Interesting News Out Of Crufts

[Inevitablue]

There's two differences in opinion in this thread, I can see both sides. Maybe (and I haven't really thought about this, there could be massive problems with it) upon reaching maturity, all dogs should be assessed by a panel of vets for soundness. If they fail the vet check, they aren't able to be shown or bred from again (for example, here they'd be downgraded from main to limited register). It wouldn't be quite so public as being refused BOB based on a vet check.

Ive long thought that before a dog is awarded the Aust Ch title it should have to demonstrate that its temperament (and/or purpose bred for) fits the breed standard. You've made me now add health testing to that thought.

[Salukifan]

I don't think I'll speculate any further on the "whys" a particular dog might have got DQ'd.

Its a bit like being in a pit full of jelly with blindfold on and both arms tied behind your back... hopeless when you have no information to base it on.

I just really hope these DQs WERE the real deal because dogs and the dog fancy need for such action to be both decisive and fair. There's a lot of sound and fury at the moment but I suppose we have to wait for the dust to settle to evaluate whether this action has any impact on the breeds concerned.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I don't think I'll speculate any further on the "whys" a particular dog might have got DQ'd.

Its a bit like being in a pit full of jelly with blindfold on and both arms tied behind your back... hopeless when you have no information to base it on.

I just really hope these DQs WERE the real deal because dogs and the dog fancy need for such action to be both decisive and fair. There's a lot of sound and fury at the moment but I suppose we have to wait for the dust to settle to evaluate whether this action has any impact on the breeds concerned.

Most sensible thing written in the thread so far.

[lappiemum]

I agree Telida Whippets - there is a lot of noise at the moment, its when the dust settles that we shall see what becomes of this (if anything). From what I have seen, at least one of the affected parties is alledging that this decision was politically motivated - I would like to think this is not so, but it could be that in the rush to justify their new, tough system, things may not have been thought through completely and as a result, the process as it currently is, has some problems.

[Sheridan]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

If that's a case then it makes a mockery of the protocol.

How did you find out?

I breed bulldogs and have friends that are over there - also I am on the facebook pages of friends of the owner, it is nothing more than a sad political stunt - there is a facebook page in support of her owner - just search for Team Jenny, the profile pic is of her winning Bulldog of the Year

Given what lappiemum cited from the DQ for bulldogs: 'damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by e.g. facial folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy', what exactly caused the 'pin-prick scar'? An old injury was said but was it an actual injury or one of the above? If it was the dog bumping into something, for instance, that's easy to prove, isn't it?

[Crisovar]

Proving that the scar was caused by and accident etc isn't going to reinstate the dogs BOB after the event though. No Bulldogs in for group judging when in fact there could have been many worthy of waving the flag.

[sandgrubber]

Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ?

I sure hope so. I think published reasons will be very important.

No, apparently they are not going to reveal the reasons.

http://www.dogworld....hecks_at_crufts

"The Kennel Club would not reveal why they failed the new checks – introduced to Crufts this year – and said it would not do so for any of the 15 high-profile breeds although the reasons will be given to the club by the vet involved. The owners have no recourse to appeal."

. . .

looks like exaggerated features has something to do with it.

...

"The veterinary checks were introduced to ensure that dogs with exaggerated features do not win prizes," said KC spokesman Caroline Kisko on Thursday evening. "The independent vet decided that the Pekingese and Bulldog should not pass their vet checks and therefore they did not receive their BOB awards and will not be representing the breeds in the remainder of the competition."

Edited March 9, 2012 by sandgrubber

[lappiemum]

she is a stunningly sound bulldog bitch who was DQ'ed for a pin prick scar on her eye from an old injury. She was also Bulldog of the Year 2011 and a very worthy winner

If that's a case then it makes a mockery of the protocol.

How did you find out?

I breed bulldogs and have friends that are over there - also I am on the facebook pages of friends of the owner, it is nothing more than a sad political stunt - there is a facebook page in support of her owner - just search for Team Jenny, the profile pic is of her winning Bulldog of the Year

Given what lappiemum cited from the DQ for bulldogs: 'damage (scarring or ulceration) to the cornea caused by e.g. facial folds, distichiasis, ectopic cilia, poor eyelid anatomy', what exactly caused the 'pin-prick scar'? An old injury was said but was it an actual injury or one of the above? If it was the dog bumping into something, for instance, that's easy to prove, isn't it?

I think its a mute point now, as to what caused the problem - it has been said on the facebook site that the dog has a clear eye certificate that is current. A difference of opinion by vets, I guess - which is what my initial post was about. How will they ensure consistency and fairness - if accurate, these owners/breeders of this bitch thought they did everything correctly, but this has come out of the blue, I would say. They must be reeling, I do feel for them. By the same token, I agree we need to ensure that the dogs in the ring are the best, and healthiest, examples of the ring - esp at this level. Its very, very unfortunate, for all concerned, and I don't see how this issue can be resolved now.

At least, if the vet check had occured prior to the entry, there would have been only dogs in the ring that were eligible to go on if awarded a BOB. As it stands, there won't be any representatives of either of these breeds now for their groups. Not good for the breeds, and not good for Crufts.

[Salukifan]

Have not read the whole thread but are they disclosing the fault / faults which brought about the disqualifications ?

I sure hope so. I think published reasons will be very important.

No, apparently they are not going to reveal the reasons.

http://www.dogworld....hecks_at_crufts

"The Kennel Club would not reveal why they failed the new checks – introduced to Crufts this year – and said it would not do so for any of the 15 high-profile breeds although the reasons will be given to the club by the vet involved. The owners have no recourse to appeal."

But the owners are not gagged. If they wish to reveal the reasons given by the vet, they are at liberty to do so.

[toshman]

Sorry, but if they can manage it for major cat shows, why can't they do it for dogs? I once stood in line with a friend who had entered her cat that the Sydney Royal - they did it in stages, with a number of vets, and it all went smoothly. At our royals, you need to check in - if you had a couple of vets there doing the check, it wouldn't be impossible to get through everyone.

As for impact, I would have thought it better to assess all dogs, rather than one from each breed. What if the RUBOB had health issues? That still has an impact.

Yes, being notified about the rules for disqualification would have been a condition of entry. However, having the reasons published internationally (and it based on one opinion) and the potential damange to a kennel is not something, I imagine, was in the fine print.

Crufts is HUGE!!! Have you ever seen a cat show with over 5,000 cats entered?

That's PER DAY :laugh: Almost 28,000 dogs entered (that includes sporting dogs etc.), but somewhere around the 23,000 entered in breed.....

[Crisovar]

It will be interesting to see what sort of flow on there will be for entry numbers in the future, pretty pointless to prepare for a premier show and spend the dollars if a swipe of a pen rules out any chance of the breed even getting through to Group and no chance of appeal.

What they are in fact doing is eliminating the entire Breed as unworthy.

[Salukifan]

It will be interesting to see what sort of flow on there will be for entry numbers in the future, pretty pointless to prepare for a premier show and spend the dollars if a swipe of a pen rules out any chance of the breed even getting through to Group and no chance of appeal.

What they are in fact doing is eliminating the entire Breed as unworthy.

I think "unworthy" is a somewhat value laden term. Unworthy of what?

I also don't think for one moment that every individual in an entire breed would fail health tests. However it IS possible that a significant number of individuals might.

I look foward to the results of the first dog DQ'd for obesity. There are plenty of very fat show dogs around. It is named as a health issue in a significant number of the 15 "high profile" breeds. I could probably add a few more with that as an issue.

[lappiemum]

Sorry, but if they can manage it for major cat shows, why can't they do it for dogs? I once stood in line with a friend who had entered her cat that the Sydney Royal - they did it in stages, with a number of vets, and it all went smoothly. At our royals, you need to check in - if you had a couple of vets there doing the check, it wouldn't be impossible to get through everyone.

As for impact, I would have thought it better to assess all dogs, rather than one from each breed. What if the RUBOB had health issues? That still has an impact.

Yes, being notified about the rules for disqualification would have been a condition of entry. However, having the reasons published internationally (and it based on one opinion) and the potential damange to a kennel is not something, I imagine, was in the fine print.

Crufts is HUGE!!! Have you ever seen a cat show with over 5,000 cats entered?

That's PER DAY :laugh: Almost 28,000 dogs entered (that includes sporting dogs etc.), but somewhere around the 23,000 entered in breed.....

they are only checking 15 breeds, so I would imagine its a little less than 23 000 they would need to look at, if they wished to implement the vet checking system. ;)

[Crisovar]

If you eliminate your Best Exhibit of Breed you have eliminated your breed.

[dog_fan]

It will be interesting to see what sort of flow on there will be for entry numbers in the future, pretty pointless to prepare for a premier show and spend the dollars if a swipe of a pen rules out any chance of the breed even getting through to Group and no chance of appeal.

What they are in fact doing is eliminating the entire Breed as unworthy.

No they are determining that the dog who won has faults and should not have won.

Maybe people won't put overly exaggerated dogs in the ring and that can only be a good thing as far as I am concerned because just maybe they will start breeding towards a less exaggerated look and healthier dogs.

[sandgrubber]

A Pekingese, Malachy, won Best in Show, at Westminster in February.

He wasn't disqualified for unspecified vet reasons. I wonder how he'd compare with the Crufts Peke?

Malachy won a lot of hearts with his win, with no screams about being exaggerated. In one interview, his handler/co-owner, said that Malachy trains like an 'athlete', doing daily walks up & down the long driveway (so breathing must be fine).

http://www.nytimes.c...b-dog-show.html

Palacegarden Malachy and Palacegarden Bianca are from the same kennel. . . . I'd guess they'd be comparable.

I've never heard of an athlete who considers a daily walk up and down a long driveway much exercise.

There were screams about Malachy being exaggerated, but vet checks are not part of Westminster.

Edited March 9, 2012 by sandgrubber

[Salukifan]

If you eliminate your Best Exhibit of Breed you have eliminated your breed.

but not for being "unworthy" as you put it.

[Crisovar]

I guess that depends on how long your driveway is? Mine is over 1km how long is yours??

Given that we are talking a toy breed and not a sporting Breed.

[Fanuilos]

Given the fact that vet checking the BOB of those 15 breeds is just a new thing, and it is going to be introduced at all KC shows now. Rather than it eliminating an entire breed from Crufts, it just means that next year these dogs would not even qualify if the same vet checks are in place, so a dog who is deemed healthy will win.

[lappiemum]

Given the fact that vet checking the BOB of those 15 breeds is just a new thing, and it is going to be introduced at all KC shows now. Rather than it eliminating an entire breed from Crufts, it just means that next year these dogs would not even qualify if the same vet checks are in place, so a dog who is deemed healthy will win.

But wouldn't that depend on the opinions of the individual vets? The KC rules state that that its perfectly acceptable for a dog to be cleared at one show, but disqualified at another, so it appears to have taken this into account. It does note that if there were multiple disqualifications of the same dog then it would be investigated by the KC.

Edited March 9, 2012 by lappiemum