Judging Dogs - Page 1

Cheers Spirit, As access to previous heading has become wellnigh impossible, and in case you and solo are interested in continuing the issue, I took liberty of opening this new one. I believe you asked how biased or corrupt judging in Ring can be proved or evidenced. From the 'nature of the beast' I don't believe you ever can or will! The very term 'judging' implies or dictates subjectivity. And, as spectator so superfluously explained in detail, is here subject to very wide-ranging criteria. Thus, no matter what criticism is ever levied against a judge's decision, he or she will always be able to turn around and somehow justify decision given on the day! The number of choices or options on which to base or justify the decision are simply endless - and related criteques can similarly be cleverly contrived whichever way. And, I doubt whether any judge would be so silly as to favour and animal that is too blatantly inferior! (Come to think of it, doesn't even that happen on occasions?) The promoted animal, in judge's opinion, will always have moved slightly better, be slightly better sized, coloured, angulated, hocked, crouped or what have you! The whole world may have a different 'opinion', but being able to 'prove' it, can barely enter into it! All fairly obvious, as I see it. And, with endless subtle and not so subtle means to financially gain from situation as it stands, as I've said elsewhere, the very term 'judging' becomes a misnomer! You mentioned how judge in question was connected to a certain stud dogs, and on subsequent occasion via a certain Kennel. Suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine - after long phasing-in period, of course - that judges were required to sign declaration at each registration renewal disavowing any commercial interest in stud dogs, Kennels and the like - very much like rules that various other fields have insisted on from beginning of civilisation. Well, in situation you cited, you wouldn't worry about proving the impossible - biased decision-making - but you'd work on showing the link you mentioned instead. It's pipe-deaming, of course: endless vested interests - the interested and influential group at top of ladder, as distinct from bulk of 'hobby only' membership - would move heaven and earth to ensure it never came about! Cheers Solo, I respect your idea of a concerted effort to raise the question of corrupt judging at various club levels and involving broader membership - in the end there's realy no other way, I suppose. The only reservations I have - as formed by my experieces with club/Committee structures and human behaviour in another field - is that those with most at stake financially will also be most strenuous in attending to voice their opinion. They undoubtedly 'prove' to wider membership that present regulation is more than sufficient, and that present situation is perfection itself! I presume that Rankin's Paragraph is meant to show what opposing opinion is up against. I think any intelligent person will realise the lady is not going to bite the hand that feeds her! Cheers Sue Belfield, Care to re-join the topic - if only for fun?