[CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ

Sun Aug 7 08:29:56 PDT 2011

On the contrary, Ron ... I'm not trying to stifle your right to express 
your opinion at all.  I simply don't agree that contest activity and the 
results thereof are a privacy issue, and it seems to me that I also have 
the right to express that position publicly ... especially since I 
participate in contests and you don't.

In fact I'll take this opportunity to disagree with you on another 
point.  In my opinion there is no "continued erosion of trust" in 
radiosport ... it has been there all along and with good reason.  I've 
written on this in the past, but as a quick summary the human tendency 
for dishonesty is greater when there is perceived anonymity, when there 
is a perception that the effects of cheating are really not that 
damaging, when there is a perception that everyone else is doing it 
anyway, when there is disagreement with one or more of the rules, or 
when there is the perception that cheating could compensate for some 
other unfairness in the playing field.  ALL of those elements can be 
found in radiosport, and allusions to unfair practices have been rampant 
for decades.   The difference now is that the mechanics for discovery 
(including the availability of open logs) are much improved, and the 
arrival of the internet has brought much broader visibility into the issue.

By the way, fans of professional cycling have been doing exactly that 
for quite a while now ... asking to see the results of Lance Armstrong's 
test results.  I was a fan of that sport myself for decades and raced 
time trials at the masters (old fart) level as recently as ten years 
ago, collecting podium finishes at the Arizona state championships for 
three straight years.  The performance advantages of doping (no, I never 
did it) are very significant and a huge percentage of the top tier 
professional cyclists over the last several years have at one time or 
another failed one or more drug tests.  Almost nobody believes that 
professional cycling is completely clean even today, and we certainly 
don't believe it was when Lance was racing.  The current federal grand 
jury investigation doesn't either.

For the record, I am NOT asking that UBN reports be made public ... but 
I can fully understand the sentiment of those who do.

Dave   AB7E

On 8/6/2011 9:44 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Well, I'm sorry that you don't want to hear any dissension.
>
> But I fail to see why the number of posts I have made have any bearing on
> the continued erosion of trust in fellow contesters.
>
> And... since you brought up competition on a "global" scale... I'm not
> talking about oversight by the contest committee(s) or similar oversight
> organizations.  That's disingenuous.
>
> For example:  It's one thing for the WRTC organizers to set the rules for
> the operators and to determine the level of oversight.  But it's quite
> another for anyone who feels like it to come along and demand -- and expect
> -- the organizers to turn over every scrap of information that's been
> gathered about every operating team, just so "everyone" can figure out on
> their own if the organizers&  operators were on the up&  up as they claimed
> to be.
>
> Does the operator of Joe's Bike Shack in downtown Podunk have the right to
> demand that the Tour de France organizers turn over Lance Armstrong's test
> results... and everyone else's for that matter... after all, he's involved
> in serious competitive biking too!
>
> Is the equivalent of that really what you want?  Because that's where Open
> Logs and now Open UBN reports and Lord knows what next leads us.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 9:27 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ
>
>
> I also find W2WN's rancor on this topic to be a bit unrealistic.  I'm
> hard pressed to think of any other competition with such open global
> participation as radiosport that doesn't involve at least as much
> official and public scrutiny of both the performance and the result.
> Golf, basketball, football, running, bicycling, soccer, etc ... nobody
> would even consider administering a serious competition in such events
> without significant oversight --- before, during, and after.  Heck, look
> at the absolutely incredible measures that are taken at WRTC to assure
> that no participant is able to bend anything to their advantage, and
> those folks are the cream of the crop in our hobby!
>
> Besides, with a minimal amount of Google searching I can find well over
> 3,000 online forum posts that W2WN has made over the years on a wide
> variety of subjects, and I suspect many of the rest of us aren't far
> behind.  Anything anyone would want to know about us is probably already
> sitting out there by our own hand.
>
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E
>
>
>
> On 8/6/2011 2:28 PM, Ward Silver wrote:
>> "Will we as contesters be required to put a webcam in our
>> shacks and expose ourselves to the world for 24 or 48 hours, to the whim
> of
>> any voyeur who seems to find some reason to watch me operate a radio in
>> shorts and a T-shirt?"
>>
>> I thought exposing ourselves to the world for 24 or 48 hours to any radio
> voyeur who seems to find some reason to call us on the radio was the entire
> point of contesting in general.  If privacy is one's goal, radiosport would
> not be my first suggestion as a hobby.
>> 73, Ward N0AX
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>