Subaru Primal Quest

Part of the reason for small blogs this week, apart from work, has been because of following the Subaru Primal Quest, one of the big adventure races of the year, and it's website can be found here.

Ever since the pioneering days of Steve Gurney and John Howard, Kiwis have always seemed to be rather adept at this "sport" and the reason why I follow it is (unfortunately) some New Zealand orienteers get attracted to adventure racing, and are attractive to teams due to their navigational skills. Unfortunate as adventure racing is a little more financial than orienteering, and who can blame orienteers farking off in search of a few dolleros at something they might be good at?

In the Subaru Primal Quest, NZ's No.1 orienteer Chris Forne has been snapped up by US-sponsored team Go Lite Timberland, which has another Kiwi orienteer/adventure racer Aaron Prince at the helm. But what gets me about adventure racing is it's very much an unstructured sport, and luck always seems to deal a hand when it doesn't need to. Also the "rules" (I use the term loosely) never seem to be strictly enforced and organisers aren't exactly consistent in their application. I won't bore you with the reasons behind those cryptic statements, except that a few years covering the Southern Traverse during my photography days has given me an insight into this "sport".

But is adventure racing a sport or a gimmick? How can you treat a sport seriously when, to use this year's SPQ as an example, they start off with a section where they are given a horse? Now read some of the pieces from the News on the SPQ website, and you find such things as:

"As a result of the team’s hard work they are ranked 56th in a field of 89. This is impressive, when you consider that they crossed CP5 dead last, largely thanks to a stubborn horse named Maynard. Maynard decided early on that the world’s toughest race wasn’t his bag, and he let his feelings be known. The team spent two hours coaxing Maynard to no avail. In the end, two wranglers had to come and retrieve the recalcitrant horse and the team continued on, without their equine fifth teammate. The rest of the horse section took them three hours on foot."

Or this:

"Beginning with the Primal Quest kickoff, Team GoLite has faced down adversity. Just miles into the race, at the first mandatory vet check stop for their horse, their steed had blood coming out of its nose. The team was forced to skip the rest of the horseback riding checkpoints and proceed to CP5 where they were given a new mount. GoLite then had to re-trace their steps and hit all the checkpoints they missed, putting the team nearly two hours behind the race leaders."

So, because their horse had a bleeding attack, they had to go and get another one, re-trace their steps and lose 2 hours. After 4 days into this 6 day race, GoLite are sitting third, a couple of hours behind the leaders.

Sport is about competing on an even playing field. When adventure racing organisers get rid of the unnecessary luck factor that frequently pervades their races, perhaps then it can be considered a sport, rather than a gimmick.

P.S. Oh yeah, I forgot to say: at the start, when the 90-odd teams were lining up and given their horse for their first section, guess what they used to signal the start of the race with? Yep, a gunshot. How fuckin' stupid was that? (cue mass stampede)

ODI cricket

As Sri Lanka again bullied England into submission in last night's one-dayer, it re-raised in my mind a conflict that I can't quite resolve.

ODI cricket is a bit of a lottery (esp. when compared to test cricket where the better side will usually win, or more to the point, not lose) and you'd expect results to be a bit random. Yet, over the last couple of years, we have seen sides (e.g. India and South Africa) rack up winning streaks so long that would make Roger Federer proud and I'm left wondering why?

Sri Lanka 3-0 currently over England, WI 4-1 over India - these are your typical series score in ODI cricket at the moment whereas a few years ago you could bank on a team that got completely thrashed bouncing back and turning the tables in the next game (the "lottery" theory)

Anyone out there with thoughts?

Bailing out and free bets

After the first few days of the World Cup (after 1 game of pool play), I placed my England bets (as in laid them to lose) - the prices I took were 8.4 outright and 4.5 to reach the final.

Two weeks on, with England in the quarters, England's price on Betfair is 8.8 outright and 4.4 to reach the final. This is one example of a "free bet" - where you assess a price (for whatever reason) is wrong and try and take advantage of it. In this case, two weeks ago I was right in assessing these prices were too short - trouble is, we've now reached the stage where the "free bet" is over and a decision is required whether to jump ship or ride it out. IF they beat Portugal in the quarters, obviously both those prices will crash.

The other example of a "free bet" is more obvious - backing a team at higher odds, then laying them at a shorter price (for the same amount), giving you a profit if that event occurs while taking no loss if it doesn't happen. After backing Italy at 14 last week, I could now lay them at 7.8 locking in a profit for no loss. Then the hard part still has to occur - Italy still have to win the damn thing!

Decisions decisions. I'm leaning to bailing out on the England bets and riding the Italians for one more game. So my favourite friend Murphy will no doubt come and visit and Portugal will beat England in the quarters while Italy will suffer a shock loss to Ukraine. We shall see.

Bugger

1. Australia is described as the "lucky country". Tell that to a few of their footballers at the moment.
2. England (the one team I don't want to see in the final) get through the second round with a piece of Beckham magic while their next opponents Portugal will have trouble fielding a side after red cards and injury.
3. In rugby, France did beat South Africa with none of my money on while Ireland ran out of puff against Australia.
4. Shane Dye (an expat Kiwi jockey) injured in a fall on the weekend at Hong Kong - fingers crossed for a complete recovery.
5. Wimbledon started today - cue summer rain in England.

At times like this laughter is required - and I've found another Kiwi blog devoted to satire; this one is definitely not PC so if you're easily offended, don't go. Otherwise click here.

Weekend Preview

Re World Cup - note to self: remember in last matches of pool play teams rest players on one yellow card when qualifying not an issue. So Germany thrashed Ecuador and now my hope that one side of the draw would be "easier" than the other is not quite correct, but I'm not too far out with the match-ups so far:

On the left: Germany v Sweden, Argentina v Mexico, Italy v Australia, ? v Ukraine?
On the right: England v Ecuador, Portugal v Netherlands, Brazil v Ghana, Spain v ?

Current winners market (only 30 million quid matched on Betfair so far) has moved a little: both the Argies and Brazilians firmed a little bit to $4.7 and $4.5, Germany $9.4, England on the drift to $10.5, Italy into $10, Spain $12.5 and the Dutch $17.5.

Two equal favourites on opposite sides of the draw; if you're looking at other teams when they run into one of these comes into the equation. But the other thing I look at is trying to assess the relative strengths of each group. Obviously a very subjective matter, but past history of such tournaments tells us in hindsight some groups are stronger then others; the trick is trying to turn that hindsight into foresight.

According to my admittedly imperfect memory, in Euro 2004, Portugal and Greece were in the same pool and ended up playing the final. In the 2002 World Cup, Brazil and Turkey came out of the same group and ended up playing again in the semi-final.

So if you're on the Argentinian bandwagon and think they are the form side of the tournament so far, then what about the Dutch? Sure, they were perhaps fortunate to get a draw, but personally I didn't think they played that badly. Now the papers will tell you that Portugal are their "bogey" team, but these are the sorts of statements to ignore. Sure, they have a hard road ahead, a win here puts them probably against England, and through that the Brazilians or perhaps the Spanish. But if they can hold their own against the best team in the comp, then 16/1 may be a little generous. Something to consider anyway. Note I'm not suggesting to take these prices for the remaining duration; look for an exit point.

For example, my Italian speculator at $14 is already down to $10; you would like to think that they can get past Australia into a quarter-final against who knows?, and if they get to the semi-final against say Argentina they might be around $6 at which time I might bail and take a free bet.

Anyway, enough about the football. Three rugby union internationals in the weekend:

All Blacks ($1.29) v Argentina ($4.5)
Australia ($1.29) v Ireland ($4.7)
South Africa ($1.50) v France ($3.25)

The ABs game I'm leaving alone; while Australia have been having a great sporting week that price is ridiculous and I'll give $1.30 to anybody who wants to take it; I'd like to back the French but it's not tempting enough, if the Saffers come into $1.4 - $1.45 territory I might reconsider.

Everest: My final word (maybe)

As suspected, information coming off the mountain is drying up, although an independent Malaysian climber (incidentally using the same "mountain guide" company as David Sharp) has over the past few days been reported in his local press here and here. A full picture will probably never emerge, and one of the sorry aspects to this tragedy is climbers who have previously been reluctant to discuss details of tragedies that occur on Everest will be even more reluctant to do so now after the kerfuffle caused over Sharp's death.

Plenty of "experts" have weighed in with their opinion that Everest is no longer a mountain to climb, but a circus and theme park complete with mobile brothel at Base Camp (and here I was thinking you need all your energy to get up - the mountain that is). If one good thing is to come out of this, you hope that another David Sharp out there, a reasonably experienced climber with dreams, will think twice before packing his bags and telling his mother "you are never alone on Everest, there are climbers everywhere".

Unfortunately, lessons do not seem to be well learned in this rarified air. Part of my reading included Jon Krakauer's original "Into Thin Air" article (re 1996 fatalities on Everest) for Outside magazine which can still be found online here. In that article, he describes the delays that occur at bottlenecks where climbers with limited (or no) ability slowly clamber up one of the trickier sections on summit day while others wait impatiently sucking on precious oxygen. If you get up Everest too late and a storm comes in (a la 1996), you're in dangerous territory and waiting for wealthy Mr Joe Public doing this (slowly) for a good story on the cocktail circuit certainly increases that possibility. And then I read from a 2006 expedition account how a climber left an oxygen bottle at a point to be picked up on descent, then waited too long at a bottleneck that caused him to eventually run out of oxygen on the descent before reaching his stashed bottle. Yep, Groundhog Day.

You would like to think that one of the other lessons from the 2006 climbing season on Everest that could be learned is that something needs to be done about the traffic congestion on the mountain, and that the commercial expedition companies who entice people who perhaps shouldn't be there need to take some responsibility for their own actions and build an infrastructure that can support hundreds of summiters each year. Or realise that Everest does not want to be ridden Annabel Chong style by hundreds of people. Methinks I'm hoping for a bit much there.

And perhaps some lessons might be learned by the 2006 version of Krakauer, Mark Inglis. Over the last few weeks, his continuing utterances in the media have left me far from impressed and one of the amusing things my sick sense of humour finds is while he has received undeserved criticism for his actions on the mountain, he has not been taken to task for his continuing statements to, and his criticism of, the media.

Let's go back to the beginning. Legless Kiwi climbs Everest. Big news. Tells world of passing dying climber. Even bigger news. Some bright journo rings Sir Ed Hillary, NZ icon and still No.1 most trusted NZer according to surveys (but see yesterday's blog), and asks his opinion. Sir Ed says "that sucks". Now we have global news.

Let's also remember Mark Inglis is not only an individual, but a brand. He is a person who is well versed in media relationships and relies to a reasonable extent on sponsorship income and courting the publicity such sponsorship requires. He is not a dairy farmer from Eketahuna who doesn't know a sound bite from a bum bite. I suspect he also realises attack is the best form of defense and the best way to deflect attention from yourself is by putting attention onto someone or something else.

If you are in love with Inglis and think he is a hero, don't read on. His LegsOnEverest website contains this following classic:

"It has been terribly disappointing seeing so many so called media professionals making statements and accusations with no fact, no research" (June 5 Diary entry)

Similar statements have been made in the media. Now, some of us know there is a large difference between print media and TV/radio. With the latter, you actually get to hear something direct from the horse's mouth without having to rely on a journo's shorthand and typing skills. And in this case, the horse said:

"On that morning, over 40 people went past that young Briton. I was one of the first, radioed and Russ said look Mark, you can’t do anything. He’s been there X number of hours, been there without oxygen, y’know he’s effectively dead. So we carried on. Of those 40 people who went past this young Briton, no-one helped him except for people from our expedition.”

So tell me again who has been making statements with no facts and research? The media??? Who sensationalised this story by telling the world 40 people walked past? You weren't the first (the Turkish expedition was before you), did you really radio Russ (Russell Brice) who now denies any communication about Sharp on the ascent?, did you actually have a radio?, was he really effectively dead given that apparently he's captured on video talking?, and of course it has been established a Sherpa from the Turkish expedition did render assistance, so the "no-one helped him except for people from our expedition" is a load of cobblers as well.

The breathtaking arrogance of someone criticising the media for inaccuracy when their own story has more holes than Swiss cheese. But wait, there's more.

The main defense of (some of) the climbers, including Inglis, has been along the lines of:

a) I/We did everything that we possibly could, and
b) He was so far gone that nothing we did would have mattered anyway

Inglis has made statements to that effect in radio interviews.

Both are bullshit. I'm quite happy to accept by accident rather than design (although that may not be the case, but we won't go there), assistance was not rendered on the ascent. But the mere fact that mistaken assumptions were made with respect to whether Sharp needed help by some climbers on the way up renders excuse No.1 invalid. Which moves us to Excuse No.2 - and that is the question that can never be answered as we will never know the outcome had climbers stopped on the way up and a rescue attempt made. Inglis has made the comment that it is impossible to rescue someone from that height. I bet Lincoln Hall is glad Dan Mazur didn't share that opinion.

It infuriates me to hear climbers such as Inglis offer their opinion that Sharp was unrescuable and then imply that us armchair observers don't know what we are talking about if we think otherwise because we haven't been there. As an aside, it also infuriates me when people say Sharp could have been saved - the main point being we will never know. However, Lincoln Hall, Buck Weathers (1996) and no doubt others provide examples that miracles sometimes do occur and for Inglis or anyone else to categorically state with 100% certainty that Sharp was "beyond help" is IMO mischievous and misleading.

Another classic line comes from Mark Woodward on the Himex expedition:

"...the guy was beyond help, though he recovered somewhat at one point..." (Stuff, 7 June)

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be laughable. Beyond help, but oh, he did recover somewhat.

The cold hard facts are Sharp was first found alive around midnight May 14/15. Himex went past him around 1 a.m. He was still alive in the late hours of the morning of May 15. If he was "effectively dead" and "beyond help" at 1 a.m., then what the fuck was he doing still alive some 8-10 hours later and apparently able to mutter something captured on a video camera? If someone could answer that, I'd be extremely grateful.

There are even more holes in Inglis' statements but I can't be bothered pointing them all out. While Inglis doesn't deserve any criticism for his inaction on the mountain (he was a commercial client on an expedition and in case anybody doesn't know, he has no legs), he deserves plenty for his comments afterwards. Especially as he himself has continued to use publicity for his own needs after saying out of respect for Sharp's family the matter should be left to rest. New Idea, North and South, and at some point in the future, David Letterman. I for one won't be watching.

How different would this had been if instead of uttering the famous "40 people went past and no-one helped him apart from us" line, something was said along the lines of "we didn't realise he needed help on the way up, and by the time we came down it was too late"? Or, "we thought he was beyond help on the way up, and when finding him still alive on the way down, realised that we might have been wrong and tried to help him"? Like the question as to whether Sharp could have been successfully rescued, we will never know.

OT: Surveys

If anybody needed proof that surveys are not to be taken seriously, here it is:

In the Herald this morning was the headline "Auckland stars in survey of politeness". Now that shouldn't come as a surprise to us Jafas (non-Kiwi readers: nickname given to Aucklanders - stands for Just Another F.... Aucklander), we are a pleasant lot. But before reading the article, guess which city ranks first for politeness?














New York. I kid you not.

World Cup Betting Update

Two thirds through pool play and the knockout phase is starting to take shape. Which half of the draw teams end up in the knockout phase is important, and in my view one side is going to be a hell of a lot easier than the other.

One crucial match is in less than 24 hours time: Germany v Ecuador. In betting, following the masses doesn't usually result in profit, and given Ecuador have a better goal difference, Germany have to win to come top of the group. I'll stick my neck out and suggest a draw is more likely, which has Ecuador winning the group and providing a second round draw looking something like this:

On one side:

Ecuador v Sweden
Argentina v Mexico
Italy v Australia
France/Switzerland/South Korea v Ukraine

And on the other:

England v Germany
Netherlands v Portugal
Brazil v Czech/Ghana
Spain v France/Switzerland/South Korea

Even if you swap Germany and Ecuador, the first group is a hell of a lot easier. The value in Argentina has gone; they are now nearly joint favourites to win the Cup (at $5), although if they lose to the Dutch (and thus swap sides with them in the knockout phase) that price will look short.

The winner's market has Brazil at $4.90, Argentina at $5, Germany and England at $9.60, Spain at $10, Italy at $14 and the Dutch at $17. Out of these seven favoured sides, it is possible that five of them could end up on the same side of the draw - so I'm off to plonk a wee speculator on the Italians at $14; a group of 16 match against Oz followed by a quarter-final against France, Switzerland or South Korea. A nice price for one of the favoured teams who may get a relatively easy passage through to the semi-final.

Rugby v Soccer

Having watched two rugby internationals last night and the Italy-USA football match this morning, you cannot help but compare the two codes.

If these sports were war movies, Rugby is "Platoon" and Soccer is "MASH". The number of times the stretchers came onto the field to remove supposedly critically-injured players, only for these wounded to majically jump to their feet and continue did remind me of the Korean War comedy classic. While rugby players who have their brains knocked sometime into next week just get up and soldier manfully on.

If I said one of these games had three players sent from the field, which one would you choose?

A couple of weeks ago our NZ soccer captain demanded more respect for the football code. It would be easier to do so if the players involved actually played the game rather than auditioning for movie roles.

And while on the subject of humour (which I class football as), I came across this pisstake on blogging which I found rather amusing. Apparently I'm in the minority - others have found it childish and churlish. Lighten up.

And Xman from Pandasport has a nice joke as a signature which I haven't seen before:

A guy asked me to take part in a charity run. I said "Piss off". He said "Go on, it's for blind and spastic kids". I thought "F**k, I could win this".

So what happened on the way UP guys?

I've spent most of my adult life analysing information. And, thanks to a stint as an Internal Auditor in a life insurance company, sometimes I have the ability to smell bullshit at 40 paces. And I guess why I have followed the media coverage of David Sharp's death on Everest so closely is the bullshit-ometer started ringing pretty quickly. I have on my computer hard drive every scrap of information I have been able to find on this, from the initial 2 TV interviews by Inglis (and subsequent radio interviews), to copious articles at Explorersweb and other MSM coverage.

Now the following comes with a health warning: I may be completely barking up the wrong tree; this is full of supposition and assumption; but I back my own ability to analyse information and read between the lines, and you can judge for yourself the merits or otherwise of this post. But if I was a betting man (HA!), I'll suggest I've got some, maybe most, of it right, and possibly some of it wrong.

The first important point to be made clear is, on May 15, climbers on both the way UP and on the way DOWN saw Sharp. Not all of them, some of them. Read this more than once, 'cause it's critical - IMO much of the information published surrounding Sharp's condition and the assistance provided to him occurred on the way DOWN. Now here's the thing - all that is, to put it mildly, FUCKING IRRELEVANT. The story that needs to be clarified is what happened on the way UP?

So let's review the available information. The climbers ascending Everest on May 15 were mainly in two teams, a Turkish expedition and Himex Team 2 - there may have been a few independents as well.

Publihed on the Explorersweb site on June 5 was an account attributed to the Turkish expedition. The relevant bits from this are:

1. The Turkish climbers started out at 10 pm on the 14th
2. The Turkish write that their first two climbers passed David on the night of May 14th. They thought that David was a climber who had only stopped to rest. According to them, David was sitting up and they urged him to go on, but David responded "in a restrained way." (confirmed sighting No.1)
3. The Turkish climbers figure that David might have fallen asleep shortly after because when the rest of the team reached him about 15 minutes later, David was motionless. These climbers in turn thought that David was a dead climber, such as "green boots" who lay close by.

Now let's turn our attention to the larger Himex team. Reports suggest they left around 11 p.m. (i.e after, the Turks), and the first client charging up the mountain was Max Chaya (Lebanon) and I have seen the comment, but cannot verify it, that he did not see Sharp. There is no reason to doubt this. Another client, Bob Killup, states on his website he did not see Sharp on the way up. Again, there is no reason to doubt this.

Let's pick up the North and South article (with the associated health warnings about media accuracy):

4. Inglis had been warned about Green Boots and glanced as he went past, detecting what he thought was another body. Behind Inglis, Whetu could see Green Boots had an unexpected companion, lying on his side, curled up presumably to preserve any body heat.

I won't repeat the rest of the excerpt - it's in the June 15 blog entry. But that is confirmed sighting No.2.

What happened thereafter is where confusion and conflict meet.

5. According to North and South, after pausing at Mushroom Rock, "They radioed their "sighting" back to base, where expedition leader Russell Brice and team doctor Terry O'Connor advised the team to carry on. Brice agreed that three of the Sherpas should revisit Sharp on the way down."
6. According to Mark Inglis in his interviews on TVNZ's Close-Up programme, "it was sometime after midnight as we were climbing past, some of our Sherpas – as I’ve said very experienced people – checked him out and y’know, I guess their opinion. We climbed on."

Yet expedition leader Russell Brice, in his statement on his Himex website, states:

7. Sherpa Phurbi Tashi my Sidar called me at 01.41 to say that he was at Green Boots, but there was no mention that David Sharp was also at this location.
8. The next conversation was with Woodard (sic, Mark Woodward - a mountain guide) at 01.50 when the main group were on top of the first step (I don't know Everest, but I'm making the assumption this is the same timing as 5. above)
9. At no stage during the ascent did I know there was a man in trouble. There were never any radio conversations concerning the sighting of David Sharp between my team members and myself during the ascent.

Now, there may be an innocent explanation for this apparent contradiction. In fact, Mark Woodward was reported in the NZ Herald on 8 June as saying "He said he radioed expedition base camp, but did not think expedition manager Russell Grice - also a New Zealander - had received the message." Giving the climbers a large helping of the benefit of the doubt, there may have been communication issues, although it doesn't completely explain all of the reported comments (in particular 5. above).

So there you have it - two confirmed sightings on the way up, and someone made the call to carry on. But who? Grice, who now denies any knowledge of David Sharp's condition on the ascent? Or the climbers themselves, who perhaps mistakenly assumed Sharp did not need any help and by the time they reflected on that further up the mountain thought they couldn't go back down to double-check?

There is one scenario that I certainly do not buy into. And that is (Himex) climbers and their Sherpas stopped on the ascent and made a proper assessment of Sharp's condition and decided it was too late to do anything. That is where the bullshit-ometer continues to ring.

Not for one moment do I think the climbers have such a complete disregard for human life that they would walk past Sharp without concern for his condition. I believe the most probable course of events has some of the climbers noticing Sharp and genuinely believing he was not in need of assistance, and then realising sometime later on actually, he did need help.

And, until Whetu's reported comments in North and South, they weren't really wanting to admit that. And who can blame them? After the initial furore after Inglis' interview, who would want to stick their hand up and say "oops, might have made a wee mistake there"?

The thing is, with contradiction and confusion still swirling, they need to, or if this isn't the case, explain what actually happened. The alternative is to continue to let speculation run rampant and have their motivations and ethics called into question. One thing they do need to do is stop co-mingling the information on what happened on the way UP with what happened on the way DOWN, as that is doing themselves a disservice, and that, more than anything, does throw into question their credibility. I'll expand on that at a later date.

RIP Test Cricket

NZ Cricket announce that a test has been cut from the schedule for this summer's tour by Sri Lanka (again? don't we play anyone else?) and replaced by two 20/20 internationals. The reason? Concerns about the weather.

It's good to see NZ cricket are so on the ball that they can forecast likely weather five months away. Consistency in their decision-making is also at an all-time high as lately they have been scheduling test matches in late March / early April when NZ weather is even better (yeah, right - the last test in NZ, against West Indies in Napier - that's sunny Hawkes Bay people - had what? about 2 days play out of 5?).

And of course if the weather is so much of a concern why play any cricket at all? If it's pissing down with rain they won't be playing 20/20 internationals either.

This is one seriously fkd up decision. NZ already plays the least number of tests amongst the major playing nations. Between now and Nov 2007, they have TWO tests scheduled. And, despite the latte crowd that invade the shorter versions of the game, there are a few out there who prefer tests - go and check out the boards at Sportsfreak (where I learned of this) or Pandasport to see the negative reaction.

And one final point - this news came via the website Cricinfo. I may not have been thorough, but searching both the Herald and Stuff websites to try and find anything else on this has come up with a big fat zero. Richard Boock must be on holiday, as no comment on this in the NZ (print)media is almost as unfathomable as the actual decision by NZ cricket.

Assumptions are the mother of all f... ups

I'm trying to limit posts on Everest but after seeing Mark Inglis' face screaming out at me from the cover of the latest North and South magazine and having bought it, my temperature has risen a little and hence the need to use this keyboard for a little therapy.

Firstly, bear with me - as the article is not available online, here is a passage that has some new information surrounding the morning of May 15:

"After two hours of steady climbing, they passed a small half-metre wide rocky ledge, with a sheer drop of 2000 metres on one side. On the other, an overhang hid the entrance to a tiny cave where the notorious Green Boots' body lay half buried by seasons of snow.

Inglis had been warned about Green Boots and glanced as he went past, detecting what he thought was another body. Behind Inglis, Whetu could see Green Boots had an unexpected companion, lying on his side, curled up presumably to preserve any body heat. Whetu assumed the man, whom he later learned was David Sharp, had bivied (bivouaced) overnight after summiting too late the previous day.

Whetu wasn't overly alarmed - he'd bivied himself after getting caught by the dark on other high-altitude climbs. As he passed, he took off his oxygen mask and called to Sharp to get going, suggesting he could descend in the light from the headlamps of the 40 summit hopefuls on the way up. There was no response.

Whetu was aware he was holding people up - there was insistent tugging on the rope from the team member behind - and he needed another suck of oxygen. Assuming Sharp would get going soon, he put his oxygen mask back on and carried on up. Pausing at the Mushroom Rock terrain to rehydrate, the group discussed what they'd seen and some team members were surprised - they hadn't even noticed Sharp.

They radioed their "sighting" back to base, where expedition leader Russell Brice and team doctor Terry O'Connor advised the team to carry on. Brice agreed that three of the Sherpas should revisit Sharp on the way down.

Brice, ever mindful of the predations of frostbite, was worried about safety. Team members had paid him a lot of money to get them home safely and he didn't want to jeopardise them or his reputation.
...
Once the group summited, Brice radioed them to get down as fast as possible. Brice's respected Sirdar (chief Sherpa) Phurba Tashi was directed to stop with two other Sherpas to see if they could assist Sharp. The trio rustled up a spare oxygen bottle, mask and regulator and tried to give the Englishman oxygen and get him on his feet, but couldn't rouse or move him.
...
Whetu acknowledges, with hindsight, that he made the wrong assumption. He knows now Sharp needed help, on the way up but, in a snap judgement on the coldest morning he's ever known, his mind befuddled and disoriented from oxygen deprivation, he guessed wrong."

North and South magazine, July 2006

Firstly, halle-fuckin-lujah. For the first time, someone has put their hand up and admitted that they may have (with the wonderful benefit of hindsight) just might have made some wrong decisions on their way up the mountain. Mark Whetu, an experienced climber who has previously performed a rescue on Everest, puts his hand up and says yep, we may have got it wrong. Give him a medal, although why he thought a guy who had bivied on the mountain on "the coldest morning he's ever known" didn't need help is beyond me, but hey, let's accept clear and rational thinking at 8,000m+ is not easy.

Secondly, just where does Russell Brice get off trying to convince us that the first he'd heard about David Sharp was on the way down (see previous blog entry) when there is so much contradictory evidence that shows he was radioed by his team members on the way up? If the North and South article is to be believed, together with other references, Mr Brice still has a fair amount of explaining to do - not only why he told his climbers to carry on (oh yeah, that's right, some of them had paid a lot of money and he (Brice) had his reputation to worry about, according to the article), but why he now insists he knew nothing (Sgt Shultz's style from Hogan's Heroes) about Sharp until climbers contacted him on the way down.

I'll save my comments about Inglis for another day - I have no criticism of him and his actions on the mountain and I still feel some sympathy for what he has endured in the media, but this is tempered somewhat by some of his comments and actions since. Put it this way, I wouldn't pay money to go and listen to him when he commences his motivational speaking tour.

You tell 'em Liz

A little snippet from the Herald sees Oz netballer Liz Ellis complaining about the lack of media coverage for netball across the ditch. As a complaining Aussie is about as common as an African side winning games at the football World Cup, I went in search of the original article and found it here (note it's 2 pages).

It's worth a read - as far as a whinge goes it's done with good humour (e.g. "Surely the Kiwis aren't simply a bunch of enlightened SNAGs who not only watch netball, but idolise a footballer who beat the living daylights out of his team-mate with a handbag") and she does have a point. When she gives up playing, she could become a journo. Or perhaps she should be one now, the pay is probably better ...

Upcoming Odds

Interesting to see the All Blacks sub 1.10 again for this week's international. Probably a fair price, but not a true reflection perhaps of the ability of the Irish. Sometimes with such a strong odds-on favourite in a game you expect them to win but not by as much as other people may think, the usual tactic is to lay the favourite pre-game with a view to backing them at some point during the game, something I'll consider.

It doesn't cost much to lay a strong odds-on favourite, but you do have to pick and choose. Across the ditch, Australia are about 1.14 to beat England again, and it's one game I'll leave alone betting-wise.

State Of Origin II is on tonight; Queensland over 2.20 and NSW around 1.80. As much as I'm telling myself to stick to the knitting, it is tempting to have a wee speculator on the Cane Toads.

One of the problems betting on a UK-based site is time zones. I still haven't got myself sorted out post-wedding so staying up at night for cricket tests is currently off the agenda. Which is unfortunate as Day 4 of the cricket test between West Indies and India was washed out without a ball being bowled and India's price has shot out from 1.20 to 2.60. Such price movements are a licence to print money if you are aware of weather forecasts (which any serious cricket punter should spend a fair bit of time sourcing).

And apparently there is some sort of World Cup going on. There will be far more qualified people than me to talk about soccer - sorry, football, but there are a couple of things I can't work out. After the group stages, it is a knockout format so the draw (as in who plays who) becomes important. Currently on Betfair, Brazil are obviously favourites at 4.00 while England are second favourites at 8.20. Yet if both these teams win their group (which is more likely given Sweden only drew with Trinidad), they will meet in the semi-final. Yes, Brazil could lose before then but so could England. And if Sweden do beat England and finish top of Group B, the market will probably react by allowing England to drift (when they should probably shorten).

However, there is also a market for reaching the final where Brazil are favourites at 2.44 and England are again second favourites at 4.50. That is the price I really can't understand, and one I may play around with.

While on the subject of Brazil, one of my learned friends feels their price is too short in a 32-team competition. He may be right, but I would rather go against England at 8.20 than Brazil at 4.00. I'm sure there were plenty who thought the Crusaders at around 3.00 was too short prior to this year's Super 14 as well, but that ended up the best price for them. Generally you do make money taking on favourites rather than backing them, but being selective is the key. At 4.00, I'll leave Brazil alone; I'll look to selectively back other teams who I think will be in the other side of the knockout draw - where if I get one of them into the final I'm in with a running chance; the real pay-day being of course if Brazil get knocked out before the final.

So, who do you believe?

Another piece of the Everest jigsaw has emerged with the release of a detailed statement by Russell Brice on his Himex website. The most startling revelation comes when Brice explains:

"It was not until 09.30 that I first became aware of the existence of David Sharp (although I did not know his name at this stage) when one of the climbers called me to say that there was a big man about to die."

Hmmm. Remember Inglis' initial interview? "I was one of the first, radioed and Russ said look Mark, you can’t do anything. He’s been there X number of hours, been there without oxygen, y’know he’s effectively dead. So we carried on." (TVNZ Close Up, 22 May) In the follow-up interview on 24 May Inglis makes it clear that it was during the ascent: "it was sometime after midnight as we were climbing past, some of our Sherpas – as I’ve said very experienced people – checked him out and y’know, I guess their opinion. We climbed on."

However, Brice categorically states: "There were never any radio conversations concerning the sighting of David Sharp between my team members and myself during the ascent"

This is so at odds with the information that has come out previously that it almost defies belief. As much as I try not to, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that someone is telling porkies.

Further on, Brice says:

"I established David was still alive but unconscious..."

Oh really? From Everestnews on 1 June: EverestNews.com has been informed from a member on the Russell Brice (Himex) expedition that David Sharp was seen talking and was alive and lucid enough to state to least one of those climbers, "My name is David Sharp and I am with Asian Trekking".

And of course, later on in the same article: To add more astonishing news to the story, the Brice (Himex) expedition member also divulged that film crew members of the Brice (Himex) team had taped footage of Sharp alive and speaking to them on May 15th. Helmet cams reportedly worn by Sherpas supporting the Brice (Himex) team and their Discovery filming project were sending a live signal to advance base camp where the producers watched the grim drama unfold in real time.

Yep, plenty of evidence Sharp was unconscious.

Later on, Brice makes the valid point that he was not high up on the mountain and can only report on what he saw and heard. He tries to rationalise the events by assuming that either:

a) people did not see David on the way to the summit
b) people saw David but thought he was "green boots" (an Indian climber who died in the same place several years ago)
c) people saw David and assumed he was already dead

Brice surmises that it would be very easy to not see Sharp because of his location. But as he has said, he was not there. And Everestnews made the point: "EverestNews.com has been told that several climbers had to unclip from the rope to get around David. It was very hard to miss David..."

So strike a) off the list. It is possible b) and c) have some validity, but again there is enough previous information to show that a significant proportion of climbers knew that it was not Green Boots and knew that Sharp was not dead.

Towards the end Brice makes the telling observation:

"If I had known there was a problem on the way up I am sure the structure of the day would have been very different ..."

Which is exactly what has been bugging me about this whole thing. There were enough people, sherpas, and resources at that time (i.e. on the ascent) for the structure of the day to have been very different. So why wasn't it? While Brice is to be commended for giving a detailed account from his perspective on the events surrounding David Sharp, all it has done is thrown up a new set of conflicting statements and cast further doubts on the actions of those who were there.

Rust never sleeps

Not surprisingly, performances by a team starting off a campaign are invariably described as "rusty", and both the All Blacks and Wallabies have had this word mentioned more than once after the weekend. I only caught glimpses of the ABs (although half my male wedding guests buggered off at 7.30 p.m.) and half-dozed thru the Wallabies last night, and in my eyes both games were reasonably error-ridden contests.

But to see the "rust" excuse come out is intriguing. Sporting contests (with the odd exception such as a World Cup in rugby, soccer, cricket etc) ALWAYS involves a battle between individuals or teams with unequal preparation. When two rugby teams from different hemispheres meet, with the international rugby structure now in use, one of those teams is just kicking off their season while the other is at the end. One team will always be "rusty", and the other will always be "jaded".

To Ireland's credit, the "jaded" word has not been mentioned. But they have as much right to complain about tiredness at the end of a long season as we do to complain about being "rusty" (or use it as an excuse for an average performance). And they haven't. I also struggle to recall northern hemisphere sides complaining about being "rusty" when we go to their shores in October / November for return matches (and I do recall NZ media explaining how "jaded" our boys are after a long season).

Many are expecting Ireland to roll over this coming Saturday, the ABs to improve ten-fold and run up a cricket score. As I drone on and on ad-infinitum, top sport is about the top 6 inches, and while the ABs may indeed improve on their performance, what I'm seeing from the Irish leads me to expect another competitive game and a similar scoreline. Not a cricket score.

From a betting perspective, preparation is always a key element to take into account when assessing likely performance. "Match fitness" has a role to play in most sporting contests. I'm reminded of the first NZ / SAF Tri-Nations game last year where the All Blacks were coming off a month's break and were $1.50 to beat the Jaapies in Cape Town (who had played Australia three times during the ABs down time). Madness. Always look for mis-matches in preparation as they can contribute to unexpected results, and thus profit.

Getting Hitched

My apologies for the light and uninspiring blog this week - the reason being I have a wedding to attend on Saturday - my own. I also have a stag party tomorrow night which by some bizarre coincidence is also in my honour.

Normal service will resume next week; in the meantime, two questions to ponder:

1. Why, given the recent fuss made over the eligibility of certain players for the NZ Maori rugby team, is there such silence over the fact that two brothers are playing halfback on opposing sides in the Junior All Black v Samoa rugby game tomorrow night?

2. Why, given Mark Inglis' wish out of respect for the family of dead climber David Sharp not to comment further on the circumstances around Sharp's death (stated some two weeks ago), is the headline story in this week's edition of women's magazine New Idea about Mark Inglis where further comment is indeed given?

I hate Wednesdays

Last Wednesday, my phone & internet went dead. Called Faults and they told me someone would come out Friday (!). Looked out the window and saw a digger digging a trench next door next to a Telecom pillar. Went and had a chat - yep, dug through the telephone cables. Got fixed that afternoon (amazing how Telecom could fix it in hours for a commercial customer after saying to a residential customer it would take a couple of days, but that's another story).

This morning, phone & internet went dead. Looked out the window - same digger, same company, same trench, different driver ...

FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKK ...

Celebrating Losing

It has been interesting observing the reaction to the NZ football team's 4-0 loss to World Cup favourites Brazil overnight. Described as a "valiant effort" with talkback radio hosts gushing over the start of a new era in NZ football where apparently we are already on the road to South Africa 2010.

It is a great example of New Zealand's sporting pysche - where our reaction to a sporting performance is judged by the expectation we have prior to the event taking place. Whether we win or lose has nothing to do with it, after all, no-one expected the All Whites to win or get even close, so to lose by "only" 4 goals has been seen as a "good" effort.

If we look back over the year so far, I cannot help but compare this reaction to the one received by our Commonwealth Games athletes. Thanks to our government sporting body SPARC, the "expectation" placed on these athletes (publicised through the media and implicitly accepted by the public) of 45 medals was not met so the sporting performance at the CG was a "failure".

In some respects, I'm glad to see the reaction to the All Whites' effort because it does show we can celebrate a losing sporting performance. Why then, couldn't we accept that some of the 31 fourth-placed finishes we had at the Commonwealth Games were also performances that deserved some congratulations? We can't have it both ways. Is our Sports Minister Hon Mallard going to now come out and question the mental toughness of our footballers? After all, they lost, they are not helping our country fulfil SPARC's high performance vision of "winning consistently", so why should we be happy?

Hopefully one day we will reach some consistency in our reaction to our sporting achievements, and realise that high performance sport is more about continuous improvement than "winning".

P.S. While on the subject of celebrating losing, I'd like to celebrate the loss of the Australian orienteers to their New Zealand counterparts over the weekend :-)

P.P.S. Simon Barnes of the (UK) Times is IMO an outstanding sporting journalist - his take on winning and losing can be found here

Everest stories keep coming out

More news surrounding the events of David Sharp keeps trickling out.

Explorersweb have posted another article which gives out the following information:

Members of Himex Team 2 found David Sharp still alive on their DESCENT around 8 a.m. - 9 a.m.; again radioed Brice and were again told to leave him.

A few hours later, Sherpas on their descent wearing helmet cameras came cross Sharp and reportedly the following was captured on film:

"What is your name," asked the Sherpas. "My name is David Sharp, I'm with Asian Trekking, and I just want to sleep," replied the climber. After that, the Sherpas were told to return back down.

So a few more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle have been added and that picture is starting to look ugly.

Also worth a look: EverestNews

OT: Amir

And some humour to end the week. (thanks to Virphen at Sportsfreak)

Guy buys laptop off Ebay for 375 quid. It don't go. Tries to get money back - fat chance.

Buyer takes out hard drive and gets off files that are *interesting*; and in a nice touch of revenge, posts on a blog as if he was the seller, including some of the more interesting contents from the hard drive.

Reasonably hilarious - access here.

NZ will win

Of course I'm talking about the only important sporting event this weekend, the New Zealand v Australia test match being held in and around Auckland. Yes, I am talking about Orienteering.

Australia's finest have come across the ditch to go home with an ass-whooping and their tail between their legs. First up is a publicity sprint race at Auckland Zoo / Western Springs this afternoon before the real events over the weekend in Woodhill Forest and other places Helensville way. Our organiser has been talking (well, pleading) with the Herald and TV to come out - so here's hoping for another slow news day in the sporting world.

Maori Eligibility

One of the problems growing old is seeing the same things come up time and time again - no, I'm not talking about when the NZ Orienteering Nationals should be held, but the eligibility for the NZ Maori rugby team.

The latest to have a potshot is NSW's Morgan Turinui, himself of Maori ancestry. Boring - it's really quite easy. As our treaty partners tell us, if you think you're Maori, you are Maori. Whether you have half, quarter, or even one-sixtyfourth Maori blood in you is beside the point.

Case in point my soon-to-be stepchildren. Both are born to a part-Maori mother and a father from the iwi of Ngati Pakeha. If I call my 10-y.o. stepdaughter Maori I'll get a kick in the shins. If I call my 12-y.o. stepson Pakeha I'll get a kick in a place a little higher than the shins.

God it must have been a slow news day for the media to drag this one out again.