Wow, that is really sad. I tried to (honestly) give
any of then WRTC stations I heard a contact. I'm
hoping (wrong as it was), that the bogus contacts were
done to pad the YT6 team's score and the "bogus"
operators have learned their lesson. On the other
hand, if they actually did it, planning on causing the
disqualification, then that's another story. Aside
from watching a suspicious climb in scoring during the
contest and then DFing the station(s), I'm not sure
what could be done.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
73, Tad, WF4W
--- John Laney <k4bai at worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Also note the interesting comments on the automation
> that the YT6 team
> was able to implement.
>
> Hi Gang
>
> First, let me thank the WRTC 2006 organizers for a
> wonderful experience!
> It was a superb venue and I think everyone
> appreciated the hard work,
> the incredible PY hospitality and the addition of
> young teams, the YL
> team and the Multi-Single/Multi National teams.
>
> That's the good news - as it was really well done -
> and PY5EG and his
> team deserve the thanks of all of us for their hard
> work - it showed!
>
> Now the bad news - and I hesitate in writing this
> email - but someone
> HAS TO and it might as well be me.
>
> By now, nearly everyone attending and following WRTC
> 2006 from afar
> knows that the YT6A team dropped from 3rd in the
> "claimed scores" to
> 11th when all was said and done - due to hundreds of
> uniques which
> appeared in their log. This gave third place to
> Team N2NT/K1DG and
> their win was roundly cheered when it was announced
> on Monday night.
>
> Now, lest anyone misinterpret what I am about to
> relate next - please do
> not jump to any conclusions without reflecting on
> the facts that are known:
>
> 1) Team YT6A had HUNDREDS of uniques in their log -
> no other team had
> anything like that - other logs varied from a
> handful, to 20-30 - maybe
> 50 or so - so the YT6A log really stuck out like a
> sore thumb. Of the
> many hundreds of logs that were sent in to the WRTC
> judging database, NO
> ONE else worked the uniques that appeared in the
> YT6A log.
>
> 2) Did the judges have any other choice but to
> eliminate these qso's
> from the YT6A log? Given the circumstances - NO!
> They had to remove them.
>
> 3) Did Team K1DG/N2NT deserve the 3rd place award -
> Given the
> circumstances - YES!
>
> 4) What about Team YT6A? Did they deserve what
> happened to them? No -
> not really because they did not do anything wrong -
> at least I can say
> that given what is known....
>
> Some facts to consider - and then the PROBLEM as I
> see it:
>
> A) Team YT6A recorded the whole contest and the
> uniques that appeared in
> their log WERE ON THE RECORDED FILE! In other
> words, they worked the
> stations that were claimed in their log and who
> wouldn't work stations
> that call them in a contest? I am sure everyone of
> us would respond to
> callers who call in and work and log the stations.
> Why not?
>
> B) The unique calls logged by Team YT6A all
> appeared on QRZ.com - they
> were valid calls!
>
> C) The uniques started appearing in their log after
> their first venture
> to SSB in the contest - their first hours were on
> CW.
>
> D) Some of the uniques were "country pride" - from
> YU stations probably
> wanting to "help their team" - these numbered about
> 50 qso's.
>
> E) The remaining hundreds of uniques "seem" to have
> been sent to them by
> stations located in Europe - probably only a handful
> of stations were
> involved in this - which means that every hour, on
> multiple bands, the
> bogus calls were sent to "pad the YT6A log" - and,
> given about 20 hours
> remaining in the contest - this had the result of
> producing hundreds of
> uniques, legally worked by team YT6A - and as noted
> above, the calls
> were valid appearing on QRZ.com
>
>
> Are we getting the picture here? For the first time
> probably, outside
> "skullduggery" tainted a wonderful competition -
> altering a medal
> position - and raising a very serious question for
> future organizers of
> the next WRTC's. It seems as if someone recognized
> the voice of YT6A or
> his team-mate - and then decided to have some "fun
> with them" for the
> rest of the WRTC operating period.
>
> Is there any way of preventing this from happening
> again? (I'd like to
> hear some opinions from others on this one - I have
> one idea - but I'll
> save it for now....)
>
> I spoke to Ranko for hours on Tuesday night - and he
> was pretty bummed
> about all of this. He fully understands the
> decision of the judges -
> but is devastated by the fact that this cost him a
> medal and about
> several hours of operating time - spent working
> stations not even in the
> contest.
>
> And, when you consider the technical superiority of
> his station design,
> it was easy to empathize with his position.
> Consider this:
>
> The YT6A station design solved all of the
> operational issues presented
> to all of us at WRTC - and was truly a marvel of
> automation and
> efficiency. To my mind, it sets the bar really high
> for future teams
> because of what it could do:
>
> 1) They could listen on the same antenna on another
> band - WITH NO
> SPLASH WHATSOEVER. It was like the station B
> receiver was on another
> planet!
>
> 2) They did not have to "put stations into a
> bandmap" to be worked when
> possible by the Radio A operator. For this they
> had the slickest
> interface system I have EVER SEEN.
>
> The radio B operator merely had to step on his
> footswitch and Radio A
> AUTOMATICALLY went to the desired frequency on the
> second VFO, it even
> went to the OTHER MODE if the desired mult or
> station was on a different
> mode being used by the RUN OP - and an optical
> sensor checked the AMP to
> see if it was on the SAME BAND - or on a different
> band that the radio B
> operator wanted to work. If on the same band, the
> amp remained engaged,
> if the target station was on a DIFFERENT BAND, the
> amp was sent to
> standby mode - and the B operator called the target
> station BAREFOOT for
> three calls - after which a decision would be made
> to bring the amp
> on-line to the new band.
>
> I listened to an hour of the log file and almost
> every radio B qso that
> I heard was made barefoot - rarely was the amp
> required to be switched.
>
> As soon as the RADIO B qso was made, everything was
> AUTOMATICALLY
> switched back to the original radio A settings - and
> the whole process
> took about 1 second to make the call, another second
> to make the Q (in
> terms of TRANSMIT time where the radio B op was
> actually interrupting
> the A ops rate) - and then the B operator would go
> on tuning for the
> next one.
>
> Out of each page of QSO's - black ones were from the
> RUN op, blue qso's
> were from the B operator and each page I saw had
> from
=== message truncated ===
"What a long, strange trip it's been"
The Grateful Dead
Truckin'
|