Amazing "performance" by the guys checking the logs of the QRP-section of
the contest I would say.
I have seen many dubious results in QRP during the years, but the CQWW 2010
results must compete in a very unique category.
Anything else than publishing of the two UBN-logs would be a big
dissapointment.
Please observe that I do not take any side in this debate. The winner could
definitely be the legitimate winner, BUT noone, and I mean noone, can manage
to keep the claimed scores unchanged...
If the CQWW CC lacks interest, skills or guts to fairly judge the
QRP-section, then better remove this category at all!
The efforts made by QRP-contesters are by no means less impressive than HP-
and LP-entries. These guys need the same kind of attention and detailed
checking as anyone else. A lot of things is going in behind the curtains in
QRP-contesting - therefore careful and EQUAL treatment of all top-scoring
stations should be compulsory.
73 and 72 / RA/SM6LRR, Mats
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|