Is
it fair to say that the Kennel Club is not doing enough to
prevent 'bent' judging?
Your
chance to have your say by ringing our VOTELINE
0901
502 0010 - YES
0901
502 0011 - NO
Calls
should cost no more than 25p
Fact
or fiction?
As
long as dog shows have taken place the question of honesty
and judging have been discussed by exhibitors ad nauseam.
In this, or any other sport, where opinions are being sought
there is the inescapable fact that, by definition, it is an
individual’s view on the day.
This view can be right, wrong, biased or just downright stupid
(like the judge who gave the BOB to a male dog they described
as small and was told afterwards it actually was a bitch!)
How to PROVE someone is actually judging in an improper or
bent way is a little more tricky.
However, the recent case of the Jockey Club being taken to
task on a trial by TV has certainly got people talking in
the world of dogs. The perception that all is not right in
the world of horse racing appears to have overtaken the facts
and little or no hard evidence has been produced. The same
situation could be said of claims of cheating at dog shows,
and this leaves the Kennel Club with a dilemma. Or does it?
Is there a case to answer, or is it all idle chitter chatter
around the rings?
OUR DOGS wants to shake this skeleton out of the cupboard
and invites columnists and readers to let us have their views
on whether a problem exists, and if it does, what to do about
it.
We welcome all letters to the Editor by email, fax or letter.
Please reply to: ourdogsedit@lineone.net
•
Tel: 08707 31 65 00 • Fax: 08707 31 65 01
The
Jockey Club’s inability or unwillingness to tackle alleged
corruption in the horseracing world formed the subject of
a much-heralded Panorama TV programme, writes Frank Jackson.
Little that had not already been widely aired over several
years was forthcoming in the one sided programme, nevertheless
even the tired old has-been that Panorama has become was still
able to aim a well-directed punch or two.
Any comparison between the Jockey Club’s inept performance
and that of the Kennel Club’s would be grossly unfair
to the latter. The only similarities appear to be that similar
concerns exist about the determination with which both the
Jockey Club and the Kennel Club address areas of possible
corruption and that fears related to what appear to be declining
standards of integrity arise within the bailiwicks of both
organisations and that the members of both seem to regard
themselves as an elite and as such not answerable to anyone.
The Jockey Club has a security department with a staff of
over 60 led, at the present, by a recently appointed retired
SAS Major General. The Kennel Club has no-one on its staff
charged with the sole responsibility of keeping corruption
at bay. The Jockey Club has a reputation for strict, sometimes
almost pathologically strict, attention to ensuring that its
rules are respected. Every race meeting is over seen by stewards
with the power to punish wrongdoers. The Kennel Club takes
a lackadaisical attitude towards at least some of its rules
and has no independent official representative at any licensed
events. The Jockey Club is at the heart of a multi £million
industries; in comparative terms the Kennel Club is dealing
in small change.
Charges that both the Jockey Club and the Kennel Club have
been less than assiduous in their efforts to act effectively
against wrongdoing have been close to the surface for some
time. Both have tried to distance themselves from repeated
allegations and have shown reluctance to take action.
The Jockey Club as an organisation, individual members of
its staff and the entire sport of racing will now pay dearly
for these failings.
Just a few quotations from the sporting and the quality press
may go some way towards illustrating the extent of the damage.
‘Panorama,
- portrays racing administrators as craven and complacent‚
Alan Lee’ The Times, Oct. 5.
‘It is a closed and self-important society, suspicious
of strangers and dismissive of any who question its ways.’
Allan Lee, The Times, Oct 5.
‘All the time the incompetent toffs of the Jockey Club
do nothing except sit about on their upper-class bums. What
it comes down to is two bodies obsessed by superficial appearances,
by the triumph of image over substance. What is clearly not
acceptable is doing nothing to stop it.’ Simon Barnes,
The Times, Oct. 5.
‘It will not make comfortable viewing for the Jockey
Club, whose ability to police the sport is brought strongly
into question. The thrust of the programme is that the Jockey
Club has “lacked the moral courage and backbone’
to tackle some major integrity issues.” David Ashworth,
Racing Post, Oct. 5.
Racing was the victim of sustained corruption and the Jockey
Club had failed in its duty to the sport.’ Richard Griffiths,
Oct. 5, Racing Post.
‘The Jockey Club is portrayed as an inept and antiquated
body, seemingly able but unwilling to deal with the wrongdoing
being committed under its nose,’ David Yates, Daily Mirror,
Oct. 5.
‘The programme rips to shreds the reputation of racing’s
rulers‚ Claude Duval, The Sun, Oct 5.
‘The Jockey Club face their darkest hour ... failing
to deal with „systematic corruption‰ which has plagued
racing for 15 years. The perception is of a regulatory body
ruled by grandees who are failing to keep the sport clean.‚
Richard Evans, Daily Telegraph, Oct. 5.
‘The Jockey Club has again been shown to be an ineffectual
overseer, lame in the arguments about livelihoods at risk,
lacking evidence of keeping its house in order.‚ Rob
Hughes, The Sunday Times, Oct. 6.
‘Most Saturday newspapers adopted a hard-line editorial
stance against the Jockey Club’s ability to regulate
the sport,’ Andrew Scutt, Racing Post, Oct. 6.
The
Kennel Club does not deserve such unsympathetic treatment
but then probably neither does the Jockey Club.
The Jockey Club responded to criticism by creating a rule
that allows it to act against persons who are not regarded
as ‘fit and proper.’ The Kennel Club already has
this ability. It can exert influence on who receives invitations
to judge. It can refuse to allow people who are not fit and
proper to award CCs. It enables shows to refuse entries from
anyone regarded as neither fit nor proper. It already has
the power but is not seen to be making effective use of that
power.
Since the Panorama programme was transmitted the Jockey Club's
senior security officer has resigned, the club has lost almost
£7.5 million in income, its influence has been reduced,
its powers curtailed and it faces the prospect of a rival
organisation taking over some of its functions. This activity
has come about not because of any new revelations or because
proof has been forthcoming to support old allegations. It
has come about simply because the Jockey Club is perceived
as no longer up to the task of keeping racing clean and lacking
the will to improve its performance.
What, especially by the Kennel Club, should not be forgotten,
is that the Panorama programme was based almost entirely on
rumour, innuendo, ill-advised outbursts and a lack of basic
commonsense among its senior staff. There was little, if anything,
that would stand up in a court of law. When the subject of
malpractice is raised the Kennel Club tends to take shelter
behind the absence of just such hard evidence. Panorama has
demonstrated that the absence of hard evidence would provide
only flimsy protection against the sort of immensely damaging
programme it has just transmitted about the Jockey Club. Nor
would it be difficult to find disgruntled, disillusioned and
greedy people who would be prepared to dish the dirt in exchange
for a brown envelope or a fleeting moment of notoriety. Some
may already have been approached. No one can deny the existence
of dark corners in the world of dogs. The Kennel Club must
be seen to be doing something to shine a very strong light
into them.
Furthermore October 18th. issue
Viewpoint
– taken from Kennel Gazette, August 2002
IT
IS sometimes said that one of the reasons for the high rate
of turnover in those who participate in canine events is that
some judges behave with less than perfect integrity.
Dissatisfaction with judges is put forward as one of the main
reasons for people giving up the sport. It is also occasionally
alleged that the Kennel Club does not do enough to correct
this situation. Obviously the Kennel Club is concerned to
ensure that the highest possible levels of integrity are practised
by its judges.
It does a great deal to investigate areas of malpractice.
Frequently, however, when those who make such allegations
are asked to come up with hard evidence, they find it impossible
to do so. The KC recognises that it is not ‘above the
law’ and that it has to operate ‘within the law’.
It must therefore confine itself to taking specific disciplinary
action where the evidence on which it must rely indicates
that there is a definite case to answer.
That does not, however, mean that no notice is taken of other
issues. The Judges’ Sub-Committee and other committees
responsible for the approval of judges, do not live in a cocoon
- no matter how much those judges with less than perfect integrity
would like them to. They live in the real world - attend shows
and events and are aware when rumours about a judge’s
integrity become commonplace. Anyone who thinks that such
rumours do not influence committee members against errant
judges is living in ‘cloud cuckoo land’. We cannot
expect even members of the Judges’ Sub-Committee to be
super-human! They are bound to be influenced by persistent
adverse comments of this kind.
In some instances the lack of integrity is not even against
the rules - merely against the spirit of the rules. Some judges
are thought to ‘promote’ dogs after they have given
them top awards. Others are rumoured to consult catalogues
before they judge and mark their judge’s book accordingly.
Let no-one believe, however, that this type of behaviour goes
totally unnoticed. It is vital for our sport that judges act
and are seen to act with integrity at all times.
Evaluation of existing CC judges
Following
on from the current practice of evaluating Challenge Certificate
judges at their first appointment for each breed, the General
Committee, at its meeting on 16th April 2002, decided that
this form of evaluation now be extended to cover judges who
have previously been approved to award CCs.
Consequently, Challenge Certificate judges will be selected
at random and evaluated at Championship shows to be held during
the remainder of this year on a spot check basis. The Evaluators
will be experienced Challenge Certificate judges of long standing
selected by the Kennel Club's Judges Sub-Committee. The evaluations
will cover compliance with show regulations, ring procedure
and consistency of approach to judging. As with the other
evaluations, these will be confidentially forwarded to the
Kennel Club and submitted for consideration by the Judges’
Sub-Committee and there will be feedback to the judge as considered
appropriate.
Kennel Club statement issued April 2002.
