IMO Unfortunately there is almost no way that the politics, friendship and face judging will ever be removed from the sport without a radical makeover.
That is because, again IMO, people will cheat if they think they can get away with it, and when competing will do almost anything to win. This is not a condemnation of all judges and exhibitors in the sport, but if there just a couple that we deal with, the shadow they cast across the rings covers all people. I believe this falls into the ethics realm.
So I’ll start with a question, will you show to a judge that is a friend of yours? If you do, do you think you have a better chance of winning?
Why? Because we need to win at all costs? So we do this with no consideration of the AKC Code of Sportsmanship. If you haven’t read it or maybe didn’t know it was there, I’ve snipped an excerpt from it and I quote,
“The sportsman exhibitor declines to enter or exhibit under a judge where it might reasonably appear that the judge’s placements could be based on something other than the merits of the dogs.
The sportsman exhibitor refuses to compromise the impartiality of a judge.”
Okay this being said, will you change your mind and not show to a friend?
Second thought, how about a judge who handles/shows dogs, is this fair or ethical? Do you think that snippet above should pertain to them, twice as much? Judges are like a fraternity or sorority and meet with each other, judge at shows together, and probably have been friends with each other for years before they became judges. Should they be allowed to present to a friend/judge?
According to the snippet above from the AKC, the onus is on the exhibitor to not enter to a friend, not on the judge to not “judge” their dog.
But wait, it does say, and again I quote,
“Advise potential exhibitors not to enter under you when their presence or the presence of their dogs might give the impression of unfair advantage.”
So although it is not the Judges job to monitor the entries, if a friend, family or associate enters the ring, the judge has the ethical obligation to either excuse the animal and handler or just NOT put the animal up. This is also covered in the handbook. I think
“AKC recognizes you cannot control who enters under you. Consequently, situations may arise that require you to excuse an exhibitor for cause known only to you. The responsibility for entering dogs that are ineligible or that create a conflict of interest is with the exhibitor. Awards won may be cancelled, and exhibitors with repeat violations may receive reprimands or fines for repeat violations.”
I think we need to be more responsible as exhibitors to prevent issues like this from arising and since we are responsible to police ourselves and our shows, we need to speak up and not just try to ignore it.
I hope you will chime in with your thoughts and ideas.
|
No, but you forgot ethics!
Posted - 11/02/2009 : 17:51:43
