Sebastián Pino Castillo Clock WRs Invalid

[nlCuber22]

Man, this really is big. I can't believe the delegate of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.

 

[uberCuber]

am I the only one that actually lol'd when I saw the title?

 

[IamWEB]

Probably.

 

[caseyd]

and I saw the solve, hell that was really easy, it seemed like he was going slow to not make it so obvious

 

[Owen]

David Woner (6.25 Single) and Yu Sajima (7.53 Average)

Wait...

 

[Pedro]

Man, this really is big. I can't believe the delegate of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.

Well, the delegate is the only one (or should be) who could do this (cheating scrambles), since he is responsible for providing the scrambles.

 

[Sakarie]

In the WR thread, 09-27-2010, about that the delegate is supposed to bring the scramble:

Interesting point, Phillip! However we have other examples from the past, the rule which says the scramble has to be provided by the WCA delegate is quite new, so I'm assuming only Ron (and maybe Edouard) broke a WR with a scramble given (printed) by himself. So after Ron, Sebastián comes close second.

Obviously this is no reason for being suspicious, it's just an interesting fact.

Obviously...

 

[cuberkid10]

Cograts Woner!

 

[amostay2004]

Man, this really is big. I can't believe the delegate of all people would do this. I hope their cubing community and competition opportunities aren't hurt by this.

I totally believe people would do this. In fact I was wondering when a delegate would actually misuse authority to cheat. It's just too easy. Finally

 

[whauk]

where is the evidence?

 

[Rpotts]

The scrambles. I remember someone calculated the odds of the amount of skips he got in each scramble, and it was some extremely statistically significant figure, far less than 1%.

 

[whauk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl5cAhIrTQ
this guy got an LLskip. the chance for this is also way less than 1%.... enough evidence for "cheating"?

 

[Rpotts]

that's not the same. He had solved clock faces on most of his scrambles (which he generated.) It would be akin to having a 1x2x2 or 2x2x2 or 3/4 cross on every solve in an average.

 

[whauk]

as far as i see this is not impossible...

 

[Andreaillest]

Wow, what a pity.

Congrats to Woner and Yu for reclaiming their WR titles.

 

[Rpotts]

as far as i see this is not impossible...

obviously it's not impossible. But it's near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not intentionally manipulate the scrambles to his advantage. He was cooperative in the investigation, which to me means he admitted guilt.

 

[r_517]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl5cAhIrTQ
this guy got an LLskip. the chance for this is also way less than 1%.... enough evidence for "cheating"?

for a standard 14-step solve, it's likely to have 2-3 steps skipped if u have a very good observation as well as very good instant judgement (and sometimes luck). i would say a 5-step skip is as lucky as a LLskip
u could never PREDICT a 6-step skip and even without flipping the clock

 

[vcuber13]

But it's near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not intentionally manipulate the scrambles to his advantage.

i disagree, even if its only .001% it would happen one day and that doesnt mean they cheated

 

[RyanReese09]

Guys, none of us were part of the investigation, nor do we have any evidence that the board had to use to make their decision, so stop assuming crap.

 

[Mike Hughey]

This is one thing that makes me nervous as a delegate. I am fortunately slow enough at most puzzles that there's not much danger of me doing much damage as a delegate, other than BLD, so I don't worry about doing speedsolving scrambles. But I admit I'm really concerned about doing BLD scrambles, which is why I make it a point to have someone else bring the BLD scrambles. (As delegate, my responsibility is to provide scrambles, but I can do that by having someone else bring them.) I bring backups (in case the ones that were provided are bad somehow - perhaps the person I put in charge of it made a mistake or forgot them), but I'm thinking I might not participate if I ever have to use scrambles I've provided; I just don't want there to be any doubt about the scrambles.

It seems like we might finally be getting big enough that simply placing trust in the delegates to not cheat with scrambles may no longer be enough. Perhaps we need to find a better way to handle the scrambles. The only problem is, I can't really think of a secure solution. Does anyone have any good suggestions?