AUSTRALIAN SCANDAL FROM GLIDING INTERNATIONAL MARCH 2020 ISSUE

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 ...

Benalla '17?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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