AUSTRALIAN SCANDAL FROM GLIDING INTERNATIONAL MARCH 2020 ISSUE

[johnhamish[_2_]]

1. The World Women's Gliding Championship staged at Lake Keepit in Australia concluded on January 17 leaving a rather nasty taste in the mouths of 9 of the 10 competing countries.

2 A collective protest from team managers saw the International Jury penalise all Australian pilots with 250 points each, materially affecting the final placings in the championships.

3. The Gliding Federation of Australia appointed a legal/knowledgeable pilot to carry out an investigation of their behalf. The 16 page report has been released with the conclusion that an appeal against the Jury decision is unlikely to be successful and so now world gliding has to wait for any advancement on the Australian policy or whether the situation is being accepted and they now move on. Officially Australia has penalised the officials involved with a severe five year restriction on activities.

4. Well meaning Australian pilots have been extremely vocal on their web site with a multitude of postings, some particularly nasty.

5. Since January 17, Gliding International has recorded all events, all emails, all reports and the adjudicators analysis. Gliding International having followed the unprecedented scene covers it in considerable detail, highlighting some of the emails posted. The jury report and the investigators report are in our 18 page article on the episode. The magazine is totally non judgmental on events. Only reporting known facts.

The issue also carries the stories on

* Schleicher new AS33
• Remarkable test flights of replica Wright Brothers Glider, and the Lilienthal Glider. Both flown together in Germany
• Airbus announce a new wing design
• How the Bush-fires in Australia are affecting gliding.
• Do you know why Glider wingspans are measured in metres?
• And an aircraft is being built with a totally new base material. First one half built. This is a scoop!
• Washington State University have announced that small manufacturing changes can double the life/power/storage of an existing battery. This is the break-through we have all been waiting for.

NEW OR RENEWING SUBSCRIBERS CAN EFFECT A SUBSCRIPTION BY VISITNG OUR WEB SITE
www.glidinginternational.com

[[email protected][_2_]]

Anyone have specifics, simply explain?

R

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 5:48:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Anyone have specifics, simply explain?
>
> R

Simple explanation is that a member supporting the Aussie team got the base data of the tracking system, which was designed and intended to provide data to all users with a 15 minute delay, in real time, and was able to make this data available to the Aussie team members. This can provide a large advantage
UH

[Stephen Szikora]

.... you left out the case for their defence ... the data was publicly available on the internet and any team could review it had they been aware.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:54:59 AM UTC-5, Stephen Szikora wrote:
> ... you left out the case for their defence ... the data was publicly available on the internet and any team could review it had they been aware.

Liar.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:54:59 AM UTC-5, Stephen Szikora wrote:
> > ... you left out the case for their defence ... the data was publicly available on the internet and any team could review it had they been aware.
>
> Liar.

Let me amend that. The claim that this was "publicly available" is a lie.

Public disclosure is what is reasonably required for information used during a comp. This information wasn't publicly disclosed.

T8

[[email protected]]

You can easily and legally purchase lockpicks online. What you do with them, however, may be illegal. Just because "everybody" can get lockpicks does not mean you can use them to circumvent the law.

Same with the tracking data.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 1:54:59 PM UTC, Stephen Szikora wrote:
> ... you left out the case for their defence ... the data was publicly available on the internet and any team could review it had they been aware.

So, the fact that everyone could cheat is a justification for cheating?

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 8:54:59 AM UTC-5, Stephen Szikora wrote:
> ... you left out the case for their defence ... the data was publicly available on the internet and any team could review it had they been aware.

The IGC implemented the time delay to minimize the possibility of tactical ground support via tracking. This was a deliberate act to circumvent the rules.
Tactical ground support through tracking has become a very important (critical?)tactic to achieve success at this level of competition. Many believe it has changed the sport in an unfavorable way, to the point where some competitors have decided to not compete. Some countries feel the same way.
Tracking is a way to allow spectators to enjoy the event.
IGC is trying to balance having good competition with spectator experience.
These actions threaten that effort.
UH

[Roy B.]

A few additional points to those UH also deserve mention.

First, the overarching Rule here is in Annex A, Rule 5.3: "The following limitations are imposed so that the competition shall, as far as possible, be directly between the individual competitors, neither controlled nor helped by external aid." The 15 minute time delay for tracking information (a form of external aid) was imposed to support that rule and its spirit. Anybody who found a way to circumvent that time delay knew - or should have known- that they were circumventing that Rule and the spirit of that Rule.

Second, there were procedures and methods by which a team having doubt about the propriety of a certain information source ( and passing that information on to its pilots) could have inquired whether it was permitted under the rules. Those procedures were not taken by the offending team managment - undoubtedly because they wanted to keep it secret and maintain a dubious competitive advantage.

Third, it is hardly a "defense" to a charge of unsporting conduct that others could have (but did not) engage in the same conduct.

Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team. They could not turn off their radios or "unhear" the information passed along (which may well have been useless to many of them). These pilots were penalized not because of their actions, but because of the bad decisions made by their team management. While the contestant point penalties seem appropriate as a sanction, the more severe sanctions on the team management seem particularly warranted. Their decisions tainted the contest for everyone, but particularly for their own team members.
ROY

[glidergeek]

"Tracking is a way to allow spectators to enjoy the event."
Apparently at the expense of the competitor whether they like it or not. Sounds well thought out.

[krasw]

On Saturday, 29 February 2020 18:55:40 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
> Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team.

Sorry but this is total BS. If you are a competitor flying WGC, you know the rules. If your ground team broadcasts what other competitors do in real time, you know very well that it is based on information prohibited by rules.. And if you do not call out the cheating right away, you become accomplish.. That's the choice these "real victims" made.

[Roy B.]

I disagree with you. It is not realistic to expect a WGC competitor - especially a new one - to overrule the judgment of the team captain or manager and "call it out" as you say. Particularly this is the case if the manager is "defending" the conduct. And, WGC rules (Rule 9.1.3) discourage individual protests and require protests to pass through the team manager. This is why the harsher penalties ( 5 year restriction on activities) was levied on the team officials.
ROY

[Jim Hogue]

On Monday, 2 March 2020 02:45:01 UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 February 2020 18:55:40 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
> > Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team.
>
> Sorry but this is total BS. If you are a competitor flying WGC, you know the rules. If your ground team broadcasts what other competitors do in real time, you know very well that it is based on information prohibited by rules. And if you do not call out the cheating right away, you become accomplish. That's the choice these "real victims" made.

The 15 minute delayed information was available to all competitors, so transfer of tactical information (delayed) from ground to pilot would be considered a normal activity. Perhaps the penalized competitors thought (or were led to believe) that the information they were receiving was the 15 minute delayed info, not the real time info. I don't know. I don't think it can be assumed that they knew that the info was real time and not delayed. Perhaps the Gliding Federation of Australia report might reveal if the penalized competitors knew they were getting real time vs delayed information. Is it publicly available?

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 3:45:01 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 February 2020 18:55:40 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
> > Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team.
>
> Sorry but this is total BS. If you are a competitor flying WGC, you know the rules. If your ground team broadcasts what other competitors do in real time, you know very well that it is based on information prohibited by rules. And if you do not call out the cheating right away, you become accomplish. That's the choice these "real victims" made.

Agreed.

T8

[[email protected][_2_]]

The purpose of Sailplane Competition is to compare pilots skills of interfacing with the atmosphere energy engine. This skillset determines efficiency which equates to speed. All of this identifies talent. This attempt to gain an edge thru deception leading to winning would be a hollow victory. What is the point of the competition?
The pilots are responsible for everything. I’m surprise they would go along with it. I would have forfeited if my ground crew pulled a stunt like this.
R

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 10:46:34 AM UTC-5, Jim Hogue wrote:
> On Monday, 2 March 2020 02:45:01 UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > On Saturday, 29 February 2020 18:55:40 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
> > > Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team.
> >
> > Sorry but this is total BS. If you are a competitor flying WGC, you know the rules. If your ground team broadcasts what other competitors do in real time, you know very well that it is based on information prohibited by rules. And if you do not call out the cheating right away, you become accomplish. That's the choice these "real victims" made.
>
> The 15 minute delayed information was available to all competitors, so transfer of tactical information (delayed) from ground to pilot would be considered a normal activity. Perhaps the penalized competitors thought (or were led to believe) that the information they were receiving was the 15 minute delayed info, not the real time info. I don't know. I don't think it can be assumed that they knew that the info was real time and not delayed. Perhaps the Gliding Federation of Australia report might reveal if the penalized competitors knew they were getting real time vs delayed information. Is it publicly available?

15 minute old tactical information is almost totally useless (that's the point). The exception would be finding out that a competitor had either become really badly stuck (low) or landed out. Other than that, who flying at this level would stand for the distraction?

Current info is a different matter.

It's absolutely inconceivable that the pilots didn't understand that they were getting current info. They are all smart, capable, highly aware of their surroundings and environment, that's why they are WGC material in the first place!

T8

[Clay[_5_]]

What is the purpose of allowing ground crew to share tactical info with pilots? Seems idiotic to me. Opens up a F1 style escalation of technology type situation.

[Roy B.]

I think it is important not to judge these pilots from the perspective of National, Regional or Provincial contest experience where the pilot is an individual self-directed entrant in the contest. At the WGC level, the FAI rules mandate that the Team Captain is the exclusive liaison with the contest officials. See Rule 3.3. Pilots are strongly discouraged (if not flatly prohibited)from communication of any type with the contest officials. Further, Team Captains and Managers are selected for their ostensible experience at the WGC level so as to guide the team and particularly new team members. The Team Captain at a WGC is not a "crew" who works at the direction of the pilot(s). More the opposite is true.

To suggest that a new member of a team should have disregarded their Captain's judgment and "call out" (in some unspecified way) what the team was doing strikes me as both harsh and unrealistic. That is not to say that the individual team members should not have been penalized as they were - because nothing else will prevent the misconduct in the future. Rather it is to say that the real culprits here were the Team officials who found the website, kept it secret, and used and forwarded the real time information to their pilots.
ROY

[JB Gunner]

On Friday, February 28, 2020 at 6:54:35 PM UTC-5, johnhamish wrote:
> 1. The World Women's Gliding Championship staged at Lake Keepit in Australia concluded on January 17 leaving a rather nasty taste in the mouths of 9 of the 10 competing countries.
>
> 2 A collective protest from team managers saw the International Jury penalise all Australian pilots with 250 points each, materially affecting the final placings in the championships.
>
> 3. The Gliding Federation of Australia appointed a legal/knowledgeable pilot to carry out an investigation of their behalf. The 16 page report has been released with the conclusion that an appeal against the Jury decision is unlikely to be successful and so now world gliding has to wait for any advancement on the Australian policy or whether the situation is being accepted and they now move on. Officially Australia has penalised the officials involved with a severe five year restriction on activities.
>
> 4. Well meaning Australian pilots have been extremely vocal on their web site with a multitude of postings, some particularly nasty.
>
> 5. Since January 17, Gliding International has recorded all events, all emails, all reports and the adjudicators analysis. Gliding International having followed the unprecedented scene covers it in considerable detail, highlighting some of the emails posted. The jury report and the investigators report are in our 18 page article on the episode. The magazine is totally non judgmental on events. Only reporting known facts.
>
> The issue also carries the stories on
>
> * Schleicher new AS33
> • Remarkable test flights of replica Wright Brothers Glider, and the Lilienthal Glider. Both flown together in Germany
> • Airbus announce a new wing design
> • How the Bush-fires in Australia are affecting gliding.
> • Do you know why Glider wingspans are measured in metres?
> • And an aircraft is being built with a totally new base material.. First one half built. This is a scoop!
> • Washington State University have announced that small manufacturing changes can double the life/power/storage of an existing battery. This is the break-through we have all been waiting for.
>
> NEW OR RENEWING SUBSCRIBERS CAN EFFECT A SUBSCRIPTION BY VISITNG OUR WEB SITE
> www.glidinginternational.com

they cheated got caught and complain? pathetic.

[krasw]

On Monday, 2 March 2020 21:05:34 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
>
> To suggest that a new member of a team should have disregarded their Captain's judgment and "call out" (in some unspecified way) what the team was doing strikes me as both harsh and unrealistic.

[BS intensifies]

So cheating is kind of ok if it's done by your team captain and you are kind of new to this game and don't kind of have courage to speak up. Well I guess that paragraph should be added to Annex A right away then. Sometimes it's just hard to believe what I'm reading here.

[[email protected]]

I wasn't there, but I can almost guarantee you that the other countries were listening in on the Aussie frequency. So they had the same info.
UNLESS the Aussies were frequency hopping, that would make it pre-meditated and the Aussies should be penalized

[Jim Hogue]

Allow me to clarify. This was unsportsmanlike and cheating, they got caught and were all penalized and/or disciplined, thank goodness. I am just withholding my judgement on who did or knew what until I see investigation results.


On Monday, March 2, 2020 at 9:46:34 AM UTC-6, Jim Hogue wrote:
> On Monday, 2 March 2020 02:45:01 UTC-6, krasw wrote:
> > On Saturday, 29 February 2020 18:55:40 UTC+2, Roy B. wrote:
> > > Lastly, the real victims here are the Aussie pilots who were not part of team management and had no role in the decisions or implementation of the method and could do nothing except what they were told to do by team management. This is particularly true for the new competitors on that team.
> >
> > Sorry but this is total BS. If you are a competitor flying WGC, you know the rules. If your ground team broadcasts what other competitors do in real time, you know very well that it is based on information prohibited by rules. And if you do not call out the cheating right away, you become accomplish. That's the choice these "real victims" made.
>
> The 15 minute delayed information was available to all competitors, so transfer of tactical information (delayed) from ground to pilot would be considered a normal activity. Perhaps the penalized competitors thought (or were led to believe) that the information they were receiving was the 15 minute delayed info, not the real time info. I don't know. I don't think it can be assumed that they knew that the info was real time and not delayed. Perhaps the Gliding Federation of Australia report might reveal if the penalized competitors knew they were getting real time vs delayed information. Is it publicly available?

[[email protected]]

Well the whole situation is “ premeditated�. When racing turned into who could scam the most information (flarm location tracking, ground/managment relayed information, onboard active wx etc), racing became a different test; not one of pilot against pilot and pilot reading the wx, to one of information managment and who has the best information systems. One of the reasons many great fliers lost interest in this aspect of the sport.. In the end Sara still kicked all their butts doing it the Streideck way; fast efficient self knowledgable flying!!
Dan

[Stephen Szikora]

I wasn’t defending anyone or anything, just stating their position.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 8:49:48 AM UTC-5, Stephen Szikora wrote:
> I wasn’t defending anyone or anything, just stating their position.

[Dan Marotta]

What would make you "almost guarantee" that everyone would be listening
to the Aussie frequency?Â* Are the Aussies known to always cheat?Â* That's
not been my experience having made five trips to that wonderful
country.Â* Do you think it was "home team advantage" and therefore
everyone monitors the home team, no matter in which country the contest
is held?

Suck it up people.Â* You got caught, got your pee pees whacked
(figuratively).Â* Move on...

On 3/3/2020 3:54 AM, wrote:
> I wasn't there, but I can almost guarantee you that the other countries were listening in on the Aussie frequency. So they had the same info.
> UNLESS the Aussies were frequency hopping, that would make it pre-meditated and the Aussies should be penalized

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What would make you "almost guarantee" that everyone would be listening
> to the Aussie frequency?Â* Are the Aussies known to always cheat?Â* That's
> not been my experience having made five trips to that wonderful
> country.Â* Do you think it was "home team advantage" and therefore
> everyone monitors the home team, no matter in which country the contest
> is held?
>
> Suck it up people.Â* You got caught, got your pee pees whacked
> (figuratively).Â* Move on...
>
> On 3/3/2020 3:54 AM,
> > I wasn't there, but I can almost guarantee you that the other countries were listening in on the Aussie frequency. So they had the same info.
> > UNLESS the Aussies were frequency hopping, that would make it pre-meditated and the Aussies should be penalized
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

When I flew in WGC my team captain(wife Dianne) had 3 radios going all the time.
It was very helpful to hear stuff like "our friends are going in 5 minutes".. Now with sophisticated tracking, much more information can be made available, when permitted. She may have been able to tell us when they were going, but could not tell us where they were.
Additionally, there are other ways to communicate besides "public" radio.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, 3 March 2020 18:06:07 UTC+2, Dan Marotta wrote:
> What would make you "almost guarantee" that everyone would be listening
> to the Aussie frequency?Â* Are the Aussies known to always cheat?Â* That's
> not been my experience having made five trips to that wonderful
> country.Â* Do you think it was "home team advantage" and therefore
> everyone monitors the home team, no matter in which country the contest
> is held?
>
> Suck it up people.Â* You got caught, got your pee pees whacked
> (figuratively).Â* Move on...
>
> On 3/3/2020 3:54 AM, wrote:
> > I wasn't there, but I can almost guarantee you that the other countries were listening in on the Aussie frequency. So they had the same info.
> > UNLESS the Aussies were frequency hopping, that would make it pre-meditated and the Aussies should be penalized
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Not at all - But at a WGC you will see ground crews monitoring 4 or 5 different frequencies.

[mart]

Some more info.

Australian had access to life tracking data through a sub page on the tracking website. The page was not password protected and completely availible to everybody that knew where to look.

Other teams knew australia had life tracking data during the comp but that was no problem because they thought they had it through private OGN's.

At least 2 and likely more teams had access to live tracking data through private OGN's.

The IGC specifically didn't make having life tracking data illegal because it is so easy to get.

The rapport found thÃ*t the way Australia obtained the life tracking data was not illegal since it was publicly available on an open website but unethical because the teammember had worked with the website during other comps and knew about this point.

Australia would have likely used an OGN to get the tracking data as some the other teams did if they hadn't had known about this webpage.

Concluding, this was not cheating, other teams had or could have had the same information which is allowed by the rules.

The ICG rules that allow teams to obtain and use tracking information is the core problem.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2020 at 5:29:40 PM UTC-5, mart wrote:
> Some more info.
>
> Australian had access to life tracking data through a sub page on the tracking website. The page was not password protected and completely availible to everybody that knew where to look.
>
> Other teams knew australia had life tracking data during the comp but that was no problem because they thought they had it through private OGN's.
>
> At least 2 and likely more teams had access to live tracking data through private OGN's.
>
> The IGC specifically didn't make having life tracking data illegal because it is so easy to get.
>
> The rapport found thÃ*t the way Australia obtained the life tracking data was not illegal since it was publicly available on an open website but unethical because the teammember had worked with the website during other comps and knew about this point.
>
> Australia would have likely used an OGN to get the tracking data as some the other teams did if they hadn't had known about this webpage.
>
> Concluding, this was not cheating, other teams had or could have had the same information which is allowed by the rules.
>
> The ICG rules that allow teams to obtain and use tracking information is the core problem.

The way you are thinking shoplifting is just borrowing ...

[Auxvache]

Benalla '17?

[Tim Newport-Peace[_6_]]

At 22:29 04 March 2020, mart wrote:
>Some more info.=20
>=20
>Australian had access to life tracking data through a sub page on the
>track=
>ing website. The page was not password protected and completely availible
>t=
>o everybody that knew where to look.
>=20
>Other teams knew australia had life tracking data during the comp but
that
>=
>was no problem because they thought they had it through private OGN's.=20
>=20
>At least 2 and likely more teams had access to live tracking data through
>p=
>rivate OGN's.=20
>=20
>The IGC specifically didn't make having life tracking data illegal
because
>=
>it is so easy to get.
>=20
>The rapport found th=C3=A0t the way Australia obtained the life tracking
>da=
>ta was not illegal since it was publicly available on an open website but
>u=
>nethical because the teammember had worked with the website during other
>co=
>mps and knew about this point.=20
>=20
>Australia would have likely used an OGN to get the tracking data as some
>th=
>e other teams did if they hadn't had known about this webpage.
>=20
>Concluding, this was not cheating, other teams had or could have had the
>sa=
>me information which is allowed by the rules.=20
>=20
>The ICG rules that allow teams to obtain and use tracking information is
>th=
>e core problem.
>
There is a big difference between using OGN data where the identity of
gliders is hidden, and the Organisers undelayed data where it is not.

[mart]

OGN data is hidden if the flarm is set that way but it has a very easy, commonly used workaround. Someone at the end of the runway with an antenna that writes down registrations.

And no,it is not shoplifting, openly available data was used. It was specifically mentioned in the rapport that it was legal, just not ethical because he knew about the weakness.

I can't read their minds, but I presume their thought process was something like;" the IGC allows us to get tracking data and use it, therefore any legal means to get it is fair game". If any other team would have gone to the tracking website and found it, it would have been ok.

Personally i think that it was a bad decision from an incompetent jury and the IGC uses this to hide their poor rules. All of this has one victim, Jo Davis,who as a complete unknown beat all the worlds best female clubclass pilots.

[[email protected]]

Who built the unsecured tracking webpage? That is what I would want to know if I was IGC and handing out penalties. Was the webpage built by the team knowing it would not be found by other competitors but being unsecured the team would have an argument for innocence if caught?

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, March 5, 2020 at 5:29:31 AM UTC-5, mart wrote:
> OGN data is hidden if the flarm is set that way but it has a very easy, commonly used workaround. Someone at the end of the runway with an antenna that writes down registrations.
>
> And no,it is not shoplifting, openly available data was used. It was specifically mentioned in the rapport that it was legal, just not ethical because he knew about the weakness.
>
> I can't read their minds, but I presume their thought process was something like;" the IGC allows us to get tracking data and use it, therefore any legal means to get it is fair game". If any other team would have gone to the tracking website and found it, it would have been ok.
>
> Personally i think that it was a bad decision from an incompetent jury and the IGC uses this to hide their poor rules. All of this has one victim, Jo Davis,who as a complete unknown beat all the worlds best female clubclass pilots.

Some of us are a little mystified that the rest of us choose to conflate "badly hidden" with "publicly available". They don't look the same to me at all.

T8

[Nick Hill[_3_]]

On 04/03/2020 22:29, mart wrote:

>
> At least 2 and likely more teams had access to live tracking data through private OGN's.
>

Please provide your evidence to support this statement


--

Nick Hill

[mart]

All the evidence of the other teams having the same data are circumstancial..

Talk about the live tracking data was not hidden. Like pilots knew Australia had it, Australians knew other countries had it. The behavior of the teams was exactly like it, directly after briefing teams came together and then cars were sent away. Anybody with experience in high-level comps knows what that is for. This is the reason the IGC didn't ban the use of tracking data. Everybody knows it is happening.

The incompetence of the IGC representatives was stunning. The president didn't understand the issue, the jury member on-site was the spouse of a pilot and had never opened a jury handbook. The remote jury couldn't be reached until late and the total phone time for this complicated issue was less than 2 minutes. All rules of due process, times, etc. were broken to accommodate an early prize-giving.

We should be happy though, that nobody got killed due to this stunning incompetence of officials in what was likely one of the most dangerous competitions in gliding history.

[Mike N.]

Roy B.'s post of Feb. 29th quotes the applicable rule. The intent of the rule is also clear and easily understood.

It's also clear that if a method to circumvent the rule was discovered by a team manager, coach, or member, the honorable thing to do would be to notify contest organizers. So that no unfair advantage could be taken by any team. Thereby allowing the contest organizers to eliminate or mitigate the issue of the unsecured data.

I've never been in a competition, but the rule quoted by Roy on the 29th is easily understood. I don't need to have been in a competition to know that intentionally circumventing both the written intent and spirit of the rule is both unethical and dishonorable.

[Nick Hill[_3_]]

On 06/03/2020 00:42, mart wrote:
> All the evidence of the other teams having the same data are circumstancial.
>
> Talk about the live tracking data was not hidden. Like pilots knew Australia had it, Australians knew other countries had it. The behavior of the teams was exactly like it, directly after briefing teams came together and then cars were sent away. Anybody with experience in high-level comps knows what that is for. This is the reason the IGC didn't ban the use of tracking data. Everybody knows it is happening.
>
> The incompetence of the IGC representatives was stunning. The president didn't understand the issue, the jury member on-site was the spouse of a pilot and had never opened a jury handbook. The remote jury couldn't be reached until late and the total phone time for this complicated issue was less than 2 minutes. All rules of due process, times, etc. were broken to accommodate an early prize-giving.
>
> We should be happy though, that nobody got killed due to this stunning incompetence of officials in what was likely one of the most dangerous competitions in gliding history.
>

Were you present at the competition or are all your views based on
second hand circumstantial evidence?



--

Nick Hill

[Mike N.]

Reading, the evidence as discussed in the article and threads.
If I was a juror in a trial, based on the evidence presented, the conclusion I noted holds up.

It would be a viable question to ask if you are associated with or a supporter of the Australian team?

Your quote from above seems intenionally inflammatory and biased:
"We should be happy though, that nobody got killed due to this stunning incompetence of officials in what was likely one of the most dangerous competitions in gliding history."
Certainly at the least the above quote is very derogatory, if not inflammatory.

Anyway enough said. I'm not interested in responding further.