chunk, Ken is a close personal friend of mine and I can assure you that he would NEVER cheat or attempt to. Ken is also a man of Faith, sounds like he was trying to give Wellman the benefit of the doubt, which would be his nature, fwiw.

chunk, Ken is a close personal friend of mine and I can assure you that he would NEVER cheat or attempt to. Ken is also a man of Faith, sounds like he was trying to give Wellman the benefit of the doubt, which would be his nature, fwiw.

Cheating = Rule violation
Attemp to cheat = Rule violation

It dont matter if he got away with it or not to determine his penalty, Its the fact that its the same rule violation that and the penalty should be the same whether he did it or attempted to do it.

Polygraph accuracy = Robby Rose

Just a side-thought on the "attempting" vs "actual" cheating dialogue... not to bring up the deadhorse specifically, but more generally:
If someone attempted to stuff lead weights down a fish's throat, stuck it in the livewell, goes to weigh-in, and takes their weight (whatever it might be and whatever place it might be is irrelevant)... and then after draining the livewells finds all the weights at the bottom that fish regurgitated prior to the weigh-in...
They attempted to cheat, the fish (unlike the problem of "what if" with a co-angler, there isn't any judgment call of "was he serious or not" with this scenario) didn't cooperate with the cheating, does this mean the penalty if he's turned in later by someone who camera-phone-recorded him doing so (to eliminate he-said-she-said scenarios), should be less because he "attempted, but failed" to cheat?
If the fish had not spit out the weights, and he won, it clearly would have been cheating, however just because the result was not affected by the attempt, the attempt still constitutes cheating.