And this alone - not providing a recording for the second consecutive
year - settles the issue.
Once again, it was not/not a DQ. We don't know, and will likely never
know, if there was a violation.
It was a case of non-compliance with post-contest rules. The log was
reclassified as a checklog for this reason, and this reason only.
We can argue whether the CC was too lenient the first year, but as Peter
said, if the rules are not enforced, why bother having rules.
73 de Vince, VA3VF
On 2017-03-06 1:31 AM, Peter Bowyer wrote:
And that was likely the reason no action was taken the first year this
station failed to produce a recording.
The second year running, though, he had a year to plan how to comply with
the rule and failed to do so, it was time to act.
If you have a rule that's there to provide a way for a top station to
demonstrate they are in compliance, and 2 years running the same top
station breaks that rule, you have to start enforcement otherwise you may
as well not bother.
Peter G4MJS
On 6 Mar 2017 12:10 a.m., "VE3FH via CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
wrote:
Give me a break!!
There's tons of reasons why anyone could do much better than expected and
end up placing much higher in the results, if by chance someone ends up
within the top three and made no recording thinking there was no chance for
that to happen then that competitor is rewarded with being tossed in the
checklog pot and accused of wrongdoing... What a joke!!
73,
Julio VE3FH
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|