(Having spent too much time reading posts
regarding accusations of cheating, I figure I might as well
waste another few minutes with this post.)
I am
not party to any of the events or people involved. My
natural reaction was close to Samer's - "circumstantial
evidence," "innocent until proven guilty."
My
question is not whether he cheated but why anyone is more
likely to believe that Cam cheated than there's a
logical explanation for fluctations in
scoring.
It's easy to leap to the conclusion that there was
foul play; it's also easy to jump in sounding
authoritative about things you know nothing about. (I'll accuse
myself ot this, too.)
It just bothers me to see
unnecessary time, thought, and emotion on such a matter.
Again, I'd like to hear a compelling argument that
cheating is more plausible than circumstance and
coincidence.
Thanks for reading,
Ben