Reading an Article in Horse and Hound put me in mind of the 'Judges' responsability' thread currently running and made me wonder could this happen in the 'Dog World' as it has in the 'horsey world'...

Basically the commentary was provoked by a recent court case in which a longstanding show Hunter pony exhibitor settled out of court with the Joint Measurement Board (she had been accused her Pony (Radway midnight magic) was 'measured out' standing too high for its class)

But the surrounding 'commentary' that has been thrown up on this is quite fascinating..
The Article in H&Hound muses:

>should show societies follow suit of other sports by introducing a reassessment programme for its Judges? A list football Refs are observed by a match delegate & technical assessor, every fortnight through out the Season they are assessed/examined on their performance and decision-making.......more importantly they are told if they are to be 'retrained' at that level and why and can be relegated<

The Article also quotes Paul Brightwell a very experienced Judge voicing his concern:

>about the number of successful ponies on the circuit with filled limbs..and back at the knee..More worrying Animals with major confirmation faults,obvious from the ringside,move up the line to win,receiving top confirmation marks<

The Article concludes:

>If this were a buck or a wrong leg, Judges could be answerable to charges of bad judging,However,inaccurate judging appears to be ignored and treated as 'personal opinion' which is just not good enough<

So.. Is it a good idea to create an independant showing ombudsman to ensure fair play for judges and exhibitors alike??

And could the 'dog show' world see similar test cases going to court ( and the ripple effect from those) as the Horse show world is now seeing?

(Keep it good humoured ;) )

Wow, what a great idea, but there are pros and cons. :)

I can't help thinking that dog shows would eventually become much smaller, because only the 'special people' could compete, but companion showing would be much more popular. :)

The fact is that there are true great dogs, and there are the also rans. Personally I've always had the latter, but I enjoy a show nevertheless. Sometimes I have a nice little win, and sometimes I don't. If showing was regulated to the degree suggested, there would bo no point in the likes of me turning up. I believe the closed shop would be locked up tight.:rolleyes:

Dawn R.

I think the *fear* in the 'Horse world' is that with these test cases going through the courts now it could start to spell finacial disaster for some show societies?
(No insurance for such eventualities, and the expense of replying to the legal correspondence which can soon amount to thousands of pound)
  The lady in the Hunter show pony cases hired a leading sports lawyer.
So which would be the lesser of two evils, if you like.

When height and weight are stipulated in the standard, then yes, these must be adhered to - but when there's only 'ideal' size mentioned, and the standard calling for 'moderate' stop, or tail reaching 'approximately' to the hock, I'm not sure how decisions could be policed.

Thinking about this and how it might affect showing, I would be cautious before going down this line.

For example, suppose two or three major puppy breeding establishments churn out 10 or more litters a year, and they are all interconnected. Suppose the dogs they produce have a conformation fault common to them all, would they be able to influence a change in the breed standard interpretation?

After all they would be winning most shows, while an exhibitor who only breeds a  litter every three or four years with the correct conformation will not have as much "ring presence" and therefore his dogs will look incorrect against these mass puppy producers dogs. So would a good judge who understands true conformation necessary for the dog to fulfill the role it was originally bred for be penalised for not placing the mass produced dogs?

Breed Clubs can complain about bad judging. Club judging lists are drawn up every year. No one forces anyone to show under any judge at any show - if someone does a poor job dont go next time. Exhibitors sort of regulate the whole thing - the fact that people tend to go regardless of how well the person has judged befre (knowledge and honesty) tells its own story.