mail or come to visit, then you don't have a problem. Of course, we all know that's unreasonable.

Wouldn't having rules make it worse? As in, they said it was safe as long as I didn't take victory whips, and when I blew the 3rd clip and hit the ground, it wasn't my fault, and I want 10 million...

Rules could probably make it worse if that representation of safety were made. But I don't think that's the case here. It seems that all involved in this property have been more than diligent in reminding everyone that this is an inherently unsafe sport with so many variables that can go wrong.

My point in addressing this situation is to simply bring this to everyone's attention and the likely reason that this thread was started in the first place.