RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should Amateurs be allowed to judge their Professional Trainers at field trials?

41 - 60 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,222 Posts
Ed Aycock said:
Then if so called "crooked judges" are a problem, let's apply pressure to clubs who invite them rather than assuming everyone is crooked and invoking a rule.
.
I think that the big majority of judges that I have seen are honest. It is just a very few that need to be policed, unfortunitly.

One club has gotten so bad about it, and one member in particular. Their numbers were way down at their last trial, while other trials that weekend had booming numbers entered. It is a reputation that the club has fostered and their reputation is well known because of it. Comment most widley heard about this club, "I'm not driving and paying all that money so that so and so can place so and so's dogs".

I guess when you figure that it only one, maybe two folks in an entire state, it is not so bad. And, there are two judges. However, when all the AA judges consistantly come from intra-state, a club is only asking for problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Gerard Rozas said:
Ed - the key is that monthly bill! As long as there is a financal obligation, it changes everything. Remove the obligation to pay (for the client) and the obiligation to produce results (for the pro) and it is an entirely different relationship.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Dishonesty and lack of integrity are not influenced by who you pay, but rather by who you are.

I've seen instances of amateur to amateur dishonesty that had nothing to do with money, only the lack of integrity of the individual.

and G-man, you never answered my questions :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Sorry, Jerry, I missed that that was directed to me until now. If you make the pro ineligible to run under his client, then, unfortunately, if a last minute judge change arises, the pro has to scratch his entries. It is the same thing that would happen if you got a judge at the last minute whose dog was being run by a pro in the Open, Q or Derby--you would have to scratch all the dogs owned by the Amateur that the pro was going to be running then. In this scenario, it would just, potentially, be a larger number (Maybe a lot larger) of scratches. My thought is this--I would rather, as a club putting on a trial, lose the pros entries at the last minute, than lose my Open judge at the last minute because his pro decided to come and run my trial. Putting the onus on the pro instead of the Amateur would also be a lot easier to keep track of--basically, the pros would have to do it. I am not going to know what pros may be coming to run a trial I agree to judge in 2005, but the pro should know who the judges are when he is sending in his entries. Further, the pro should certainly know who is sending him a check every month when he sends in his entries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Mr Booty said:
One club has gotten so bad about it, and one member in particular. Their numbers were way down at their last trial, while other trials that weekend had booming numbers entered. It is a reputation that the club has fostered and their reputation is well known because of it. Comment most widley heard about this club, "I'm not driving and paying all that money so that so and so can place so and so's dogs".

I guess when you figure that it only one, maybe two folks in an entire state, it is not so bad. And, there are two judges. However, when all the AA judges consistantly come from intra-state, a club is only asking for problems.
so why don't people tell them if so and so judges we're never coming to your trial again?

I know a judge, who judges quite a bit, and his pro ALWAYS wins when he judges, it's reprehensible, but I don't think a rule which requires interpretation as to what constitutes an unacceptable relationship with a pro is going to solve anything.

It might make some people feel good, but it won't solve the problem of the dishonest judge, only peer pressure repeatedly applied will affect that. (IMHO of course)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Ed Aycock said:
Gerard Rozas said:
Ed - the key is that monthly bill! As long as there is a financal obligation, it changes everything. Remove the obligation to pay (for the client) and the obiligation to produce results (for the pro) and it is an entirely different relationship.
Sorry, but I don't agree. Dishonesty and lack of integrity are not influenced by who you pay, but rather by who you are.

I've seen instances of amateur to amateur dishonesty that had nothing to do with money, only the lack of integrity of the individual.
Absofreakinglutly Dr. Ed !!! Cheating is a character flaw period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Ed Aycock said:
I know a judge, who judges quite a bit, and his pro ALWAYS wins when he judges, it's reprehensible, but I don't think a rule which requires interpretation as to what constitutes an unacceptable relationship with a pro is going to solve anything. (IMHO of course)

Why would good folks continue asking this guy to judge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Patrick Johndrow said:
Ed Aycock said:
I know a judge, who judges quite a bit, and his pro ALWAYS wins when he judges, it's reprehensible, but I don't think a rule which requires interpretation as to what constitutes an unacceptable relationship with a pro is going to solve anything. (IMHO of course)

Why would good folks continue to let this guy judge?
it beats the h$ll out of me......don't know, but it's widely known .....

in the amateur or off his circuit he's a good judge, but he has some inability to view his own pro in an objective manner :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
do you fear the appearance of impropriety if they did well?
I would fear this more than anything. It is MY reputation that I would protect - that is all I have control over.

As for a dis-honest judge, esp in the Am, pure flat out dishonesty is another matter. That will happen no matter where you put a dishonest judge. If a judge is dishonest - I would not want him judging any stake - even if his pro was not running.

It is a fairly simple thing to switch judges from Open to Am. This puts the judges above reproach and the club above reproach.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Ed Aycock said:
Why would good folks continue to let this guy judge?
it beats the h$ll out of me......don't know, but it's widely known .....

in the amateur or off his circuit he's a good judge, but he has some inability to view his own pro in an objective manner :([/quote]


Ed that is just sad people don't care enough to put a stop to it by not inviting him to judge the open. It is guys like him that cause academic discussions like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Gerard Rozas said:
[
As for a dis-honest judge, esp in the Am, pure flat out dishonesty is another matter.
well, isn't that what this whole proposal is about, we know that judges are inherently dishonest, so we're going to impose a rule to reduce their potential for dishonesty

if your reputation is important you should be offended that someone questions your integrity to the point of instituting a rule

I value my integrity and it affends the heck out of me, to suggest that I am incapable of being fair, honest, and equitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Why would saying to a FT chairman that you can't in good consequnse (sp?) judge a pro that you HAVE a dog with reflect badly on you?

In my book, it would show you have integrety and reflect positively on you honesty and character.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,134 Posts
Gerard Rozas said:
Why would saying to a FT chairman that you can't in good consequnse (sp?) judge a pro that you HAVE a dog with reflect badly on you?
Fundamental differences in the way people look at the world you say:

In my book, it would show you have integrity and reflect positively on you honesty and character.

Ed Said "I value my integrity and it affends the heck out of me, to suggest that I am incapable of being fair, honest, and equitable."

I am of the later school.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Gerard Rozas said:
Why would saying to a FT chairman that you can't in good consequnse (sp?) judge a pro that you HAVE a dog with reflect badly on you?

In my book, it would show you have integrety and reflect positively on you honesty and character.
Wasn't this discussion about a rule? not what you as an individual would do, but a rule

the issue is when does the rule apply, if you paid Frank and Mike in 2004 should they be ineligible to run under you in 2004?....... how about 2005, maybe you wouldn't want to judge their dogs, but that is entirely up to the individual
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Anthony Heath said:
consequnse
captaindan,

Fix it up :wink:
I was gonna, since the Captain stated his lack of interest in same :wink:

did he mean consequense or conscience :?

me thinks #2 conscience 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Dr. Ed wrote:

"Gerard Rozas wrote:
[
As for a dis-honest judge, esp in the Am, pure flat out dishonesty is another matter.


well, isn't that what this whole proposal is about, we know that judges are inherently dishonest, so we're going to impose a rule to reduce their potential for dishonesty

if your reputation is important you should be offended that someone questions your integrity to the point of instituting a rule.

I value my integrity and it affends the heck out of me, to suggest that I am incapable of being fair, honest, and equitable."

I totally agree! I am not in favor of any rule change in this regard, but am definitely opposed to the one they are attempting to put through. As written, it definitely presumes that an amateur is incapable of being fair in judging their pro. Not only that, but the rule doesn't make anything mandatory, so someone can still do it. I envision a scenario in which a couple of things will happen if this rule is passed:

1. Dishonest Amateurs will still judge their pro when the circumstance arises, while amateurs with integrity will bow out of judging assignments.

2. Amateur with integrity finds out, 18 months after accepting an assignment and right after this rule becomes effective, that his pro is running the trial, tries to bow out, but club persuades him not too--"The rule doesn't say 'shall'! Please, please, please don't back out!"--and guess who catches all the flack. If this rule comes into being, the days of accepting a judging assignment a year or more in advance will be over for a lot of people.
_________________
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Gerard, let me state my premise

This sport has survived for decades with the same basic set of rules and regulations

in the last 10 or so years we have been innundated with proposals of new rules and regulations to solve this problem or that problem

WE DON'T NEED A RULE FOR EVERYTHING !!!!!

my moratorium NO NEW RULES DAMMIT

not about where the gun can retire, not about what constitutes being an immediate family member, not about what constitutes being a pro, not about the color of the sky, not about the smell of dog poop, not about ANYTHING 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
Should Amateurs be allowed to judge their Professional Trainers at field trials?
Yes, they should be allowed. 33% [ 18 ]
No, they should be prohibited. 66% [ 36 ]
Total Votes : 54


As I said yesterday I voted the no option in the poll, along with close to 70% of the people that voted .That percentage is still holding up!Although it has slipped a little, it is still two to one.
As members of the FT. community .We are in our own little world with all of the same flaws, at about the same percentage as the outside world. To think otherwise, is to have one?s head buried in the sand!
Can we ignore the fact that everyone is not honest? How can we be so naive? We are a Nation of Laws .How could it be otherwise?
To those who think that things are just fine the way they are. I say, The Emperor is Naked, he doesn?t have any clothes. :wink:
john-just: Exposing the Obvious
 
41 - 60 of 116 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top