NASS Results??? - Page 8

I invited someone to watch the protection phase. This person's job was to look for inconsistencies in helper work. My report back was that the helper was excellent and worked each dog fairly. This person has been involved with several dogs at the international level. I did this for my own peace of mind, and no others knew about it. (No, Randy, I will not give up this name either.)

"Hmmm even some working dogs flunk protection..."

Yes, but we shoot those dogs in the parking lot.  

Let's discuss a point and see how close we can come to agreeing on something. Let's go over a topic where we can agree and see where it goes. You have insight to helper work. let's start there. I'll throw out some facts, you can agree/disagree and comment. Fair enough?

You have done the back half protection. Can we agree the helper for the NASS is closely related to a Board member. Can we agree the Board member is a competitor at the NASS? Can we agree the helper is an integral part of the competition and his actions can influence the pass/fail of a participant?

Do you feel the selection of a relative to perform a task that greatly influences the outcome of a class where a board member/competitor is participating presents a conflict of interest?

.

Yes we do agree on everything except for Rory being a relative is a conflict of interest.  He's a nephew of John.  He would be allowed to work any championship in the WORLD that John would be competing in.  The WUSV's wouldn't exclude him, USCA wouldn't, GSDCA wouldn't, nobody would.  The only rule that has EVER existed stated members of the same household.

You are applying a standard that has already been discussed and decided by ALL of the orgs (well, I'm actually not sure about GSDCA) and they have decided.

So why do you get to come in and redecide what constitutes a conflict of interest when the orgs have already addressed it and they have never included a nephew as a conflict of interest?

To also believe your point would mean that I would have to believe that the Judge, WHO IS IN CHARGE, and TELLS THE HELPERS WHAT TO DO, is in on whatever malfeasance you think Rory might or could have done.  Never mind the FACT that at a Sieger Show, if they believe that there is any helper error, they allow a do over for the dog.  Hell, the dog gets three chances to heel off leash to the attack on handler blind with no penalty.  The Judge agreed to Rory, the Judge monitored his helperwork and Judged it fair and consistent.  Who are you to say different?

ROFLMAO @Keith

Damn that was funny!

 I agree with Randy.

Even if there is no rule against it, it still looks bad (IMO) and leaves the performance results open for (more) speculation.

Thoughts from an outsiders observation.

We'll agree to disagree then.  I trust the helpers and the judges.  I've been around them alot and I have only seen one time in my life where a helper did anything to fail a dog.  He was a german helper brought over by the judge.  The rest have been very open, honest and honorable in their duties and I respect them for that.

They'll have to do something to earn my distrust and being a shirt tail relative isn't on my list.  Not to mention, you are now excluding Rory from EVER working a Sieger Show because there is always a Wilendorf dog entered.  You consider that fair?

Christine:

Great work with your GSD Events Online site.

We have facts and we can agree on facts and we can agree to disagree on some finer points. You see from the response that there are some that don't approve of the conflict. Yes, I know the WDA approved it. Why is that not surprising anyone? That just adds fuel to the fire. They approved the last minute rule changes last year too and that didn't go over too well did it?

The problem with the NASS is it's plagued with improprieties. Justifying them just reinforces the perception it's all corrupt. Hope that makes sense.

The show has two options and we can leave it at that. If the WDA is content with their entries.(I have every reason to believe they are) They can continue on course and be content. No need to worry about what anyone else does. No need to imagine lists that don't exist. Just be happy in the WDA sandbox and be self supporting. Leave everyone and everything else alone. You have your elite venue.

OR

You can attempt to grow the event, listen to those that are not participating and implement some changes.

Problem is you miss the point and try and make this a wda issue.  NO organization would find it a conflict of interest.  If you do, that's fine, your allowed your pov.

Interesting that when pushed, its now gone from the politics taking away a VA in the protection work, that now you just think is an impropriaty.....

However, don't label this example an impropriety because it isn't.  You just don't like it.  Change the rules then.