In light of recent baseball players being banned and now Lance Armstrong being back in the news for banned substances. Regarding the current great climbers and alpinists, would it matter to anyone if these people were using the stuff? Years ago it was a known fact and I guess even OK with climbers that meth and the like were used during climbs. What 's your opinion?

But what if some of the current speed records up certain walls or an alpine climb that is faster than ever. Wouldn't climbers be negative on that, regardless if there isn't a governing body overseeing the "sport"?

I think the big difference is that there is no money involving in hiking, mountaineering or trad climbing.

LOL You think pro climbers are able to be pro climbers just because they have a big trust? Who do you think pays for all the trips all over the world. There is sponsorship money in trad climbing/sport climbing/bouldering/alpinism etc.

maybe I should be stripped of a handful of state highpoints as being Diamox-aided.

Shouldn't be stripped, you been up them. But should not feel too satisfied with your effort. But than again, whatever swings your boat. For me mountaineering/climbing is about self challenge/exploration of different parts of the world, not just getting to the high point of some peak.

The whole concept - in climbing or anything else - is a slippery slope: does caffeine count? it's an amphetamine. My own take is that it doesn't matter, In climbing, you're expressing/exploring ways to know yourself or overcome your own limitations, whether physically or mentally. How you do this (or fail to do so) is a battle that is all your own, and so are the rules.

Yea, but if there is sponsorships/contracts for top climbers, than there would be competition to be a top climber. And I can totally see how someone would want to get the edge by taking something they shouldn't (in ideal world). Sometimes however I think people should be allowed to take whatever they want. It is their body, if they are willing to deal with all the adverse effects of roids etc than who am I to tell them they shouldn't do it? Personally, I can care less what others think I do. Only live once.

butitsadryheat wrote:

sharperblue wrote:The whole concept - in climbing or anything else - is a slippery slope: does caffeine count? it's an amphetamine.

While both caffeine and meth are both stimulants, caffeine is NOT an amphetamine.

that's true - stimulant - i stand corrected.

sharperblue wrote:
that's true - stimulant - i stand corrected.

I could use a "stimulant" right now ..

borutbk wrote:Luckily (?), climbing, alpinism is not a sport. If it was, it would matter.
Hermann Buhl already describes (with satisfaction) his use of amphs (Nanga Parbat). But I'm quite sure most climbs nowadays are clean. Drugs are lighter weight than alcohol, and I guess that is a factor.

I think climbing and alpinism are both sports (rock climbing may be in the 2020 Olympics, also), but not in the sense of competition, money and powerful governing bodies. For heavy amphetamines, it would not be practical because one needs be able to think clearly (don't want to end up like Tom Simpson in the 1967 Tour de France).
I have wondered why one would not dope their blood at high altitude. As a cyclist I object to it, but for 8000 m peaks, it seems practical on summit days.

Nope.. other peoples' climbing doesn't interest me, beyond beta for my own.