Martín Telésforo "4.41 single" DNF - Perry Open, Mexico

Do you think this 4.41 time should count as WR?

  • Yes (it should count)

    Votes: 13 3.8%

  • No (it should not count)

    Votes: 117 34.6%

  • Up to the WCA, but hopefully Yes

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • Up to the WCA, but hopefully No

    Votes: 188 55.6%

  • Do not care

    Votes: 15 4.4%
  • Total voters
    338
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh wow. But to be honest, who didn't expect this? It is makes sense based on the WCA regulations. If one person could cheat, exactly how many did is another issue. I mean of course only a handful of people used this advantage, and that most did follow the regulations, there is no way to know for sure who exactly did not follow the regulations. Yes what the WCA was forced to do was harsh, but it was the right decision.
 
Now I have never been to a competition, so I can't know for sure the frequency of regulation violations, but there exists a regulation which states (and I know it's been posted here earlier) that spectators cannot stand any closer than a 1.5 meter radius from the competing table or something like that, and from what I've seen on YouTube, people tend to spectate closer than that. And if there was some reason that a solve was fishy, rather than pulling out a real reason to disqualify it, one could claim "spectators were to close therefore the possibility of cheating is slightly higher" or something similar to that just to get rid of the times of whichever competitor it is who had done something suspicious. Which I could understand in the case of martins 4.41 single, but to disqualify everyone's times for that reason? I don't know...

I'm not claiming the above method of disqualification is what went on in the WCA today, but rather I am just trying to put it out there so people know it could be a possibility.
And obviously instead of the 1.5 Meter radius rule, it would be the rule of uncovered scrambles, and competitors scrambling cubes that they will receive in a future attempt, which is a MUCH more understandable reason for disqualifying, and I think is a serious issue.
 
JF1zl3 said:
there exists a regulation which states (and I know it's been posted here earlier) that spectators cannot stand any closer than a 1.5 meter radius from the competing table or something like that, and from what I've seen on YouTube, people tend to spectate closer than that. And if there was some reason that a solve was fishy, rather than pulling out a real reason to disqualify it, one could claim "spectators were to close therefore the possibility of cheating is slightly higher" or something similar to that just to get rid of the times of whichever competitor it is who had done something suspicious.
Click to expand...
That is a rule to make experiences better for competitors, not to prevent cheating. Unless there is evidence that the competitor is directly receiving instructions from the spectators, there is nothing wrong in this situation that is the competitor's fault. In the case of the Perry Open, the rules that were violated were rules that prevent cheating, not rules that make things go smoother, so that is why it makes sense to disqualify results for possible cheating.
 
qqwref said:
That is a rule to make experiences better for competitors, not to prevent cheating. Unless there is evidence that the competitor is directly receiving instructions from the spectators, there is nothing wrong in this situation that is the competitor's fault. In the case of the Perry Open, the rules that were violated were rules that prevent cheating, not rules that make things go smoother, so that is why it makes sense to disqualify results for possible cheating.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
sneaklyfox said:
It seems harsh because it feels bad for competitors who did not cheat and had no intention to do so, but it's appropriate.
Click to expand...

I guess this is partly the reasons why competitors are all expected to know the regulations well. There would have been lots of cubers with good intentions but out of everyone who saw what was going on, nobody questioned it or even admitted it until now.

Also this one blunder alone still doesn't fully explain how Martin cheated. It only explains how he got the scramble. At that point memorizing the optimal solution with a J perm isn't even enough to help a 17+ second cuber get a sub 5, which I feel was effectively demonstrated by Kevin Hays' experiment. He still must have stopped the timer early or collaborated with the judge or something silly. I'm curious because of course no one wants to see anything like this happen again.
 
immortalchaos29 said:
I guess this is partly the reasons why competitors are all expected to know the regulations well. There would have been lots of cubers with good intentions but out of everyone who saw what was going on, nobody questioned it or even admitted it until now.

Also this one blunder alone still doesn't fully explain how Martin cheated. It only explains how he got the scramble. At that point memorizing the optimal solution with a J perm isn't even enough to help a 17+ second cuber get a sub 5, which I feel was effectively demonstrated by Kevin Hays' experiment. He still must have stopped the timer early or collaborated with the judge or something silly. I'm curious because of course no one wants to see anything like this happen again.
Click to expand...

You mean it only explains how he may have gotten the scramble. Was he a scrambler for any of it? The talk about triple-X-cross and J-perm might have just sounded good but in reality probably it wasn't this at all. If he was scrambling possibly he could have remembered the scramble, figured out the inverse and practiced it until it was his turn to do the solve... but this is all just speculation again. I'm sure many people are still wondering what did in fact happen.
 
I think it is very likely that he simply mixed his cube into a "scrambled" position he was familiar with, and then put it down on the score card. Then, someone must have assumed it was scrambled and brought it over to him. (As the first WCA post points out, this isn't the first time that has been done.) The official scramble isn't one which can be easily solved in 4.41 seconds by a 17-average solver, but it's not too hard to think of a position he could solve in that time, especially if we assume he already knows the solution. The stuff about xxxcross, OLL skip, J perm, and so on was just an attempt by Martín to make the time seem more plausible.
 
I'm not surprised that none of the results of this competition are accepted as official. It seems that too much has gone wrong to accept the results. My concern is how do we know that the other competitions in Mexico and perhaps even the whole of Middle- and Latin-America have been following correct procedures? I know it sounds prejudiced, but I think it's safe to assume that Latin-Americans have a different and more relaxed attitude towards procedures than North-Americans and North-Europeans. It is therefore not unthinkable that what happened at Perry Open, is commonplace in competitions in those regions. The only reason that this has come to light now, is because of Martin. If he hadn't cheated, nobody would have known about this. Is this something that is being looked into?
 
hcfong said:
I'm not surprised that none of the results of this competition are accepted as official. It seems that too much has gone wrong to accept the results. My concern is how do we know that the other competitions in Mexico and perhaps even the whole of Middle- and Latin-America have been following correct procedures? I know it sounds prejudiced, but I think it's safe to assume that Latin-Americans have a different and more relaxed attitude towards procedures than North-Americans and North-Europeans. It is therefore not unthinkable that what happened at Perry Open, is commonplace in competitions in those regions. The only reason that this has come to light now, is because of Martin. If he hadn't cheated, nobody would have known about this. Is this something that is being looked into?
Click to expand...

Really?! The actions of a single person are enough to convince you that a whole region of the world should now be suspect? How is it safe to assume ANYTHING about Latin Americans given the actions of a single person? As mentioned before, the way Martin cheated is likely exactly the same way someone in America had a few years ago. Are my solves now suspect? I mean, I live in the same country as a cheater and Americans are fat and lazy to it's safe to assume that cheating is rampant here.
 
jayefbe said:
Really?! The actions of a single person are enough to convince you that a whole region of the world should now be suspect? How is it safe to assume ANYTHING about Latin Americans given the actions of a single person? As mentioned before, the way Martin cheated is likely exactly the same way someone in America had a few years ago. Are my solves now suspect? I mean, I live in the same country as a cheater and Americans are fat and lazy to it's safe to assume that cheating is rampant here.
Click to expand...

Because it seems like multiple regulations weren't followed at this competition and no one who was there mentioned anything about it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mayernikmatt
Martin Telesforo
Replies
2
Views
3,577
mayernikmatt
mayernikmatt
OtaMota
[WB] Stephanie Rose Martin 21.73 Megaminx Average
Replies
8
Views
675
BVCuber13
BVCuber13
OtaMota
[SAR] Leandro Martin Lopez 25.40 Megaminx Average and 22.98 Megaminx Single
Replies
4
Views
653
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
EvanCuber1
[SAR] leandro martin lopez 25.63 official average (megaminx)
Replies
3
Views
678
abunickabhi
abunickabhi
OtaMota
[WR] Leandro Martin Lopez 26.60 Megaminx Average
2
Replies
22
Views
2,138
precompsubwr
precompsubwr
Back
Top