[CQ-Contest] Contest Cheating and the Consequences

[brian coyne]

For sure we don't need 3 guesses as to the major talking point among contesters at Dayton this weekend. It is a safe bet that UT5UGR will not be present there and we are most unlikely to have any further responses from him on this forum. To term his actions as a 'mistake' is hardly apt when  what it truly is was a deliberate fraud which, in addition to the suspected unclaimed assistance, extended to what must have been  considerable research into stations who were active and by the fifth day of entry closure  had not, or were unlikely to, submit logs to pad out his log. score.
To invent a whole session (when in reality he was probably napping during that period) claiming up to 30 unique contacts with so many new country and zone multipliers beggars belief, an audacious act of dishonesty which he almost got away with so far as we can tell. since CQ did not appear to be aware of that aspect until alerted  by Juan, our Balearic Islands Sherlock Holmes. There could be more 'inventions', that doesn't matter now as case proven but how much time cam committee be expected to spend on logs containing around 8k qso's and up to 48hour SDR recordings in every suspicious case, most certainly time that volunteer log checkers do not have when there are more than 7k entries! Whoever would have thought it now necessary to add to log checking a percentage of unique's per log and per band against a norm?

As for consequences,as per  this thread header, this case has certainly raised some issues. As Jeff has stated we have not seen a discussion on an actual disqualification  previously. That is because these matters are normally kept private between committee and the entrant,. in this case the entrant chose to post here claiming no knowledge as to why the DQ and we saw Randy's open email response. .We are unlikely to see a repeat in the future but there is no doubt that this community has been of great help to committee, some of the in depth log  examinations have been meticulous and must have involved a deal of time.
To express a personal opinion whilst DQ's must remain private between the parties I do think that the question of penalties should be .considered by CQ. We have the worlds major contesting events which should set the highest standards. Randy's mail to Dim stated that Dim would be welcome to enter this years events. Whether Randy would say that were he writing now, in the light of subsequent revelations, I am uncertain, but I would say that CQ Committee need to consider that they speak for us, the contesting community, we like to be in competition with our peers, in fair competition, if they are found wanting in their conduct then we should expect committee to register our disapproval and judgement by imposing penalties  dependent upon the gravity of  the case.
73  Brian  C4Z / 5B4AIZ.
  





 
      From: Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net>
 To: cq-contest at contesting.com 
 Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015, 16:18
 Subject: [CQ-Contest] Contest Cheating and the Consequences
   
It's sad that UT5UGR went to the lengths he did to try to win a contest. He is a excellent world class operator and didn't need to do what he did. We are now finding out due to some excellent log analysis, that in addition to using spotting assistance, that he might of padded his log with bogus QSO's. Also, his past results, which include a North American record, are now being scrutinized.

I'm pretty sure in the future all his competitive contest logs will be scrutinized. The most important thing is he has damaged his reputation among his contesting peers. I think it's safe to say that many of us contest because of the enjoyment it brings us, whether we are single-op or on a team. In addition it's important to most of us how we want our peers to perceive us. Winning a plaque or certificate is secondary. I would be lying if I didn't admit my ego gets boosted a bit when I win a contest. I bet you all feel this too when this happens to you?

I can't remember a disqualification ever being discussed like this one in the history of the cq-contest reflector. In the past DQ's were buried at the end of the results. This incident shows how far log checking technology has advanced from the past. We have the results 4-5 months after the contest. Logs are made public by CQ for all to see. The committee has SDR, RBN and a database of the majority of the QSO's made in the contest. With all this technology, if you cheat you will be caught and forced to deal with the social media reaction.

My advice to Dimitry is to admit that you cheated on a public forum such as the contest reflector. We all make mistakes and admitting that you did will help in repairing the perception that your peers have of you. To sit on the sideline and do nothing is the worse thing you can do.

Look forward to seeing everyone in Dayton this weekend.

Jeff KU8E
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest