[EdA]

Could it be that the person you talked to or corresponded with in Performance Events has never READ the "Dealing With Misconduct" book?kg

dunno, asked for guidance, got none, but I like misconduct based on the scenario, perhaps only an option after the FTS report is submitted.....

 

[K G]

I would submit, Ed, that an organization that will leave the definition of "Amateur" up to the FT committee, will have no choice but to consider the appropriate suspension for charges substantiated via a properly held and conducted Misconduct hearing based on rules THEY WROTE, that apply to ALL AKC VENUES.

;-)............

kg

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

I would be willing to bet that this happens more with specials, as the eligibility rules there are a little less clear to some than those for a limited.

If a dog was ineligible for a given stake inwhich it was entered, is the agent responsible? such as where a pro did the entries, or the owner????

 

[Richard Halstead]

There is no title to indicate the QAA dog. Didn't the FT secretary have the right to reject incorrect entries? As Wayne Curtiss used to call the quslified
dog an "iser" because on the paper entries you had t0 check the box is qualified to eun limited.

 

[K G]

On Entry Express, you must do the same thing.

The catch? The person using the service to enter an ineligible dog must make a conscious effort to enter a dog that is ineligible, just like they did/do when they filled out a paper entry. If they don't understand the qualifications to enter a Limited or a Special, that's their problem.

At the end of the day, it's up to the owner/agent to be correct, not the FTS.

kg

 

[Jim Pickering]

Thanks for the Misconduct info Keith. As I was reading the posts, I could not imagine that there was no penalty for submitting a false entry form. However, the FTC would have to be proactive and go to the trouble to make the charge and hold the required hearing to impose the penalty. It would be so much easier to simply deny the entry and move on.

Having to check the boxes on Entry Express or the paper entry form makes it more difficult to claim an unintentional error, but I have always thought that the entry form should include a line where the owner/handler would be required to indicate the date, trial and stake at which the dog became qualified for the stake being entered. In my mind that would eliminate any doubt as to intent.

Wow, somehow I never dreamed this goes on, what world am I living in. Failing at my long time and highly paid duties as fts

Hi Charlotte, I can give you the name of a pro who routinely entered dogs in limited and special stakes.

To further the discussion. What would happen if the non QAA dog did place? Has it happened before?

Technical as Ed explained the place should be voided if discovered after the fact. However, the fact that a non-QAA dog placed in a limited, special or restricted stake does sort of defeat the argument that the dog was not qualified to run that stake. Just for the sake of discussion.

 

[K G]

Thanks for the Misconduct info Keith. As I was reading the posts, I could not imagine that there was no penalty for submitting a false entry form. However, the FTC would have to be proactive and go to the trouble to make the charge and hold the required hearing to impose the penalty. It would be so much easier to simply deny the entry and move on.

Agree 100%. Anyone who has ever been involved in a Misconduct hearing would agree as well.

kg

 

[cakaiser]

Jim, could you send me a pm