Paul,
To your Reply #2: In courts of law, Judges don't have arrest power. That's as it should be. Even in cases of contempt of court, a judge refers any arrest involved to sworn officers of the peace - cops, in other words. ...and the judge is the complaining citizen who reports the act and lodges the charges...
That is how it should be. Witch trials in New England a few hundred years back were examples of combining cop/judge/jury/executioner. That's NOT our way of doing things.
The person offended against is the proper one to raise charges. Only sworn police officers, trained to recognize criminal behavior against the community they are sworn to "protect, preserve and defend," have legal authority to arrest offenders in cases where the cop is not the direct 'victim' of the action.
So, in this thread, whether judges or other officials suspect, or know for sure, that evading the principles of the BOM happened, they are not the ones who need to initiate action. The officials are not "wronged" by the cheater; the other contestants are. It comes down to the basic question, the thing that makes con games so hard to prosecute: IS there an offense if the victim can't be bothered to report it to those who CAN act on the complaint?
Beyond the matter of arbitrarily declaring an entry ineligible, judges and officials can only act in response to the other competitors' requests. If these victims can't be bothered to request a ruling based on their certain knowledge of cheating, I'd find it hard to accept a "hanging Judge" jumping in and pre-empting the protest process. Which is worse? - Clear indication of bias on the part of the judges?...Or competitors who choose to keep silent about evident twisting of the principles and details of the rules?
A "competitor" willing to cheat, as we're discussing here, would probably also be willing to smear the event, the officials, the other competitors, and our hobby itself in as public a way as possible out of spite. ...For being - not caught unless there is clear proof - slandered/libelled/dissed/ disgraced by unproven allegations from "envious and inferior" competitors.
Given all this, I consider cheating unacceptable. On evidence presented to the officials in a protest, an entry can be ruled ineligible to compete. Depending on the rules involved, AMA's (or other rules body's) protest procedures should be followed. That protects the person protested against from unfair and unfounded rulings, as well as protecting the other competitors from being beaten by violations of the rules. A formal protest (if the rules allow for it) is messy, but much better than NOT protesting. Bad-mouthing the event and officials for not doing what can only be done in answer to a protest by another competitor is worse yet. Behind-the-back, whispering attacks are not good for any event's success...