The various threads on this issue have been enlightening in the number of
disparate views expressed.
The major question is . Do we wish to have our contests Policed or not? The
inescapable fact is that cheating is endemic in all forms of competition In
Athletics, in addition to what can be witnessed by all during the event, there
is drug testing. In motor sport the cars are examined to ensure that
specification rules have been followed; I could add more examples but my point
is that compared to our sport most other competition is relatively easy to
Ham radio contesting is an unsupervised sport and, by it's nature can only be
based upon ;Honor and Trust', honor on the part of the entrant who signs a
declaration that he has abided by the rules, and trust on the part of the
organisers that the entry has been honestly declared.
It is laudable that CQWW Committee have taken on the task of ensuring, as far
as they can, that rules have been followed, yet, as we have seen, they are
condemned by some because they have. What we are seeing is an 'Unofficial'
Appeal with Attorney's both for the Prosecution and the Defence. Because
entrants are unsupervised it is unrealistic for the defence to ask CQ for
strict proof. That burden should be shifted to the entrant to show that he did
not cheat where the content of his log appears to be outwith the boundaries of
normal probabilities and he must comply with whatever subsequent material the
Committee request. Technical advances continue apace, the committee have only
tools which they have. Honor and trust.
It is beyond doubt that Dim is an operator of extraordinary abilities and it
could be unfortunate that he is so far ahead of the game to have come under
suspicion but the message should be clear both to him and others with similar
talents - be upfront when submitting logs to offer entire duration full view
recording where all equipment, inc PC's, can be plainly seen = otherwise simply
enter the 'Assisted' category. There will be howls of protest at this course of
action but, in all honesty, what can be the only alternative for a committee
always struggling to keep pace with innovation other than to accept the
inevitable one class category to the detriment of many of us who still prefer
to spin the dial?
As things stand presently we must not criticise CQ for actions of which we do
not have full information and, as W0MU has stated, accept that the decisions
of committee are final.
73 Brian C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett <email@example.com>
To: Stan Stockton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, 10 May 2015, 4:00
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle
So how can one prove without any doubt that he did not cheat? The
evidence is pretty clear to me.
These decisions are not up for public debate or trials. The decisions
of the committee are final.
On 5/9/2015 5:08 PM, Stan Stockton wrote:
>> On 5/9/2015 12:11 PM, Lloyd Cabral wrote:
>> After following this thread, my only wish is that Randy would have
>> inquired here for another e-mail address
>> for Dim, or another source of contact with him BEFORE bringing this
>> issue mainstream. Accusations as
>> serious as this should first be handled privately with the accused
>> given a fair chance to defend himself.
>> Stan K5GO hit the nail on the head with his previous post. IMHO,
>> taking Dim's case public right off seemed
>> premature, unprofessional and totally unnecessary.
>> Lloyd KH6LC
>> On May 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <email@example.com
>> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>> The guy got caught red handed and you people want to hang those that
>> caught him.
> I wish you had told everyone you had information showing or even
> saying he got caught red handed a long time ago. Do you have some
> information that says he was caught "red handed"?
> Everyone else is reading what has been written and the email posted on
> the reflector says that the committee had a "belief" that he was using
> assistance and substantiated the fact that it was a "belief" by asking
> him to provide a recording (not required in the rules) in order to
> further evaluate the situation. However, even in that email, the
> bottom line and last sentence, after what would appear to be an
> attempt to communicate some hope that there would be further
> evaluation, said emphatically and in no uncertain terms that he was
> disqualified for 2014 but welcome to enter in 2015.
> I am not making any assumption this process is as cut and dried as you
> would like it to be.
> 73...Stan, K5GO
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list