[CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....

[Dennis McAlpine]

Bravo, Jeff.  

My complaint is not about your actions, which I agree with, but with trying to figure out what would constitute "hard" evidence.  I would think that correlating the times and frequencies these stations were worked with the spots should be sufficient evidence, assuming there was a pattern.  In fact, other than checking the station's computer, what more could you obtain?  

Other than formal DQing someone, I would think the only other penalty would be if people were made aware who was doing such a transgression.  And, for that to happen, people shud be aware of who that station was.  I realize the libel laws are rather arcane and could come into play here but there must be some ground in between.  For example, several organizations will state that a formal complaint has been filed against someone and that their nomination, score, etc is under review.  After the review is completed a decision could be announced with the rationale for upholding or turning down the complaint.

Of course, with my vertical, I guess I don't need to worry about such matters.  Now, if there was an "assisted" category in the 10 meter contest, I would not be competing against those real M/S guys. 

73,

Dennis, K2SX

-----Original Message-----
>From: K1ZM at aol.com
>Sent: Dec 12, 2007 1:02 AM
>To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] How To Deal with Cheaters....
>
> 
>Hello All
> 
>I have been away and "reading the mail" and now have the time to comment  
>(sort of).
> 
>I am not afraid to act on this one and did so in 2003.  I observed a  
>well-known (and TOP 10) USA contester chasing packet spots all Sunday afternoon  long 
>during a CQWW SSB contest - to me there was NO OTHER WAY this station  would 
>have been able to "miraculously find" some first-time mults on 10M -  within 2 
>seconds of them having been spotted!  It happened on Saturday  afternoon as 
>well but Sunday's observations were quite pervasive.
> 
>I did what any one SHOULD DO and wrote to three members of the CQWW contest  
>committee expressing my observations and some specific stations worked and the 
> times I heard the QSO's take place.
> 
>It is a VERY LONG story, but some friends (who have been quite vocal on  this 
>topic on these pages this week) wrote to me and suggested perhaps I was  
>wrong to have reported the individual and that "I should have asked the  
>individual first etc etc".
>
>I elected NOT to do that because what I heard was a CLEAR-CUT PRIMA-FACIE  
>CASE OF BLATANT CHEATING - and because of that, there was NO WAY I could have  
>been mistaken - nor should I have given the station the "benefit of the doubt"  
>which I was also criticized for for NOT DOING.
> 
>In this case, I think the committee had no hard proof and I know most of  the 
>CQWW members and their policy (as I understand it) is, in the absence of  
>hard evidence, their hands are tied - even if there are questions about the  
>specific operation.  This is a very fine line we are talking about  here folks - 
>and I DO NOT BLAME THE COMMITTEE for being CAUTIOUS before just  DQ'ing people.
> 
>In this specific case, no penalty was exacted - the station was not DQ'd -  
>although, I did later approach the station involved myself (I did NOT  
>initially) and I told him what I had heard - I did this, if for no other reason,  to 
>let him know I KNEW WHAT HE DID - others were told on the committee - and if  
>nothing else, I hoped he would cease and desist going forward, knowing he was  
>now probably on the "CQWW Committee WATCH LIST."  I am pretty sure such a  
>defacto list exists - although these things do not usually ever get discussed  
>publicly.
> 
>So what do we do here?
> 
>1) Don't cheat!
>2) Play by the rules
>3) If you hear someone you think is cheating, please DO REPORT it to the  
>CQWW committee for investigation and a ruling - that's what they are there  for!
>4)You'll have to decide whether you want to confront the person you are  
>accusing - and if you do, you damned well better be sure - because YOU WILL LOSE  
>A FRIEND IF YOU DO!
> 
>In my case, this station has not spoken two words to me in 4 years as a  
>result - but that is not important to me.
> 
>I did what I had to do - to me there was NO OTHER OPTION - and I ask that  
>the rest of the contest community consult first your conscience - then "DO WHAT  
>YOU KNOW SHOULD DO IF YOU THINK IT'S RIGHT!"
> 
>Hope this helps.
> 
>And no, I am not interested in flames.
> 
>I have said my last on this topic.
> 
>(And please do not write to me privately to ask who it was - the individual  
>involved already knows who it was and I do hope he has changed his  ways!  
>Naming names at this point serves no useful purpose.)
> 
>73 JEFF
> 
>K1ZM/VY2ZM
> 
>
>
>
>
>**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
>(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest