[CQ-Contest] Bad operating practices - a real-life example

Randy Thompson RThompson at emation.com
Fri Jul 21 10:55:16 EDT 2000

Dear Bob,

How does the practice you describe below differ from the following:

A well known single op who has set records in WPX uses a different call
during off periods to establish a run frequency and then changes to the
contest call and begins the operating period?  I won't name your call but I
think you know who I mean.

As a regular SOAB competitor, who has set a record once, I am worried that
some people may associate me with the claims you have made below.  By making
such unnamed accusations, you paint all SOAB competitors as being cheaters.
This is certainly not true and I would appreciate an apology from you to
everyone or to have the cajones to name names.

I have heard the practice you describe occur, but usually between two
multi-ops.  Yes, it is not very sportsmanlike, but technically not against
the rules.

Randy, K5ZD

> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:49:20 -0700
> From: Robert Shohet <kq2m at mags.net>
> On MANY occasions I have heard very well known SOABHP "Unassisted"
> stations use this "holding the frequency" strategy to repeatedly
> trade-off occupying the band edge on 15 and 20 SSB.  A common example is
> when the SO needs the band edge on Band #1, he asks the Multi or less
> serious SO for the freq., the Multi or less serious SO leaves and comes
> back later.  The serious SO then runs until it is advantageous to qsy,
> gives the freq. back to the Multi or other club member, and then does
> the same thing on the Band #2 with another club member or the same M/M. 
> When it is time to come back to the band edge on Band #1 the process is
> repeated with the serious SO getting back the frequency he originally
> "borrowed".  I have heard this trading occur among club members for an
> ENTIRE WEEKEND on the same freq./band edge.  These particular
> "Unassisted" SO stations use the same strategy each year in the same
> contests, in conjunction with other club members (SO as well as MM) to
> retain their advantage.  Some of these operators have set US records in
> these contests, no doubt aided by this "advantage".  To make matters
> worse, if you have the temerity to "contest" this at the time it is
> occurring, you have two or three guys giving you grief all at once and
> the loud Multi temporarily takes back the freq. to reestablish the "run"
> before passing it again to the SO.
> You could say that this is sour grapes on my part, but I personally
> believe that it reclassifies ALL of them as M/M and moreover represents
> a real ethical breach of SO status.  It is interesting to note that
> these SO "Unassisted" stations have never claimed M/S or SO Assisted
> status in any contest where they have used this operating practice.
> I will spare them them any public embarassment by not mentioning
> callsigns.  They know who they are.  Hopefully they will reflect on this
> inappropriate practice and stop using it or instead claim a Multi
> category rather than SO Unassisted. 
> 73
> Bob KQ2M
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

----- End forwarded message -----

CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list