NOT

Spoiler: Quoted from WCA "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. "

Spoiler: Messages (clogs up thread)





Formal Response to that message



Message 2 with side talk (We both point our bias, which adds to a theory that the WDC conducts GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT INVESTIGATIONS).



Formal response to message 2



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.



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.



Here was his response:



I then asked him a little bit about Diego, with some side talk as well.

Message 1 with side talk.Formal Response to that messageMessage 2 with side talk (We both point our bias, which adds to a theory that the WDC conducts).Formal response to message 2Message 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.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.Here was his response:I then asked him a little bit about Diego, with some side talk as well.

Spoiler: Walls of text



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) lol forgot to complement that recon thing, when you come back read this:What he saidThe 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?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."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.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: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).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)

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 isa 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 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 "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,, 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.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,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.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.Text form of the Facebook posts: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/rant-the-wdc-and-the-brazilian-community-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 spectating2. 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 toIn 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.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/threads/rant-the-wdc-and-the-brazilian-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-130878 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/threads/rant-the-wdc-and-the-brazilian-community-need-to-change.72029/page-5#post-1308873 Edit 6: Here is a response to the above from Fabio https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/the-wdc-and-the-brazilian-community-need-to-change.72029/page-7#post-1308929 Edit 7: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.