I agree. This is an excellent analysis. I also questioned how this log got
through checking without question...This sure appears to be cheating to me.
On 12/11/07 6:27 PM, "Steve London" <email@example.com> wrote:
> Excellent analysis, Tonno !
> Questions for the rest of you:
> - Does anyone believe that RD3A was not cheating ? If so, please explain your
> - Does anyone still believe that packet cheaters cannot be caught ?
> It is most disappointing that this kind of analysis is not being applied to
> SOAB-claimed logs by the contest adjudicators. In the 2006 CQWW CW results, I
> know of one case where a high-scoring (top-20) USA competitor said he was
> SOAB-Assisted in his 3830 writeup, but (accidentally) submitted his log as
> SOAB-Unassisted. Surely this kind of analysis, done by the log-checkers, would
> have detected and questioned his error.
> Steve, N2IC
> Tõnno Vähk wrote:
>> If a station is using packet and getting meaningful addition to his mult
>> count from it then it is also detectable from the log and he can be
>> disqualified. You can jump around in frequencies or do whatever you want, if
>> you keep hitting lately spotted mults too often it becomes suspicious, if you
>> start hitting it them all the time it becomes clear. For SOAB later into the
>> contest (like last 12 hours), once you cheat already, it becomes very
>> difficult to adhere to well planned cheating strategy and you start to hit
>> the spots too often or all the time. Let the following story be a good
>> example. I have posted this to a private reflector what I was strongly asked
>> to post it also to CQ Contest and thus I do it. RD3A (RD3AF) is a known
>> packet cheater in EU and so far has not been disqualifed yet. It is a great
>> sorrow and pity that an operator of that great skills and potential and huge
>> station is spoiling its reputation and future by platantly cheating with
>> cluster. It is a great p
> ity that this has been so widespread in EU and espcially former socialist
> block of EU but by bringing those issues up we will clean the mess and make
> contesting a better place. I agree to most Jim (N6TJ) is saying and at the
> same time urge hime and the others to bring evidence to light and put more
> peer pressure on the cheaters until CQ Committee will take appropriate action.
> Trying to lead the way here is my letter about RD3A analysis to another
> relfector a month ago (this is ES5TV, 73):
>> I have looked at the logs of CQWW CW 2006 EU top 10 SOAB HP stations. It
>> looks like that:
>> CU2A 6208 155 519
>> LZ9W 4608 139 474
>> G4BUO 3718 144 495
>> TM6X 3539 150 471
>> S5ØA 3510 160 483
>> RD3A 3978 164 555
>> ES5RR 4302 143 477
>> GD6IA 3904 132 453
>> TK5EP 4259 118 407
>> DL3YM 3449 141 439
>> I compared the worked S&P QSOs and worked S&P MULTS against the cluster spots
>> in the last 20 minutes before the QSO. S&P QSOs are determined as QSOs that
>> were on different frequency compared to previous and next QSO. That means I
>> could only do it with logs that had exact frequencies of QSOs.
>> Let's look at CU2A, RD3A, ES5RR and OH8X (latter being out of top 10 but in
>> our region)
>> CU2A worked 134 S&P QSOs and 116 of those were new multipliers.
>> RD3A worked 515 S&P QSOs and 209 of those were new multipliers.
>> ES5RR worked 470 S&P QSOs and 166 of those were new multipliers.
>> OH8X worked 558 S&P QSOs and 249 of those were new multipliers.
>> Now lets look at how big precentage of the worked multipliers had a recent
>> cluster spot on that frequency and I separate here the periods into 48 hours,
>> last 24 hours of the contest and last 12 hours of the contest.
>> all 48h: 38.8% (38.8% of the mults CU2A worked in the contest as Search and
>> Pounce QSOs had been spotted on that frequency within 20 minutes before the
>> last 24h: 37.5%
>> last 12h: 43.5%
>> all 48h: 74.6%
>> last 24h: 85.6%
>> last 12h: 97.9%
>> all 48h: 27.1%
>> last 24h: 19.6%
>> last 12h: 27.3%
>> all 48h: 44.2%
>> last 24h: 40.8%
>> last 12h: 45.5%
>> So RD3A worked 48 new multipliers in the last 12 hours of the contest and 47
>> (!!) of them were recently spotted (within 20 minutes). Out of the 209 mults
>> that he worked in the contest 156 were recently spotted. That is way more
>> than any average non-assisted station and is a definite sign of using packet
>> It is logical that by the end of the contest operator gets more tired and
>> does not hide cheating any more and starts to jump from spot to spot.
>> Also, RD3A is using just one radio. No SO2R - he is S&Ping with one radio
>> between CQ-s. And even though he has by far the best multiplier count of all
>> the SOAB stations!
>> I have more proof for that from his log if necessary and I am very sure in
>> What do you think people of that? I say that he is really lucky that he was
>> not disqualified from CQWW 2006 but I am sure it will happen sooner or later.
>> We have seen those outrageous mult totals in other contests and unfortunately
>> after looking at this log it all became clear.
>> Maybe RD3A wants to explain why he forgot to claim ASSISTED?
>> p.s. after this letter I was asked if 20 minutes is a good criteria and I
>> took out statistics about 5 minutes also (altough cheaters tend to wait 5-10
>> minutes at least to hit a spot) and I accompanied it also with statistics
>> about moving mults which are quite selfevident:
>> TV> Anyway, 5 minutes stats are still quite convincing:
>> TV> ES5RR
>> TV> all 48h: 10.8%
>> TV> last 24h: 7.1%
>> TV> last 12h: 13.6%
>> TV> RD3A
>> TV> all 48h: 33.0%
>> TV> last 24h: 39.4%
>> TV> last 12h: 41.7%
>> TV> 73
>> TV> ES5TV
>> Guess how many mults did RD3A get with asked QSYs! 0 (ZERO!!)
>> QSYing mults in CQWW CW 2006:
>> RD3A: 0
>> ES5RR: 18
>> CU2A: 40
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list