Incident at Perry Open 2013

Tyson (2013-06-07 05:50:20 +0000)
Dear WCA Community, This notice is in regards to the Perry Open 2013 competition held in Distrito Federal in Mexico on May 25, 2013 with Uriel Gayosso Ruiz acting as WCA delegate. During the first round of the 3x3x3 speed solve competition, competitor Julio Martín Gómez Telésforo (2011TELA01) recorded the following average of five solves: (4.41), (18.90), 14.71, 18.68, 16.53. The IAC completed its own independent investigation of this incident and the competitor (2011TELA01) confirmed to the IAC that his solution for the 4.41 second solve was: x2 U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B' U' U B' + J-permutation where a J-permutation is a case that can be solved with R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L. As reported to the WCA by the IAC on May 31, 2013, the competitor insisted that he solved the cube in this manner. The scramble of the solve in question as reported by the WCA delegate is: F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2 The competitor reports his solution to the above scramble to be: x2 + [moves improvised by competitor] + J-permutation By applying a J-permutation before the scrambling sequence, we have the following sequence: (R U2 R' U' R U2 L' U R' U' L) x2 (F2 D2 B2 F2 R F2 L' D2 B U B2 R' F2 U' F' D' L D2) x2 The solution to this state produces a sequence of moves that solves the original scramble into a J-permutation. The optimal solution found by Cube Explorer for this sequence is: U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B2 (17f*) and the improvised moves reported by the competitor are: U' R D F2 R L B' D2 L U' B2 U F' L' U2 D' B' U' U B' which is identical to the optimal solution found with some minor adjustments made at the end. The solution presented here is suspicious in several regards. First, the solve does not match previous descriptions of the solution made by the competitor after the competition. Second, the solve matches output from an optimal solving software, does not resemble any known solving method, and does not have any logical flow. Finally, the solve proposed does not seem amenable to executing in under 4.41 seconds, as claimed by the competitor, due to multiple turns on each face of the cube. Given this information, we find that the competitor did not solve the WCA generated scramble for the round in question in 4.41 seconds by either the solution presented here or by any other solution. The WCA finds that competitor Julio Martín Gómez Telésforo (2011TELA01) has maliciously exploited the WCA and the organizers of Perry Open 2013 and declares that the 3x3x3 speed solve in 4.41 seconds is invalid and will be recorded as a DNF. Due to the dishonesty of the competitor, and the attempted exploitation of Perry Open 2013 and the WCA by the competitor, the WCA prohibits the competitor Julio Martín Gómez Telésforo (2011TELA01) from participating in any WCA events through December 31, 2015. The WCA urges all WCA delegates and organizers to remain vigilant in their tournament operations. The WCA thanks the IAC for its diligent work, and to the community members who supported the IAC's investigation. Regards, Tyson Mao World Cube Association Board Member Supported by: Ron van Bruchem, Sébastien Auroux, Timothy Reynolds, and the WCA Delegates
cheng943china (2013-06-07 17:57:47 +0000)
In my opinion, IAC and WCA board should also consider if the delegate did his job right. Base on the below explanations: How a competitor could do this(4.41 case)? I think there are only two ways: 1. He got the scramble sequences before the competition(round); 2. He used software(device) during the round. There's only 15 sec for inspection, which I mean the regulation of 'inspection' was not carried out completely and strictly. The delegate should be responsible for either of these two possibilities. And the reason why: 1. Delegate assisted this competitor cheat; 2. The carelessness. Suppose the competitor didn't make a 4.41 but a 9.** or 8.**. I think maybe no one would doubt that result and therefore a cheated result was given recognition and became legally. It's terrible! And after some similar incidents, a lot of competitor will not believe the results, the rankings any longer. In conclusion, the delegate of this competition needs to be investigated too. I also suggest WCA cancel the qualification of the delegate temporarily.
Sebastien (2013-06-08 13:36:25 +0000)
Dear Anonymous, thanks for your comment. Up to this point in time, the IAC and the WCA Board have only fully evaluated the "4.41" case. Investigations about the whole competition Perry Open 2013 are still in progress. Best regards, Sébastien
cheng943china (2013-06-08 16:54:21 +0000)
Dear Sébastien: Sorry, forgot sign my name. I appreciate the IAC's works. And I think all cubers have responsibilities in making contributions to the fair for competitions so I gave the above suggestions. Cheng.
CSaroff (2013-06-10 01:17:14 +0000)
I think a lot of people would like to know how Tel`esforo pulled this off. Also, I personally would like to see regulations amended to help prevent this sort of cheating from happening . As a competitor, I really want competitions to be as fair as possible. Saroff (since everyone is signing their names)
Tim (2013-06-16 17:35:20 +0000)
Dear community, During the investigation of the incident at the Perry Open, the WCA Board found evidence that the WCA Regulations were not correctly followed. There were two specific problems we discovered: 1. Competitors were acting as judges and scramblers before competing in that round. While this is standard practice in many competitions, it is only acceptable when there are multiple groups with different scrambles. In this case, only one set of scrambles was generated for every event, so competitors competed using the same scrambles that they had previously seen while judging or scrambling. This violates regulation: [quote:18va0ahv]1h1) Scramblers and judges for a round should not scramble for/judge competitors in their own group before they have finished all of their attempts for the round. They may scramble for/judge competitors in their own group at the discretion of the WCA Delegate, but the organisation team must ensure that scramblers and judges cannot see any scrambles for their attempts that they have not attempted yet.[/quote:18va0ahv] 2. Scrambled cubes sitting on the scrambling table were left uncovered, and competitors were able to stand near the scrambling table and see these cubes. This violates regulations: [quote:18va0ahv]4b2) Scramble sequences for a round must be available only to the WCA Delegate and the scramblers for the event, until the end of the round.[/quote:18va0ahv] [quote:18va0ahv]A2c1) The scrambler places a cover over the scrambled puzzle that makes it impossible for any competitors or spectators to see any part of the puzzle. The cover remains over the puzzle until the beginning of the attempt.[/quote:18va0ahv] After discussion with Uriel Gayosso Ruiz, the WCA Delegate at this competition, we have decided that no solves from this competition will be accepted as official. The WCA Regulations exist as standards of fairness for all competitions, and these standards were not met. The WCA cannot guarantee that competitors did not gain unfair advantage because of those irregularities. We remind all competitors to be familiar with the Regulations and to talk to their delegate if they see any problems. This way irregularities can be addressed early before the Board has to take action. The entire community should work together to hold fair competitions. We will be working closely with the Mexican cubing community to ensure that these issues do not arise again, and that future competitions are held to the standards of our community. The WCA Board