(Stirring the pot) Hazel Findlay article on athlete endorsements of sugary drinks

Ted Pinson wrote:

And there, to me, is the problem with sponsorship.  You're presumably old enough to make informed decisions about your drink choices, but there are really young kids at these events.  Giving away free Red Bulls at a climbing comp isn't a whole lot different from giving away drugs at a playground. Get them hooked early, then you have customers for life.  At least Scotch companies wouldn't dream of marketing to children.

You're right we should ban energy drinks below the age of 18. Oh wait but then kids won't learn the moderation of sugary drinks until they get to college and go off the deep end. Or worse still take their first sugary sip of cola under a dark overpass with a rebellious romantic interest that bears resemblance to Sasha D. No education is the answer, or maybe religion. Maybe they are stopgapping existential dread with the sweetness of sugary coke. Who knows. 

I'm going to laugh when someone brings up the expected shortening of life expectancy from whatever product Alex H endorses, considering that free soloing shortens your life that much more, statistically speaking. 

Rock climbing sure can be self righteous and dumb sometimes.

That was an exceptionally well written article.  If she ever decides she's done with professional climbing, she should consider a career in journalism.

Sandbagger Vance wrote:

You're right we should ban energy drinks below the age of 18. Oh wait but then kids won't learn the moderation of sugary drinks until they get to college and go off the deep end. Or worse still take their first sugary sip of cola under a dark overpass with a rebellious romantic interest that bears resemblance to Sasha D. No education is the answer, or maybe religion. Maybe they are stopgapping existential dread with the sweetness of sugary coke. Who knows. 

I'm going to laugh when someone brings up the expected shortening of life expectancy from whatever product Alex H endorses, considering that free soloing shortens your life that much more, statistically speaking. 

Rock climbing sure can be self righteous and dumb sometimes.

Nobody is advocating that, but thanks for the straw man.  Are you saying that we should pray the sugar cravings away?

Jake Jones wrote:

I don't believe this for a minute.  If it wasn't illegal, and underage drinking wasn't, I'm quite certain they would.  Money drives everything.  Choices, morality, legality- everything.  It's a slippery slope.  There are those that believe that marketing influences decisions- and while that's true, and while children are more easily influenced because most of them haven't had intimate dealings with how fucked up the world is in general, parents should still have more influence.  If a kid grows up with parents that live and teach a healthy lifestyle and responsible choices, odds are they're going to emulate.  But, if you have kids and you burn Marlboros and wash them down with a Jack and Coke in front of your kids in their most formative years, then marketing these products becomes simple.  Parenting (properly), personal responsibility and accountability and making good health and life choices as a result should still be the focus.  If it is, then marketing strategies have much less of an effect.  Then there's another side.  Some products that are known to cause horrible health problems are legal, while others that aren't nearly as bad are not.  Again-  MONEY.

I probably should have clarified that I meant that given the legal context, not out of the goodness of their hearts...but Scotch has always been an old man's drink. :p  When we raided the liquor cabinets in high school, it was always Jack, vodka or rum.

Ted Pinson wrote:

I probably should have clarified that I meant that given the legal context, not out of the goodness of their hearts...but Scotch has always been an old man's drink. :p  When we raided the liquor cabinets in high school, it was always Jack, vodka or rum.

I suspect that if scotch were the only liqour there was, teenegers wouldn't drink so much. It really isn't a good entry-level booze.  But kids could/would still be guzzling Bud by the gallon to get their buzz I suppose. I guess that product is at the other end of the "connoisseur spectrum".

Great article, and an excellent conversation starter.   Kudos to Hazel.

"3,000 coke bottles are sold per second worldwide" -- This is scary.  The earth is being ruined by plastic packaging.

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Replaced with Coke Zero Sugar. 

I think the new version tastes a little better than old Coke Zero. 

I cant tell the difference. I thought it was just a label change until I read this thread and found an article online where they mentioned changing the formula. Still good in my book if you ( like myself ) prefer (increased risk of ) brain tumors to diabetes, lol. 

My personal opinion:

If you are an athlete and endorse some product, then the public will interpret that as "I use this product myself on a regular basis."  If that is true, then I see no ethical problem. If you endorse a product that you don't use then that is rather hypocritical. 

Eric wrote:

We should only be interested in the opinions and actions of those with skin in the game, which is why Hazel's article is interesting, and this conversation isn't.

You got a mouse in your pocket? Who is "we", cowboy? 

Don't pretend to speak for what "we" should or should not be interested in, I didn't elect you as my representative or proxy.  If you're not interested in the conversation, don't click on it, don't post in it. 

"climbers sure are a self-righteous bunch"

Actually, we are progressive and knowledgable.  Ever heard of the obesity epidemic?  At least someone has the guts to stand up to huge corporate beverage money.   Imagine all the naive inner city kids who have ruined their bodies pounding Sprite and Gatorade, after watching their "heroes" from the sports world pimp them on TV for so many years.  It's shameful.

"climbers sure are a self-righteous bunch"

"Actually, we are progressive and knowledgable. "

oh boy

I was walking down the street when out the corner of my eye
I saw a pretty little thing approaching me
She said, "I never seen a man, who looks so all alone
And could you use a little company?
If you can pay the right price, your evening will be nice
But you can go and send me on my way"
I said, "You're such a sweet young thing, why you do this to yourself?"
She looked at me and this is what she said

Oh there ain't no rest for the wicked
Money don't grow on trees
I got bills to pay, I got mouths to feed
There ain't nothing in this world for free
Oh no, I can't slow down, I can't hold back
Though you know, I wish I could
Oh no there ain't no rest for the wicked
Until we close our eyes for good

Ain't No Rest For The Wicked

Way to long and didn't read it all but there is nothing wrong with drinking a coke....

There is something wrong with drinking a coke and sitting in front of a TV. Sugar is perfectly fine as long as you are doing exercise to burn it. I am a type 1 diabetic, nothing i did other than be born this way but when I go on a long multi-pitch day of climbing I am drinking sugar and I can still get low blood sugar and put me in danger with no insulin. Nothing wrong with the foods it is only something wrong with people balancing food + life.

Russ Keane wrote:

"climbers sure are a self-righteous bunch"

Actually, we are progressive and knowledgable.  Ever heard of the obesity epidemic?  At least someone has the guts to stand up to huge corporate beverage money.   Imagine all the naive inner city kids who have ruined their bodies pounding Sprite and Gatorade, after watching their "heroes" from the sports world pimp them on TV for so many years.  It's shameful.

Why should we expect the government and/or corporate america to look out for our children, isnt that our job? Most "knowledgable" people would realize we have a much stronger influence over our children and how they develop than the sports heroes on TV. 

Stagg54 Taggart wrote:

My personal opinion:

If you are an athlete and endorse some product, then the public will interpret that as "I use this product myself on a regular basis."  If that is true, then I see no ethical problem. If you endorse a product that you don't use then that is rather hypocritical. 

I understand this viewpoint, but IMO they can support something they dont necessarily use. For instance what if Wusthof wanted to sponsor Megos, he doesent cook but thinks the brand is solid because they make good knives and are from his homeland. Seems fair to me. 

Now if its something they are legitimately against, or feel they have nothing of value, then yeah, its selling out. 

Russ Keane wrote:

"climbers sure are a self-righteous bunch"

Actually, we are progressive and knowledgable.  Ever heard of the obesity epidemic?  At least someone has the guts to stand up to huge corporate beverage money.   Imagine all the naive inner city kids who have ruined their bodies pounding Sprite and Gatorade, after watching their "heroes" from the sports world pimp them on TV for so many years.  It's shameful.

Inner city kids eat sugary, fatty and processed foods because those are the cheapest foods. You can tell people not to eat snickers but if they are hungry, that doesn't matter. When school stops in the summer a lot of kids end up going without lunch. More importantly, you won't see these kids at your local 45/month climbing gym, or at the REI that sells 100 dollar patagonia jackets. 

Climbing is not Basketball. It is an insular, expensive, time consuming sport that we like to think is bigger than it is so we can justify talking about it so much. This conversation was respectable until people started talking about these pro climbers duty to the kids of the developed world.

Sandbagger Vance wrote:

Inner city kids eat sugary, fatty and processed foods because those are the cheapest foods. You can tell people not to eat snickers but if they are hungry, that doesn't matter. When school stops in the summer a lot of kids end up going without lunch. More importantly, you won't see these kids at your local 45/month climbing gym, or at the REI that sells 100 dollar patagonia jackets. 

Climbing is not Basketball. It is an insular, expensive, time consuming sport that we like to think is bigger than it is so we can justify talking about it so much. This conversation was respectable until people started talking about these pro climbers duty to the kids of the developed world.

Agree except I don't believe climbing is necessarily expensive. Besides skateboarding, its the cheapest "sport" I've done. Hell, I competed in Brazilian jiu jitsu for about 10 years. $120 monthly gym dues, $50 competition fees, $200 seminar fees every few months, kimonos cost about $150 each and you need several unless you love doing laundry, plus little things like tape, mouth guard, and anti MRSA soap really adds up. 

That's not to say a full rack and an arcteryx shell aren't expensive, though. 

Doug Chism wrote:

I understand this viewpoint, but IMO they can support something they dont necessarily use. For instance what if Wusthof wanted to sponsor Megos, he doesent cook but thinks the brand is solid because they make good knives and are from his homeland. Seems fair to me. 

Now if its something they are legitimately against, or feel they have nothing of value, then yeah, its selling out. 

oh I agree.  Perhaps my first statement was a little too limiting...

"Most "knowledgable" people would realize we have a much stronger influence over our children and how they develop than the sports heroes on TV."

Right, but children look to multiple sources for guidance.  Celebrities and sports heroes can greatly influence people, especially the young.  Add to that, those (in inner cities, etc) who have screwed up parents who aren't doing their job, and you have a recipe for health epidemics.  

It doesn't matter that climbing is not basketball.  Sure it's small peanuts, but we still need to protect our own communities.  In refusing the endorsement money of beverage companies, someone like Alex Honnold did his part to stem the cycle of excess sugar consumption to whatever extent his influence bears.