[CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed scores.

[Shane Mattson-->K1ZR]

This thread is getting ridiculous....we're not even past the log checking process and someone is accusing another of cheating!  I strongly suggest that if you have any concerns related to one's operation that you email the contest organizer privately (in this case K5ZD) and let them qualify each situation accordingly  This is ludicrous.  


Shane K1ZR 

----- Original Message -----

From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar> 
To: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net> 
Cc: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest at contesting.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:53:05 PM 
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] In the light of the 2013 CQ WW DX CW Claimed        scores. 

Ron. 
It's pretty obvious the score I am talking about. 
Take a look at the SOAB HP scores and you'll quickly realize who I am 
talking about. 
And his score is way too unexplainable because it is  not likely to happen 
that way. A station in Zone 8 has very few chances to win over a station in 
zone 9. Specially a zone 9 station being operated by a really good op, with 
a very good setup. 
And even less,  to finish with  such a big advantage about other station in 
zone 8 whose op has been doing SOAB HP for years from the very same 
location,  a very skilled op, who operated for 47 hours, with more 
aluminum, with better RX antennas for the low bands, etc, etc. 
However, what reputation are you talking about? 
Our hobby has been hammered for years by professional cheaters: 
Power abuse, 
Packet abuse, 
Log massaging, 
Ghost Operators 
Ghost Locations 
Multiple Signals 
Rubber Clocking 
Category hopping 
What else? 

So yes, Most people are honest. Not so, for the ones competing at a high 
level. 
So please don't be so overwhelmed by my assertions. 

73. 

Martin, LU5DX 


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>wrote: 

> Oh? 
> 
> Which scores?  Why do you think they're unexplainable? 
> 
> A blanket assertion like this without details directly or indirectly 
> smears, or could smear, the reputations quite a few operators. 
> 
> While I can't speak for anyone else, I'd certainly want more information 
> about what is allegedly happening before even beginning to consider revamps 
> or changes, let alone agreeing to them. 
> 
> 73 
> 
> 
> On 12/04/13, Martin , LU5DX wrote: 
> 
> I really hope at least some of you would agree that a revamp of the 
> observer program is needed. 
> 
> There are scores that are really unexplainable. 
> 
> Hopefully cheaters will get disqualified (again). 
> 
> Vy 73. 
> 
> Martin, LU5DX 
> _______________________________________________ 
> 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