[CQ-Contest] KR2Q - RX1CQ

[Kelly Taylor]

I've kept on the sidelines of this, simply because I haven't been as active as I'd like, but...

I think it's ok to set the privacy issue aside for a moment. However, I think Bob, W5OV made the best argument yet for not kowtowing to demands to open everything up, an argument bolstered by Ron's rebuttal. 

Namely, that those arguing in favour have no legitimate beef, that it's driven by (Bob's words) 'insane jealousy' and that nothing will satisfy the proponents, because there will always be another conspiracy behind every next bush and because any denial of conspiracy simply gets woven in to every subsequent conspiracy theory. 

It's time for those who care to stand up and say "Enough is enough" and that contest organizers are doing the best possible job they can of adjudicating contests fairly. 

Open logs go too far, IMHO, but since that is now the reality, that should be more than enough. Anyone too anal to accept the stated results is FREE to collect all pertinent logs and run whatever analysis they wish. At their own time and expense!

73, Kelly
ve4xt

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 7, 2011, at 10:29 AM, David Gilbert <xdavid at cis-broadband.com> wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
>