[Tim Carrion]

Keith: "What will need to happen is for some club with "the stones" as Bob put it to either refuse his entries for his questionable status or his disruptive or divisive nature. "

Many on this board serve on your club's FTCs. How would vote on this topic for your club's Amateur All-Age ?

Tim

 

[provocateur]

What would be the basis for such a decision? Would documentation be needed to shield the club and its officers from litigation?

In this particular situation, aren't some of the co-conspirators attorneys? Could the committee members be named in a civil suit if the affected parties decided to sue for damages?

It is unfortunate the facts and details aren't in the public domain for all to see and judge.

IMO

 

[KJB]

My knee-jerk reaction: I'd vote to not accept the entries (does this mean I don't have to worry 'bout being on any more FTCs? :mrgreen: ).

BUT! being so new to the FT game, I really have nothing to lose yet.

However, if others on the committee made a convincing argument for voting to accept them, I reckon I'd be open-minded. Can't think of a good argument right off the top of my head, other than it would likely be a big ol' PITA, and I don't have much faith that AKC would back our play. Hopefully some more thoughtful folks will post up their opinions. It's definitely a thorny issue.

Tina - who's often wondered if the rejected person would call the FTC's hand....would they leave it alone and just run the open (a tacit acknowledgement of guilt, perhaps?) or would they fight it, regardless of their guilt, gambling that it would be too tough to prove they were ineligible :?:

 

[Franco]

If I was running an Amateur and this individual was entered in the same stakes, I would have to ask him, eyeball to eyeball, if his dogs were so weak that they needed a Pro to handle them in the Amateur? :evil:

 

[El General]

In this particular situation, aren't some of the co-conspirators attorneys? Could the committee members be named in a civil suit if the affected parties decided to sue for damages?

What damages? If he is an amateur, then he has lost no income. There is no cause of action that I can see. He would simply be excluded from the activities of a private club. That is not a violation of his rights.

 

[KJB]

If I was running an Amateur and this individual was entered in the same stakes, I would have to ask him, eyeball to eyeball, if his dogs were so weak that they needed a Pro to handle them in the Amateur? :evil:

Ya know, that's another thing I've wondered about. Has anyone ever done this (I realize you'd have to be danged certain s/he was "on the take" and you might not wanna get all up in someone's face if they were bigger than you, or were running a Chessie :wink: ) I'm with Booty - if I were to be running an Am with this particular individual, or someone like him, I don't think I could stand it - I'd have to say something, at least privately to his face, if not right out in front of everyone within earshot.

 

[W Knight]

Tim

I can't beleive only 15 people have responded to your poll.

What is it about this important subject that they don't get.

8) 8) 8)

 

[K G]

El General wrote:

What damages? If he is an amateur, then he has lost no income. There is no cause of action that I can see. He would simply be excluded from the activities of a private club. That is not a violation of his rights.

I believe The General has nailed it. The fact that he was brought up on charges by the field trial community but potentially exonerated by a trial board made up of three folks from the show community doesn't change a thing relative to his status in the FT community, IMHO.

If it's good enough for the National Amateur Retriever Club, it's good enough for me.

Keith Griffith

 

[EdA]

I can't beleive only 15 people have responded to your poll.

well, that makes 18 8)

and you know how I voted

 

[AmiableLabs]

If he is an amateur, then he has lost no income.

Brilliant! :lol:

 

[EdA]

If it's good enough for the National Amateur Retriever Club, it's good enough for me.

me too :!: because they had all the evidence and lots of it

overturning the suspension was a terrible miscarriage of justice

and what will deter the next person from doing the same thing :? ..........absolutely nothing other than the conviction of a few people to uphold the integrity of the sport

 

[AmiableLabs]

I can't beleive only 15 people have responded to your poll. What is it about this important subject that they don't get.

1) I would estimate somewhere about 50% of the RTF membership don't have a clue what's up in this regard.

2) The poll started on Friday, so a percetage of those who do are at trials.

 

[K G]

Ed Aycock wrote:

and what will deter the next person from doing the same thing :? .........absolutely nothing other than the conviction of a few people to uphold the integrity of the sport

I believe that there will be more than a few clubs that will take the same action as the NARC and simply refuse the entries as allowed by the Rules for Field Trials. No misconduct hearing, no committee meetings, just a simple "we don't want your entries" will suffice.

Put a few of those in the books and the AKC will be forced to deal with the issue once and for all....then and only then will the buck stop being passed and people be held truly accountable for their "amateur" status.

It's going to take some cohones and courage of conviction to make this happen. Hopefully, it will.

Keith Griffith

 

[meleagris]

Keith:

Are you saying the FT committee has the right to exclude him from any event or only amateur events???

I'm awfully leery here. The AKC wouldn't support the NARC--what makes me believe they would support a small club when this person sues that club or files charges against them. I gotta believe they are NOT going to back the club. In the end the club gets punished one way or the other...

John
________
Maine marijuana dispensaries

 

[K G]

Let's make sure we keep the issues separate. One has to do with misconduct charges and a suspension for same. The other has to do with Amateur status.

The former could be excluded from the trial for past evidence of disruptive behavior and the club hedging it's bets toward avoiding the same in the future. However, I do believe it's in the best interests of event-holding clubs to give the individual credit for time served and stand at the ready to deal them a hard blow if the situation occurs again. Believe me....if the AKC has to review suspension charges on this individual again, they might as well sell the dogs and the truck.

With regard to the latter, I think we'd be talking about the Amateur stake only, since that is what the NARC dealt with. Again, I personally believe that being found "innocent" by a trial board made up of show people may keep him from being suspended, but it far from makes him eligible to run an Amateur field trail stake. Has all of this been disruptive for the sport? You betcha.... but to refuse the entries on that point would be a stretch, probably.

JMHO, as always....but I don't think I'm alone here.... :wink:

Keith Griffith

 

[Eric Johnson]

Keith-

Might this episode lead to a call for a performance person to be included in a trial board dealing with a performance event/issue?

Eric

 

[K G]

It certainly should.

Can you imagine a trial board for a show issue with a field trial person on it?

I can't.

KG

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

What is the use of having a rule book if the AKC won't back a club that attempts to enforce them?

 

[BrianG.]

1) I would estimate somewhere about 50% of the RTF membership don't have a clue what's up in this regard.



Pleace explain what is going on!
________
MERCEDES-BENZ G-CLASS HISTORY

 

[dogcommand]

Thanks Brian for asking the question I was about to.