[Jerry]

It's a difficult situation. Defining the relationship, establishing guidelines, time frames, or whatever.

Real life situation that occurred recently, within the last year. Pro has a choice of two trials to attend within reasonable driving distance. In both instances, a "client" is Judging. What does the Pro do? Stay home? Assume that at the last minute, a club has to rustle up an alternate Judge at the last minute. The Pro is already entered, in fact on the road to the Trial. One of his clients agrees to Judge. Now what???

To me, the best answer is to believe that the Judges have integrity and go with it.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

That's semi-reasonable but how do you handle the last minute change of Judges?

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

No, What John????

Please explain.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

My thoughts also!!!

In the years that I have been pouring money down a rathole, I've seen ONE instance of BLATANT favoritism of a Judge relating to his Pro.

Now one might say that "Once is too often" and I would agree with that. Shouldn't have happened, but it did.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

OK, but explain how you would handle the "Judge change" question I asked Emily.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

OK, but explain how you would handle the "Judge change" question I asked Emily.

Jerry

let them judge and"let the chips fall where they may" so to speak.
john-The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry*

*No matter how carefully a project is planned, something may still go wrong with it. The saying is adapted from a line in ?To a Mouse,? by Robert Burns

I sort of understand some of those things, since I are a coledge graduat. What I really want to know is how your wife enjoyed the shotgun you got for her. Or did you mean that you got a shotgun "in exchange" for your wife??

Nosey minds want to know.

Jery

 

[Jerry]

Most folks probably recognize it from Steinbecks "Of Mice and Men" but in fact it did originate with Mr. Burns.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Like some of the candidates say "Polls Don't Mean Squat".

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Not just NO, but HELL NO. And it should be mandated in the rule book. If a judge would agree to judge his pro, I think it makes everyone look bad.

PS - this would be for stakes carrying Championship points only.

I'm still having a difficult time trying to figure out which party is responsible for making this decision. Now just for discussion, let's make a couple of assumptions.

1. Pro maps out a schedule for the year's trials.

2. Sometime, somewhere I'm gonna be invited to Judge.

As the year progresses, at some point in time, our paths cross at a Trial.

Is it my responsibility to back out of the judging assignment because the Pro has entered?

Is it the Pro's responsibility to scratch all his dogs because I'm judging?

I don't think either one applies!

The Pro certainly can't run "my dog" with me Judging, that's a given. The rest of it is BS.

How about your training partners? "Gerard, I'm judging so you can't enter" or "Gerard, I'm running my dog so you have back out of the judging assignment."

It's not only BS, it's total BS and you know it.

It's all about integrity!!! Most folks have it, a few don't.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Lisa, there are generally two thoughts that go through ones mind.

"Damn, this is great, we can do all sorts of stuff."

OR

"Damn, what are we 'posed to do with this mess?"



Jerry

 

[Jerry]

I agree that one should make the effort if at all possible. But it's not always possible.

Now using your example, if Danny is running when I'm a co-judge (there are TWO people involved) and takes all 4 places and the Jams. What does that mean? I'm crooked? Lack integrity? He's done it under more than a few set of Judges. As has Lardy, Totten, and probably countless others.

If, when the Trial is over and I think we did the best job we could, I'm happy and don't worry too much about it. As a competitor or a Judge.

Just for the record, I've paid Jim Swan, Arnold Boudreax, and the late Bob Chance to train a dog for me. No one else that I remember, including Danny!!! Does that make Danny "My Pro"? I think it makes Danny "my friend". Granted, I use his property, expertise, and advice just like others that come out and throw birds during training. But I don't pay him to train any of my dogs, including "Pete", who is at my side snoring right now!

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Why do they keep getting invited to Judge?

Out of the mouth of "babes" was this response a few months ago: "Because the SOB's that win don't think they're dishonest!!!!"

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

Maybe I'm just warped or something but:

I would MUCH rather say "Yes, I accept your invitation to Judge (regardless of the stake and who might be running), and Thank you for asking me.

Rather than:

I accept if you put me in the Amateur because "Joe Pro" will be running the Open."

To me that is telling the Club that I don't think I can be fair when judging "Joe Pro" or that my reputation might be "stained" if in fact "Joe Pro" actually wins.

What REALLY bothers me is the fact that everyone seems to relate dishonesty with "giving a win". What about "dropping a dog & Pro" with no cause?? That's just as bad. Should I decline a judging assignment because I hate a Pro that I know is going to enter??? Or should I judge the dog fairly, regardless of my feelings?

INTEGRITY, my friends is the key.

Jerry

 

[Jerry]

WELL THAT'S DUMB!!!!

That's when you walk over to your co-judge and copy their sheet while you pretend to be talking to them!!!! Some one has to watch the handler to see if anything dishonest is going on.

And hope your co-judge isn't dishonest!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Jerry