# Re: is this a new trend in field trials



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

*Re: is this a new trend in field trials*

This is a question and I am curious about opinions:

Is it a trend or has this always gone on: A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?

Is this acceptable? 
He is an Amateur first impression. 
Is this good sportsmanship?


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> This is a question and I am curious about opinions:
> 
> Is it a trend or has this always gone on: A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?
> 
> ...


Shamateurs have been around for a long time, Mike. Nothing new there.

I think you already know the answers to your questions, but maybe you need reinforcement as to their validity. -Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There are also former pros, who now hold themselves out as Amateurs, who are paid under the table to train dogs for clients, and frequently run those dogs for their clients in the Amateur.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> This is a question and I am curious about opinions:
> 
> Is it a trend or has this always gone on: A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?
> 
> ...


Nothing illegal in the rules. This was a problem in the 80s hence the Owner Handler Amateur Stake, it is a club option and if people are abusing the rules one that should be employed.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

EDA I know it’s legal on first impression. But these individuals participating in this don’t you think they take the integrity of the sport away. It cheapens the National.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> EDA I know it’s legal on first impression. But these individuals participating in this don’t you think they take the integrity of the sport away. It cheapens the National.


Not arguing (or defending) the ethics just recognizing the legality and the vehicle to manage it, the Owner Handler Amateur All Age.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

Legal ≠ Ethical


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

One of the biggest problems with the FT game today, Honor and Honestly. 

We are doing it to ourselves in that no one will call anyone out on anything out of fear that you will get your arse handed to you at some point down the road by the person you called out. It's sickening.

You see a illegal test set up at a FT something should be said to the FT committee who in turn should mention to the judges the things that should be pointed out that are wrong. But again nothing is ever said. " it's ok, everyone has to do the same test" BS!!!

We have a book to guide us to what is correct and what isn't, USE IT.


----------



## tigerfan (Mar 13, 2019)

Reginald said:


> One of the biggest problems with the FT game today, Honor and Honestly.
> 
> We are doing it to ourselves in that no one will call anyone out on anything out of fear that you will get your arse handed to you at some point down the road by the person you called out. It's sickening.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of Truth in this post

In regards to the title of the thread no there's nothing new this is not a new trend it's been going on for a long time.


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

There are many AFC titled dogs that would not even be house broke if it weren't for a pro trainer.
A casual observer might think pros were renting dogs out to amateurs on weekends.
Not for me, not new, not against the rules and not going to change.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> There are also former pros, who now hold themselves out as Amateurs, who are paid under the table to train dogs for clients, and frequently run those dogs for their clients in the Amateur.


Yup. The thing is they have been dishonest for so long that they have come to believe what they are doing is OK. And it goes deeper, the several people in the "training groups" are dirty also.


----------



## SD Lab (Mar 14, 2003)

That’s why hunt test are having a lot more people participate than field trials. To many political games in trials.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

SD Lab said:


> That’s why hunt test are having a lot more people participate than field trials. To many political games in trials.


I'd think it has more to do with the fact that hunt tests are not competitive... that a vast majority of well bred dogs can be successful... and that the relative 'time' it takes to get that MH title is much less than (and more attainable) than it is an FC or AFC title...


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

SD Lab said:


> That’s why hunt test are having a lot more people participate than field trials. To many political games in trials.


Take the pros out of AKC hunt tests and the participation isn't so great.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

SD Lab said:


> That’s why hunt test are having a lot more people participate than field trials. To many political games in trials.


Wait a few years, HT have historically not had to deal with the definition of amateur but with the advent of the Master Amateur Invitational you will see the same "games" played. Especially if they ever create a Master Amat title.

Tim


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

SD Lab said:


> That’s why hunt test are having a lot more people participate than field trials. To many political games in trials.


There's nothing 'political' about the issue that Mike brought up.

It's about people who want to win so badly that they are willing to compromise the spirit of the game which is supposed to allow Amateurs to compete separately from the Professionals. It's not about who trained the dog, but rather people who run many or all of the dogs that are on a Pro's truck. Ultimately, the real problem is that the actual owners consent to this.

If someone is routinely running a Pro's string of dogs that they do not own, it may be within the framework of the rules, but it is certainly not what was intended when the Amateur Stake came into being.

Sadly, some circumvent this by listing others as part owner. This even goes on in the Q, where owner-handler stakes have pro involvement thru listing the Pro as as part owner. Again, this is not what was intended when the owner handler stake was ok'd by the AKC. Legal, yes. Ethical? You decide. -Paul


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

When I did ftretrieverjudge.net it did not take long to question who was circumventing the rules & who was not. 
At that time I had the wonderful resource of being able to verify what I was seeing on paper through someone 
more knowledgeable of the social aspects of the game. Unfortunately the majority of these unethical people allow 
their views if it means an additional dollar might drop in their pocket & for the most, they are knowledgeable dog 
people so end up dictating the direction of the sport, to the sports detriment. When you have felons judging what 
can you expect? Whole litters being campaigned in the Derby by the breeder, each pup owned by someone who is 
a member of the Who's Who of the sport. That was brought to my attention by someone from that area where it 
happened. 

A good friend of mine marshalled a stake with 2 very well known breeder trainer (make money out of the sport) 
folks judging. The top 2 dogs (in their mind) ended up being dogs they had more than a casual interest in them 
getting the blue. The argument over who got the placing got settled by ????????? & certainly not by another test. 

Given the unwillingness of the AKC to do what they should do, the RAC being stacked, & people being people the 
alternative is to start your own venue. Think that could happen?


----------



## Big Chief (Feb 4, 2018)

I'm new to this retriever game, but not to field trials (been involved in pointing dogs for decades). Here is what I have come to see. Field trials campaigned at a high level take either a great deal of commitment and/or financial sacrifice on the part of the owner, or it may just flat-out be a rich man's game.

One can debate all these things till they are blue in the face. If your dog spends his life on the back of a pro's truck, but you take him home a month before the National Amateur to re-acquaint yourself with the dog, and then win the big enchilada, how in hell is that an amateur dog? 

Justsayin.

Don't shoot the messenger, just sharing what are my thoughts.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Wait a few years, HT have historically not had to deal with the definition of amateur but with the advent of the Master Amateur Invitational you will see the same "games" played. Especially if they ever create a Master Amat title.
> 
> Tim


Nailed it!!! It has already begun.

History repeating itself regards

Bubba


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

moscowitz said:


> This is a question and I am curious about opinions:
> 
> Is it a trend or has this always gone on: A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?
> 
> ...


Just curious, if said Amateur had gone out in 1st series of AM would there be a post? Or are we posting because said dog came in and cleaned house and won both the Open and the AM?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Gunner up I guess you know who the pro was and who the Amat was. I guess it is there practice? No I had a curiosity about the dog who ran the Amat national and the owner who ran dog at national. From this trial realized how it was done. Did not care about placement though I have some more investigation to do. Paul Young on his last post nailed it.


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

moscowitz said:


> Gunner up I guess you know who the pro was and who the Amat was. I guess it is there practice? No I had a curiosity about the dog who ran the Amat national and the owner who ran dog at national. From this trial realized how it was done. Did not care about placement though I have some more investigation to do. Paul Young on his last post nailed it.


Mike, before you go all Inspector Clouseau on us I will fill you in on the rest of the story.

Last Spring Seth Kelly and Myself were asked to judge the Amateur @ the Maine Ret. Club August Trial and we agreed. A few months later we were informed that another judge had been acquired for the Amateur stake and the club would like to have Seth judge the minor stakes. No worries, glad to help. When it came time to buy airfare my ticket was $1600 to fly from Oklahoma to Maine. The club wanted to deliberate on this but it didn't look like it was going to be economically feasible for the club. Some time goes by with me still listed as one of the AM judges when the club comes back and confirms it's not economically feasible for me to judge and they would like for Seth (much cheaper flight from Dallas) to judge Amateur. That's fine, but now Ron Root who has requested and taken vacation time, airfare, lodging, rental car, etc. can't run his dog in the Amateur because He & Seth were (past tense) co-owners on Ron's dog. Rules are rules and Ron decides he will still go to Maine and run his dog in the Open only. Since I'm not coming to judge and Ron doesn't have a dog to run in the Amateur I asked him if he would like to run my two. Jenny (dog that won AM & Open) owner was in Alaska at the time and made same offer to Ron. Side note, Ron used to own Jenny and sold her to current owner because at the time she wasn't performing. Ron agrees to run the three dogs for two friends in the Amateur. He ran the exact same trial all 35 other dog/handler teams did. Only thing is, on that weekend he did it better placing 1st and 4th. Keep in mind this ball got rolling because Seth and I were at the wrong place at the wrong time and agreed to judge a trial. Pretty underhanded & nefarious huh??????????

Now YOU get on a public forum and spew BS making serious accusations of cheating and un-sportsman like conduct. When in reality, you are showing poor sportsmanship by FABRICATING a story to defame and delegitimize a remarkable weekend (Open & Amateur Wins) and make excuses for your lack of success. If you would like you can PM with your apology but I would prefer and it would go much further if you made it public to all parties involved on this forum.

Thank you,

Rich Davis


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?”

No mention of cheating just mention of qualifying a dog for National and putting an AFC on a dog. No mention of anything about the judging. I will apologize publicly if the owner of the dog qualified it for the 2019 Natioanl Amateur. And if I stated anything about the judging. But please tell me from my original statement where I mentioned the judging or anything about the judging? When last I looked at the 2019 Amat National Woody Woodson owned and handled said dog at Nationals .


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I’ll tell you what Rich Davis write me up to the AKC for unsportsmanlike behavior and let them make the determination. That’s fair.


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

moscowitz said:


> A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?”
> 
> No mention of cheating just mention of qualifying a dog for National and putting an AFC on a dog. No mention of anything about the judging. I will apologize publicly if the owner of the dog qualified it for the 2019 Natioanl Amateur. And if I stated anything about the judging. But please tell me from my original statement where I mentioned the judging or anything about the judging? When last I looked at the 2019 Amat National Woody Woodson owned and handled said dog at Nationals .


Mike, 

Do you take your tin foil hat off when you come inside? No one and especially the Pro is getting anyone to run dogs for other individuals to title or qualify dogs for the National.

I think your real motive in spewing these accusations and creating conspiracy theories is becoming clear. You are butt hurt that Woody changed breeds and now has a dog that qualified for a National. Envy is such an ugly sin. Control what you can control, quit jousting with windmills, and quit worrying about others and you will find the game so much more enjoyable.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

Gunners Up said:


> Mike, before you go all Inspector Clouseau on us I will fill you in on the rest of the story.
> 
> Last Spring Seth Kelly and Myself were asked to judge the Amateur @ the Maine Ret. Club August Trial and we agreed. A few months later we were informed that another judge had been acquired for the Amateur stake and the club would like to have Seth judge the minor stakes. No worries, glad to help. When it came time to buy airfare my ticket was $1600 to fly from Oklahoma to Maine. The club wanted to deliberate on this but it didn't look like it was going to be economically feasible for the club. Some time goes by with me still listed as one of the AM judges when the club comes back and confirms it's not economically feasible for me to judge and they would like for Seth (much cheaper flight from Dallas) to judge Amateur. That's fine, but now Ron Root who has requested and taken vacation time, airfare, lodging, rental car, etc. can't run his dog in the Amateur because He & Seth were (past tense) co-owners on Ron's dog. Rules are rules and Ron decides he will still go to Maine and run his dog in the Open only. Since I'm not coming to judge and Ron doesn't have a dog to run in the Amateur I asked him if he would like to run my two. Jenny (dog that won AM & Open) owner was in Alaska at the time and made same offer to Ron. Side note, Ron used to own Jenny and sold her to current owner because at the time she wasn't performing. Ron agrees to run the three dogs for two friends in the Amateur. He ran the exact same trial all 35 other dog/handler teams did. Only thing is, on that weekend he did it better placing 1st and 4th. Keep in mind this ball got rolling because Seth and I were at the wrong place at the wrong time and agreed to judge a trial. Pretty underhanded & nefarious huh??????????
> 
> ...


OMG Man, grow some thicker skin for god sake. Big F'in deal some person asks a question about something in the FT game!!!! Crap like this is what pushes people away. Someones feelings get some what stepped on and the tears start streaming. Thank CHRIST I'm getting out of this game!!! And this time I am never ever coming back.

What possible negative impact could the OP have on your life? GEEZ


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Rich Davis I can assure you no envy. I’m a very low in the field trial platform. Getting to the second series, the third series and even the fourth for a jam is all I can vision. FC/AFC Nationals only in my dreams. I just love running my dogs and watching great dogs and great handlers. But I do have one question.

I can only go by what documents say. So when I look up FC Midway’s Aventador SR 79655609 I come up with this and I still don’t understand:

April 20, 2018 Tulsa Retriever Club 4th Amat owner Woody Woodson; Handler Ron Root
Oct 12, 2018 Acadians Retriever Club 2nd place Owner Amat ; owners Ron Root, Mike Wharton; Handler Mike Wharton
( how does that happen when April comes before October and Woody is the owner and this is an owner Amat )
March 1st 2019 Professional Retriever Trainer’s Association North Texas DOuble Header - owner Woody Woodson; Handler in Amat Ron Root
Amat National owner Woody Woodson Handler Woody Woodson

Just a question you see how I can get confused because I only read this off entry express and I’m sure they made a mistake.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The information on EE can be submitted by more than one person and particularly in the case of co-ownership can appear inaccurate or contradictory. The only accurate arbiter for ownership questions is The American Kennel Club. I have no personal knowledge of this specific incident but since the accused parties run the same circuit I run I will attest that nothing nefarious or illegal occurred. I consider Rich, Ron, and Seth friends and know them to be good citizens who exhibit good sportsmanship. Their group has been very helpful at our undermanned field trial.

This thread has taken an ugly turn. It has become personal with accusations and finger pointing. We live in a very small field trial world and it behooves us all to take such disputes private or if the evidence supports illegality filling a formal complaint with The American Kennel Club.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

EDA I was accused of unsportsmanlike behavior so I think that they should file a complaint against me and this can be resolved through a hearing. At this hearing I would suspect that I would be allowed due process. I will await the complaint from AKC. In the mean time I will prepare my case. Some collateral issues may arise. We will see.


----------



## Big Chief (Feb 4, 2018)

This thread should be deleted.


----------



## Reginald (Apr 18, 2018)

Big Chief said:


> This thread should be deleted.


Why? Because someones feelings were hurt?


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

Ron Root has to pay airfare? Jeeze


----------



## Twin Willows Labs (Feb 4, 2014)

A couple of scenarios to consider:

1. Owners A & B, unrelated, both have their dogs on a top tier truck. Owner A has a dog qualified for NARC. Owner B does not. Owner B has also recently earned Purina High Point Amateur and is decidedly a better handler than Owner A. Owner B runs Owner A's dog at NARC. Is this unethical?

2. Owners A (bitch owner) & B (stud owner), unrelated, bred a litter a few years ago. Since then, Owner A's pup from that litter has had great success while Owner B's stud has since become a NAFC. Owner A is a purely amateur trainer, while Owner B uses a top tier pro. Owner B handles Owner A's pup at NARC, along with their own NAFC sire. Is this unethical?

If either or both are unethical, why?


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I believe each one of your examples are absolutely legal. How one feels about it is a different story. But what about the issue of running a dog in owner handler Amat. Stake. What is legal there? 

My original post just dealt with new trend but I guess it is not new but different ways to qualify a dog for the Amat Nationals. I may not like it but it’s legal.


----------



## Twin Willows Labs (Feb 4, 2014)

moscowitz said:


> I believe each one of your examples are absolutely legal. How one feels about it is a different story. But what about the issue of running a dog in owner handler Amat. Stake. What is legal there?
> 
> My original post just dealt with new trend but I guess it is not new but different ways to qualify a dog for the Amat Nationals. I may not like it but it’s legal.


I understand that both are legal. My question is do you consider them ethical?


----------



## birddogn_tc (Apr 24, 2015)

Twin Willows Labs said:


> I understand that both are legal. My question is do you consider them ethical?


I don't run FT's so I should not be commenting. But I don't think either of those scenarios seem unethical.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Twin Willows Labs said:


> I understand that both are legal. My question is do you consider them ethical?


Nothing unethical. It is well within the rules. I would think things like pushing the limits of the rules or being deceitful may become unethical. An example of "deceitful" in my mind is when someone list another as a co-owner just so someone else can run in an owner/handler when that person is not really a co-owner. Another (maybe less clear) is when a former pro declares amateur status, but still trains dogs for the purpose of selling for a profit to others. I feel both of these situations are pushing the rules beyond their intent. A situation that I feel is OK is when a professional co-owns a dog with an amateur for a discounted purchase price or other financial arrangement.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> Nothing unethical.
> . An example of "deceitful" in my mind is when someone list another as a co-owner just so someone else can run in an owner/handler when that person is not really a co-owner.
> 
> ....A situation that I feel is OK is when a professional co-owns a dog with an amateur for a discounted purchase price or other financial arrangement.


I'm confused! Please explain how these situations are different both seem to allow for a dog to be entered in a stake that it would not otherwise be eligible and the latter allows for a special " financial arrangement".

Tim

PS: How in the world can we expect a FTC that is responsible for determining the entry eligibility to sort through these private arrangements? IMHO we can not. Fortunately most play the game the right way but there has been and always will exceptions.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> Nothing unethical. It is well within the rules. .



Bubba, 

You are equating ethics with the rules? Really? 

I show up at the Amateur (not O/H Amateur), I pull 15 dogs off the pro truck and run them in the Amateur. I own none of them. Legal? Yes. Ethical? I don't think so. 

Ted


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I am glad Ted Shih is on this. And this is just my opinion. We need to look at the legislative history of why the Amateur Stake was legislated into field trials. 

As a side note I believe bigger powers are watching and this will be deleted. My opinion to cover tracks.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

Either invoke the _"Owner/Handler Amateur All-Age Stake"_ or quit bitching.

Now then the issue of what constitutes "Co-Ownership" is legit and is often a problem....that part can most certainly be unethical.


----------



## jforqueran (Apr 12, 2015)

No matter what rules are invoked, people will always find a way around them and it will still be unethical. This sport is no different than any other sport. When you are playing to win, some people will find ways to be deceitful to better their odds. Your only way to one up them is to have a better dog!


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Tim Carrion said:


> I'm confused! Please explain how these situations are different both seem to allow for a dog to be entered in a stake that it would not otherwise be eligible and the latter allows for a special " financial arrangement".
> 
> Tim
> 
> PS: How in the world can we expect a FTC that is responsible for determining the entry eligibility to sort through these private arrangements? IMHO we can not. Fortunately most play the game the right way but there has been and always will exceptions.


The first is just to bypass a rule by putting someone else's name on the papers to run.

The second involves an example of a true financial arrangement of a co-ownership.

The FTC is not responsible for enforcing this. Both are technically legal.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Bubba,
> 
> You are equating ethics with the rules? Really?
> 
> ...


I don't feel a buddy running another buddy's dog is unethical. The well within the rules was intended to just imply that they aren't even pushing the rules. I agree with you that the amateur handling an entire pro's truck in the amateur is within the rules, but it is also unethical.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> As a side note I believe bigger powers are watching and this will be deleted. My opinion to cover tracks.


Now there is a conspiracy theory! Who or what might those “bigger powers” be?


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

EdA said:


> Now there is a conspiracy theory! Who or what might those “bigger powers” be?


I wish there was a like button.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

JeT fUeL cAnT mElT sTeEl BeAmS!


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I guess than this won’t be deleted. And I have never posted anything about a conspiracy. Please EDA quote me on any of my posts where I say conspiracy. I do know ownership of a good dog who does the right thing and runs his heart out should be given the honor and dignity it deserves. I believe now there are four co owners. Lucky dog.


----------



## Bbrown (Jan 5, 2013)

I'm just here to see someone fight Rich.


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

moscowitz said:


> I guess than this won’t be deleted. And I have never posted anything about a conspiracy. Please EDA quote me on any of my posts where I say conspiracy. I do know ownership of a good dog who does the right thing and runs his heart out should be given the honor and dignity it deserves. I believe now there are four co owners. Lucky dog.





moscowitz said:


> Is it a trend or has this always gone on: A pro uses a person with amateur standing to run other individuals dogs to put AFCs on the dogs and also qualify them for the National Amateur Retriever Championship so that the owners can run the National. And at the same time this Amateur Individual has his own dog but does not run it in the Amateur but runs it in the open when he is running the other dogs in the Amateur?


Definition: Conspiracy (countable and uncountable, plural conspiracies)

1) The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
2) (law) An agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future.
3) A group of ravens.
4) (linguistics) A situation in which different phonological or grammatical rules lead to similar or related outcomes.
5) A conspiracy theory; a hypothesis alleging conspiracy.


----------



## Mike W. (Apr 22, 2008)

> I'm just here to see someone fight Rich.


Unless it's Kip Kemp it'll be pretty boring.


----------



## tigerfan (Mar 13, 2019)

Bbrown said:


> I'm just here to see someone fight Rich.


My money's on Rich


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Well I'm sure the best dawg won on the day. Coz that's what it was about. ?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> I guess than this won’t be deleted. And I have never posted anything about a conspiracy. Please EDA quote me on any of my posts where I say conspiracy. I do know ownership of a good dog who does the right thing and runs his heart out should be given the honor and dignity it deserves. I believe now there are four co owners. Lucky dog.


You said it, I just read it and commented.

“As a side note I believe bigger powers are watching and this will be deleted. My opinion to cover tracks.”

I was wondering who or what the “bigger powers” are. That was my conspiracy reference which had nothing to do with your complaint about designated handlers.

My advice, have a seat, prop up your feet, take a deep breath and have a cold beer. 😀


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

EDA read my original post. It was not a complaint. It was a question about a trend and Amat Nationals.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

moscowitz said:


> EDA read my original post. It was not a complaint. It was a question about a trend and Amat Nationals.


 You presented it that way but it seems you had a particular dog/owners/handlers in mind. That could be considered an agenda. Harry


----------



## Big Chief (Feb 4, 2018)

Reginald said:


> Why? Because someones feelings were hurt?


Nope. Don't know any of the people involved and never will. Just seems like it has gone beyond a question to a few people fighting, and in the process clouding others' reputations. Sh_t like that should be in a PM, at least that's my opinion which I'm allowed, as you are yours. Further, makes field trialers seem like a bunch of bitchy, whiny people.

May be a real valid issue, but it ain't gonna be settled in this thread.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Just go beat them with a better dog.


----------



## red devil (Jan 4, 2003)

> Further, makes field trialers seem like a bunch of bitchy, whiny people.


 seem like?


----------



## tigerfan (Mar 13, 2019)

red devil said:


> seem like?


 Good one Stu!


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

I will say this. Don't judge the masses from the actions of a few. I been hunting all my life. Started dog games in hunt test, and am now addicted to trials. Met some of the best people and my best friends in both venues. I would say 99% of the people from hunting, hunt test and field trials are as good as gold. The 1%, I just stay away from. The sportsmanship issue seems to be something brought up about field trialers quite frequently. I have run across very few instances of poor sportsmanship in any of these venues. I would guess it is about the same throughout from what I've seen. It may be more obvious in trials because of placements at the end. 

The things that stick out more to me are the good folks and good sportsmanship. I barely remember my first started pass, but I remember feeling insignificant compared to others getting finished ribbons and titles. I can tell you I will never forget my first all-age win. I got calls, text and cards from competitors running against me, including pros, and others I have met along the way. One card is still sitting on my desk at my office. With all that said, people in this sport are awesome. The dogs are phenomenal. Enjoy the ride and be thankful for what you have. If you ever get a chance to surprise someone for an accomplishment that is a big deal to them, DO SO!!! It will mean a lot more to them than you can imagine.


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

Can't beat that commentary, Bubba.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Way more good apples in field trials than bad ones. Of course there are examples of poor sportsmanship or rudeness, but it’s rare. Most people complaining about politics in field trials are looking for excuses.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Train don't complain!


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

My first 16 AA entries including a Jam allowing me to judge were dogs not owned by me and I have no qualms about amateurs running friends dogs trying to qualify for Nationals or just in general for last minute no shows and the issue of former pros co-owning dogs is a conundrum with no easy answer but very much an ethical slant. The issue of an amateur running all dogs off a pros truck I have never seen and only heard about anecdotally and involved a pro becoming ill and the amateur running the Open for him and also running the am and I think that is what the owner handler am is to prevent-I just don’t feel that it’s an issue today. If it’s not owner handler then who cares? As far as co-ownership I have co-owned and it’s a very legitimate part of the game albeit save the above mentioned former pro issue.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

bjoiner said:


> I will say this. Don't judge the masses from the actions of a few. I been hunting all my life. Started dog games in hunt test, and am now addicted to trials. Met some of the best people and my best friends in both venues. I would say 99% of the people from hunting, hunt test and field trials are as good as gold. The 1%, I just stay away from. The sportsmanship issue seems to be something brought up about field trialers quite frequently. I have run across very few instances of poor sportsmanship in any of these venues. I would guess it is about the same throughout from what I've seen. It may be more obvious in trials because of placements at the end.
> 
> The things that stick out more to me are the good folks and good sportsmanship. I barely remember my first started pass, but I remember feeling insignificant compared to others getting finished ribbons and titles. I can tell you I will never forget my first all-age win. I got calls, text and cards from competitors running against me, including pros, and others I have met along the way. One card is still sitting on my desk at my office. With all that said, people in this sport are awesome. The dogs are phenomenal. Enjoy the ride and be thankful for what you have. If you ever get a chance to surprise someone for an accomplishment that is a big deal to them, DO SO!!! It will mean a lot more to them than you can imagine.


Thanks Bubba. Well said.


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

bjoiner said:


> I will say this. Don't judge the masses from the actions of a few. I been hunting all my life. Started dog games in hunt test, and am now addicted to trials. Met some of the best people and my best friends in both venues. I would say 99% of the people from hunting, hunt test and field trials are as good as gold. The 1%, I just stay away from. The sportsmanship issue seems to be something brought up about field trialers quite frequently. I have run across very few instances of poor sportsmanship in any of these venues. I would guess it is about the same throughout from what I've seen. It may be more obvious in trials because of placements at the end.
> 
> The things that stick out more to me are the good folks and good sportsmanship. I barely remember my first started pass, but I remember feeling insignificant compared to others getting finished ribbons and titles. I can tell you I will never forget my first all-age win. I got calls, text and cards from competitors running against me, including pros, and others I have met along the way. One card is still sitting on my desk at my office. With all that said, people in this sport are awesome. The dogs are phenomenal. Enjoy the ride and be thankful for what you have. If you ever get a chance to surprise someone for an accomplishment that is a big deal to them, DO SO!!! It will mean a lot more to them than you can imagine.


^^^100% agree^^^
The FT highs are higher and the lows are lower (and much more frequent). Most everyone appreciates outstanding dog work, and understands how competitive the sport really is.


----------

