|
Post by pystekhag on May 21, 2007 1:39:22 GMT
I was going to post a reply on the NPS Area X1 thread but will conform to Leo and the other mods requests and continue here.
Before I attempted to begin to probation with the NPS I asked the society to clarify my position as a farrier and and subsequent conflict of issue situations should they arise. The matter was discussed at the time and it was decided that the position would be the same as a stud owners and stud fees and would be therefore exempt.
Although I feel it would be unethical to comment on this board on other issues raised regarding individual competitors and placings at this show. I would just like to confirm that Rachael Bright did in fact go through the correct procedure to retire from the class and was granted permission to do so.
Russell Sutcliffe
|
|
|
Post by dizzy nli on May 21, 2007 4:58:56 GMT
It would appear that certain individuals have nothing better to do with their time than try and stir trouble for others. There have been several comments directed at Lucy Craven on the area XI thread and RS's judging of her. As RS has stated in the above post this has been discussed with the NPS previously.
At the end of the day the pony concerned was 2nd in his section, and went well, I thus find it hard to believe that anyone would even need to question the integrity of LC or RS. IMO RS has judged the class and chosen his champion as he sees fit and it is his opinion on the day that counts, not the malicious few guests that have posted on here.
Good luck to all for the rest of the season.
|
|
|
Post by read your rules on May 21, 2007 8:45:11 GMT
I am sorry but there is a rule that clearly states 'An Exhibitor may not show under a Judge where he or she has entered into a financial/ commercial undertaking within the previous 12 months. Stud fees are excluded'.
So are you telling me that Russell shoes Lucinda's ponies for nothing, seems like a silly exception to the rule.
I was not even in the class so have no axe to grind, just think its awful when people cheat!!!
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 21, 2007 8:47:48 GMT
Can we steer away from the particular issues of what happened at Area XI and more towards what you all think about connections with the judge. I would stress that no rules were broken at Area XI but it may be an idea to have some kind of debate about whether or not you would show under someone you have a connection with. I have to say if my farrier was a judge, then I would have no problems showing under him.....unless it was best shod foot! I see people I pay to provide me with a service as professionals and I would assume most could ignore any knowledge of me and judge my ponies without any bias. Only person I can think of (off the top of my head) I wouldn't show under is my instructor. I would show under someone who had been the coach at a clinic, but not someone I have regular lessons with. I may think of others later, but that's it for now.
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 21, 2007 8:52:28 GMT
I am sorry but there is a rule that clearly states 'An Exhibitor may not show under a Judge where he or she has entered into a financial/ commercial undertaking within the previous 12 months. Stud fees are excluded'. If you take that rule literally then those who do showing clinics should not show where the judge is the one who taught at the clinic. There are always exceptions to rules and Russell has already advised that he checked with NPS. If you don't like the outcome, then I suggest you take it up with the NPS direct and don't blame Russell or Lucinda for the way the rule has been interpreted. For the last time - please do not keep on about this issue - if you have a problem then take it up direct with Russell, Lucinda or the NPS. Anymore posts (whether for or against!) will be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Rules for Showing on May 21, 2007 9:42:17 GMT
I believe if rules are stuck too by the letter, then connections should not be a problem and competitors and judges should do what they feel is ethical. Judges mix with competitors at all sorts of events, dinners, talks, teach-ins, it would be impossible for everyone not to go under people you know. The longer have been showing the more people you know.
I do feel however, that judges should be squeeky clean regarding the rules. Especially because of sites like this, nothing goes unnoticed and this is unfortunately the way of the world, so judges need to get wise to it.
As a competitor I have seen judges that do not know the rules, they allow the wrong bits in classes, let people in when the shouldnt etc etc etc. That is what get competitors backs up.
The rules change every year, have the judges read them this year to check. What you did when you were probationing and then became a judge may not be the correct ruling now.
This is not a knock at judges, as I think they do an absolutely BRILLANT and sometimes very difficult job, this is just my observations. If you think there is just one of you and there could be 30 competitors and all the spectators watching, half of them think they are the winner, if you ARE squeeky clean, and obey the rules 100% you will be repected.
It has always been this way, but the grapevine, unfortunately is not as big a cyberspace.
The rule referred to in the above post is 6 c) in the rule book.
|
|
|
Post by fjudge on May 21, 2007 9:58:48 GMT
I would just like to confirm that Rachael Bright did in fact go through the correct procedure to retire from the class and was granted permission to do so. Russell Sutcliffe I dont see why this needs to be backed up...no one would have questioned it or made a point about it if I or any other unknown person in the showing world had left the ring...
|
|
|
Post by fjudge on May 21, 2007 10:00:31 GMT
Read my post and would like to add...this wasnt aimed at RS, only those who pointed it out in the first place. But thanks to RS for confirming something that actually had no concern to anyone else
|
|
|
Post by rules are rules on May 21, 2007 11:22:25 GMT
It has already been said that anyone who has an issue with this particular incident should take it up with the NPS. No more posts on the matter will be permitted.
Members and guests are free to debate the rule itself if they so wish. Edited by Moderator.
|
|
|
Post by girly on May 21, 2007 11:48:47 GMT
Where do you draw the line about a financial connection with a judge. Common sense must surely play a part. What do you do if a judge runs a show and you pay them an entry fee, can you then show under them becouse you have had a financial connection. What if they had arranged a clinic or given a lecture that you paid to attend. The very vast majoriety of our judges are fair and honest. Perhaps more competitors need to acept that judges might have a genuine reason for prefering another competitors horse that has nothing to do with favours, friendship bent judging or any other excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Rules for Judging on May 21, 2007 12:01:17 GMT
Where do you draw the line about a financial connection with a judge. Common sense must surely play a part. What do you do if a judge runs a show and you pay them an entry fee, can you then show under them becouse you have had a financial connection. What if they had arranged a clinic or given a lecture that you paid to attend. The very vast majoriety of our judges are fair and honest. Perhaps more competitors need to acept that judges might have a genuine reason for prefering another competitors horse that has nothing to do with favours, friendship bent judging or any other excuse. You dont get paid if you run a show, at least not at the shows I have helped at. You are not earning a living from it either. The mods seem to be moderating quite strictly on this incidence, I seem to remember they did not jump in so quick with David Bright comments. There have also been some awful things put on about certain other people which seem to have been left on for quite some time. Is it one rule for one and not others or have they decided its time that the site cleans up its act.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 21, 2007 12:17:33 GMT
The mods seem to be moderating quite strictly on this incidence, I seem to remember they did not jump in so quick with David Bright comments. There have also been some awful things put on about certain other people which seem to have been left on for quite some time. Is it one rule for one and not others or have they decided its time that the site cleans up its act. Mods take action on posts when and if they are online. Also action is taken when and if they get a pm or email. You may have time to sit here 24/7 but some of us have a living to earn. If you don’t like the way the site is run I suggest it’s time you moved on.
|
|
|
Post by Agree on May 21, 2007 12:24:20 GMT
Where do you draw the line about a financial connection with a judge. Common sense must surely play a part. What do you do if a judge runs a show and you pay them an entry fee, can you then show under them because you have had a financial connection. What if they had arranged a clinic or given a lecture that you paid to attend. The very vast majority of our judges are fair and honest. Perhaps more competitors need to accept that judges might have a genuine reason for preferring another competitors horse that has nothing to do with favours, friendship bent judging or any other excuse. i totally agree with the above. The vast amount of judges are fair and square and while i might agree they are some bad apples surely the answer is to make it known who they are rather than hound the honest judges we have and no i am not talking directly about this weekends events. If you wanted to you could find connections for almost anybody to almost anybody. Surely the answer is to fight the root of the problem which must lie with the main showing societies and for them to take direct action and be seen to do so .
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 21, 2007 12:35:00 GMT
The mods seem to be moderating quite strictly on this incidence, I seem to remember they did not jump in so quick with David Bright comments. There have also been some awful things put on about certain other people which seem to have been left on for quite some time. Can I also add to Admin's comments and say most of the posts are still on the original thread. What we are trying to avoid is the same point being made again and again.....once the point has been made (which it was on the other thread) then any more personal comments are IMO unnecessary. Myself and Leo both asked for the direction of the post to be altered and warned posts would be deleted if necessary. That is what's happening - nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by rules are rules on May 21, 2007 14:42:30 GMT
Guestless i dont understand why you deleted my last post as it was not about anybody in particular i was trying to say that rules are rules and we cannot choose which we will adere to and which we ignore no matter how much we agree or disagree. I personally disagree with a few of the rules but as a member of any showing society i will have to abide by the rules
|
|
|
Post by Guestless on May 21, 2007 14:59:50 GMT
Guestless i dont understand why you deleted my last post as it was not about anybody in particular i was trying to say that rules are rules Perhaps I misunderstood the emphasis of it then, as I interpreted it as being directed at the judge in question rather than a general comment. If it was the latter, then I apologise. You did however infer that there is no point in discussing the rules (unless I misunderstood that bit too) and I have to disagree with that. I'm a community worker so I work with groups who organise themselves in order to challenge people in power and to bring services to the areas in which they live......so although there are rules, they are still worth debating and such debate can bring about change.
|
|
|
Post by nikki on May 21, 2007 17:53:20 GMT
I personally think it all comes to down to personal integrity. Do you want to enter the ring knowing that you might be putting the judge in a difficult, compromising position if you get placed? I know I wouldn't and I don't think there is any excuse for doing so. There are so many shows and classes these days to pick from and if it means that you have to miss a qualifier that is on your doorstep, so be it. At least you can hold your head up high.
|
|
|
Post by Well Said on May 21, 2007 18:14:22 GMT
Well said Nikki, I totally agree! Are you telling me you have never told your farrier over a cofffee how well a pony of yours is going or how much you want the qualifier so badly. That enters into a compromising position imo!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Well said on May 21, 2007 18:16:36 GMT
Lets say a "judge with connections" qualified a pony, what would happen then? how would the honest people feel? They paid the same entry money etc and if there pony went as well, it may have come down too the guilt the judge would have felt facing the competitor after!
|
|
|
Post by northerner on May 21, 2007 18:33:42 GMT
Lets say a "judge with connections" qualified a pony, what would happen then? how would the honest people feel? They paid the same entry money etc and if there pony went as well, it may have come down too the guilt the judge would have felt facing the competitor after! This does go on. Maybe not as much as it used but the fact remains that it does happen. They are not bothered about your feeling. Well maybe not until it is posted on here. Also you still get quite a bit of you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. Anyone who says that it does not is either blind or stupid.
|
|
|
Post by hello on May 21, 2007 18:35:21 GMT
Like people have said, NOTHING goes unnoticed now because of this site.. I have too much conscience, for a start i would never put a judge in this position anyway. Its not the judges fault, its the competitors that choose to show under them.
|
|
|
Post by princess on May 21, 2007 19:14:51 GMT
Well this is all getting ridiculous! It is not breaking any rules to show under a judge who is also your farrier. Especially when the farrier in question is a very respected and knowledgeble judge who is always fair and will judge ponies as he sees them on the day!
|
|
|
Post by General on May 21, 2007 19:27:04 GMT
Princess
The thread seems to me to be about overall connections and the ethics behind connections. Your post is actually making it personal. If you don’t ruin it by getting personal it could end up an interesting topic of discussion. At the end of the day sites like this are exactly that.
Discussion Sites
|
|
|
Post by princess on May 21, 2007 19:31:07 GMT
Yes I agree General I have moderated my post!
|
|
|
Post by agree on May 21, 2007 19:47:30 GMT
I personally think it all comes to down to personal integrity. Do you want to enter the ring knowing that you might be putting the judge in a difficult, compromising position if you get placed? I know I wouldn't and I don't think there is any excuse for doing so. There are so many shows and classes these days to pick from and if it means that you have to miss a qualifier that is on your doorstep, so be it. At least you can hold your head up high. I completely agree, I just don't understand the point of putting yourself in a situation where if you do well, you will be pulled apart because 'the judge knows you' and can be directly linked to you through professional services. Why not just got to one of the 10's of other shows on that weekend and save yourself all the grief?
|
|
|
Post by General on May 21, 2007 19:49:03 GMT
Mrb It is human nature to stick up for your friends I know that. I think financial dealings on the small scale as a blacksmith shoeing ponies every 6 weeks or so is not a big issue. There are a lot of wider issues with judges and connections not just financial ones. Most of these are really the competitors fault for entering in the first place knowing that they are likely to be a stronger position than other competitors. As someone stated before, I think in certain cases it would be wise for the competitor to forgo the odd show and not put a Judge in such an awkward position.
|
|
|
Post by General on May 21, 2007 19:51:00 GMT
Forgot to say Was not having a go at you Princess just thought this if addressed properly this thread could be a good topic of debate
|
|
|
Post by General on May 21, 2007 19:54:47 GMT
mmm. Might be easier if I become a member at least I will be able to modify my posts when I make a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by General on May 21, 2007 20:24:21 GMT
"It is human nature to stick up for your friends I know that. I think financial dealings on the small scale as a blacksmith shoeing ponies every 6 weeks or so is not a big issue. There are alot of wider issues with judges and connections not just financial ones" What is wrong with supporting someone, friend or not? What are the wider issues? The showing world is relatively small there are many connections I thought it was the ponies being judged! How naive! Did I say that it is wrong to support your friends? I think not. People should stand by their friends. And yes the showing world is smaller and getting smaller due to people not doing what you have said in your post. Judging the ponies. Maybe I am not the naive one here
|
|
|
Post by be fair on May 21, 2007 20:48:41 GMT
Ok lets turn this on it's head. Being a farrier gives you a "real worts and all" look at the pony, so he or she , will know any little problems that your pony may have that may not be clear in a 2 minute look round at a show. I have seen classes when people who have been in a relationship then split up and then gone under a partner without anybody batting an eyelid!! Apparently there is no rule against it as they were not married.
|
|