The posted log shows QSO times only to the nearest minute. You can't use
that to determine whether there were two signals transmitted simultaneously.
It's quite easy to work two stations in the same minute on two radios
without transmitting simultaneously. The only way to detect transmission of
two simultaneous signals is to listen to the station in question on both
The fact that the log was reclassified as Assisted suggests it was
determined that packet was used.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul J. Piercey [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 6:38 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> Forgive my naiveté but, being a relative newbie to contesting, I would
> to know exactly what all this fuss is about.
> As the discussion seems to be revolving around C4M being disqualified in
> 2006 CQWW CW contest, what was the infraction? I have reviewed the 3830
> report and the log posted by CQ and can only determine that he didn't
> to the correct category. He states SO2R in the 3830 report and Single
> Transmitter in the submitted log. The posted log shows that he worked
> stations simultaneously on 2 bands, therefore he was clearly operating
> than a single transmitter. Is this the main issue or is there more to the
> story? If this is the only issue with the log, why was he not
> as multi-transmitter and be done with it? Are there more operators and
> operations suspected of cheating? What are the alleged infractions and how
> are they determined?
> As I said, it is very confusing to read about rampant cheating yet the
> evidence offered seemingly shows an error at best or stupidity at worst
> unless I've completely missed the boat (which is not beyond the realm of
> Please respond to me directly with any information which I can use to
> understand the issue at hand.
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of K7LXC@aol.com
> > Sent: December 9, 2007 20:59
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> > In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:43:25 A.M. Pacific Standard
> > Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > > It's amazing to me that so many are not aware that last
> > year's CQ
> > > WW CW
> > SO/AB No.
> > 1 claimed score was ultimately DQed
> > Well, it's amazing to me too for the opposite
> > reason. Color me stupid but I read this reflector every day
> > and wasn't aware that that happened.
> > Cheers,
> > Steve K7LXC
> > **************************************Check out AOL's list of
> > 2007's hottest products.
> > (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000
> > 30000000001)
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list