Logically, it can't be true.Originally Posted by Gerard Rozas
How can someone logically justify paying someone 12K - 15K a year to win a sport when 99% of the entrants are, by definition, losers!!!
You a pay a Pro to train a dog to the best of their ability IN HOPES they are good enough to win...those that win more often get more/better dogs = more cash flow. Which gives them more experience. Which gives them more chances.
I wouldn't send a dog to Mr. Farmer expecting him to win with the dog. I'd expect him to do the best he can with raw material I've provided to him. He has experience. (I'd pay for that.) He has knowledge of the task to be completed. (I'd pay for that.) He also has the experience and the knowledge to know if the dog, when trained to the best of his ability, is capable of winning an event. I'm damn sure paying for that.
I'm not paying him to win. I'm paying him to do the best he can. If he can't win with what I've provided him, then I'll provide him with some better raw materials.
Powerful Slicing Cross-Court Backhand Regards,