My Apology

[fastcubesolver]

A few comments:

- Rowe was punished. His WR was scrapped and he forfeited his extra attempt.
- Confessing rather than being caught certainly does make a difference. People who admit they've done wrong are often treated more lenient than people who persevere in claiming their innocence in the midst of overwhelming evidence.
- Cheating with a WR as a result is not worse than cheating with a random time as a result. Cheating is cheating, whatever the result is. It's still compromosing the integrity of the results.
- In my opinion, the WCA responded adequately to the situation. They looked at the seriousness of the offence, took into account that Rowe admitted to it out of his own initiative, and made, in my opinion, the right decision. And this decision does in no way compromise the WCA's credibility.
- Competitions can only run smoothly when people are willing to help out with judging and scrambling. Saying that someone should never judge again and be punished for an honest mistake he made is just ridiculous. We should be happy with every person who is willing to help out and let him know when he's doing something wrong (or she of course).
- Have you ever been to a competition? If you have, you probably would have noticed that your suggestion of having tables to check who already got which scramble isn't possible. Scramblers have to rely on the judge writing the correct details down.

For all those who are disappointed by the actions taken by the WCA and believe Rowe should be punished more severely; are you completely blameless yourself? I don't think Rowe was the only who's made a mistake, who took advantage of the situation, knowing that no one would ever find out. He is however one of the very few who confessed. That is to be commended.

A few responses:

- Of course his WR was scrapped, duh. He's been lying about this for 4 years, I think he should receive further punishment for that
- true
- I would say that cheating in a WR has a somewhat larger effect than a regular non-WR time, due to it's publicity and effect on more people's times and such.
- the WCA has shown that they may not be taken seriously, this in my opinion somewhat damages their credibility.
- thinking that someone may not have another scramble due to getting a repeat scramble is far less than an honest mistake.
- also true, judges need to be trusted.

I love the World Cube Association. Cubing is my favorite passion. I do not mean to insult the WCA, this is just my view on the issue.

 

[tim]

- Cheating with a WR as a result is not worse than cheating with a random time as a result. Cheating is cheating, whatever the result is. It's still compromosing the integrity of the results.

A WR has a direct effect on others, though. Fast cubers start/stop practicing or approach their solves differently and risk not winning the competition. In contrast, a random 3:21 BLD solve usually doesn't affect anyone.

 

[qqwref]

He's been lying about this for 4 years,

It's not like he's been constantly going around telling everyone about his 52.27 since then. There's a difference between lying and not telling someone stuff.

the WCA has shown that they may not be taken seriously

What, because they were lenient? Think about it a little. If the WCA was more strict, and banned Rowe or something, future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. This gives people an incentive to be honest. The WCA's action shows that they care more about preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results than punishing people. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.

 

[MalusDB]

The WCA's action shows that they care more about preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results than punishing people. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.

Well said. I gotta say though leniency is one thing but basically getting off the hook completely for this is probably not "just" either. He should have all his times revoked I think, and start from scratch. Sure you can say that since he was honest about this that he would be honest about the others, but maybe it is to divert attention from him? The issue with all this is that we don't actually know, so preventative measures should be undertaken to ensure the integrity of the sport and the WCA itself is protected. But what do I know?

 

[fastcubesolver]

It's not like he's been constantly going around telling everyone about his 52.27 since then. There's a difference between lying and not telling someone stuff.


What, because they were lenient? Think about it a little. If the WCA was more strict, and banned Rowe or something, future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. This gives people an incentive to be honest. The WCA's action shows that they care more about preventing cheating and establishing trust in the results than punishing people. If you believe that punishing people is more important, you've got something wrong with you.

Lying by omission, then. So sorry.

Maybe they wouldn't need to come forward because they would not do wrong due to fear of being punished. Punishing someone shows others what will happen if they break the rules, does it not?

 

[Goosly]

Maybe they wouldn't need to come forward because they would not do wrong due to fear of being punished. Punishing someone shows others what will happen if they break the rules, does it not?

But if such a situation occurs again, it's easy for the competitor to take the advantage, and no one will ever know. So punishing means no one will ever confess this sort of events. Encouraging the confession seems to me a correct decision, keeping in mind the spirit of the WCA:

The spirit of the World Cube Association is that
people from all over the world have fun together in a friendly atmosphere, help each other and behave sportsmanlike.

I also believe that not being respected by people like yourself will be enough punishment for Rowe, as he stated in the first post.

 

[Eric79]

[...] future people in the same situation would never come forward about it - it would be much better to just keep it secret forever so you don't get punished. [...]

You could also say future people in the same situation know they can [try to] cheat without the fear of being punished. Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments? Of course, a "no punishments" statement like this might help some people to confess, but to others it might as well be like saying: "Whenever you get the chance to cheat, do it, cheat!".
In the real world punishments are not only to punish a misbehaviour that already has taken place but also to prevent future misdemeanor under penalty of those punishments. If you want serious events, there have to be strict rules that need to be followed - and if they aren't followed, if "mistakes" are made, there need to be just as strict consequences and punishments. Not having punishments and simply believe in peoples trustworthiness obviously does not work. It's plain naive as experience has taught. As said before, in my opinion the situation as is right now is quite ridiculous.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Way to step up, Rowe. That definitely took some maturity. I look forward to next year's rematch

 

[Sebastien]

Very clever Eric to talk as if the WCA Board had never punished a cheater.

@all: stop talking about the WCA if you actually mean the WCA Board. Everyone of you who has been to a competition is part of the WCA.

 

[Kirjava]

@all: stop talking about the WCA if you actually mean the WCA Board.

Why? It's obvious who they mean.

 

[MichaelErskine]

Why? It's obvious who they mean.

The World Cheerleading Association are confused by the peoples' confusion

EDIT: oh yeah, props to Rowe - good decision man

 

[Eric79]

Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater". Can't be my post: Actually I know quite well about some previous occurrences that got punished. So you must be reading things that aren't written. But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.

 

[rubixwiz031]

Sebastien, I don't know where exactly you read that "the WCA Board had never punished a cheater". Can't be my post: Actually I know quite well about some previous occurrences that got punished. So you must be reading things that aren't written. But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.

Hmm.... Can you please supply your source? I would be interested to read that.

 

[Tyson]

You could also say future people in the same situation know they can [try to] cheat without the fear of being punished. Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments? Of course, a "no punishments" statement like this might help some people to confess, but to others it might as well be like saying: "Whenever you get the chance to cheat, do it, cheat!".
In the real world punishments are not only to punish a misbehaviour that already has taken place but also to prevent future misdemeanor under penalty of those punishments. If you want serious events, there have to be strict rules that need to be followed - and if they aren't followed, if "mistakes" are made, there need to be just as strict consequences and punishments. Not having punishments and simply believe in peoples trustworthiness obviously does not work. It's plain naive as experience has taught. As said before, in my opinion the situation as is right now is quite ridiculous.

I just wanted to take a moment to point out that your argument here is fundamentally wrong. The idea that future people in the same situation can try to do the same thing without being punished? This is incorrect. The reason why Rowe's punishment is very lenient is because he's the one who came forward. So in order to have treatment similar to Rowe, the cheater would have to come forward. Which then makes no sense as to why you would cheat in the first place.

If someone cheated, and then was discovered by the WCA Board or another source, then it would be a different matter. Certainly some type of ban would be in place in that situation. But I still don't see how someone can look at Rowe's situation and Rowe's outcome, and benefit from it. If I'm wrong, let me know. But from my thinking, I feel that your argument is flawed.

But as you have kinda brought it up: Yes, in my opinion too few punishments are imposed for cheaters (judges as well as competitors) by the WCA Board - as I have partly indicated in my previous post already; which is part of what led me to my conclusion that things are ridiculous and WCAs(!) credibility is suffering.

Can you give examples of cheating incidents where you feel that there needed to be more punishment?

 

[mitch1234]

Good apology.

 

[Akiro]

It takes a lot of courage !

Respect :tu

 

[masterofthebass]

I apologize to Dan Cohen, who did in fact really win BLD at Westchester Fall 2008.

LOL

 

[rowehessler]

LOL

lol i thought you'd like that

 

[qqwref]

He should have all his times revoked I think, and start from scratch. Sure you can say that since he was honest about this that he would be honest about the others, but maybe it is to divert attention from him?

Do you understand what he did? He took advantage of a situation that is pretty rare. Suggesting that this means he might have cheated all his other solves is absurd.

Or, maybe future people would not get themselves into the same situation in the first place - if there were punishments?

This *is* a punishment. The time was revoked. And people shouldn't get themselves into the same situation anyway because the publicity of this will make us work towards eliminating repeat scrambles.

 

[Ranzha]

Kian's post sums all of my thoughts and more up.
Major respect for owning up to it. It must've eaten you alive. Forcing down stuff like that is gut-wrenching.