A discussion of living, death and the industry in high risk action sports

**skifishbum** · 10-01-2015, 07:06 AM

here we go
now you shouldn't need to cunt up what should be memorial ,offering condolences, and celebration of life and achievements of merit of fallen members of the community/industry
with "i sure wouldn't take those risks", "the industry is killing our idols and heroes", how could they do that w/ kids at home" and assorted bullshit
my thoughts
we all live dieing
5to1 1to5 no one here gets out alive
some die living as AC motto and stickers on my gear remind me
Bottom line for me
Who am i or you to tell someone else what their risk tolerances and daily activities should be?
Be it their passion, addiction or vocation.
as far as the industry
No one is being truly forced to be part of the "industry" as participants or voyeurs.
the ability to walk away is always there
there are plenty of activities and industries from golfing to speed cup flipping that don't have large risks of death or serious injury waiting for your participation.

**Skidog** · 10-01-2015, 07:26 AM

Insightful discussion topic.
I totally agree we cant judge someone else's choices. Risk is different for everyone.

**Notchtop** · 10-01-2015, 07:46 AM

Well said sfb.
I assumed all here had read the bible, but in case not, this topic reminds me of the diagram in Chapter 20 Safety illustrating "sphere of acceptable risk," wherein the two climbers are on the same moraine, with one scoping tree line as his goal and the other one checking out the gnarly peak above. To each their own. Just because my sphere is smaller doesn't mean your huge sphere is stupid: it's just bigger.

**Aus George** · 10-01-2015, 08:08 AM

Really when it comes down to it, we all know why these death occur. We all know why it happens and how it could be prevented, yet we all still do it ourselves and i dont see it ever stopping. Sure we can get better gear, learn as much as we can and practice like a mad man, but at the end of the day the risk is still there, no matter how covered up it may seem.
Its that drive and mindset we all share, sure the 'top' guys might put themselves in places everyday we might only experience once a year, but the risk is still the same.

Its like trying to explain what sex feels like to a virgin. Explaining this to the mere masses, well thats a topic you can try and discuss.

It sucks when this happens... I still get emotional when i see anything McConkey related. I just hope ill be around next year to get sad all over again. Then i click in and push that thought to the back of my mind.

**TBS** · 10-01-2015, 08:19 AM

My $0.02
Anybody should take the risks they choose, if they accept the consequences, from unprotected sex with a stranger to hucking your meat off a 100' cliff.
My only concern is when people take risk they aren't comfortable with to keep their spancerships.
Sure they can walk away, but when taking that risk puts food on the table...

**Johnny Deep** · 10-01-2015, 08:22 AM

If life gets ya all spookstery, there is always the safe haven under your bed.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 10-01-2015, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by skifishbum

with "i sure wouldn't take those risks", "the industry is killing our idols and heroes", how could they do that w/ kids at home" and assorted bullshit
.

I'm not going to get involved in this beyond this post, but let's walk through one part of that assorted bullshit. If you truly believe that Roner, or McConkey, or even Trevor (Peterson) wouldn't have made different decisions if they knew they were going to leave their kids fatherless I think you need to find a more reputable crack dealer. Do you really think they would say, 'This is going to kill me and leave a child with no father, but it's worth it because I really want to jump off this rock (or whatever).' We are all engaged in a selfish pursuit in some respects (although a lot of people do things to help others enjoy what we do, which I guess mitigates the selfishness), but IMO doing things that are clearly very likely to leave your kids without a parent is just selfish or stupid or reckless, or some combination (I've heard family members even of those who are single who die doing things like this describe their loved ones' decisions as selfish because they didn't take into account the grief they inflicted). I also think we're just lying to ourselves when we claim that the kids will grow up with nothing but wonderful thoughts about the parent who decided that the chance to 'go big' offered a greater reward than actually being a good parent to the kid did. Personally I could see a surviving child being very conflicted and possibly angry about the decision(s). I can tell you for a fact that at least one child of a famous skier who died doing what he loved while his kid was quite young seemed to struggle quite a bit with that legacy--it would seem that having your dad's bro-rah ski buddies as replacement father figures isn't necessarily ideal (not to indict the mother in this, but it was a messed up situation).

Taking this to the next logical step, let's say someone really loves getting wasted on liquor and then bombing around town in their Camaro (not sure why a Camaro, but whatever). Ignoring the danger to others part of it, when they kill themselves is it not our place to criticize the decision to drink and drive that has left a kid with no father/mother? They were doing what they loved, right? Or does this thinking apply only when the risky behavior involves some 'action sport' that we deem worthy of respect? People around here seem to love talking about Darwin Award types, but if it's someone we've seen in ski movies and they've got a pair of skis on or are wearing a parachute then instead of criticizing or mocking the behavior we idolize it.

And I don't think the argument that you can get killed crossing the street or everyone dies in the end anyway really holds any water. Making it extraordinarily likely that you'll die when your kid is very young and probably needs you around is different than accepting every day risks which are much lower and will likely allow you to raise your child.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not advocating somehow placing limits on what people choose to do, but at the same time I think it's legitimate to question some of the decisions being made, especially in light of the shocking frequency of these things. Again, how did we get to this point, and can't we in some way agree that a high risk of death is simply not worth it? Is it never right to suggest things get dialed back down a bit? AFAIK skiers weren't getting taken out like this in the 70's and 80's, but people were still doing pretty cool shit and having fun.

Sorry if I'm harshing the stoke, but those are just my thoughts.

**Name Redacted** · 10-01-2015, 08:30 AM

Did I misunderstand what Roner was doing? Haven't heard the whole story maybe? Wasn't he just skydiving? Honestly, not a perfect sport, things can definitely go wrong, but it is not BASE or Proximity flying or anything like that. Not something that I would say to myself "I'm never sky diving now that I have kids". Like I would with other high risk sports like BASE or Proximity/wingsuit stuff that has take the lives of others lately. Not to say that Roner did't take risks, but this particular accident seemed to be more of an actual accident that happened in a reasonably low(er) risk circumstance.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 10-01-2015, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by shredgnar

Did I misunderstand what Roner was doing? Haven't heard the whole story maybe? Wasn't he just skydiving? Honestly, not a perfect sport, things can definitely go wrong, but it is not BASE or Proximity flying or anything like that. Not something that I would say to myself "I'm never sky diving now that I have kids". Like I would with other high risk sports like BASE or Proximity/wingsuit stuff that has take the lives of others lately. Not to say that Roner did't take risks, but this particular accident seemed to be more of an actual accident that happened in a reasonably low(er) risk circumstance.

Since a lot of people saw it I'm sure we'll find out, but given what Roner was into and the fact that he impacted a tree (presumably with his chute fully deployed) I've been assuming this wasn't a typical sky dive that would just have you returning to a big, open airfield. I think he was flying around close to the ground (very risky) and miscalculated--but this could be a very inaccurate assumption, so take it for what it's worth.

**Skidog** · 10-01-2015, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by shredgnar

Did I misunderstand what Roner was doing? Haven't heard the whole story maybe? Wasn't he just skydiving? Honestly, not a perfect sport, things can definitely go wrong, but it is not BASE or Proximity flying or anything like that. Not something that I would say to myself "I'm never sky diving now that I have kids". Like I would with other high risk sports like BASE or Proximity/wingsuit stuff that has take the lives of others lately. Not to say that Roner did't take risks, but this particular accident seemed to be more of an actual accident that happened in a reasonably low(er) risk circumstance.

you got the story right.

I do see Dexs' point a bit though. I know ive changed a bunch of habits since having children. Again we all make choices. Who am I to judge?

**::: :::** · 10-01-2015, 08:43 AM

i wonder if, in the pursuit of more adrenaline, some of these highly experienced athletes have "forgotten" the danger of the most basic risks?

as the risk goes up, the margin for error drops severely. but the body of experience tells them, "no problem, you got this"

**flatNshallow** · 10-01-2015, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by acinpdx

i wonder if, in the pursuit of more adrenaline, some of these highly experienced athletes have "forgotten" the danger of the most basic risks?

as the risk goes up, the margin for error drops severely. but the body of experience tells them, "no problem, you got this"

The desensitization effect...

**babybear** · 10-01-2015, 08:50 AM

I don't think any of these guys want to leave their kids father-less and if they had that crystal ball showing them their untimely death I bet they would alter some of their choices- but they wouldn't change completely bc people don't completely change who they are just bc they have kids (for better or for worse)

Also every person operating on the level of Roner etc have lost good friends that were fathers too. They've seen it happen and yet they keep doing it because that is simply who they are. (again for better or for worse)

**skifishbum** · 10-01-2015, 08:52 AM

dex your judging you can dance around it call it questioning or actions worthy of respect mumbo jumbo
you can go off tangent about alcoholics and addicts lovin being such or anyones hindsight could prevent death family or kids aside
but your still judging others risk tolerance
and if jer were still here i'd bet he'd tell you grass skiing aint quite the same risk
and your judging something that imho you really don't get
but i'm sure your still the most exsteme skier in your office

**Dexter Rutecki** · 10-01-2015, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by skifishbum

dex your judging you can dance around it call it questioning or actions worthy of respect mumbo jumbo
you can go off tangent about alcoholics and addicts lovin being such or anyones hindsight could prevent death family or kids aside
but your still judging others risk tolerance
and if jer were still here i'd bet he'd tell you grass skiing aint quite the same risk
and your judging something that imho you really don't get
but i'm sure your still the most exsteme skier in your office

Yeah, you can call it judging if you want. It's not inaccurate, but it doesn't change the point being made, which you seem happy to ignore.

I'm not really concerned with being the most extreme skier anywhere, and I sure don't feel any need to defend how I ski. I find it funny that you imply that you 'get it' while I don't though--you may not remember, but I've skied with you and seen/skied the terrain you typically ski. No need to say more (but I'm always open to a ski-off, and have no doubt what the result would be).

**Buster Highmen** · 10-01-2015, 09:15 AM

May I hoist a tampon and jump into the fray, but on, as usual, a slightly different tack?

I'm not sufficiently sn00ty to have an opinion on the morality of the deaths of our heroes. It's just plain sad in every regard.

What has galled me each time is the commercial leverage used in all forms of media. How much email can I get titled with the death of some person followed by trailers, ads and all that sales bullshit. I find it to be in extremely poor taste.

If the mediaspheres are going to extoll the lives of these people, at least show a them a little dignity by not attaching wads of adload. Or at least, cut the families affected a bunch of cash you fuckers harvest by using the death of loved ones to generate attention.

**Dhelihiker** · 10-01-2015, 09:19 AM

Its all a random roll of the dice, some have more sides than others depending on the sport. 1:60 base jumpers die from their sport, 59:60 live, most folks figure they are in the 59 group.

**jono** · 10-01-2015, 09:19 AM

Thought the same Buster, thanks.

**Buster Highmen** · 10-01-2015, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by jono

Thought the same Buster, thanks.

And here I thought you were a kotex kind of guy.

;-)

**Name Redacted** · 10-01-2015, 09:23 AM

There are quite a few deaths every year by people skiing blues, greens, cat tracks, etc, probably more than there pros dying "Doing what they loved". You just don't always get the news on TGR and Unofficial. Were they operating at a "higher level" and became complacent? Accidents happen at all levels. I've come pretty close in a few accidents as I'm sure most of us have. Sometimes luck just isn't on your side, sometimes it is, and luck doesn't care if you have kids.

**skifishbum** · 10-01-2015, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Yeah, you can call it judging if you want. It's not inaccurate, but it doesn't change the point being made, which you seem happy to ignore.

I'm not really concerned with being the most extreme skier anywhere, and I sure don't feel any need to defend how I ski. I find it funny that you imply that you 'get it' while I don't though--you may not remember, but I've skied with you and seen/skied the terrain you typically ski. No need to say more (but I'm always open to a ski-off, and have no doubt what the result would be).

i don't git a lot of it
i'll never git paid to ski or create content, i don't have kids, i havent bought a piece of gear based on what others use aside from the spatula hording
i don't git why anybody eats cliff bars despite who pimps em
hell ive got decades in a high risk vocation and my own share of high risk addictions and i don't really git them or others

and i sure don't git why and how your judging others risk tolerances actions addictions and vocations will really change anything
let alone how those guys are wired
but if it makes you happy
carry on
pm diggies death for a ski off
he's totally into that

**muted** · 10-01-2015, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by skifishbum

dex your judging you can dance around it call it questioning or actions worthy of respect mumbo jumbo
you can go off tangent about alcoholics and addicts lovin being such or anyones hindsight could prevent death family or kids aside
but your still judging others risk tolerance
and if jer were still here i'd bet he'd tell you grass skiing aint quite the same risk
and your judging something that imho you really don't get
but i'm sure your still the most exsteme skier in your office

Yeah, but your stoner philosophy of "I'm OK, you are OK", can be tiresome. A more opinionated intellectual viewpoint is a welcome relief and a good counterbalance. Stepping back and saying, 'let's re-think this risk we all take' is a great thing. Taking your crazy friend aside one day (NOT RONER I'M NOT SAYING RONER) and saying, "I think you should mellow out, I'm worried about you", an intervention so to speak, can be a healthy thing. Some of us are doing this already because we give a shit. Often it's the wife's role to do this more than anyone, sure. I just see a lot of of this risk justification philosophy by the average joe is just a veiled defense of oneself taking risks.

In general though you are right that it's hard to judge what is acceptable risk and dumb people are going to take dumb risk no matter what, god help them. Some get lucky and learn, others never do. Other people may need a bit of a push for them to wake up and see what they are doing, and if they don't listen, well, you've said your peace.

Again, none of what I just wrote applies to Roner.....

**Buster Highmen** · 10-01-2015, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by muted

Yeah, but your stoner philosophy of "I'm OK, you are OK", can be tiresome.

I don't get that from SFB. What I get from him is that judging somebody you don't know is lame. It's different for people we care about.

**DBdude** · 10-01-2015, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by skifishbum

dex your judging you can dance around it call it questioning or actions worthy of respect mumbo jumbo
you can go off tangent about alcoholics and addicts lovin being such or anyones hindsight could prevent death family or kids aside
but your still judging others risk tolerance
and if jer were still here i'd bet he'd tell you grass skiing aint quite the same risk
and your judging something that imho you really don't get
but i'm sure your still the most exsteme skier in your office

I think Dex brings up good points. He believes that everyones risk tolerance is different. He is just saying that the decisions people make have long term affects. From the tone of the post he doesn't agree with the decisions eric made. That is ok. Again, we all have different risk profiles.