[CQ-Contest] CQWW - considerations on the truths that are revealed
herbs at vitelcom.net
Tue Feb 21 21:17:30 EST 2017
I remember some years ago that a KP4## set a world record QRP on 160 WW
with his claim of a miracle "double bazooka" dipole a 60 feet! Now
nearby NP4A running QRO with a dipole at 200' ABG on 160 was nearly
equal in signal here on ground wave. The KP4## was a complete fraud but
the world record still stands and the CQ Contest Committee did nothing
about this. So I guess the selective prosecution of handing out DQ's is
what bothers many. In the case of KP4## there was a preponderance of
evidence for a DQ but none occurred. Ground wave signal strength
measurements are very conclusive. And comparing a station honestly
running full power (NP4A) and the cheating KP4## claiming to run 4.7
watts on 160 producing equal signals is not scientifically possible.
My point is the scatter shot approach to issuing DQ's only prevent an
good fair effort by a station not knowing when the heavy hand of the
Committee will drop on them. So they may be restrained from
participation leaving the well healed establishment big guns from any
fear of DQ's to run the tables consistently.
Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
On 2/21/2017 7:51 PM, W0MU Mike Fatchett wrote:
> It is common knowledge that there is a cultural desire to win at any
> costs and to bend or break the rules in other parts of the country.
> Don't operate the contest if you think it is managed poorly.
> On 2/21/2017 1:24 PM, Alessandro Gromme wrote:
>> Slowly the truth about the dubious management of what until now was
>> considered the contest of the year coming out, bringing to light a
>> "dubious" managemnet, not to call it "terribly unfair", by those who
>> ensure compliance with the rules, but which, it seems, the rules breaks
>> It’s curious to find that several stations in recent years have been
>> disqualified with ridiculous accusations, often were stations with an
>> excellent result, for other charges that can be defined almost absurd.
>> Often self-spotting appears to be a weapon in the hands of a to the
>> incorrect and dictatorial committee to remove from the final rank the
>> stations thinking that the station accused cannot prove to be
>> innocent but,
>> even when the station produces concrete and irrefutable evidence of
>> innocence, nothing changes if not fall all in the silence, to not
>> to emails and still confirm the disqualification.
>> Now this is the procedure adopted by this Committee as the previous
>> is almost an unwritten rule that are handed down from management to
>> management ... and this happens only in the CQWW !!
>> Try to seek with a filter in the CQ WW database and see what he tells
>> *CQWW SSB – United States (disqualified)*
>> 2014 - N3IQ
>> 1997 - KC6ETY/2
>> 1986 - K3TUP
>> 1980 - W6PU
>> *Amazing !!! … in 37 years only 4 stations USA disqualified from
>> I do not doubt there are really good operators .. but really only 4
>> stations in 37 years have broken the rules, even slightly?
>> mmmmm !!!!
>> *CQWW CW - United States (disqualified)*
>> 2015 - N0FW/8
>> 2015 - W2YC
>> 1995 - K1NG
>> 1988 - N2GZL
>> 1987 - WD5COV/0
>> 1985 - AG2S
>> 1983 - W2REH
>> 1980 - W3RJ
>> *Here definitely better right ?? ... I would say this ridiculous ...
>> only 8
>> stations disqualified in the last 37 years.*
>> Not returning to the speech of the evidence or allegations that have
>> disqualified ALWAYS foreign stations, often with a brazenness that
>> himself behind ridiculous accusations, I wonder if this attention to
>> disqualifications is impartial.
>> I have been disqualified for 3 spot "doubts" of which I have given
>> proof of
>> being innocent (evidence, not words) ... in 37 years you want to tell me
>> that no US station received 3 of dubious spot ?
>> I do not want to create a diplomatic crisis between nations but if
>> you want
>> to make the champions of fairness we must with the same fairness and
>> honesty to admit that this is suspect.
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest