TopShelf2010:Regarding the trial round that took place, it is my understanding that it was a one and done trial? I call BS.
First just in reply to this.
Yes it was one 9 hole session. Tricky conditions, meter darting huge and there to see, -8 thru the 9 and guilty as charged.
More generally to recap:
WGT have said they will always give you a reason if they ban you. It is possible that translates to a false reason, but that's extreme supposition. I am taking it they might just stand by that one statement at least, or we can say all credibility is gone.
WGT gave one short, discreet and very unambiguous statement explaining their actions after the trial:
I used to play loads. Plenty of my "reasonable" rounds on my YouTube channel showing my reasonable standard. Never stopped to work it out but pretty sure I hit where I wanted way way more than 40% of the time. Doubt I would have finished as OK in that many RGs (lower level ones mainly accepted) if I was all over the place.
Q is an unashamed this game addict. He has top level clubs and balls, and maintains done nothing wrong except practice his preferred 100% ding aim method (every shot / putt). I went on an information gathering exercise, and talking to real good players 70-80% is well within honesty range. Can't and would never name them here as their shout for that, but talking some names in all that.
Now what I see from this is that the 40% is utter rubbish. WGTs base number is just crap. Qs "trial" was the one x9 only as said. No one on this earth would ding 70%+ with that meter and few would score -8, which all happened. WGT have been offered Skype, as the player has nothing to fear, but deaf ears. I have not researched Skype but high level this is a good way? It was quickly suggested during the trial but never responded to as Q never knew about that way, and we only recently focused on it as neither did we...
The 40% is not safe to say the least. They claim they counted 79% and safe or not we are giving the benefit of the doubt they don't give. 79% though is not unreasonable.
Remember the short, discreet and unambiguous "verdict" above. It partly relies on not pleading guilty to and explaining which new sup Mr Otto he was using. Such a beast is unknown to any human kind I have spoken to, and some real decent names involved in that research.
The companies manner in communication with Q is way below anyway I would treat someone or expect to be treated. By the by largely, but adds to my feelings about how they have administered this so called justice. I simply do not have any faith in what they are doing at this point.
I am not looking for possible excuses for the company. I am merely showing their behaviour to be dreadful, and their affirmations rubbish from start to finish. Sadly they have taken peoples time up much with it, and more importantly banned someone with a verdict that is BS from start to end.