If there is, as apparently there is, evidence of multiple incursions by US
stations into forbidden band segments, in violation of US law, why zero DQs?
Why isn't the law-and-order contingent clamouring for justice? If the message
is "break the rules and you'll be DQd," isn't US federal law a significant rule
Americans should be expected to obey?
Especially since many, it seems, persisted in completing the Q after having
been warned they were out of band. I can see if a station does it once, and
isn't warned. Hard to claim brain cramp if it's repeated, or is done after a
warning.
Is it not possible foreign hams who were DQd for less would see that as bias?
Ed does point out significant inconsistency in the DQ of T48K. I am curious, in
light of Ed's claim that cellphone bills were provided as evidence to the
contrary, which off-air method of communication the team is suspected of using.
If the committee is going to observe a lower standard of proof, shouldn't that
also apply to exculpatory evidence?
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPad
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 19:25, Ed K1EP <k1ep.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:36 PM, <w5ov@w5ov.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK. That's enough.
>>
>> There was apparent evidence of off-air communication with VE3XIN and T48K
>> in approximately 60 suspicious spots of T48K.
>
> Off air? ESP? Just how did this happen? We were on an island in a
> somewhat remote area with NO phone, NO internet, NO WiFi. If you had a
> satellite phone, you would be put in prison. We submitted our cell phone
> bills with detail billing information for the weekend with no evidence of
> this. But Bob claims apparent evidence. Show us the evidence Bob. Bob
> wants us to prove the negative.
>
>
>> To confirm this and other claims of innocence, SDR recordings of T48K were
>> evaluated.
>
> So off the air is now on the air.
>
>
>
>> During this review, several instances of T48K requesting to be spotted
>> over the air, directly in violation of the rules were noted.
>
> There were three instances of a new contester asking for spots on his
> first shift in the contest. We told him to not do it, he stopped, that was
> it. So if you break your rule, intentional or not, you are DQ? How about
> all the US stations we worked out of the US band? Clear evidence in our
> log of the frequency. Not one US station was DQd.
>
>
>>
>> At that point, no further investigation was necessary and the
>> Disqualification confirmed.
>>
>> Those are the key facts of the T48K DQ.
>
> Those are not all the facts and you know it. You are trying to justify a
> bad judgment call.
>
>
>
>>
>> There were no hunches, feelings or other unsubstantiated reasons for the
>> T48K DQ.
>
> You clearly state "apparent". That is a hunch.
>
>
>> No "friends" spotted anyone a few times leading to a DQ.
>>
>> 73,
>> Bob W5OV
>> CQWW Contest Committee
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, April 17, 2017 1:34 pm, Ed K1EP wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 2017 2:11 PM, "W0MU Mike Fatchett" <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is indeed time for some rules changes. You cannot be DQing people for
>>> the actions of others that we have no control over. If you have proof
>>> of collusion or cooperation great. To tell me you can DQ me because my
>>> neighbor thought he was doing something nice and spotted me a few times
>>> is over the top.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well that is exactly what KR2Q is telling you and what he has done. He
>>> will DQ a station because others have spotted him without that station's
>>> knowledge or consent and the station has no control over or communication
>>> with the spotter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|