USA BOI findings - Page 13

Thank you for the data spook101. What about the members in this club, can they participate in the show or trial held under the USA? I have said before and will repeat it, someone should be punished directly for this, not just a club. Why is that not the case? It is understandable that people do not want to discuss the issues if what you have heard is true. Unfortunately, it will only be the attorneys that prosper from a mess such as this. Naren

As I understand it there may be more to come, but that needs to come from an official source.

<<<,Can you please give your best assessment of what ACTUALLY occurred at the event in question?>>> Friday July 8, 2005 USA club “O.G. Wesconn Schutzhund club” held a USA Authorized SchH trial with SV Judge Bernhard Premm. Saturday July 9, 2005 USA club “O.G. Wesconn Schutzhund club” held a USA Authorized SchH trial in the morning with SV Judge Bernhard Premm. In the Afternoon USA club “O.G.Wesconn Schutzhund club” held a USA Authorized Conformation show with SV Judge Lothar Quoll Sunday July 10, 2005 USA club “O.G.Wesconn Schutzhund club” held a USA Authorized Breed Survey with SV Judge Lothar Quoll Sunday July 10, 2005 WDA club “Wesconn Schaeferhund Verien” held a WDA Authorized SchH trial with SV Judge Bernhard Premm. BOI Charges were sustained filed because of handler handling more than 3 dogs, as stated in the beginning of this thread. The RD director suspended the club because fo violation of E-Ballot#9-04 N.E. Region voted John Henkel out of his position as the RBW, of course while he was in Germany. My arguement has not been directed toward the RD but the way the E-Ballot was written. I had no disagreement with the BOI charges, but voted against it only because of the way the whole thing was handled.

Mr. Doose - you are very far from this location where the two trials took place on same day. Were you at this place on this date? May be you were not there, and so you don't know what really happened there. I think there were people there on that day, who really know what did happen. Such as, someone riding a bike for the AD when the judge and trial people were not there, and were located in a bar drinking beer when the person finished the AD, then signed the scorebook? And, what about no wda trial really happens at all on sunday? People who were there saw a show but not a trial happen there on that daY? But paperwork was sent in says there was a trial? With handlers not really there, and dogs not really titled, but the signed scorebooks too? What about that Mr. Doose?

And here we go again. I don't disagree with you, as you are not the first to say this. But! IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW IT'S WHAT YOU CAN PROVE. I cannot dispute anything anybody say's that was actually there. But my decision is made solely with the evidence that was presented to the EB. Just as in court...It's not what you know but what you can prove. If there was someone riding a bike for the AD when the judge and trial people were not there, and were located in a bar drinking beer when the person finished the AD, then signed the scorebook then BOI charges should be filed for that. If People who were there saw a show but not a trial happen there on that daY? But paperwork was sent in says there was a trial then BOI charges should be filed for that. But the suspension happened because there WAS two trials on the same day according to the RD. You see where I'm going with this. I have no problem with people filing charges against a club for wrong doing....but do it right. But everything was botched, People backpeddling when questioned, People contradicting what they saw, Too much smoke. Uwe

Doose, there are a number of people from your region that claim Schutzhund titles were given, but not earned, to two dogs. This apparently was so they could be Show rated and sold. Is this true or do you know? I think everyone admits that "handler handling more than 3 dogs" also occured, but that is fairly minor. Why was Premm's license pulled? Also, I was told that Henkel was caught in a lie during questioning and admitted to the lie when the paperwork was produced. Do you know if that's true?

Just asking what Doose knows. Mr Henkel would need to be libeled in order to have a case. I have made no false statements against him, but thanks for your concern.

point well taken, I think mr doose was trying to make a point about due process of a lack of, but it did not come across very well.

Thanks Uwe, There are still questions as to whether T. Floyd actually handled more than three dogs or there was just duplicate paperwork filed or handled some in the USA event and others in the WDA event. Also, if a handler presents more than 3 dogs it would seem that no rules have been broken until he is allowed to TRIAL the extra dogs by which time the trial secretary and the judge have had plenty of opportunity to deny him.

<<>> mmm that's new to me, but then I have come across more than one person lately speaking with two mouths as I have been involved with the political part of this. They'll tell you one thing, then tell someone else something different. Uwe