[CQ-Contest] WRTC 2006 Sponsored Teams

Ken Widelitz widelitz at gte.net
Wed Feb 1 00:05:01 EST 2006

Well, Jim, N6TJ, you are a charter member of the old boys club and I don't
mean OLD boys club.

As to my discussion with you and Martti, OH2BH, regarding your WRTC 2002
selection, that was in a PRIVATE series of emails. Please check the
CQ-CONTEST archives to confirm that fact. You should know it is VERY POOR
etiquette to make a private email discussion public. However, since you have
chosen to make it public, I will remind you of the entire discussion. It
began when the Wild Card teams were published by WRTC 2002. Per the WRTC
2002 wild card criteria, there were a number of entries with a higher
ranking than yours, but they did not receive invitations. That was true for
a couple of other wild card invitees also. You and Martti are old friends,
in the "old boys club" and you were invited. You emailed me that you were
only going because you didn't want to insult Martti by turning down his
invitation. Then you offered to sell me your spot for $50,000 donated to
WRTC 2002. Remember?

As to A61AJ, there was NO announcement a team was being sold for WRTC 2002.

The Brazilians announced 3 teams would be sponsored. Their rules stated
those teams must have members of the same nationality. According to those
rules it is NOT permitted to "choose whomever they desire to populate their
sponsored teams," as you misstated in your post. RD3AF decides he wants to
team with you, Jim, N6TJ. Lo and behold, the rules get changed. I am not
saying the change is good or bad, only that the rules were changed, without
prior publication, obviously for your benefit. And, as it has been pointed
out to me in a private email, when WRTC 2000 and 2002 champions N5TJ/K1TO
dropped out of WRTC 2006, the WRTC 2006 Committee apparently didn't invite
the next best performing team from WRTC 2002.

I have considered sponsoring a team for WRTC 2006. I still may.

I have already publicly stated that if LA gets the Olympics in 2016, I will
volunteer to coordinate a WRTC in conjunction with that event. So much for
your PUOSU Award.

This is what I emailed Oms January 4, 2004, immediately after the
announcement of WRTC 2006"

 Hi Oms,

 I don't know who will be working on the rules for the selection process for
 teams for WRTC 2006, but I would very much like to see one that is NOT
 arbitrary and is totally OBJECTIVE. In other words, there should be a
 mathematical approach, not a beauty contest voting process.

 73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT

Oms responded:

 Hi Ken:

 Nice to hear from you.

 Our intention is to have all the previous process, study these rules
 dipply and after that to develop a very open and transparent process. I
 that a lot of friends has some compalains on the previous selections
 For sure we are not going to be perfect but at least totally transparent.
 I wish you and family a very happy, heathy and prosper new year.

 Oms PY5EG

Whoops, I guess I just violated email etiquette. But so has the totally
transparent part in changing the rules to accommodate you.

I have let it be known that I didn't think it was fair that a higher
mathematical weight be given to a 4 hour domestic sprint with a small level
of participation than to a 48 hour DX contest with a high level of
participation. Despite my opinion, I still supported the WRTC 2006 Committee

On December 21, 2005 I posted:

Hi Oms,

Thank you for your post.

Please note that while there have been complaints about the criteria, no one
has questioned the intent, integrity or effort of the WRTC 2006 committee.
The committee is to be commended for all three.

73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT

As to the U. S. National Selections, my post related to the ARRL's
abdication of their assignment by WRTC 2006.

With the exception of your email, the responses I have received to both of
my posts have been in agreement with my position. In one, I was even told it
took "courage" to make that post. Apparently that came from someone who
anticipated your personal and inaccurate attack. The "old boys club" moniker
is not insulting. It just is. That is not to say you are not a great
contester. (double negative - you are a great contester.)

You misstate that:

Since 2002, Ken and everyone else had the opportunity to make sure their
scores were going to be the best in the world.  They didn't, and they have
no one to blame but themselves.

The WRTC 2006 criteria was not announced until after those contests had
taken place.

So go ahead with your name calling. I have thick skin. I suppose it is what
you need to do to support your friends. It doesn't change the facts.

73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list