Thanks for your posting on Cq-Contest regarding the disqualification issue in
the 1996 All Asian CW Contest. I appreciate your listing of those bounced by
the Committee and I happen to agree with most of what you say. Here are some
points I would like to make:
1. The JARL Contest Committee can choose to disqualify whomever they wish -
for whatever reason, stated or unstated. That doesn't mean their criteria
for disqualification is just nor that their actions will set well with the
contest community. If the JARL Contest Committee can bring the sword down on
supporters and participants, then they must accept the consequences of their
actions. I, for one, will not participate in the AA Contest again. That's
2. Contesting is a competitive sport. We all know that. But when your log
sits in someone else's hands and you are not there to defend yourself against
this or that accusation, there is no competition anymore. You pretty much
have to trust that those same people who perhaps you were up against in the
contest itself will now see fit to give your log fair scrutiny.
3. Years ago, there were two de facto classifications for entries that
violated contest rules - check logs and disqualifications. Some people
actually submitted "check logs" in order to help the committee search for
dupes and for cross-checking. I don't think that goes on much today. My
point is that when a committee classifies a log as a "check log" that log is
disqualified. The score does not qualify for a listing in the standings and
the submitter does not qualify for any awards. In essence, a check log is a
disqualified log. And 77 logs were disqualified in this contest.
4. JA amateur radio has suffered enough recently without yet another
controversy. The JARL Contest Committee has erred in judgement on this
matter - plain and simple. It is not too late to set the record straight.
Once again, I ask the JARL Contest Committee to re-convene on this matter
and reverse these disqualifications.
5. Last but not least: to disqualify K4BAI for some sort of log infraction
is a pretty outrageous thing. I don't have to explain myself on this point.
Once again Tack, thanks for your posting on Cq-Contest. I think we all
needed to see that. I'm leaving HZ tomorrow and am afraid I won't have much
time to devote to this issue over the upcoming weeks. Perhaps others will
pick up the discussion.
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com