I can't believe what I've heard!!

The Rhodesian Ridgeback judge Frank De Paulo put up his own breeding for Best of Breed!

How much more crooked can things get?

17 Ch Adili's American Idol
Breeder: Tammy Lynch & N Vaccarino & P Lia & K LaFleur
Sire: Ch Kimani's Gazeley Of Tahari - Frank De Paulo, Judy De Paulo, Alicia Mohr-Hanna
Dam: DC Adili's Serengeti Starlight SC - Tammy Lynch, Karen Lafleur, Nadine Vaccarino, Phyllis Lia
Owner: Kiki Courtelis & Tammy Lynch & Karen LaFleur

Then gave the puppy of this dog an Award of Merit.

What a scandal!

I wonder how many other breeds this happened with?

What's up with that!!!!

This happens all the time, there's no prohibition against it. Frank is one of a number of co-owners of the dog's sire. He is not the breeder of the dog. (Which would be more questionable.) A sire can produce a thousand dogs in it's stud dog career, it would be way too unwieldy to prohibit showing to the co-owner of the dog's sire. This dog was sold to new owners, so there's no conflict of interest there. There is plenty of rotten stuff that goes on in the politics of dog shows, an Award of Merit to the offspring of one's stud dog isn't something to be upset about.

I agree with the last reply/poster. I don't follow Ridgebacks, so I don't have any inside knowledge. However, there is always the chance that "Frank" didn't even know who this dog was. He was a co-owner on the sire and that could have been in name only!

I once approached a judge (not judging my breed at the time) who was the co-breeder on a bitch I was showing. I wanted to see if she was interested in taking a look at her and evaluating her for me. She was. However, it turned out she had never seen the puppy in person and wouldn't have recognized her if I hadn't said something. She was a co-owner of the dam of this puppy, and was the co-owner in name only. She had seen the dam of course, but was never involved enough to have known anything about the puppies other than that they were born! LOL It happens. Sometimes a person might simply agree to "back" (financially) a promising dog. Their name goes on the dog, but it's a name only. The dog never lives with them, is never cared for by them, etc.

No, its not in name only. He owns the sire, it is in his home and he has actively been involved with the people that own the son of his dog(Idol).

It wasn't an award of merit, he gave him breed.

You can disagree - but the AKC Code of Sportsmanship reads "The sportsman exhibitor declines to enter or exhibit under a judge where it might reasonably appear that the judge’s placements could be based on something other than the merits of the dogs."
and under Conflict of Interest it goes further "A HANDY RULE OF THUMB
There will always be “gray areas” that perplex judges. When faced with such a dilemma, ask yourself whether the situation, however innocent, projects an outward appearance of impropriety. A good rule of thumb is:
If you have concerns about whether something is inappropriate, you probably should avoid the situation."

Did anyone notice the drop in breed entries for these dogs too? We had record numbers show up last year, and this year there were 14 less dogs including dogs in the top five as a direct protest to how this would go. It wasn't the economy that kept them home.

Call it what you like, but at least Greene had the decency to distance himself from a situation like this.

CLAP, CLAP!!! I agree with you - you have done excellent research and the AKC should know about this. The problem arises at dog shows in that the AKC can not fix the situation until after it has happened. This judge should be suspended for a time. I know one judge who was stripped of his judgeship because he accepted a bribe for a BIS - the AKC does everything it can to remove itself from the "appearance of impropriety" because they know it will lead to a decline in registrations, which is the bread and butter of their business.

We might be overlooking the fact that Adili's American Idol (Spirit) is the 2nd-ranked RR in the US right now & received an award of merit at 2008 Westminster as a very young dog - that said, I was sorry not to see Ikaika and Dorian Gray there as well since I think they would have been defeated! Paradigm's Entourage was there who is the 4th ranked dog. I believe Mr. de Paulo chose the best dog that managed to show up! I also noticed that many other breeds no showed - perhaps a sign of the times.

Regardless of the dogs merit it should have never set foot in that ring. It was a flagrant conflict of interest and a slight to the code of sportsmanship on both the judges and the exhibitors part.

Why does the AKC bother having these rules if they do not intend on them applying to everyone?

I don't know about the judge nor how much he was "involved" in following his breed lines, I will say through the years I have watched this happen over and over again in Boxer judging. The armbands are suppose to lower the chances of knowing whose dog is who but when you are on the circuit it is pretty normal to know who is showing whose breeding. This is why many people who have tried showing usually get one dog finished and walk away.

Has anyone reported this to AKC or lodged a formal complaint to the parent club or its message board? There are many excellent comments here that bear repeating. I agree that the judge should NEVER have even set foot in the ring. I did some checking online and it appears that Mr. De Paolo OWNS the dog, the dog's sire LIVES with him, and he was well aware of the son of his dog's breeding(no pun intended...SOD instead of SOB), since he received money or value for the breeding, and was very involved in this dog's (and the owners') lives. Even if the dog were the top dog in the whole entire free world, that judge should NEVER have accepted that assignment or he should have not judged with even the appearance of a conflict. By the way, that dog won Best in Show in such prestigious locations as Louisiana and other "major "venues that seem to be smaller shows where more games can be played. I am sure that this happens in other breeds, but it irks me that someone would want his own name to be dirtied and degraded by such a blatantly inappropriate action. Shame on Frank DePaolo and others who try to change the standards, and do the WRONG thing, just in the name of winning. What a shame that the owners had no morals and principles enough to remove their dog from showing under DePaolo. As an owner, I would PERSONALLY not show to this judge, just for appearances. What greedy and uncouth people these owners must be to show their dog under a judge with such obvious conflicts in the ring. Also, check out the Westminster Kennel Club web site for the previous 2 years. In 2007, there were like 50+ Ridgebacks entered and shown. There were fewer than half that number the year that American Idol (how original is that name...lol) won. That speaks volumes about the fancy's opinion of Mr. DePaolo and Ms. Coutelis, and Ms. Lynch and the other dozen owners in name. That seems to be more of a machine than an owner. Exactly how many people can own a dog? 4, 40, 400? I guess there are a LOT of people who checked their morals at the devil's door just to say, "I have a Best in Show dog". (Kind of like Tonya Harding cracking Nancy Kerrigan's knee...huh folks? Oh yeah, I forgot, Harding's HUSBAND did that....oh, yeah!) I applaud all the hard-working breeders who actually want to win on their dogs' merits, instead of on how much money or politics they control. Please feel free to post this ANYWHERE you choose.