Interesting debate, but I am afraid there has been some misleading
info/assumption on the reason for TO7A's DQ.
I have not studied the log in detail, but if you are curious enough, have a
look at TO7A's 160m log:
Not one single station with a public log in zones 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 or
33 claims working TO7A on 160
Yet TO7A's log claims having worked 29 stations in these zones.
Most of these 29 QSOs are unique calls at least on 160, most do not have a
public log, and if they have a public log, the 160m QSO with TO7A is not
Maybe this has something to do with why he has been DQd
I have performed a similar scrutiny with some of TO7A's competitors logs but
I haven't found a similar situation
Just public logs data (5,8 million records) and some database code
De: CQ-Contest [mailto:email@example.com] En nombre de Stan
Enviado el: domingo, 10 de mayo de 2015 1:09
Para: W0MU Mike Fatchett
Asunto: Re: [CQ-Contest] TO7A debacle
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The guy got caught red handed and you people want to hang those that
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
I am not making any assumption this process is as cut and dried as you would
like it to be.
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list