For sure we don't need 3 guesses as to the major talking point among contesters
at Dayton this weekend. It is a safe bet that UT5UGR will not be present there
and we are most unlikely to have any further responses from him on this forum.
To term his actions as a 'mistake' is hardly apt when what it truly is was a
deliberate fraud which, in addition to the suspected unclaimed assistance,
extended to what must have been considerable research into stations who were
active and by the fifth day of entry closure had not, or were unlikely to,
submit logs to pad out his log. score.
To invent a whole session (when in reality he was probably napping during that
period) claiming up to 30 unique contacts with so many new country and zone
multipliers beggars belief, an audacious act of dishonesty which he almost got
away with so far as we can tell. since CQ did not appear to be aware of that
aspect until alerted by Juan, our Balearic Islands Sherlock Holmes. There
could be more 'inventions', that doesn't matter now as case proven but how much
time cam committee be expected to spend on logs containing around 8k qso's and
up to 48hour SDR recordings in every suspicious case, most certainly time that
volunteer log checkers do not have when there are more than 7k entries! Whoever
would have thought it now necessary to add to log checking a percentage of
unique's per log and per band against a norm?
As for consequences,as per this thread header, this case has certainly raised
some issues. As Jeff has stated we have not seen a discussion on an actual
disqualification previously. That is because these matters are normally kept
private between committee and the entrant,. in this case the entrant chose to
post here claiming no knowledge as to why the DQ and we saw Randy's open email
response. .We are unlikely to see a repeat in the future but there is no doubt
that this community has been of great help to committee, some of the in depth
log examinations have been meticulous and must have involved a deal of time.
To express a personal opinion whilst DQ's must remain private between the
parties I do think that the question of penalties should be .considered by CQ.
We have the worlds major contesting events which should set the highest
standards. Randy's mail to Dim stated that Dim would be welcome to enter this
years events. Whether Randy would say that were he writing now, in the light of
subsequent revelations, I am uncertain, but I would say that CQ Committee need
to consider that they speak for us, the contesting community, we like to be in
competition with our peers, in fair competition, if they are found wanting in
their conduct then we should expect committee to register our disapproval and
judgement by imposing penalties dependent upon the gravity of the case.
73 Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
From: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@bellsouth.net>
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015, 16:18
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Cheating and the Consequences
It's sad that UT5UGR went to the lengths he did to try to win a contest. He is
a excellent world class operator and didn't need to do what he did. We are now
finding out due to some excellent log analysis, that in addition to using
spotting assistance, that he might of padded his log with bogus QSO's. Also,
his past results, which include a North American record, are now being
scrutinized.
I'm pretty sure in the future all his competitive contest logs will be
scrutinized. The most important thing is he has damaged his reputation among
his contesting peers. I think it's safe to say that many of us contest because
of the enjoyment it brings us, whether we are single-op or on a team. In
addition it's important to most of us how we want our peers to perceive us.
Winning a plaque or certificate is secondary. I would be lying if I didn't
admit my ego gets boosted a bit when I win a contest. I bet you all feel this
too when this happens to you?
I can't remember a disqualification ever being discussed like this one in the
history of the cq-contest reflector. In the past DQ's were buried at the end of
the results. This incident shows how far log checking technology has advanced
from the past. We have the results 4-5 months after the contest. Logs are made
public by CQ for all to see. The committee has SDR, RBN and a database of the
majority of the QSO's made in the contest. With all this technology, if you
cheat you will be caught and forced to deal with the social media reaction.
My advice to Dimitry is to admit that you cheated on a public forum such as the
contest reflector. We all make mistakes and admitting that you did will help in
repairing the perception that your peers have of you. To sit on the sideline
and do nothing is the worse thing you can do.
Look forward to seeing everyone in Dayton this weekend.
Jeff KU8E
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|