Intense Surf Challenge cheating

Fred Pawle's been covering this for a while now. He initially wrote this article in late October ("Rival puts surf awards in doubt"), followed by this article in early December ("Self-promoters lead Surfing Australia's Intense Surf Challenge"), and then today's article ("Drop-in voters turn surf contest into a pork barrel").

big difference to the oakley big wave awards prize money.and nobody can enter this competition. Except those that were chosen? Or how

surfing Australia--board member sean Doherty.........care to comment on this sean ?

How many of those surfers in the Intense wave competition are even members of Surfing Australia??? I'll put big bucks on Hippo, Laurie, Josiah, Asher Pacey, or fuck, just about any of them, not being paid up members. So why do they get the chance to win money and not others?

Winner takes 30 k . bit unfair to the others . Considering the votes are mostly frends

Hopefully the winner shares the money around hey !!?

Did u get a jersey Caml?

I really don't understand what the competition is trying to achieve - it's just a surfing version of Big Brother, Australian Idol, or any other popularity contest. And it's been done before in the surfing world too (the US Hurley Pro Trials, plus an ESPN comp from last summer called "Real Surf", where eight pro surfer surfers submitted video clips to ESPN's website, and then viewers voted which one was best).

But it's not a competition of skill – surfers merely have to find a couple of 15 second clips of them ripping (and unlike the competition name, not all entries are of 'Intense Surf'), which they can submit in any order they like. The onus is then on the surfers to drum up support via their own circles of friends. So, the most popular surfer wins – not the most technically proficient, or the surfer riding the biggest wave etc. 

So, what is the point of the competition?

What could have been cool is a comp where surfers are given a time frame (say, a one month block), of which their job is to score the longest barrel, or the biggest wave in that period. This would have required skills in several areas (with a limited travel budget, they'd have to choose whether to spend the money chasing a big windy swell to West Oz, or a small east groundswell to the Gold Coast) - as well as the skills to surf those waves. This could have all been documented in near-real time as each swell appears and disappears on the swell charts.

Also it seems that the rides don't even have to be from this year, a lot of the guys are digging into archive footage from years ago.

That's summed up nicely by Phil from Oakley in Fred's first article: "What are they going to do next year, give them an award for their second-best ride?"

Actually thought it must be a hoax at first . But have been watching it evolve . Very interesting to read those articles from the newspaper . Pity cant read the first one ?? ??

Oops i meant cant read todays (3rd) article . Wat does it say

barley wrote:

So if SA is running it..what are they getting out of it?

Significant advertising/sponsorship dollars.

How is cheating occuring pray tell? 3Rd article says i must login to read

'How is cheating occuring pray tell?'

Some people are intensely cheating, and reading the article with out logging in and praying anything! What would they gain from that?

'in fact he says he might even deal into surf forecasting'

Ahh, the plot thickens. Feeding time at the zoo. The thermameter is rising!

I wonder if phil ward @ oakley changed the annual big wave awards to mainly a paddle in focussed event would there be less competition from this other intense challenge event ? It maybe more classy and elite i reckon . Seems that paddle in surfing is being recognised as more elite than tow everywhere else worldwide

a

caml ,

the third article pretty much summed up that people could actually vote using someone else's email address . And that some people had " dived " in the rankings since this fault was fixed . There was also insinuation that one or two participants had broken state laws in that they offered prizes ( of some description ) to people to vote for their efforts ..... No one , apart from SA CEO , Oakley and Jeff Smux were available for comment .
PS FYI . Jap was not one of the surfers fingered in the article , and if anything . Since this was brought to the attention of SA by Jeff or someone else , Jap has infact climbed the rankings ......which sought of makes sense , since there's a lower local population over there to support him in this blown up popularity / " beauty contest " ..... doe's this make Jeff one of those beauty pagent mums .... I'm unsure ////? lol

Jap?

Is that Jeff Rowlinson?

Jap = Josiah Schmucker.

"No one , apart from SA CEO , Oakley and Jeff Smux were available for comment ."

This is just not correct - in the most recent article on this Surfing Australia (Tuesday this week), Marti Paradisis and Ryan Hipwood were not available for comment. Hippo is overseas..the other two were cited as not returning calls. Jeff Schmux commented that he had expressed concerns about the opportunity for the creation of false accounts back in Oct 1 2013 and no action was taken. Tyler Hollmer-Cross also commented that he supported opportunities for income to be derived from big wave surfing if it involved a fair and equitable process...he also stated that SA had not been able to provide him with information on how they discriminated between a valid voter and a non-valid voter.
This comp is simply a PR and email accumulating list exercise that has proven to be a failure - it would be the intent of the sponsoring corporation to identify with the surfing market and for the opportunity to have a fistful of email addresses that could be reused and onsold - if, as is suspected, that a fair proportion of the email addresses have been purpose made for this comp, then it's going to prove to be even more than a dud...there are many elite Aussie big wave surfers, including Camel, James HX and Brennan who did not get an invite but it isn't mostly about surfing talent - it's a marketing exercise that required the presence of surfers across a range of demographics..thus the Riley Laing etc etc.....Surfing Australia has made a significant error in being involved in the first place but, given that they did become involved, they have erred even more by not having effective IT mechanisms in place to run this in a fair and reasonable manner....would seem that some voters and contestants would have a reasonable case to bring this to the attention of the permit issuers.....

http://www.mooseontheloose.com.au/intense-surf-challenge-competition/

you'll note that i did not mention names other than those that did comment .... To infer who ever else was " unavailable " would be quite silly . As the entire article pretty much is pointing the " finger " at " some " people that were at the top of the list pre SA realising something was wrong ....... So it would be unwise to name the names of whoever " didn't " comment ... unless of course you've just made up an email address to comment here . I might not have my name here publicly as my identity . But a few people do know who i am + SN staff , and of course we should be careful what we say as i'm sure at the end of this mess there will be action in some sort of legal manner ....... be careful ....

that competition is far to much work for me to have entered anyway. the surfers have had to submit some valuable footage , do interviews,put music to their clips etc . and then all of em except one wont win so its a big job for these guys .

Southey thanks for explaining the article. I still cant read it,so u have been helpful once again.

Pawle seems to be questioning why a publicly funded organisation such as SA should be involved in such a social marketing exercise in the first place. If there involvement is ill conceived the error is compounded by the fact they haven't administered the competition very well and have exposed those surfers involved to bad PR either through their use of bogus emails or offers of inducements to secure votes. A mess all around by the look of it and maybe SA may need to think about finding a sensible way of back peddling rather than defending the indefensible. Other than Pawle, I don't think I have mentioned any names......

To those who already know who I am and also to those who do not:

The only 'names' I mentioned are the 'names' that are already quoted in the article and already in the public domain on page 3 of The Australian national newspaper, which has a circulation of hundreds of thousands each day - in order to establish the validity of this:

1. Read Pawle's article
2. Read my previous thread note

in a careful and less than silly manner of course..

marbles wrote:

If there involvement is ill conceived

Quite the opposite. It appears that this project was designed and developed by Surfing Australia.

marbles wrote:

... why a publicly funded organisation such as SA should be involved in such a social marketing exercise in the first place.

It's not just a social marketing excercise, it's a significant revenue source for Surfing Australia, pitched as a major marketing opportunity for sponsors 'Original Source' bodywash (owned by PZ Cussons, "a leading organisation within the Fast Moving Consumer Goods Industry with recognised quality brands such as Radiant, Morning Fresh, Duo, Trix, Imperial Leather and Original Source.").

You can read the initial press release from PZ Cussons here: http://swllnt.com/KIk7iq

And check Surfing Australia's Twitter feed - it's chock-a-block full of advertorial for Original Source, just like this:

You reckon there's much of a tingly feeling going around the SA offices on this one atm?

I dunno. But, I do know that they'd be working feverishingly on new business opportunities to reach the current year's revenue goals of $7 million (up from $4.6 million last year, and "up 280% in the past four 
years" according to the 12/13 Annual Report).

Is it possible to buy shares?

TMFU ,
If you had of noticed i was conveying a " short " description of what the article was about .
and purely it is Pawle muck raking .... AGAIN . if he wants to INFER whatever in his article on a newspaper thats not that big a circulation of which he is tryin to pump up .... obviously he has legal obligations as he mentions a possible breaking of state laws . Then he would and whoever repeats it would want to be careful what they insinuated when they said they were " unavailable " for comment ..... and i was clearly tongue in cheek when i said that perhaps you had just made up your account here from a made up email address .... as in of the discrepancy within the article' s subject ..... perhaps you could buy shares Surfing SA , apparently they have a good track record ...... Ben , this type of main stream crossover promotion for the sake of promotion ( read false revenue ) is what has everyone , even old baldy KRS cringeing ???? Surely once word gets out among marketing execs' that we are " bad fruit " that it will all be downhill from there ....

I think you've missed the point of the argument Southey. And, there's no such thing as 'false revenue'. You've either got revenue or you haven't. 

In regards to being careful about what one says --- I'd be more concerned about the opening statements of this thread rather than anything Fred Pawle had reported on and which had been referred to in other posts here...the thread starts with:

"how a few of the so called 'pros' of the Aussie big wave scene have been busted cheating to get votes in the Intense big wave challenge...pretty poor form really"

This clearly states, upon what evidence is not made clear at all, that the entrants were directly responsible for invalid vote. There is absolutely no proof that this is the case.
No one else in this threadline has said that entrants had been directly responsible for casting invalid votes ...just that there were voting adjustments made and that it was reported that J Schmux had said it was possible to cast votes using email addresses created for the comp...anyone with access to a computer and the net could have done this and then cast multiple votes.... the Intense website has posted on its homepage that:
"It has come to the attention of Surfing Australia that invalid voting has occurred which is in breach of the terms and conditions of the competition......"
No explanation has been provided on what constitutes valid voting and what constitutes invalid voting. There have been posts on SA's Facebook page made by punters expressing dissatisfaction due to valid Intense comp registrations being deleted...

again i haven't said a thing .... i was just pointing out the obvious .... so we do agree on something.
right or wrong these things are hard to prove , so anyone including journalists wwould wnat to be careful . no doubt when it comes push to shove people will start to blame anyone and everyone for " bringing their " brand " into disrepute " . and that could cover everyone involved from sponsor , admin , competitor to commentator .....
in my opinion false revenue is one that is forecast but not delivered , purely from the premise that these forecasts would be for a period of a year . and far fetched connections of client and product are hard to maintain continuity from . be it a fad , or the realisation that there is no long term gain from such exposure ...... that is false revenue , without constant penetration into a market . it looks good on paper but long term negative

Probably a good idea for all of us to consider what shares we buy anyway....Thermalben identified PZ Cussons as the parent body to The Original Source subsidiary company and there are questions as to their practices in regard to animal testing.......................

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=507

http://www.unleashed.org.au/community/forum/topic.php?t=8136

http://www.ask.com/question/what-companies-do-not-test-on-animals

I wonder if SA, the entrants and those voting are aware of these issues or if any ivolved have taken time to think about this ???????

The Man From Uncle wrote:

Probably a good idea for all of us to consider what shares we buy anyway....Thermalben identified PZ Cussons as the parent body to The Original Source subsidiary company and there are questions as to their practices in regard to animal testing.......................

http://www.vegaplanet.org/?p=507

http://www.unleashed.org.au/community/forum/topic.php?t=8136

http://www.ask.com/question/what-companies-do-not-test-on-animals

I wonder if SA, the entrants and those voting are aware of these issues or if any involved have taken time to think about this ???????

Its Big Wayne .... he's BACK .... and Quoting himself again ......lol

rolf

If the comp was designed and developed by Surfing Australia Ben then the fact that they chose a major sponsor that tests its products on animals and they have encountered problems establishing and administering the rules of the competition - it sounds ill conceived to me.

Agree on both fronts there Marbles (whoever you are) :

"PZ Cussons have a boycott call against them from Uncaged over their animal testing policy. They have no public facing policy on GM but are committed to reducing the amount of unsustainable palm oil they use by 2015. They also score Ethical Consumer’s worst rating in the environmental policy, animal testing policy and supply chain management categories....."

Thanks Big Wayne (whoever that it).....it seems to be a bit of a PR disaster for SA all round and judging by the activity on the comp web site since they 'cleansed' the votes of the contenders, there are only 2 of the big wave chargers actually participating any longer - the rest seem to be embarrassed or concerned about 'guilt by association'. Perhaps SA needs to give some thought as to how they might turn around a PR catastrophe?

It may be the chargers themselves who come to the rescue Marbles.....word has filtered down the line that at least one of the two leading contestants takes a pretty strong line against animal cruelty and will donate any winnings to Uncaged or the RSPCA if he wins.......this would make a huge statement and provide a lot of cred for the surfer (not sure which one it is but recently remember seeing some posts on FB which clearly demonstrates the leading voting getting has made very strong noises against animal cruelty)......be a bad look to advocate against animal cruelty and then take a wad of readies from a corporation that practices animal testing on its ingredients.....

Sorry but that's ridiculous to suggest either Marti or Josiah should donate the 30g to the RSPCA if they win. Do you also believe the winners of the Oakley Big Wave Awards donate their prize money to an environmental group? According to www.rankabrand.org Oakley have an E rating for sustainability and quote:

"Sustainability summary:

Based on our sustainability criteria, Oakley has achieved the E-label. This is our lowest possible sustainability score, and Oakley has earned it by communicating nothing concrete about the policies for environment, carbon emissions or labor conditions in low-wages countries. For us as consumers, it is unclear whether Oakley is committed to sustainability or not".

I'm not suggesting they do anything in particular, that's up to the individual - rather, feeding back what filters through the www line..... for me there are questions, however, as to who sporting associations develop commercial links with...the same issues have been faced with sports and cigarette manufacturers/alcohol producers...in some instances it has taken an individual to highlight the issues - in the first instance it is the sporting administrators who create the connections and thus expose the benificiaries of those links to a difficult situation....to the best of my knowledge previous winners of the Oakley haven't donated their winnings to any environmental group but maybe there hasn't been a decent amount of dialogue around this issue, reliable research into Oakley and a subsequent lack of awareness as to the practices/value base of the businesses involved. The point of distinction between PZ Cussons and Oakley, for example, is that the respective ratings differ in that Cussons has earned its reputation through animal testing practices on ingredients and Oakleys has been earned through lack of information being provided to the rating site - that is, it is a default rating in the absence of a response to a questionnaire. Therefore it is'unclear'...the situation with Cussons looks a lot clearer.
For me the first step is for groups like SA to think about what commercial alignments they consider is appropriate to make on behalf of their membership.

I think if have seen voting patterns and efforts to secure votes in the past few days plus what is to come between now and Friday it shows how unseemly this 'competition' has become. The point is that SA have orchestrated an awful mess here and for some participants they may have found themselves inadvertently comprised - having previous taken strong public stands against animal cruelty and now being in a position from a major sponsor that tests its products in animals. Uncomfortable for everyone involved I would have thought.