[CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters

[Dick Green WC1M]

The posted log shows QSO times only to the nearest minute. You can't use
that to determine whether there were two signals transmitted simultaneously.
It's quite easy to work two stations in the same minute on two radios
without transmitting simultaneously. The only way to detect transmission of
two simultaneous signals is to listen to the station in question on both
frequencies.

The fact that the log was reclassified as Assisted suggests it was
determined that packet was used.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul J. Piercey [mailto:p.piercey at nl.rogers.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 6:38 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> 
> Forgive my naiveté but, being a relative newbie to contesting, I would
like
> to know exactly what all this fuss is about.
> 
> As the discussion seems to be revolving around C4M being disqualified in
> the
> 2006 CQWW CW contest, what was the infraction? I have reviewed the 3830
> report and the log posted by CQ and can only determine that he didn't
> submit
> to the correct category. He states SO2R in the 3830 report and Single
> Transmitter in the submitted log. The posted log shows that he worked
> stations simultaneously on 2 bands, therefore he was clearly operating
more
> than a single transmitter. Is this the main issue or is there more to the
> story? If this is the only issue with the log, why was he not
re-classified
> as multi-transmitter and be done with it? Are there more operators and
> operations suspected of cheating? What are the alleged infractions and how
> are they determined?
> 
> As I said, it is very confusing to read about rampant cheating yet the
only
> evidence offered seemingly shows an error at best or stupidity at worst
> unless I've completely missed the boat (which is not beyond the realm of
> possibilities).
> 
> Please respond to me directly with any information which I can use to
> better
> understand the issue at hand.
> 
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of K7LXC at aol.com
> > Sent: December 9, 2007 20:59
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com; n6tj at sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Battle of the Cheaters
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 12/9/2007 10:43:25 A.M. Pacific Standard
> > Time, cq-contest-request at contesting.com writes:
> >
> > >  It's amazing to me that so many are not  aware  that last
> > year's CQ
> > > WW CW
> > SO/AB No.
> > 1 claimed score was ultimately   DQed
> >
> >
> >
> >         Well, it's amazing to me  too for the opposite
> > reason. Color me stupid but I read this reflector every day
> > and wasn't aware that that happened.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Steve    K7LXC
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************************Check out AOL's list of
> > 2007's hottest products.
> > (http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop000
> > 30000000001)
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>