• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

The WDC and Brazilian Community Rant. (See latest edit, final decision)

Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
420
Likes
269
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #1
To anyone coming from the final report: This was my initial rant towards the WDC calling for better investigations, transparency and a reopening into the investigation. Since these have been achieved and the final decision has been reached, the points in this thread have been retracted. You are more than welcome to read it and view my initial opinions.

Before I start this long rant, I'd really quickly like to say that this is not an "F*** this community" or "F*** this country" rant, all I am trying to point out in this post is how personal beef and WDC action has caused a countries cubing community to completely turn on one of their own members, and that getting lucky is NOT a crime.

You may have heard a few months back of the WDC banning WCA competitors for blindsolving incidents. To be clear, this post focuses on the second decision made by the WDC. I fully support the actions on the first decision, as it had clear evidence, but I am shocked, completely shocked, and utterly opposed to the decision made on the second decision.

Here is the text in question of the second decision:

"The WDC has also decided to retroactively DNF specific results of another competitor, who obtained exceptionally good results under unclear circumstances. Since the competitor in question failed to cooperate with the WCA Disciplinary Committee during the investigation, acted in an extremely defensive and suspicious way, and failed to present any sort of evidence or acceptable explanation, the WDC deemed impossible for these results to have been achieved in compliance with the WCA Regulations. The competitor has consequently been banned from any WCA Competition for one year. The WDC conducted a thorough investigation in this case, considering the opinion of top-level speedcubers and cooperating with multiple witnesses. The ban is conditional, though, since we are willing to reopen the investigation if the competitor decides to cooperate and provides the evidence that we requested. "

The competitor in question on this second decision is no other than our own @Fábio De'Rose, a respected blind solver on the r/cubers subreddit and here as well. As you can see from his reddit account /u/enigmagico, he has been working on blind for over two years and has worked his living ass off to get to this speed of 40-50 seconds at home with the uncommon 30-40 and the occasional sub 30. The results DNFed were most of his big blind solves, specifically his 5BLD SAR, and his almost NR 3BLD single of 28.xx.

Now, let's get into the dissection of the decision, and my own personal rebuttal, of why this ban is targeted, untrue, and slanderous.


First and foremost, the WCA states that the competitor "failed to cooperate with the WCA Disciplinary Committee during the investigation, acted in an extremely defensive and suspicious way, and failed to present any sort of evidence or acceptable explanation" Not true. He didn't refuse or fail to present evidence. He didn't have time. Failing to, and not having the time to, are much, many different things. Fabio didn't provide evidence because he was working and returning back to night school, where he was busy and did not have enough time to provide evidence to the WDC. Trying to manage almost 8 classes of work, AT NIGHT SCHOOL, is MUCH more important than writing a long email and many videos proving that he can solve a Rubik's Cube Blindfolded. A competitor also has the right to be defensive of their own results, which they got in legitimate circumstances, and also have the right to defend themselves toward the Disciplinary Committee. If the Committee treats this as being rude or suspicious, they can graciously dissolve or reform.

"The WDC conducted a thorough investigation in this case, considering the opinion of top-level speedcubers and cooperating with multiple witnesses."

Top level speedcubers my ass. According to a few inside sources that I won't name, the WDC initially only spoke to a few speedcubers, some good at blind and some not even top 25 or 100in blind. (DISCLAIMER: Edit: Was wring initially, It was a few speedcubers, not 1) If this is true, how the hell is this fair? And if this is true, as a followup, how do we know if the WDC is conducting other investigations fairly? Multiple witnesses apparently include judges, in some cases clueless, a delegate (who may or may not be biased towards other fast blinders in Brazil) and a few select competitors. I understand the witnesses part, but why, JUST WHY, would you only include only one or a few blinders? Include like 5 or 10! Let them have a say, not just one. After the Facebook drama however, they got more opinions from fellow blind solvers that were top level, which was one of the only good choices of this investigation in my personal opinion.

Another point that I should mention was that Lorenzo Vigiani Poli, the leader of the WDC, was completely rude and unprofessional to Fabio during the investigation. Here are some of the excerpts of the emails he sent with side commentary and responses.

Message 1 with side talk.

Mesg 1.PNG
Formal Response to that message
response to mesg 1.PNG
Message 2 with side talk (We both point our bias, which adds to a theory that the WDC conducts GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT INVESTIGATIONS).
Mesg 2.PNG
Formal response to message 2
response to mesg 2.PNG
Message 3 with some side talk and response. A good point to mention is that Lorenzo has decent blind results and should definitely know that multi is much much harder to do than 5BLD.
Mesg 3.PNG
Another thing from message 1, now on his 3bld single. A good rebuttal to his "headache" claim is that I mention that he could have gotten it after the solve.
Mesg 4.PNG
Here was his response:
mesg 4 response.PNG
I then asked him a little bit about Diego, with some side talk as well.
On diego.PNG
I also asked him about if he thought Diego reported him to the WCA out of spite and jealousy, and he said, quote "I don't doubt it"

Gonna have to spoiler this next one, but this is him talking about when the delegates asked him for reconstructions days after the competition, and accused him of faking them. Now, his comms are much different than other blind solvers, so of course they will be different.
Wall of text 1.PNG
Wall of text 2.PNG
COPY PASTING THE NEXT BITS DUE TO IMAGE LIMITS
lol forgot to complement that recon thing, when you come back read this:



[9:14 PM]Enigmagico:
What he said



[9:14 PM]Enigmagico:
The scrambler is sure about scrambling your cube correctly and you confirmed that you, indeed, received the second scramble. Therefore, the reconstruction that you sent is not what you actually did. My question at this point is: what did you do? Why did you send a fake reconstruction?


[9:16 PM]Enigmagico:
Given that you inexplicably took the liberty of blatantly accusing me of faking a reconstruction, let me approach this in parts, in order to ensure we are on the same page, but on a comparatively polite level. I will not take this as a personal insult at the moment, in hopes that what you actually meant was somehow lost in translation. "The scrambler is sure about scrambling your cube correctly."- As much as I am sure of my reconstruction I sent, so what exactly is your point? You seem to happily accept the the word of the person who scrambled as well as that of the runner who brought me the cube, trusting their subjective recollections of minor events nobody would bother keeping in mind for long (who even remotely thinks keeps track of multiple scrambled cubes anyway?), as well as taking into account what, and I quote, "apparently" happened (regarding the previous point). Having said that, I kindly ask you to please refrain from using such derogatory terms, as I would never address you, or anyone for that matter, in such a way.



[9:16 PM]Enigmagico:
"and you confirmed that you, indeed, received the second scramble." - As previously detailed, this happened days after the competition had ended. Keep the following in mind: What I specifically said to the delegate, after the competition was over is that if such was the scramble, such was my solution and reasoning to every decision taken during the solve, both memorization and execution-wise. "Therefore, the reconstruction that you sent is not what you actually did. My question at this point is: what did you do?" - Again my answer will assume you're minimally acquainted with blind solving: By using a fixed orientation and a predetermined set of algorithms, as well as strategies regarding various common situations (reorientation, move canceling to and from certain algs, cycle breaks, flipping and twisting pieces et al), I can detail to you what is my specific approach in regards to that scramble.



[9:17 PM]Enigmagico:
I was given the scramble many days after the competition had finished, so while there is not a single remotely plausible way of comparing it to my recollection of that specific time of the day (that is, I would not be able to claim that the scramble I was sent after the competition was over matches the one I received). Not having any other means of saying what the scramble was like (I rarely ever film my own official solves), my only tool at hand was the scramble the delegate provided me with when asking for a reconstruction. And that's what I did: I told him, specifically, that if that was the scramble at the competition, then I am positive I solved the cube in this specific way. Again I must emphasize: Had the delegate asked me during the competition, and ideally after the round had ended (or even during it), I would have discussed the matter at hand with him as extensively as he would deem necessary, in order to clear any possible questions accordingly. Since this did not take place until days after everything was over (and by then I had already been made aware of the possibility of a wrongly scrambled cube, by discussing the events with fellow BLDers), I'm not exactly sure as to what I should do right now, besides of course responding to your questions as thoroughly and politely as possible. In short, the events took place in the following order:



[9:17 PM]Enigmagico:
1. 3BLD R1 happens; 2. Shortly after, Diego asks me about one aspect of my solution. We discuss it briefly; 3. The competition runs as per usual; 4. Two days later (Sep. 18th), and right after results were posted, the delegate asks me for a reconstruction (7:18am); 5. He gives me the scramble (7:20am), upon seein his message I confirm I'll do the reconstruction (11:50am); 6. I do the reconstruction without a cube at hand. I was otherwise engaged at work and did it on a virtual cube (02:11pm) and he confirms receiving it (02:14pm); 7. I find some free time to verify with an actual cube and notice there's a wrong alg. I redo the reconstruction, confirm all is good and send it to him, asking to disregard the first draft (03:06pm); 8. He asks me if that's what I did on my 2nd attempt. I tell him, and I quote: "If that was the scramble, for sure it was my solution" (03:21pm); 9. Hours later, I had been made aware of the video and discussed the matter with fellow BLDers. We concluded it was most likely a misscramble; 10. I tell so to the delegate, that my reconstruction was indeed not matching the video, and as him what should I do (11:02pm); 11. He confirms that there's a discrepancy indeed, and he'd forwarded all information to the WCA and we should wait (11:08pm).



[9:19 PM]Enigmagico:
Again, I might be biased but I feel like even my mild explosion at him was somehow expected, but somewhat polite (that's how I perceive it, at least, and I could be wrong)
Edit: Here is Lorenzo’s Facebook Posts
https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-community-need-to-change.72029/#post-1308607


Text form of the Facebook posts: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...nity-need-to-change.72029/page-4#post-1308781

Needless to say, Fabio has appealed this outrageous decision and is currently waiting for a response from the WDC, which EDIT: has reopened the investigation according to @porkynator.

I am really pissed off about the investigation, in fact, really, REALLY pissed off, however, I'm also concerned about how the Brazil community is turning on this once friendly and trustworthy competitor. I present the following reasons:

1. He was almost restricted from entering the SA Champs venue, even though he was spectating

2. This was possibly triggered all because of personal beef and jealousy.

Starting off with one, yes, Delegates at SA Champs tried to prohibit him from merely entering the venue for SA Champs to SPECTATE!!! In any case, he should be treated as any other person interested in spectating the championships, allowed in. Apparently, he was told that he was not allowed into the venue to spectate, however, he was let in. This is unacceptable behavior from WCA Delegates. First of all, he is allowed to spectate under his ban, just not compete. If the delegates are ignorant enough to hate and speak out against a competitor and try to remove him from a competition that he has a right to spectate, they can give up their positions as well. According to the delegate website, the WCA Delegates responsibility is to make sure that, "All WCA Competitions are run according to the Mission, Spirit, and Regulations of the WCA" Spirit was definitely not monitored at the entrance by these delegates.

Secondly, we are pretty sure that this ban was only caused by a competitor jealous of the results Fabio was getting. I speculate this by one of his reddit posts, specifically where he got his 5BLD SAR. If you go into an old cache, you can see a comment where he lists Diego Meneghetti as an inspiration. Right after his ban, he was edited out. This is not a coincidence. He definitely had something to do with it. For context, Diego is the NR holder for 3BLD in Brazil. Looking at the decision, it looked like he became very suspicious and jealous of the results Fabio got in competition and decided to take measures to make sure he would not come back. If this did happen, this is f**ked up. You should be supporting your fellow competitors, not spreading slander and false claims to the organization that oversees it all. As well, his attitude had changed towards Fabio after the almost NR.

This specific case is why the WCA Disciplinary Committee needs change and reform, specifically to investigate in an unbiased way and to switch to an innocent until proven guilty investigation style, to prevent false bans for lucky solves like these. As well, this is proof that Brazil needs to change in terms of these competitors. What if an underdog comes out again and competes, they think he is cheating, and the ban him like what happened with Fabio? I hope that soon Fabio can get his competitive privileges back.

Feel free to post down below your thoughts, or anything I forgot to add. What do you think about this? I look forward to reading them.

(I have also invited Fabio to this thread to speak for himself. I hope this thread remains civil and follows the rules. Another side note, I am not trying to be angry or attack anyone, I am just criticizing the WDC and the Brazil Community for the way they handled this.)

Edit: Please read the post below for some more context and additions by Fabio.

Edit 2: Thank you for all the support! Added Facebook posts https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...-community-need-to-change.72029/#post-1308607

Edit 3: Some information has been edited due to some accidental false claims, which have been fixed. I’d also like to say to any mods reading this: This doesn’t break rules. I have the right to post my own opinions here in rant form just like any other poster. Even though some information may be false, I tried to uphold the truth during this rant. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

Edit 4: Here is a text form of the Facebook post: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/rant-the-wdc-and-the-brazilian-community-need-to-change.72029/page-4#post-1308781

Edit 5: To attempt to tip the bias wheel towards the center, refer to these comments to someone from the Brazilian community https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...nity-need-to-change.72029/page-5#post-1308873

Edit 6: Here is a response to the above from Fabio https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/...nity-need-to-change.72029/page-7#post-1308929

Edit 7:

https://drive.google.com/a/worldcub...TI8yOR6YwC2n8V5wBAGtLOPBNcff/view?usp=sharing

The WDCs final report has been released, confirming that the competitior cheated, and an extra year has been added to the ban.

First of all, I would like to thank the WDC for becoming significantly more transparent. I and the rest of the community greatly appreciate this.

Second of all, I will be retracting all points made in the thread. Even though some thing about the investigation could have been tweaked, after reading the report my standings have changed.

I apologize to the speedsolving forums for the controversy I caused. The point of the rant for transparency has been achieved in a since, but my points in defense of the competitor are now in retraction.

Please remain civil.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#2
I'll probably add some other points later, but some which might be of interest and perhaps give some extra context:

1) Re: Facebook drama

First off, When the ban was announced on the main page of the WCA, Kamil came to talk to me and asked if it was OK for him to post on Cyoubx's Friends (a huge cubing Facebook group), along with his thoughts on how the whole situation was handled by the WDC. I showed him parts of the email exchanges which helped provide some further context so he (Kamil) could form a more solid opinion on the matter - whether for or against me, it doesn't matter. I want to resolve this situation as much as anyone.

I obliged, as I also was (still am) frankly baffled as to how this situation has been handled. There was some community outrage, and the responsible part of the WDC was understandably questioned there. And while I agree that he has the right to defend himself and what he represents, his response was, to put it lightly, nothing short of absurd.

From alleging that I "decided to bring this matter to Facebook instead of properly appealing" (unbeknownst to him at the time, I was still in the process of gathering further evidence in my favor), to accusing me of faking solves on Youtube, this is definitely not the way I would expect a WDC official to behave publicly. I'll try to find the Screenshots and post them here later.

2) South American Champs

I knew I was banned (I mean, except for the fact that the WDC never notified me about this ban. I found it out because of the front page notice on the WCA website and simply assumed it regarded to me given who had posted it and the accusatory tone in which it was written), and I was (still am) in the process of appealing.

Edit: To clarify: I was exchangjng emails with the WDC and assumed that there would be a response to the latest one sent from me. There was no response: They banned me and posted a passive-aggressive note on the WCA website. In other words, I was expecting a bit more dialogue so we could reach common ground.

At first I didn't want to go to the SA Champs venue at all because I feared being mistreated there. After much insistence from friends, I went as a spectator and to enjoy the community aspect I'd always enjoyed (and to see Gianfranco at work, as a BLDer it would be a great experience and it truly was). I also figured that, since I owe nothing to nobody, and am 100% sure about being in the right side of the story, there was no reason to not go. Competitions are fun, after all.

Upon entering the venue, I was asked for my name by the receptionists. I gave it to them, and figuring I had paid the registration fee very well in advance, at least I could get my freebies (it was a cheap plastic cup and a promotional pen, lol), so hey why not.

Then this one guy rushed to me saying, on behalf of two delegates, that I was not allowed there. I said I wasn't there to compete, just to spectate but would very much like to hear this directly from the delegates - remember, I never had any official notification from the WCA regarding the ban. I explained to him, got the sake of context, that "documentally speaking", for all official means I was not banned - if I was, there would be some official document (email or whatnot) stating so. But I did not mean to cause a scene, or didn't want to compete. I just wanted to be treated fairly. No delegate came to talk to me after that. This guy whose name I forgot, said they claimed to be "too busy doing their job" to give me any sort of attention.

3) Confidentiality

The WDC official imposed me to keep all my communications with them in secret. Given how severe their accusations are, the sheer lack of actual evidence other than, and I quote, "the word of an experienced competitor" to back up their claims, I see absolutely no sense in NOT using those e-mails in a fair, legally legitimate manner, to build my defense, which naturally involves sharing portions of them with people of trust, which are far more knowledgeable and experienced than myself. Do I not have the right to a defense attorney, after all?

I have other stuff to take care of now, but I'd like to make it very clear:


- I do feel like this was a massive, disproportionate misunderstanding. Much was apparently lost in translation, with neither the WDC official's first language, nor mine, being English, with us being from different countries and cultural backgrounds on top of it. Therefore I excuse him for some of his poor wording (and do recognize mine has also, at times, been misplaced).
The way in which the WDC official behaved, by publicly accusing me on Facebook and offering no evidence whatsoever, yet seemingly abusing his privileged position as a trusted individual within the WCA to drive the public opinion against me was completely uncalled for.

- I also have a solid impression, on the other hand, that there is a considerable about of bias involved. As to why a fellow BLDer to whom I'd always been grateful for his support and insights would actively pursue tarnishing my reputation within the community (as humble as it may be), is is however beyond me. The fact this compatriot has messaged at least two world class blind solvers from other continents to try and push his personal views seems to confirm my theory.

So, I really gotta go now lol. I'm open for questions as long as people keep it civil. I'm more interested than anyone in sorting this out, and want to restore both my BLD results and right to compete as soon as possible. Always playing it fair and square - like I always did.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
948
Likes
581
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#4
When Kamil first posted in Facebook I was surprised at this whole thing and ticked, after reading lorenzo’s post I saw some reasoning but then after talking with Fábiano that all got thrown out the window. Literally the sole reason they banned him was not providing evidence that they already had, not only that but the evidence proves almost nothing. Also something that surprised me about this whole thing is that a delegate was never in the room where the 4bld and 5bld solve occurred when
“The primary duty of a Delegate is to oversee competitions on behalf of the WCA. A WCA Delegate is responsible for making sure that all WCA Competitions are run according to the Mission, Spirit, and Regulations of the WCA.”
Kind of hard to oversee the comp and make sure the regs are being followed when you aren’t even there.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#7
Here's the Facebook posts from the WDC official that I mentioned.

Disclaimer: I don't know whether the original thread on Cyoubx's Friends is still available.

The most baffling portion of this, IMO, is when he literally says "(...) I have no proof, this is just speculation", which shows the ban was solely based on his perception on my "defensive attitude" and the unfounded claims of mysterious witnesses, whose legitimacy and motives have somehow never been questioned by the WDC.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1M_1O3RuCXIppw9yRhB3NdVwFH65l6Pl9

Edit: link is hopefully fixed now

Also, in regards to his claims that I "refused to cooperate" and said I "rested my case", seeing no point on providing the requested evidence, clarifications must be made:

This pertains specifically to a series of repeated questions from him. He had asked me to describe a number of situations, which I did in as much detail as I possibly could. Unsatisfied with my responses, he said, and this is a direct quote from one of his e-mails:

Please, tell us what really happened at the competition. I know it’s a longshot to ask again, but I hope you’ll reconsider your position. There is no point in lying, because I have solid evidence that things didn’t go as you say. And this is a fact.
This was before the FB post linked above, where he says he has no proof. What he calls "solid proof" is simply the word his mystery witnesses.

It also specifically pertains to this portion of one of our email exchanges. He says [excerpt], with regards to a misscramble I received:

"and you confirmed that you, indeed, received the second scramble."
To which I responded

As previously detailed, this happened days after the competition had ended. Keep the following in mind: What I specifically said to the delegate, after the competition was over is that if such was the scramble, such was my solution and reasoning to every decision taken during the solve, both memorization and execution-wise.
And his counter-argument was this:

No, you confirmed that you received the correct scramble at the competition, when Diego showed it to you and when you confirmed that you indeed solved that specific scramble in front of multiple witnesses
.

And my response, in turn, was the following:

> I have exhausted this matter throughout this and (mostly) the other email. No further comments.
As you see, I saw no point in repeating what I had already said, and could be read in full context on previous e-mails.

He had also requested me to film videos of myself doing 3BLD 4BLD, 5BLD solves - execution only. Not only did I not, at the time, have the availability (in regards to quality time at home to make something decent) to do it, but I also assumed that my YouTube videos, where one could see me do full featured blind solves, would suffice. After all, those had been posted long before any of this drama started, which simply adds to the fact I had already shown my capabilities as a blind solver while not being affected by a situational bias.

Full disclaimer, it didn't occur to me at the time that I did not in fact have 5BLD solves on cam. This was way before his tirade on Facebook where he thinks my videos are somehow faked.

Edits: formatting
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
420
Likes
269
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #9
Nice article, what will the WCA do if they read this?
Hopefully

1. The WDC can reopen the case and unban Fabio
2. The Board can investigate the handling of the case.
3. Best case scenario, all of the above
4. All of the above plus a reform of the WDC.

Also, thank you everyone for the support! I really appreciate us coming together as a community on this issue.

Edit: Also, share this everywhere. Share this with your cubing friends, your delegate, make videos, I don’t care. The community needs to know how the WDC acts in their investigations.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#10
Nice article, what will the WCA do if they read this?
It's worth mentioning that I have recently asked them whether there's any news, and my formal appeal has been sent to the board of directors as well, so they're well aware of this.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,244
Likes
389
Location
Belluno, Italy
WCA
2011TRON02
YouTube
PorkyDays
#11
Background: I was contacted by Lorenzo to help him investigate on this case. He only gave me the necessary information (Fabio's times in competition, including the DNFs, and Fabio's reply on the questions about the methods he uses and what are his average times at home). I didn't have access to all of the emails that the WDC exchanged with Fabio. I have done my best to make an objective analysis and give an unbiased opinion in the end.

I think there are quite a lot of false facts in the OP, I will try to reply to some of them.

First and foremost, the WCA states that the competitor "failed to cooperate with the WCA Disciplinary Committee during the investigation, acted in an extremely defensive and suspicious way, and failed to present any sort of evidence or acceptable explanation" Not true. He didn't refuse or fail to present evidence. He didn't have time. Failing to, and not having the time to, are much, many different things. (...)
How do you know this is not true? Is it just Fabio's word against Lorenzo's? As I have said, I don't have access to all of the emails, but it seems to me that your opinion is based on the excerpts that Fabio showed you, and on the reasons he gave for not replying. How do you know this is the full story?

"The WDC conducted a thorough investigation in this case, considering the opinion of top-level speedcubers and cooperating with multiple witnesses."

Top level speedcubers my ass. According to a few inside sources that I won't name, the WDC only spoke to one speedcuber who is not even top 25 in blind. (DISCLAIMER: May be wrong) If this is true, how the hell is this fair? And if this is true, as a followup, how do we know if the WDC is conducting other investigations fairly? Multiple witnesses apparently include judges, in some cases clueless, a delegate (who may or may not be biased towards other fast blinders in Brazil) and a few select competitors. I understand the witnesses part, but why, JUST WHY, would you only include only one or a few blinders? Include like 5 or 10! Let them have a say, not just one.
Thank you very much. As I said, I was contacted, so you are wrong. I don't know who else was contacted at first, except me and Diego Meneghetti, but after the "facebook drama" many more top-level blinders were contacted (and proper top-level this time, not just crappy European blinders like me).

Another point that I should mention was that Lorenzo Vigiani Poli, the leader of the WDC, was completely rude and unprofessional to Fabio during the investigation. Here are some of the excerpts of the emails he sent with side commentary and responses.
I hope you realize how bad it is to accuse the leader of the WDC of being unprofessional based only on some excerpts that a competitor under investigation sent you to defend himself.

Needless to say, Fabio has appealed this outrageous decision and is currently waiting for a response from the WDC, which has ignored his appeal.
This is again false. As I have said, the WDC has reopened the investigations.

The most baffling portion of this, IMO, is when he literally says "(...) I have no proof, this is just speculation".
As far as I know, he meant that he has no proof of *the exact way* you cheated, not that you did so. I find it quite dishonest that you keep snipping his sentences out of context.



I don't want to accuse Fabio of cheating or defend Lorenzo's (not yet final) decision here. Fabio has the right to defend himself (and he can appeal to WEC if he thinks that the investigation was not handled properly). I just want to defend Lorenzo and the rest of the WDC from your (weatherman222's) accusation, which is mainly based on lies and other people's (i.e. Fabio's) version of the story. For this reason, I have reported the OP.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
420
Likes
269
Location
Colorado Springs
WCA
2017MILL04
Thread starter #12
Background: I was contacted by Lorenzo to help him investigate on this case. He only gave me the necessary information (Fabio's times in competition, including the DNFs, and Fabio's reply on the questions about the methods he uses and what are his average times at home). I didn't have access to all of the emails that the WDC exchanged with Fabio. I have done my best to make an objective analysis and give an unbiased opinion in the end.

I think there are quite a lot of false facts in the OP, I will try to reply to some of them.



How do you know this is not true? Is it just Fabio's word against Lorenzo's? As I have said, I don't have access to all of the emails, but it seems to me that your opinion is based on the excerpts that Fabio showed you, and on the reasons he gave for not replying. How do you know this is the full story?



Thank you very much. As I said, I was contacted, so you are wrong. I don't know who else was contacted at first, except me and Diego Meneghetti, but after the "facebook drama" many more top-level blinders were contacted (and proper top-level this time, not just crappy European blinders like me).



I hope you realize how bad it is to accuse the leader of the WDC of being unprofessional based only on some excerpts that a competitor under investigation sent you to defend himself.


This is again false. As I have said, the WDC has reopened the investigations.


As far as I know, he meant that he has no proof of *the exact way* you cheated, not that you did so. I find it quite dishonest that you keep snipping his sentences out of context.



I don't want to accuse Fabio of cheating or defend Lorenzo's (not yet final) decision here. Fabio has the right to defend himself (and he can appeal to WEC if he thinks that the investigation was not handled properly). I just want to defend Lorenzo and the rest of the WDC from your (weatherman222's) accusation, which is mainly based on lies and other people's (i.e. Fabio's) version of the story. For this reason, I have reported the OP.
I’m on mobile so apologies for the weird formatting and potential spelling mistakes.

First of all, I would like to post my right to express my own opinions and what I view as factual information to the speedsolving community. You may not think the information in here is true and you have the right to side with the WDC here.

After looking into it, I’m pretty sure what happened was a few blinders were contacted first, then many more. I will edit this part of the OP to reflect this.

Secondly, I only used excerpts with correct context to avoid sharing full WDC communications. I hope this is made clear. I’ve also posted Facebook posts into the OP (link to a post with them) and these still prove my point.

Third, as of writing, Fabio had never received a response. I will once again edit the OP to reflect that the WDC is reopening the investigation (the best course of action here)

Lastly, I did not control the last post you quoted, but it definitely came off of translation that way to me. He is keeping his sentences in the utmost context he can.

As well, he has submitted a multi page appeal to the WCA Board along with the ethics community on this, with the support of other cubers and blinders. I am not “accusing” I am simply criticizing how the investigation was held, and am not lying. I trust Fabio and have always for the past year. I am not promoting lies here
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2010
Messages
1,244
Likes
389
Location
Belluno, Italy
WCA
2011TRON02
YouTube
PorkyDays
#14
@porkynator

So, what is your opinion. Are Fabio's results reasonable? Why, or why not?
3BLD: I think a sub-30 for Fabio is only possible on a lucky scramble performed at his best. So in the best case scenario he received a misscramble. I think Fabio tried to cover up the fact that he received a different scramble, in order to keep his result (I am not blaming him for doing so at the competition, I know that getting your best solve DNFed can be very hard to accept).

5BLD: I think a sub-10 solve is not possible for Fabio, considering the (DNF) times he had at the same and the following competition (4BLD and 5BLD), and taking into account what methods he claims to use for memo and execution.

I know also a 4BLD solve (6:xy) was DNFed. I have no particular opinion on this result. His other times at the competition were much slower, but I deem possible (although a bit strange) that he actually got that time. This only becomes truly suspicious when considering that similar cases happened for 5BLD and 3BLD.

And why were "many more top-level blinders" only contacted after the facebook-drama.
The people that were contacted at first all agreed with Lorenzo's opinion, so he did not consider necessary asking more people, as he just thought everyboy would say the same. After that, he has contacted both people that openly defended Fabio and people who did not express their opinion before (or did not now about the incident at all).
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
443
Likes
582
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
WCA
2016DERO04
YouTube
Bigodon
#16
Hi @porkynator, I appreciate you taking your time to clear up your side of the story.

To address some of your points,

3BLD: I think a sub-30 for Fabio is only possible on a lucky scramble performed at his best. So in the best case scenario he received a misscramble.
I disagree, having had a handful of sub 30s at home, even with regular scrambles. My major hinderances are, by a very wide margin, related to nerves and execution.


I think Fabio tried to cover up the fact that he received a different scramble, in order to keep his result.
That is simply not true, but I understand your opinion and where it might come from. Through the e-mail exchanges with the WDC, I never denied the plausibility of a misscramble and at any moment did I challenge their decision of retroactively DNFing this specific result - in fact this was made even clearer during the appeal. My only concern is how it was handled by the delegate at the competition (as explained above, but I can provide further details if needed).

This is again false. As I have said, the WDC has reopened the investigations.
They have only repeoned the investigation because I appealed, so this is not false - I formally appealed with the help of actual world class blind solvers, and only then the investigation was reopened.


5BLD: I think a sub-10 solve is not possible for Fabio, considering the (DNF) times he had at the same and the following competition (4BLD and 5BLD), and taking into account what methods he claims to use for memo and execution.
As far as I know, and I might be wrong here, the execution and memorization methods that I employ are the exact same as pretty much anyone who does BigBLD.

Your opinion also seems to diametrically differ from that of actual experts that I consulted, all within the top 5 WR for all BLD events, so if you could clarify your reasoning a bit more it would be nice. Again, I understand your opinion, and would say that you're simply misinformed instead of "wrong", but that's my personal perception and should not be taken as an offense, please.

Fot context, and full disclosure: I do not use full 3Style yet for big cubes. And I have had, however, times as low as 3 minutes on 4x4 BLD by employing the most basic methods of execution for most piece types.

In regards to the time discrepancy between the two competitions in question: This was explained and thoroughly xontextualized in the email exchanges with the WDC, but in short: The competitions happened months apart, a period during which I had barely practiced at all (compared to my unhealthy, obsessive pre-Nationals training regimen) paired with external factors which contributed to a performance that was nowhere close to my full potential.

I know also a 4BLD solve (6:xy) was DNFed. I have no particular opinion on this result. His other times at the competition were much slower, but I deem possible (although a bit strange) that he actually got that time. This only becomes truly suspicious when considering that similar cases happened for 5BLD and 3BLD..
Shortly put: My first attempt was a safety solve, DNF. Second attempt (16min~) was also evidently very much safe, in regards to memo and execution. When I got a success, then I went full-blast, all or nothing, given my podium was already secured. Nerves hit me and I had some hiccups, but 6 minutes on 4BLD was not even that good for my personal standards.

I should also mention that, like I told the WDC, all my results at Nationals - especially my 5BLD SAR, have been validated by not one, but three separate delegates.

II suppose that's all I have to comment for now, feel free to ask anything you want to know.


Edit: Forgot to address this point:

As far as I know, he meant that he has no proof of *the exact way* you cheated, not that you did so. I find it quite dishonest that you keep snipping his sentences out of context.
He has not provided any proof at all. He simply suspects of cheating, and never provided any evidence or reasonable ground for this argument.

I have also provided full context from where he was quoted. If you cannot for some reason visualize the images for yourself, please let me know and I'll upload them elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
948
Likes
581
Location
Utah
WCA
2016BAIR01
#20
Unfortunately I don’t have the email, only the excerpts posted above. Fabio can post it but he might get into hot water with the WDC if he does.
They never said in the emails that he has to keep it private, and lorenzo and you have already said plenty about the emails so I don’t see why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edit: actually probably best to not risk fabiano getting in more trouble :p once the WDC makes a final decision to the appeal I can post this I think
 
Last edited:
Top