Click here for RSS feeds or use the email signup form below to be notified about new radio-sport.net news updates
Donations are accepted. We appreciate the help!
With fresh evidence in the CQ WW DX contests of possible "private" disqualifications being handed out by the CQ WW Contest Committee, contesters from around the world are urging a halt to that practice, calling for more public declarations of DQ decisions.
"Naming and shaming is the only way to deal with premeditated and calculated cheaters," said Brian Coyne 5B4AIZ.
"Not only will the cheats be disgraced but the banner headline will be loud and clear to all to follow the rules or else," Coyne added.
"All DQs should be made public - if for no other reason than to put to rest the accusations of collusion by members of the contest committee," added Tom Gregory N4NW.
That certainly has not been the practice of the CQ WW Contest Committee, which for many years has been dealing privately with questionable logs, sometimes making them disappear and other times approaching people individually, and giving them the chance to withdraw or re-classify their entry.
"I think that they should not be secretly DQ'd," said Mark Luhrman W4SVO. "I also feel that they should be not be allowed to operate the next year and that if they are found cheating again that they should not be allowed to enter that contest ever again."
"Please, announce to the public the “mistakes” of cheaters – this will prevent others from doing the same!" chimed in Nick Ikonomov LZ1JY.
The latest example of a disappearing log found in a radio-sport.net review of submitted entries and final scores in the 2008 CQ WW contests is the entry of the top Russian qualifier for the World Radiosport Team Championships.
Vladimir Askenov RW1AC had the highest claimed score from Asiatic Russia in CQ WW CW, submitting an un-assisted score of 5.45 million as RZ9OZO, slightly ahead of UA9CLB.
But in the final results printed in CQ Magazine, Askenov's score from RZ9OZO was nowhere to be found, and there was no immediate explanation from the CQ WW Contest Committee whether this was simply a clerical error or a rules question.
With no guidance from CQ WW, only Russian WRTC Organizer Harry Booklan RA3AUU could offer radio-sport.net the explanation that the RZ9OZO score was accidentally left out of the final results.
"RW1AC score as RZ9OZO was simply forgotten in the final list," Booklan said in an email.
The difference between a public and private DQ would be enormous for RW1AC, because a disqualification would have knocked him out of the 2010 World Radiosport Team Championships to be held in Russia next year.
Meanwhile, more information emerged in recent days of the prime example of a 2008 CQ WW log that "disappeared," the Multi-Single entry of Team 4L0A, which claimed over 16 million points on 3830, and in their CW log.
Aided by the open log policy of CQ WW, a pair of Russian hams led by Igor Tokar US0LW went through the 4L0A log and found evidence of what they believe were faked contacts and more.
"I will try to restrain myself from making conclusions," Tokar said in his review, but he went on to "describe some details" which he found to be "unrealistic."
In one section, Tokar laid out how a series of stations only seemed to work 4L0A and V31WA, which was operated by Dmitry Stashuk UT5UGR. A number of the 4L0A ops were Ukranian as well.
Those stations included two American calls - W3UTX and W4PHC - neither of those callsigns is currently active in the U.S. government FCC database. Tokar said other callsigns also may not have been valid.
"Then there are about 50 more call signs that made three QSO’s – with V31WA, 4L0A and with one more station," wrote Tokar.
"The call signs of the third station were all different."
Since radio-sport.net last week reported on the disappearance of one top single band CQ WW CW score from the US, which did not appear in the final results in CQ Magazine, no answers have been provided by the CQ WW contest committee on what might have been a US record on 40 meters for Paul Newberry N4PN.
In an email exchange with radio-sport.net, Newberry denied talk in contesting circles that he had been given a "private" DQ by CQ WW for his effort in the 2008 CW test.
"I received an email, with no name, just the CQ Contest Committee," said Newberry, "inquiring about certain contacts....and it was only a few entries.....out of whatever thousands of contacts (actually almost 2000 Q's)....I responded as best I could but could only recall a couple of Q's enough to give any details."
"I was pretty upset and answered immediately," said Newberry, "I deleted my answer and as far as I was concerned, it was over and I sincerely meant---over."
As with other entries that "vanished" from the final results, there was no public comment from any members of the CQ WW Contest Committee or any behind-the-scenes guidance on what went on with the N4PN log from 2008.
"I did, in no uncertain terms, tell them to "do whatever they felt like was the right thing to do....period"," Newberry added.
But as with the Multi-Single log of 4L0A and the SOAB HP log of RZ9OZO (RW1AC) detailed on the left, there was no real answer for contesters to evaluate.
Newberry was operating from the well appointed station of Tom Rauch W8JI, alongside Ralph Bates K1ZZI, who went single band on 80 meters.
Bates encountered no problems with the CQ WW Contest Committee, as his final score of 303,537 set a new W4 record in CQ WW for Single Band 80 meters, smashing the old record of KT3Y/4 set back in 1992.
Historically, CQ Magazine has said as little as possible about disqualifications, preferring to keep the focus on the results of the contest.
2008 was no different.
Also - what do you think of private DQ's? Should the CQ WW Contest Committee publicly disqualify everyone? Or is it better to handle some cheating allegations by just making that log disappear, or by shifting an entry into a different category?
Send us your insights and more by e-mail to radio-sport.net
"DQ is the only sanction that makes sense. Reclassifying a log simply signals that 'cheating' is tolerated to some extent. If there is sufficient evidence of impropriety then the CC needs to step up and take their responsibility to the only conclusion possible -- DQ" - Vic Culver W4VIC
"Disqualification is a serious decision, but should be taken and announced publicly when the "evidence" is convincing. To make a log "disappear" is not an acceptable policy." - Jim George N3BB
"If every log that was DQ'd was listed as such in the results of the contest - whatever contest it may be then the message that cheating will not be tolerated can be conveyed to all clearly and concisely. As for re-classifying logs to a different category. This is clearly a cop-out for the contest committee." - Tom Gregory N4NW
