This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Jantie on 25 November 2010 - 18:11
Don't want to interfere with your post Abby, but wanted to add this for the earlier remark.
Hello Renée and Michael (Wienerau kennel),
nice to hear from you again, although it's on a discussion board.
I have repeated time and time again, that the HD3 = Noch Zugelassen score (HD C in some countries) is a joke. In fact HD3 is a collective term for bad scores like HD4 (D) and even HD (E) turned overnight into a score (Still Admissible) that will still allow breeding and carry away an A-stamp. A scam really, and all insiders are pretty much aware of it.
"Oh my God, yes, that IS a bad hip, but bring your dog to our alltime SV-Vet and he will put an HD3 = C on the dog!!"
As I have written on many occassions, any reasonable breed warden or any selfrespecting breeding organization would stick to the mandatory HD1 and HD2 results only. Anything not worthy of a B-score must be rejected, no matter how "nice", how "colourfull" or "lively" the dog looks.
As my paper about the DDR on "GSD-legends.eu" documents, it is perfectly possible to almost eradicate HD when one consistenlty pursues this goal of elimination.
Hope to hear from you again! Good luck!
Jan
Hello Renée and Michael (Wienerau kennel),
nice to hear from you again, although it's on a discussion board.
I have repeated time and time again, that the HD3 = Noch Zugelassen score (HD C in some countries) is a joke. In fact HD3 is a collective term for bad scores like HD4 (D) and even HD (E) turned overnight into a score (Still Admissible) that will still allow breeding and carry away an A-stamp. A scam really, and all insiders are pretty much aware of it.
"Oh my God, yes, that IS a bad hip, but bring your dog to our alltime SV-Vet and he will put an HD3 = C on the dog!!"
As I have written on many occassions, any reasonable breed warden or any selfrespecting breeding organization would stick to the mandatory HD1 and HD2 results only. Anything not worthy of a B-score must be rejected, no matter how "nice", how "colourfull" or "lively" the dog looks.
As my paper about the DDR on "GSD-legends.eu" documents, it is perfectly possible to almost eradicate HD when one consistenlty pursues this goal of elimination.
Hope to hear from you again! Good luck!
Jan
by Videx on 25 November 2010 - 19:11
Abbey Normal: note the following.
An appeal may be allowed for the same plates to be re-scored.
This is exactly what I wrote: "The BVA Scheme does allow multiple submissions, I have done this on 2 dogs. I am also confident that if any result was seriously challenged by the Vet that took the x-ray, the BVA would consider taking similar action to that taken by the SV."
Intelligent readers will see that I have NOT attempted to mislead anyone. The ignorant readers (like you Abbey Normal) will of course remain ignorant.
Why not allow another set of x-rays?
Don't they trust their Vets, or are they trying to 'protect' their scheme, the scorers, above the genuine hip score of the animal?
The answers are all to obvious.
Some people have re-done the hips under the scheme, with the same dog. Professor McGowan did this with a male GSD be bought from the Kayard GSD kennel and had a hip score total 19 - he had them done again some 12 months or so later and did not inform them that the dog had been scored before.
The dog obtained a total score of 5 the second time around.
There is "human error" in the scheme, which apparently is very likely to get worse the higher the score.
The BVA/KC scheme rules attempt to squash any "exposure risk" of the scheme. This is typical bureaucratic protectionism. Where there is a will there is a way around such rules, as Professor McGowan proved.
An appeal may be allowed for the same plates to be re-scored.
This is exactly what I wrote: "The BVA Scheme does allow multiple submissions, I have done this on 2 dogs. I am also confident that if any result was seriously challenged by the Vet that took the x-ray, the BVA would consider taking similar action to that taken by the SV."
Intelligent readers will see that I have NOT attempted to mislead anyone. The ignorant readers (like you Abbey Normal) will of course remain ignorant.
Why not allow another set of x-rays?
Don't they trust their Vets, or are they trying to 'protect' their scheme, the scorers, above the genuine hip score of the animal?
The answers are all to obvious.
Some people have re-done the hips under the scheme, with the same dog. Professor McGowan did this with a male GSD be bought from the Kayard GSD kennel and had a hip score total 19 - he had them done again some 12 months or so later and did not inform them that the dog had been scored before.
The dog obtained a total score of 5 the second time around.
There is "human error" in the scheme, which apparently is very likely to get worse the higher the score.
The BVA/KC scheme rules attempt to squash any "exposure risk" of the scheme. This is typical bureaucratic protectionism. Where there is a will there is a way around such rules, as Professor McGowan proved.
by Abby Normal on 25 November 2010 - 20:11
No Videx
We all know in the context the question was asked by the posts surrounding it, and anyone can see it was not referencing appealing the same plates, but a subsequent and different set of plates, as you well know. You are still trying to mislead to save face.
My question was do the BVA 'allow' multiple submissions, not did they pick up every fraud, which is exactly what your friend Professor McGowan did. Somehow why am I not surprised that you are OK with that? You call it human error by the BVA, I call it deliberate fraud by someone who should know better. I discussed today the systems in place to prevent such things happening, which have changed in recent years. However, I've no doubt that the dodgy breeders/owners will most probably find a way to cheat the system. What they do in the end is cheat and diminish the breed and the whole point of health testing. As this thread originally suggested - corruption - and this is just another form of it. Perhaps he even substituted the dog that was x-rayed.
Still, I guess if the SV allow submission of more than one plate, it might explain a great deal indeed.
Well done, you have just illustrated why honest people are concerned about corruption in the breed. You have proved that they are right to do so.
You may think I am ignorant Videx (which I am not, and you know I'm not), but I am proud to say that I am not a fraud or a cheat, and if that makes me ignorant in your eyes then I would rather be ignorant than corrupt, or defend and support corruption. You continue to validate everything I have come to expect of you. I am sure the BVA will find the information you've provided interesting, athough I've no doubt they have come to expect it.
BTW talking of health schemes, do you intend on carrying out PD testing on your breeding stock?
We all know in the context the question was asked by the posts surrounding it, and anyone can see it was not referencing appealing the same plates, but a subsequent and different set of plates, as you well know. You are still trying to mislead to save face.
My question was do the BVA 'allow' multiple submissions, not did they pick up every fraud, which is exactly what your friend Professor McGowan did. Somehow why am I not surprised that you are OK with that? You call it human error by the BVA, I call it deliberate fraud by someone who should know better. I discussed today the systems in place to prevent such things happening, which have changed in recent years. However, I've no doubt that the dodgy breeders/owners will most probably find a way to cheat the system. What they do in the end is cheat and diminish the breed and the whole point of health testing. As this thread originally suggested - corruption - and this is just another form of it. Perhaps he even substituted the dog that was x-rayed.
Still, I guess if the SV allow submission of more than one plate, it might explain a great deal indeed.
Well done, you have just illustrated why honest people are concerned about corruption in the breed. You have proved that they are right to do so.
You may think I am ignorant Videx (which I am not, and you know I'm not), but I am proud to say that I am not a fraud or a cheat, and if that makes me ignorant in your eyes then I would rather be ignorant than corrupt, or defend and support corruption. You continue to validate everything I have come to expect of you. I am sure the BVA will find the information you've provided interesting, athough I've no doubt they have come to expect it.
BTW talking of health schemes, do you intend on carrying out PD testing on your breeding stock?
by Videx on 25 November 2010 - 23:11
Abbey Normal; Once again you talk through your arse. No wonder you hide your identity - clearly avoiding personal embarrassment on several levels!
I NEVER try and save face, I NEVER have need to, and I would NEVER be inclined to - My comments are valid. It is you who is squirming, and indeed over stepping the mark.
Professor McGowan DID NOT commit fraud = he submitted the same dog under his correct name - and obtained a much lower score.
This proved a number of points.
1) the BVA/KC scoring scheme is NOT infallible.
2) The BVA/KC brought in rules to STOP this happening again because It brought their scheme into genuine disrepute.
Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having multiple submissions with the same dog at your own expense, by a qualified Vet, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog.
by bazza on 26 November 2010 - 07:11
Abby, I'll admit I'm not the smartest cookie but could you explain your comment above, " You may think I'm ignorant Videx, ( which I am not, and you know I'm not)". I have read that a few times but can't understand if he THINKS you are how can he KNOW your not??? Maybe it's just too early in the morning for my slow to warm up brain, lol.
by Jantie on 26 November 2010 - 07:11
Bullies and cockroaches won't bring us anywhere. 
Quote:
"Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having multiple submissions with the same dog at your own expense, by a qualified Vet, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog."
Which brings us back to Zara!!!
"Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having her X-rayed again at OUR expenses, by a qualified Vet = international HD/ED-expert, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog!!??"
Ciao!
Quote:
"Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having multiple submissions with the same dog at your own expense, by a qualified Vet, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog."Which brings us back to Zara!!!
"Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having her X-rayed again at OUR expenses, by a qualified Vet = international HD/ED-expert, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog!!??"Ciao!
by Abby Normal on 26 November 2010 - 10:11
Professor McGowan DID NOT commit fraud = he submitted the same dog under his correct name - and obtained a much lower score.
This proved a number of points.
1) the BVA/KC scoring scheme is NOT infallible. Knowing the rules of the scheme about submissions (as YOU pointed out, not being permitted to submit more than one x-ray) he deliberately set out to do just that, by not telling them he had already had the dog scored. He could have LEGITIMATELY appealed the original score. He didn't. Fraud, period. You may dress it up as something else, but that demonstrates something about your interpretation of ethics.
2) The BVA/KC brought in rules to STOP this happening again because It brought their scheme into genuine disrepute. The blame for this lies with those breeders/owners who would set out to cheat the system, not the system itself! Can you not see this? It is not the fault of the scheme, but those who would cheat it deliberately, which you appear to condone, or at least not condemn! Again - corruption confirmed. By the way, they didn't bring in 'rules' to prevent it. That clearly did not work, as you have illustrated so perfectly, certain people will ignore and break 'rules' no matter that they pertain to the health of the breed. No, there is a different failsafe mechanism now.
Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having multiple submissions with the same dog at your own expense, by a qualified Vet, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog. In the context of this 'conversation', whether the scheme should or should not allow multiple submissions of different x-rays (let's be clear) of the same dog is somewhat irrelevant. That is no justification for ignoring the rules of the scheme which currently stand. I may think that there would be nothing wrong with having my car MOT'd every 2 years, but if I decide that's what I will do, despite the current rules, I will be breaking the law.
I am overstepping the mark?
This proved a number of points.
1) the BVA/KC scoring scheme is NOT infallible. Knowing the rules of the scheme about submissions (as YOU pointed out, not being permitted to submit more than one x-ray) he deliberately set out to do just that, by not telling them he had already had the dog scored. He could have LEGITIMATELY appealed the original score. He didn't. Fraud, period. You may dress it up as something else, but that demonstrates something about your interpretation of ethics.
2) The BVA/KC brought in rules to STOP this happening again because It brought their scheme into genuine disrepute. The blame for this lies with those breeders/owners who would set out to cheat the system, not the system itself! Can you not see this? It is not the fault of the scheme, but those who would cheat it deliberately, which you appear to condone, or at least not condemn! Again - corruption confirmed. By the way, they didn't bring in 'rules' to prevent it. That clearly did not work, as you have illustrated so perfectly, certain people will ignore and break 'rules' no matter that they pertain to the health of the breed. No, there is a different failsafe mechanism now.
Surely there is NOTHING wrong with having multiple submissions with the same dog at your own expense, by a qualified Vet, who checks the dogs tattoo/microchip and ensures it is the correct dog. In the context of this 'conversation', whether the scheme should or should not allow multiple submissions of different x-rays (let's be clear) of the same dog is somewhat irrelevant. That is no justification for ignoring the rules of the scheme which currently stand. I may think that there would be nothing wrong with having my car MOT'd every 2 years, but if I decide that's what I will do, despite the current rules, I will be breaking the law.
I am overstepping the mark?
by Abby Normal on 26 November 2010 - 10:11
Bazza
Early for you, late for me when I was replying.
It should have said, you may say I am ignorant etc. Perhaps that is more understandable LOL.
Early for you, late for me when I was replying.
It should have said, you may say I am ignorant etc. Perhaps that is more understandable LOL.
by Videx on 26 November 2010 - 10:11
One HUGE difference Jantie: YOU are NOT the owner of Zara.
You lack the intelligence to understand that OWNERS will never be "bounced" into anything like you are suggesting. If they did, who would be next to make similar demands for other TESTS.
Please switch your brain on, if that still doesn't work then please seek advice on my point from an intellectual.
You lack the intelligence to understand that OWNERS will never be "bounced" into anything like you are suggesting. If they did, who would be next to make similar demands for other TESTS.
Please switch your brain on, if that still doesn't work then please seek advice on my point from an intellectual.
by bazza on 26 November 2010 - 10:11
Thanks Abby, that's a whole lot more understandable, lol.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
