"Ethics of the Dog Game" an article written for Our Dogs by Terry Thorn

    The dog game has undergone major and radical changes over the last half-century. In many ways the whole scene has improved the lot of exhibitors, show officials and judges. Show costs have escalated beyond belief over the same number of years, but as a percentage of family income current entry fees of around £20 at championship shows, and £4 at open shows are good value, quite affordable compared with many other hobbies and participant sports. However nowadays, there appears to be growing discontent among exhibitors, about the lack of ethics in this dog game that we all love. Ethics relate to morals, and moral principles, together with rules of conduct. Ethics can be described as the unwritten laws of the sport, as opposed to the rules and regulations imposed on us by our ruling body the Kennel Club.

    Over the years our very comprehensive and extensive regulations, have been updated several times each year. One might think that every possible combination of rules would be in place to make the game 100 per cent fair. Not quite so ! The Kennel Club rules and regulations printed for us in black and white are easily understandable, and all changes well-publicised. All of us connected with showing or judging dogs, know well that these rules and regulations must be fully adhered to. They must be obeyed, otherwise we can expect suitable penalties to be imposed upon us, ranging from disqualification’s, fines or a sentence of suspension. Kennel Club rules are forever changing and have no finality, nor  can they ever be as long as dog breeding and dog shows take place, the unwritten laws - the ethics - are completely immutable.

    Morals remain the same in all circumstances, and for all time whether adhered to or flouted. In spite of all the rules and Regulations the Kennel Club places in its Red book, it is absolutely certain that the sport would run far less smoothly and be a great deal less pleasant without them. Like all rules, however watertight they appear to be, there are always people who will go out of their way to exploit the small “chinks and cracks” to their own advantage. Providing that the exploitation is fair, one cannot object to any one advancing their own interests and chances to win. If on the other hand people exploit the rules and break the unwritten laws of the game by callous, devious means they and their fellow exhibitors get very upset.

    I admire all things professional, no matter what the sport is - racing - football - cricket or whatever, and dog showing is no exception. Unfortunately professional handlers are a breed of people in obvious decline, with numbers that have been steadily falling over a number of years in the UK. These people have their living to make, and no one can object to them exploiting the system in every way possible, as long as they stay within  both the rules and ethics of the sport. They cannot afford to miss out in any reasonable way to advance their own careers. Most professional handlers deserve respect, they keep us up to the mark, especially in the terrier breeds, and have generally raised the standards of improved presentation and handling, giving many non-professional competitors something to aspire to and work towards.

    Of course as in any sport, there are always a few bad eggs, and a small minority go further than exploiting the laid down Kennel club rules, by acting in very unethical ways. Since permission for professional handlers to judge at challenge certificate level was given some time ago, things have generally gone well. The judges ranks have benefited greatly with their expertise and efficiency. However, the win at all cost attitude of this small minority, certainly means bending rules in more ways than one, with ethics going out of the window. The differences  between ethics and regulations, is that the former are only vaguely definable, and mean different things to different people. My idea of bad ethics may be quite different to other people. Should a professional handler show one week and judge dogs belonging to the same client the next ? Should you show with different dogs, when your partner is judging the same breed ? Should you transfer dogs from joint names to one single name in order to show that dog at the same show you are judging, and immediately afterwards transfer the dog back to the partnership ? Should one partner judging at a show, prepare a dog for exhibition at the same show? None of these cases break any written rules but ethically they may not be right, depending on your individual viewpoint.

    Double handling is downright cheating, but this practice is more prevalent than most people realise, and is certainly not confined to German Shepherd Dogs. This is breaking written rules, and definite procedures are in place to deal with this. Of  course ethically it is wrong too, but how many times has action been taken against it and punishments handed out ? Not a lot!  Presents to judges are not common, and in my opinion are not necessary. Here I am referring  to the giving of presents after judging has taken place. Presents to individuals before they actually judge is certainly unethical, so too is the practice of making telephone calls and personal contact with the judge in the weeks and months running up to the judging appointment, especially when the judge doesn’t even know the person concerned. Anonymous letters to judges before and after an appointment are despicable acts, but it is something that does happen and in my 38 years  judging career I have had quite a few. They obviously went straight into the waste bin, except for one which I showed to the late Catherine Sutton who told me that she had received one in the same handwriting. The Kennel Club investigated this case, but unfortunately it proved fruitless. Bad sportsmanship from exhibitors, leaves much to be desired and is another subject that is far from ethical. There are many forms of this behaviour. Wouldn’t it be nice if all exhibitors displayed a sporting attitude whether winning or losing ! Unfortunately this is too much to ask. There are good and bad people in every stratum of society. In dogs they are judged on their behaviour not on their pedigree, wealth or social position. Lord or dustman they are equally welcome as long as they play the game as it should be played. The person that we all dislike is the disgruntled exhibitor, and I suspect that every breed has its share of these undesirables. They are never happy. If they lose then the judge is absolutely useless, all the other exhibitors dogs are poor quality and the show organisers hopeless at their jobs, showing little or no consideration to exhibitors, while the Kennel Club does absolutely nothing of merit to meet the approval of these self-appointed critics. Others start whispering campaigns against well-known top winning dogs. Previous judges have overlooked glaring faults in these dogs, while missing the outstanding virtues of their own stock. Why oh why don’t these people keep their mouths closed and behave themselves.

To any novice exhibitors reading - this don’t be alarmed, the individuals I am referring to are few and far between, and are known to everyone who shows in the relevant breeds. The vast majority of exhibitors are good sports, and take the rough with the smooth. They are pleased to see the obviously good dogs win, even when they do not own them.

    Ring manners are all important, and some so-called “clever exhibitors” are far from ethical when showing their dogs. They use every trick in the book to gain advantage over the competition. They will deliberately stand their charge in front of the line, in order to mask the judge’s view of an adjacent dog. They may run their dog into the heels of the dog in front thereby spoiling his action. There are many such tricks practised, and it is usually newcomers to the show ring who are at the receiving end - these being the very people who ought to be encouraged. Addressing a dog by name, just as it is placed for the judges examination, is another unethical trait. How about the exhibitor who always enters the ring late in the class, and says in a very loud voice “I am sorry I’m late I haven’t got my number but it’s champion so and so”. The exhibitor who is asked by the judge “how old” and the reply varies from “two tickets”, “junior warrant” or “since you put him up last time he’s now X years”. What about the arrogant exhibitor showing a dog with a string of challenge certificates when he/she is awarded the reserve challenge certificate? I have experienced occasions when such people refuse to shake hands with you, another who went to the outside of the ring and tore the reserve CC card into pieces and deposited it in the waste bin. Yet another who told me in no uncertain terms that reserve certificates were no good to her ! Just think of all the exhibitors who would have given their right arm for such a win.

    Such happenings as well as being unethical, bring the dog game into disrepute. In an article penned by the well-known author of canine matters Charles Lister Kaye, back in the 1950s,he relates story of ethics, and it goes like this

“Years ago there lived in North Yorkshire a well-known farmer and sportsman, by the name of. Teasdale Hutchinson. He was a great character, and renowned far beyond the confines of this country for the excellence of his pedigree sheep. One day, a party of foreigners arrived by appointment, with a view to buying some rams. Not knowing a word of English, they brought an interpreter with them. Seeing the visitors taking an interest in a particular pen, TH said to the interpreter “you have got some smart chaps here, they have picked on my best sheep” calculating no doubt rightly, that the remark would be passed on. Sure enough they made a dead set at them. When they asked the price he was reluctant to sell, but was eventually persuaded to do so at a pretty stiff figure, whereupon the customer’s went off  highly pleased with themselves. Old Hutch was not worried, his best sheep were safely tucked away in a barn at the other end of the farm !

    Well, was this good or bad ethics ? or a legitimate way of getting the best of a bargain ?

This brings us to selling a puppy, is there one of us who has never hidden up the best of a litter against the arrival of a potential purchaser ? I doubt it . This may be good or bad ethics depending on the circumstances.”

 If I have made a few bad sportsmen or sportswomen feel guilty -  then good. If I have given others a reason to cheat then I feel sorry for you. Ethics are an important part of our chosen sport, and I’m pleased to think that in general those who cannot play fair, usually get their come-uppence. 

Terry Thorn