My complaint is not about your actions, which I agree with, but with trying to
figure out what would constitute "hard" evidence. I would think that
correlating the times and frequencies these stations were worked with the spots
should be sufficient evidence, assuming there was a pattern. In fact, other
than checking the station's computer, what more could you obtain?
Other than formal DQing someone, I would think the only other penalty would be
if people were made aware who was doing such a transgression. And, for that to
happen, people shud be aware of who that station was. I realize the libel laws
are rather arcane and could come into play here but there must be some ground
in between. For example, several organizations will state that a formal
complaint has been filed against someone and that their nomination, score, etc
is under review. After the review is completed a decision could be announced
with the rationale for upholding or turning down the complaint.
Of course, with my vertical, I guess I don't need to worry about such matters.
Now, if there was an "assisted" category in the 10 meter contest, I would not
be competing against those real M/S guys.
>Sent: Dec 12, 2007 1:02 AM
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....
>I have been away and "reading the mail" and now have the time to comment
>I am not afraid to act on this one and did so in 2003. I observed a
>well-known (and TOP 10) USA contester chasing packet spots all Sunday
>during a CQWW SSB contest - to me there was NO OTHER WAY this station would
>have been able to "miraculously find" some first-time mults on 10M - within 2
>seconds of them having been spotted! It happened on Saturday afternoon as
>well but Sunday's observations were quite pervasive.
>I did what any one SHOULD DO and wrote to three members of the CQWW contest
>committee expressing my observations and some specific stations worked and the
> times I heard the QSO's take place.
>It is a VERY LONG story, but some friends (who have been quite vocal on this
>topic on these pages this week) wrote to me and suggested perhaps I was
>wrong to have reported the individual and that "I should have asked the
>individual first etc etc".
>I elected NOT to do that because what I heard was a CLEAR-CUT PRIMA-FACIE
>CASE OF BLATANT CHEATING - and because of that, there was NO WAY I could have
>been mistaken - nor should I have given the station the "benefit of the doubt"
>which I was also criticized for for NOT DOING.
>In this case, I think the committee had no hard proof and I know most of the
>CQWW members and their policy (as I understand it) is, in the absence of
>hard evidence, their hands are tied - even if there are questions about the
>specific operation. This is a very fine line we are talking about here folks
>and I DO NOT BLAME THE COMMITTEE for being CAUTIOUS before just DQ'ing people.
>In this specific case, no penalty was exacted - the station was not DQ'd -
>although, I did later approach the station involved myself (I did NOT
>initially) and I told him what I had heard - I did this, if for no other
>let him know I KNEW WHAT HE DID - others were told on the committee - and if
>nothing else, I hoped he would cease and desist going forward, knowing he was
>now probably on the "CQWW Committee WATCH LIST." I am pretty sure such a
>defacto list exists - although these things do not usually ever get discussed
>So what do we do here?
>1) Don't cheat!
>2) Play by the rules
>3) If you hear someone you think is cheating, please DO REPORT it to the
>CQWW committee for investigation and a ruling - that's what they are there
>4)You'll have to decide whether you want to confront the person you are
>accusing - and if you do, you damned well better be sure - because YOU WILL
>A FRIEND IF YOU DO!
>In my case, this station has not spoken two words to me in 4 years as a
>result - but that is not important to me.
>I did what I had to do - to me there was NO OTHER OPTION - and I ask that
>the rest of the contest community consult first your conscience - then "DO
>YOU KNOW SHOULD DO IF YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT!"
>Hope this helps.
>And no, I am not interested in flames.
>I have said my last on this topic.
>(And please do not write to me privately to ask who it was - the individual
>involved already knows who it was and I do hope he has changed his ways!
>Naming names at this point serves no useful purpose.)
>**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
>CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list