From all Ive seen and read it would appear that the examining vets at Crufts werent going to pass any examples sent through to them in the breeds disqualified.
They said no to a very moderate ( probably the most moderate in the entry) Bulldog
And a Clumber with so many health certificates and very un-exagerated (less hanging folds, hidden eyes, wet slobbery face etc)  head which moved like a train.

It would seem that NO examples of either breed would have passed those vets as they dont approve of the morphology of those particular breeds.The owner of the Clumber says the vet said it failed because it was a Clumber....ie shows haw.
So inviting vets to examine examples sent through has backfired for the KC as the whole breed in those cases would fail. How will that help move anything forward?
When set a challenge, humans need to see what can be positively achieved not set an impossible task.

I agree , it seems any dog of certain breeds that will be presented , is not going to get a fair chance.

I wonder how the kc are feeling now.  I wonder to make it fairer ,they maybe need to have 3 vets..and take the majority result.

If they keep that attitude up I wonder if the breeders of targeted breeds will just give up on the KC and carry on without registration.

I too have changed my mind, this has turned into a punishment for those who have tried and achieved the most, produce a good example that is as fit and healthy as you can in the time and it wins BOB only to be put through this. Not a way to encourage the good breeder at all more likely to turn the breeder right off after all what is the point of making all that effort to get slapped in the face.

Sad sad times :-(

> The owner of the Clumber says the vet said it failed because it was a Clumber....ie shows haw.

Hmmm, Maybe it's my line of work that makes me wonder at the wording here (Witness statements are always very interesting, when you eventually get down to what was actually said!)

If that is verbatum, it's very flippant of the Vet? I wonder if in actual fact in the verbatum version the last part of the sentence came before former!
ie: are we seeing what was said or how it was heard!?

I'd be loathed to comment until Ive seen the report at the very least.

All this running around with Pitchforks is exactly why I feel very foolish commenting on the various threads of this ilk with any conviction until all the facts are in!

The report can be seen here.  

This is what the vet had to look for in the breed on examination.


Clumber Spaniel:
Conditions of eye and ear are a major focus for the breed
and obesity can effect health and welfare.

o Ectropion and entropion, are considered to be conformational defects
that are disqualifying signs
o Ear inflammation
o Lameness
o Clear evidence of eyelid surgery including taking to be disqualifying
conformational defect

> The dog has entropian and an ear infection, these are 2 of the 'conditions' listed that the vet had to look for in the breed

Then I'm royaly confused! that surely negates a flippant remark like "because it's a Clumber"..... regardless of who said it?

I'm not being obtuse Im just genuinely baffled by some reactions and reporting.
Being considered and sensible is what is needed now!!! from 'them' and 'us';-)

There's too much hearsay.  The vet has passed more breeds than failed so there's not been a clean sweep of fails amongst these 15 high profile breeds.  I think everyone needs to step back, count to ten and to stop throwing all sorts of hypothetical reasons why the vet has done this.   Let the Kennel Club, the vet and the dog owners all have their own time to speak so we have some sort of factual basis to start a discussion on.

My point was.... a vet saying "because it's a Clumber"..... needs to be seen in the light of the fact that  show Clumbers all have loose skin around the eyes and the example of the DQ Best of Breed was the very least extreme example ive seen in the showring.

The Bulldog DQ was the least extreme example Ive seen for a long time...so judges are doing what is asked of them given the current show population yet they are still being DQ...

So is it to be a work in progress or an end to some breeds?
Sad for the people who are trying to improve things...as they have been asked to do.... and what the Bulldog breeder who was DQ is clearly working toward.
Is this all an effort to improve by breeding less exteme dogs or is it a clean sweep of 'show' type dogs?

I suspect its the Gordian Knot!!

..the Mastiff, Neo mastif have failed and the Dogue is being vetted now.

> The vet has passed more breeds than failed so there's not been a clean sweep of fails amongst these 15 high profile breeds.

Yes but which vet/s?  I have been trying to find out if the failed dogs all went under the same vet and those who passed a ddifferent one.  Apparently the KC had a vet station in each of the halls so that is 4/5 different vets.  It now appears that at least 2 vets failed dogs, it is being said one is a feline specialist and one an equine specialist.  Surely 5 canine specialist could have been found for the 4 days of the show?  Still don't know if the passed dogs were all seen by the same vet or if different vets were involved.  Don't know how much info. the KC will release.

The dog does not have entropion but Ectropion, but as I understand it so do all clumbers to some degree (and the degree seemed slight), as do Bloodhounds and all breeds showing haw.

> If they keep that attitude up I wonder if the breeders of targeted breeds will just give up on the KC and carry on without registration.

I'd rather a new club started that required testing and care standards :)people would catch on quickly enough that it ment better quality stock. a girl can dream...

> There's too much hearsay.  The vet has passed more breeds than failed so there's not been a clean sweep of fails amongst these 15 high profile breeds.  I think everyone needs to step back, count to ten and to stop throwing all sorts of hypothetical reasons why the vet has done this.   Let the Kennel Club, the vet and the dog owners all have their own time to speak so we have some sort of factual basis to start a discussion on.

this is a fair point but to be honest the vets report should be made available at the time of the announcement so that hearsay doesn't get a chance to get going.

> as I understand it so do all clumbers to some degree (and the degree seemed slight), as do Bloodhounds and all breeds showing haw.

Interesting to see that the group winning newfie (who was otherwise really stunning) has some slight haw showing.

As much if not more than the clumber.Fail to see how it can be acceptable in some breeds but not others.

Although I did like both dogs.

Loved the Tibetan Mastiff and was hoping it would take the group. Do you think we have seen the Best in Show yet? I'm hoping it will be the pom .

> Do you think we have seen the Best in Show yet? I'm hoping it will be the pom

pom was gorgeous, a real little showman. the newfie was really stunning but did have loose eyes.

we shal have to see, i suppose it depends on Frank :)

> Fail to see how it can be acceptable in some breeds but not others.

lol my other half has just commented that the kennel club should raise concerns about the Churchill adverts as he is very short of muzzle lol

I too loved the Tibetan was stunning and yes I spotted the eyes on the Newfie.

Yes I liked the Tibetan best. 

> Interesting to see that the group winning newfie (who was otherwise really stunning) has some slight haw showing.

Ah but they were not the victimised 15 breeds.

it should have been all BOB's or none.

I dont think that newfie would have got past the vet.I agree all BOB should go past the vet as there are other breeds that need changing not just 15.

> it should have been all BOB's or none.

quite agree. scaremongering about particular breeds.

Anyone know what the high profile breeds in pastoral were? all through apparently

GSD,

Here is the full list and the points of concerned in a KC document: http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/12613/Veterinary-Inspections-15-High-Profile-Breeds.pdf

I think it's just the GSD

I was ( obviously ) rooting for the TM too, stunning dog.It was 8 years old, same age Ben was :-(

Ta, I take it for the bendy backs?

I rather like Elmo myself.

If the vets were told to look for those things listed then the bulldogs exclusion makes some sense re old injury:

Quote:
Damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by (e.g. facial
folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy)

Though it does not list that as reason for exclusion as it does for entropion, ectropion.

No, for the hindquaters.

> Damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by (e.g. facial
> folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy)
>

but it specifies for injuries caused by confirmation issues. i would hope that the vet would ask if there had been an injury in the past and what happened as then the owner could explain (presuming the injury was nothing to do with a confirmation issue and had been an accident for example).

again all things for the KC to look at for the future i suppose

>> There's too much hearsay.  The vet has passed more breeds than failed so there's not been a clean sweep of fails amongst these 15 high profile breeds.  I think everyone needs to step back, count to ten and to stop throwing all sorts of hypothetical reasons why the vet has done this.   Let the Kennel Club, the vet and the dog owners all have their own time to speak so we have some sort of factual basis to start a discussion on.
> this is a fair point but to be honest the vets report should be made available at the time of the announcement so that hearsay doesn't get a chance to get going.

Having done eye testing for 30 years I can understand that some owners might not want things published immediately they might prefer to get over the emotional upset as do owners of dogs who fail an eye test. I have seen many come out of a test exam and go to their cars and cry!

Human reaction will be an emotional one, first upset, then disappointment, then perhaps anger or disillusionment with what has happened and how they then proceed.

The KC said at the press briefing that the dogs were looked at by two vets and the results written down placed into sealed envelopes and handed to the KC who would look at them after Crufts. Until then nothing was supposed to be made public as they wanted to write to the owners of the dogs first. They also said if the problem on the day was something like a dog was lame there are many reasons why it might be lame so it would not be prevented from competing at future events and that it might well take BOB again.

>When set a challenge, humans need to see what can be positively achieved not set an impossible task.

That is so true, and each step in the right direction shuld be applauded, not condemned.