UU7J team reply on the US0LW "analysis"
So-called "analysis of the work” remembered us an anecdote:
Fight for the chair of President
An opponent declares in public: The Son of my competitor is a thief and drug addict!
His imagemaker is surprised: - But he does not have a son!?
The candidate replies: - While he proves it - I will win the Presidentship!
Lets just take a walk on this "analysis" and analyse it item by item thoughtfully.
1. What was the cause of this "analysis" in general?
2. Who is behind this?
3. What, in fact, are the goals that were set at the head of this venture?
We will talk on this later, let’s now be more specific:
We persist that the station, named in this "analysis", actually called us during the contest, and we are interested not less than the rest of the readers who is standing behind those callsigns.
1. About the "generation" of mults (new term invention?).
Here is part from the analysis:
7030 29.11.2008 0225 4L0A 599 FP/K9OT
7030 29.11.2008 0226 4L0A 599 5N3CPR
7030 29.11.2008 0227 4L0A 599 TT8JLB
7030 29.11.2008 0229 4L0A 599 VP2V/G6AY
With the run rate of 3-4 QSOs per minute the following callsigns did not attract our attention just because they looked familiar from the past contests or announcements.
The last one is questionable since he has not been heard for a while and then suddenly came back on the air without any announcement...
We did not pay attention that G6AY called us also on 20m, we have this contact in the log.
All these "mults" called us on CQ, time gap is 1-2 minutes. It puts some thoughts…
Multipliers worked in the third hour of the contest are not well remembered as in the second day of the contest as they were worked through the "wall" of calling Europeans it the beginning of the contest when mult station is busy seeking mults on other bands.
And what the statements like “Yes I did work in the contest but I did not call 4L0A (did not work at all; may be worked but threw them off the log and did not send my log to the sponsors), that is why I have so little QSO with them, but look, some have too many QSO with them” are worth? Who to call is the decision of an operator, and no one’s else.
About the QSO upward distortion, and what can be classified as a distortion.
Have the authors of the “analysis” ever asked the CQ WW Contest Committee which contacts can be classified as uniques and where does the criterion of the availability of a callsign in two different logs come from? Well, then (following the author’s logic) few thousand participants who made only a few QSO should also be considered as “uniques”.
There is NO evidence that those stations did not hit the waves during the contest. Therefore, we consider this charge as the calumny.
Then - let's talk about morality.
Number of QSOs with club members is a quite natural and predictable and sometimes it is even a pleasant surprise how many members of the club support their co-members.
On the eve of our trip to Georgia we had post the information about our team and QSL exchange rules in the club reflector. How many QSOs to make with 4L0A - is a personal matter for everyone! And nobody has the right to condemn this station which has, for example, QSO with 4L0A and no one else. There regulation criteria on the subject just does not exist!
The comparison of the number of Ukrainians and Moldavians who called ER0WW and 4L0A is irrelevant. You have to understand that for ER0WW the bulk of the ER and UR, unlike of 4L0A, on HF bands including 40m at night, were in a "skip zone"! Otherwise, we at 4L0A had no issues working that regions. Now Georgia is rare country for many amateurs including Ukrainian hams.
Actually, the most important question - and Oleg UU1DX answered it so good:
What are fundamental documents and materials for contest REFEREEING?
1) Rules.
2) Participants’ logs.
3) Reports of the contest committee representatives, if any.
4) Audio records, indicating the rules violation.
Primary document is the contest rules, analysis material is the logs. There were no committee representatives, also no audio record provided by the "analysts". Our log cross-checking shows all the QSO complying the contest Rules, QSOs with the alleged "Support Group" is a normal occurrence and are not prohibited. Other conspiracy theories, hypotheses, etc. are just the entire fabrication by the “avengers" to blow-up the sensation and hostility. We deeply regret that being faced a number of technical issues before the contest we had no time to implement audio recording of our operation, although it was not required by the Rules.
After the US0LW publication there was no doubt that the facts discussed above are the "chain links" of the "analysis" planned beforehand. Speaking plain it is just an attempt to cover our names in mud!
Our first reaction to the "analysis" was simple, a barking dog can’t stop a caravan travel. And wasting our time on such scribblers is not worth it. Most of the readers, we believe,
will make it clear for themselves, but considering all involved dirty tricks campaign
potential for discreditation us as competitors - made us publishing this letter.
It is pity to see what can be done by some amateurs in the struggle with their rivals
and that the HF sport now becoming more and more like an election campaign...
In fact, such things have never been seen before. So, be ready for more jar of "analysis" from unscrupulous competitors to be poured on your head as well...
Hrane YT1AD has said perfectly on the subject:
“I am asking CC and NS3T to publish complete information about these anonymous sources giving classified information. They include laptop weekend contesters travelling to rented locations expecting to be first in the world. Suspicions come from CC members who compete but can't be first all the time. I do hamradio contests and DX-peditions for my own satisfaction and on my own expenses. It is immoral for me to compete and judge at the same time!
I received few sick emails from anonymous addresses with personal threats and warnings. Lot of clans think that only they and their friends could win!”
Now lets go back to the issues raised at the beginning of this article. What is the cause of
this "analysis"?
In recent years, the relationships within the Ukrainian contest community are far from being clear. Almost annual Disqualifications in the Ukrainian Championship have resulted a big number of contesters dissatisfied with each other.
Ask us, how the author of "analysis" (we suspect that "the authors") is linked with all this?
US0LW also known as Igor Tokar’ - is a member of the UZ2M contest crew (which also took part in the past Ukrainian Championship as UR4MWC). The team was disqualified in the last 2009 Ukrainian CW Championship.
UZ7HO, alias Andrew Kopanchuk, is a member of UT3HWW team who were disqualified in the PHONE 2007 Ukrainian Championship on the protest submitted by UU4JXM (UU7J).
It should be noted that in the Ukrainian Championship UR4MWC and UT3HWW were DQed on the basis of facts, i.e. available audio records documenting their violations clearly, but not some kind of private analysis, assumptions and conclusions.
But in the 1st case the referees of Ukrainian Championship were the members of UU7J, in the 2nd – it were UU4JXM (UU7J) who submitted a protest.
That's cause for anger and revenge. Now think why US0LW chose 4L0A log for his “analysis”, rather than, say, choosing PJ4A or C4N, or just a log of any single op? It does look like squaring accounts, doesn't it?
Who is behind the scene and what are, in fact, aims at the head of this venture?
As it is now used to say, “according to the information from a source wishing to stay anonymous”, during the last 10 years CQ WW Contest Committee has been receiving letters requesting close attention to UU7J contest results.
If the YT1AD’s appeal to unmask the "anonymous sources" writing to the Contest Committee takes an effect, we think the emerged information will have the effect of a bombshell.
If the facts shown in the so-called "analysis" are still to be considered as "chemistry", then why the CQWW CC has not been DQing our team for many years (moreover, constantly receiving letters from "well wishers" with "hints")? Looks like there was no single reason.
Another reason for such "analysis" is an attempt to get the rivals out of the WRTC-2010.
In the past CQ WW PHONE 2008 the disqualification subjected only one qualifying division.
So why ONLY EU-4? Take a look at the list of WRTC candidates and you will surely get the answer WHO and WHY!
Minding some experience with CQWW CC we have not even started exploring the reason why the 4L0A log is not present in the results. We treat the contests as a hobby and we will prove our case by the contest activities.
We hope that with this article we have slightly raised the curtain, behind which the director of this show is hiding, and dispelled the allegations about US0LW’s impartial publication.
This is a war, a trite domestic Ukrainian war, and those little articles is just an attempt to square accounts. We are very sorry that this has impacted respectful HAMs not only from Ukraine but also from other countries.
73! de UU0JM, UU1AZ, UT5UGR
-----------------------
Al 4L5A's comment:
I should say the new computer technologies have significally changed the contest refereeing.
Contesters are pretty active and they submit protests to the contest committees quite often.
We are aware that CQWW CC is now examining some protests on CQWWDXCW 2008 results.
Storms are roaring not only in CQWW contests but also in RDXC, and the Baltic contest scandal is another one to be mentioned. We have been given a record of ES5TV operation in Baltic contest, you can download and examine it yourself ES5TV recording here.
Making any conclusions is up to you, but this record was the reason the Baltic contest rules have been changed.