[CQ-Contest] CQWW - considerations on the truths that are revealed

Wed Feb 22 00:13:15 EST 2017

That US has few DQs is primarily connected to the FACT that most Americans
respect and pay tribute to play according the rules.

There are bad apples in the US basket too, but compared to other selected
parts of the world, this number is very low.

Those who try to defend there innocence always try to reduce the issue to
some "few not important exceptions". Before any committee makes the
decision to DQ, be sure they have washed "the dirty linen" numerous times
to be sure on the decision.

In this particular case, let us just also review the score difference
between the accused and the station following... Such difference is not
normal in a highly competitive CQWW, especially in that category - and
especially considering WRTC qualification reality.

Sorry that I might swim into somewhat deep water, but with this particular
station, I have several times been amazed by signal strengths compared to
similarly located stations.... Also, even with my 1 kW, many times the
station have not heard me when S-meter readings on his signals were S1-3.
This despite the fact that band was quiet and the accused had no callers.

Instead of in own interest try to use this case as a protection cover and
excuse for own violations of the rule (referring to other "poor" innocent
cheaters), try to grow up guys and realize this could indeed be a game for
gentlemen, in case everyone took compliance to rules seriously.

Power Cheating is the main problem of the contesting - but even worse that
that is power cheating combined with other violations.

That is when we end up with completely unrealistic score differences in
Top-10 lists....

73 de Mats (RM2D)

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 at 05:33, Herbert Schoenbohm <herbs at vitelcom.net> wrote:

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.
>
> W0MU
>
>
> 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
>> should
>> ensure compliance with the rules, but which, it seems, the rules breaks
>> first.
>>
>> 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
>> their
>> innocence, nothing changes if not fall all in the silence, to not
>> respond
>> to emails and still confirm the disqualification.
>>
>> Now this is the procedure adopted by this Committee as the previous
>> ones,
>> 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
>> us?
>>
>>
>> *CQWW SSB – United States (disqualified)*
>>
>> 2014 - N3IQ
>>
>> 1997 - KC6ETY/2
>>
>> 1986 - K3TUP
>>
>> 1980 - W6PU
>>
>> *Amazing !!! … in 37 years only 4 stations USA disqualified from
>> thecontest
>> !!!*
>>
>> 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
>> justify
>> 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
>> 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