I don't think I have ever in many years of watching seen a judge disqualify a dog ( so far 2 in the terrier group with the same judge) because of a conflict of interest? Why would this judge be allowed to judge the group? It doesn't seem fair to have the dogs be disqualified because they have a conflict of interest. What would be the reason? It just doesn't seem right...

The handlers knew the possibility before they even entered as the judging panels are set well in advance. The reason the handlers still handle are a) it is an honor to get an invitation (dogs that are finished champions are invited to Westminster) and the handler doesn't even know if they will make it out of the breed ring (since many face finished champions they perhaps have not encountered before).

They win their breed and go to the BIS ring, just for their day in the sun.

He was excused from the ring, not disqualified. There is a big difference!!! Excused means he can show again another day. Disqualified means he has to go through a lot to be able to show again.

So when would a dog who was "excused" from the group(say the cairn terrier, who was one of them) be able to show again in this years Westminster? The cairn won the cairns and then was excused from the terrier group when the judge called conflict of interest. The terrier group at Westminster is over.

Granted I don't show dogs, but I would appreciate learning more about why and what causes a judge to say "conflict of interest"

Ciao,
Louise

If you are going to be appalled, you should direct it towards the handlers, not the judge. I didn't see the Cairn handler, but the Airedale handler used to be employed by the judge, Peter Green, when Green was a professional handler. Mr. Green behaved with ethics and in accordance with the AKC's Code of Sportsmanship. (If only more judges would follow suit.) The handlers apparently didn't think they would really be excused (in fact, they probably believed their "connection" would stand them in good stead.) They could have sent the dogs in on another handler, and avoided being excused altogether. Instead, they tried to use their previous contact to unfair advantage and it backfired in their faces, and brought about great consternation to other Cairn and Airedale fanciers. (Those dogs will be able to compete in other shows and venues, and next year at WKC, but their turn at the Garden is done for this year.) Bravo to Mr. Green, we applaud you.

I as the owners of the dogs excused would be burning mad knowing that those handlers could very well have cost my dog Best in Show!!!!!!!

If you read my note again, you just might notice that I never said I was appalled, nor did I express any negative reaction to the judge. Having been involved in the world of competitive figure skating for over 30 years, I understand there are rules and regulations specific to each sport, and I was(at least I thought I was) asking what would have caused the conflict of interest with 2 diffeent dogs. Thank you for your explanation.

When you wrote that these dogs could show again, I was confused and asked for clarification. Since I was sitting on the couch watching Wesminster with two cairn terriers, I thought I owed them a proper explanation:-)

At this level of competition, owners and handlers should know better than to try to get away with trying to use a connection. I find that anyone who would do this to be(to use your word) "appalling."Obviously if you make it to Westminster you aren't new to the dog show world. Once their dogs won their breed and both handlers and owners were aware Mr. Green would be the judge of the terrier group, I assume there was time enough to make other arrangements?

I agree that Mr. Green did the right thing, but please go gently on we common folk. YOU know the rules well, but regular old non show dog people with non show dog dogs enjoy watching Westminster and other shows and the announcers didn't explain anything. With the commercial breaks and cuts and even rewinding the program, we still couldn't find out why this happened, so we came here to ask.

Thanks L

I apologize for putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean to.

There was quite a lot of comment afterwards (on other sites) that the judge should have removed himself, LOL. And yes, it is appalling that these two handlers would try to pull this kind of stunt... you couldn't blame Mr. Green if he was livid about it, since by their very presence they implied that he would overlook the conflict of interest their association creates. Think also how upset the owners of both the Airedale and the Cairn must be, not to mention all the defeated Airedales (11, I think) and Cairns (13?) Their respective breeds had no representation in the group ring, that opportunity was squandered by two handlers who did know better, but didn't care. The Cairn handler is the assistant to the Airedale handler, and they have leased Peter Green's kennel operation. Their audacity is pretty stunning.

Once a dog is excused from a show, he or she is done with that show, but it's just for that show. What Mr. Green did was excuse the dogs, they were in no means disqualified. This won't negatively affect their show careers in any way, though one would hope that their owners might look for handlers with a better ethical code.

Unfortunately this kind of nonsense occurs at very high levels in the fancy, and I wish more judges had the strength of character that Peter Green exhibited tonight. One of the real problems about Eukanuba is that it involves relatively large sums of money for prizes. I think it's 50K for BIS, and you can imagine was kind of shenanigans that could inspire. Most dog shows have no cash prize (or a very modest one, like $200) and there's a lot to recommend that.

For breeder-owner-handlers, you've just got to love your dogs, and love the game, because that's all there is-- no one gets rich showing dogs.

Again, my apologies for implying you said something that you clearly didn't say. Mea Culpa.

I've been watching this dog show for many years, and this is the first time I've ever seen this happen. I would think that the world of professional dog breeding/showing is so "incestuous" that it would be difficult NOT to have a conflict of interest in some way, shape or form. However, that being said, the judge is in no way judging a handler's performance. His/her judging should be strictly on the dog. So I don't see what difference it would make if the handler and the judge have had a previous relationship. Of course, I definitely DO blame the handlers in this case. They know full well who the judge is going to be and should have had a backup to work the dog for them if/when they won the breed. I hope these two find a hard time finding dogs to show in the future. I can only imagine how the owners must feel about this. Would this be grounds for a legal suit? Maybe!

CairnLover

While I agree that it was totally the handlers fault, and Mr. Green acted appropriatly, it still doesn't address that the two breeds lost any form of representation in the ring. And while the dogs should not be disqualified from futures shows, the handlers should! How will they be dealt with?

And it still doesn't address the issue of the two breeds lacking representation. I would think an event as old and presitgous would have mechanisms in place to catch this "conflict" before the group showings took place. In both circumstances the owners could have been given the oppurtunity to either replace the handler and or allow the runner-up to represent the breed. Under no circumstance should such a conflict been allowed to happen in the first place. This is a failing on the competition as a whole and Westminster bears some of the blame.

I would like to know the exact wording of the Westminster Kennel Club regulations under which Mr. Green, the Terrier Group judge, eliminated the Cairn and the Airedale. If he was following specific regulations, regrettable but fine. If not, considering how many shows he must have judged, and considering he was judging the dogs, not the handlers, why couldn't he still judge these dogs? If these handlers had to be eliminated because of specific regulations, other handlers should have been gotten or another judge--or the whole group should have been eliminated or postponed. There is no excuse for not showing dogs that have legitimately won their breeds. This is an episode of considerable embarrassment for the Westminster Kennel Club! Dog judging is a small world and officials of Westminster knew who the judge would be and should have known the handlers, and they should not have allowed this to happen. In my opinion, if the handlers were trying to curry favor with the judge, they were despicable in doing do, and under specific regulations, might be liable for their actions. The Westminster Kennel Club, in any event, should be held liable to the owners of the eliminated dogs and/or owners of other dogs who competed in the two breeds, and who no doubt have made a tremendous commitment of time, love and money preparing their dogs for the show.

Well, [u]both handlers and owners [/u]knew who the breed judge would be as well as the group judge and were willing to take the risk. First you have to get out of breed. Then it is that 15 minutes of fame thing - both the handlers and the dogs have been talked about a lot today for being excused. The handlers wanted the world to see them with the breed winning dog and Mr. Green did the right thing by excusing them from his ring as he had LOTS of prior knowledge of both handlers. The handlers could have asked another handler to take the dog in the ring for them, but then they themselves would not have earned the glory or the fee for getting the dog to the group ring.

At this level, unfortunately, politics becomes an issue. But Mr. Green did the right thing based on the AKC rules as published and available on their webiste (akc.org).

Okay, since I seem to be the only "dog show" veteran here (40 years-- since I was a little girl) I'll try to help explain. Dogs can be excused for any number of reasons-- at the judges' discretion. Often dogs are excused because they are lame, ill, or otherwise unfit to compete on that day. (You could make an argument that he might have excused the Border Terrier too, given that that poor little dog was clearly not feeling too great.) Dpgs are excused because they may be co-owned by the judge (this is rare) or the judge is related to or has extensive business dealings with the handler. I can assure you that these compromised relationships have occurred at Westminster before-- often the judge will simply not use (place) the dog in question. Sometimes the dogs have been put up and the public is none the wiser. Ernesto Lara's (the airedale handler) reputation is not exactly snowy white, so had Mr. Green left him (or his assistant on the Cairn) in the ring, he would have hung out his own integrity for speculation.

Having a "standby" dog is not really viable, at any show. For one thing,it would provide too much opportunity to manipulate results, particularly if the "right" dog did not win breed. Westminster is a grueling show for exhibitors. You have to be on the bench by 11:30, (earlier if your breed is judged earlier, as Cairns were at 8 in the morning.) For an 8 am ring time, exhibitors are arriving at the Garden between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m. It isn't nerve-wracking so much as simply intense to show there. Then you go back to the bench, where you must remain until 4:30 p.m. The noise level there is tremendous, and you visit all day long with old friends and with the curious public. By the time Groups begin at 8 p.m., no one is there except the group entries. Everyone else has long gone back to their hotels. We had a young American Foxhound bitch entered last year, and we were totally thrilled that she won an Award of Merit. We had tickets ($250 worth) to the Take the Lead party after the show, but we were too exhausted to even contemplate going.

The Westminster Kennel Club has its own set of regulations regarding benching, what happens on the ring floors and so forth. But this sort of instance is guided instead by the labyrinthian rules of the American Kennel Club and especially by the AKC Code of Sportsmanship. One of the Code's tenets is "The sportsman exhibitor refuses to compromise the impartiality of a judge." You can find the whole Code here: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/AKC_code_of_sportsmanship.pdf The Westminster Kennel Club is not liable to the dogs owners for the conduct of the handlers.

Yes, the Cairn and Airedale terriers lost representation at the show, and I can see where that would seem terribly unfair to fanciers of those breeds. (They would not have won even if they had not been asked to leave the ring. The winner tonight will be one of a handful of top dogs in the country (of which those two were not.) Could be the Scottie, maybe the Pointer, Holly. There are not too many surprises in the dog show world.) As my late father was fond of saying, Life is Not Fair. Ernesto Lara cost those dogs their opportunities for exposure on national television and any chance they might have had at a group placement, and the blame should lie squarely on his head, and no one else's.

Nothing is likely to happen to him. The owners could request a bench committee hearing (they would have to do it today) and in that instance he (or they) might be sanctioned for unsportsmanlike conduct, which is not much more than a slap on the wrist. (A small fine, sometimes a 30 day or at most six month suspension.) I hope that the clients pull their dogs, but they probably won't. This is the stuff of the underside of the dog show world, and yes, it stinks. Ernesto was publicly embarrassed by Mr. Green (since Green, rather than turning a blind eye to the dog, revealed that the handler was misbehaving) and perhaps that will give him pause next time, but not all judges have the integrity of Peter Green, and there are plenty with whom last night's shenanigans would have been rewarded.

I hope this is helpful in clarifying the situation. . . Now you're where lots of us are after Westminster-- just looking forward to next year.

I hope the embarrassment is enough to prevent this happening again at Westminster

Redchief


Sorry but I still have to disagree. The dogs and or handlers should have been dqed before the best of breed competition began. If you can't represent your breed in best of group, you should not be allowed to be entered in that breed. Mr. Green could have looked over the list of all the handlers and owners, without looking at the dogs themselves, and made comments if he thought there existed a conflict of interest before the best of breed competitions began. THIS is how it should be done, not the spectacle we witnessed monday night. NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS!

Couldn't the dogs just have come back out with a different handler? That really doesn't seem fair to the owners and dogs since apparently they know who the judge will be ahead of time and the handlers should know if there will be a conflict of some sort .

I would think the Judge was excusing himself from judging the dogs as if either of them were chosen as winner of the breed, it could constitute collusion and the dogs could be disqualified anyway. (If that made any sense. It's late and I'm tired )

But wow, the Sussex? I'm THRILLED!! 5 out of the finalists had never won, but I was thrilled that this old, sweet dog won!

GO STUMP!!

I just watched it again on YouTube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2NQSsYeCzI . Nearly a minute and a half in, right after Mr Green walks into the ring, he turns around and looks at the first 2 dogs and does a double-take right before sending them around for the first time. It seems to me that he was surprised to see Ernesto with the Airdale.