Vicky,
In my opinion, you are correct. Those quotes come from two supplement handbooks and are not included in the HT regs/guidelines or the FT Rules and Standing Recommendations, but hold the authority of the AKC just the same. They are available at no charge (single copies) from the AKC and are included in every HT/FT secretary's packet for each event.
The only thing that can be protested at an AKC event is the eligibility of a dog to compete. Period, end of story. Now, the right exists to lodge a complaint about any other aspect of the event: unsafe grounds, usafe tests, suspected bitches in heat, really bad tests, etc., etc., etc. Whether or not action is taken is up to the committee for the event.
After the fact, a person who wants to complain, protest, etc., can contact the AKC directly. I would strongly suggest that anyone wishing to do so should have already lodged their complaint to the presiding committee at the event where the situation occurred. HT and FT secretaries must fill out a report in detail that describes the matter at hand and how it was dealt with. Usually, when the AKC receives a complaint via letter, e-mail, or phone, they will wait until they have the event secretary's report in hand before they proceed with any investigation. Occasionally, they begin an investigation based on word of mouth...but the situation would have to be particularly egregious for that to happen. If the complaint lodged by the individual does not match the report of the club, the club could be held liable for not reporting the situation or dealing with the situation at the time of the occurrence. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon participants in the game to be prepared to attempt to right a wrong at the time that it occurs rather than after the fact only.
If a person chooses to go the "after the fact" route, it muddies the water considerably but the AKC is obligated to investigate the allegation just the same. Just remember that clubs and judges tend to "circle the wagons" when accused by participants after the fact, so the person better have all their facts, details, and witnesses in line before pressing forward with the complaint. The AKC does not take these situations lightly, in my experience.
Rarely does a situation become as bad as the one Lisa Van Loo posted elsewhere. Usually, you have someone who is...how do you say...."better suited".... to judge than the person she dealt with. If the proper procedures are followed as listed in the "Dealing With Misconduct" handbook, and the situation merits a hearing per the guidelines in the Handbook, then by all means that is the direction that should be taken. In most cases, though, if you've got a crappy test or a judge with a crappy attitude and it's not a "Misconduct" situation, it's best just to vote with your pocketbook and never run under those judges again.
Keith Griffith
