Conflicts of Interest and Impropriety

Here is the scene:

It is the opening day of a cluster of significant shows–the Tuesday prior to the 2021 Royal Canin/AKC National Championship. The convention center is very spacious, and there are a lot of exhibitors.  These are the largest indoor shows I have been to since Covid. There is a nice but not huge entry in my breed. When I pick up my number, I scan the catalog, as one does, to see who else is entered.

At a major show like this, I would not normally be surprised to see the #1 ranked dog in my breed. It would make sense, right? The dog was ringside with his owner and handler.  Less than 100 feet away, in an adjacent ring, the judge was the man to whom the dog’s owner was once married, with whom she still worked, and with whom she had bred and raised this very dog.  To me, this did not make sense.

I have been showing my breed for more than 30 years. I consider myself a breeder-owner-handler, and someone who cares a great deal about the stewardship of the breed. About 10 years ago, I began judging; I include this not to claim any great authority but rather to explain that as a judge, I have had to read and rely on the AKC Judges Rules and Regulations and I am much more familiar with its content than I had been before.

I have shown against this dog and owner many times. I have congratulated her in the past for her wins, and she has congratulated me upon mine. Oftentimes, at shows all across the country, I have seen the judge–who was judging in the ring 100 feet away this day–standing ringside watching them in breed competition, as a spectator or helping with photos.

I am not trying to be disingenuous by not naming names. Many readers will be able to fill in the blanks correctly—but I imagine that what happens in my breed probably happens in other breeds as well; and if not exactly the same, then something similar.  And while I appreciate the anonymity of this forum, none of my actions were made covertly or furtively, or behind anyone’s back.  After the completion of judging on the subsequent day, I told the owner directly that I thought it was inappropriate for her to be exhibiting at these shows and that I would be filing a complaint.

According to the owner and the judge—and the rules of the AKC—since the two are not part of the same household, do not live together, and because the judge does not co-own the dog—no conflict exists here whatsoever.  I have no evidence to contradict any of these facts.

So, should I just let this go?

In all the many years that I have been showing dogs, I have never once protested formally to the AKC.  If there was no conflict of interest on paper, why did I smell more than a whiff of something amiss here?   And I wasn’t the only one: an AKC Field Rep said to me that day in Orlando that her mouth was hanging open—“the audacity,” she said.

A great many people said that they would sign on to my complaint; a few did. Many more said they were afraid of the repercussions.  But within days, people I had never met were coming up to me to offer their support; it was on a lot of peoples’ minds.

Sometimes the facts tell only a part of the story: while the judge in question and the owner in question are not presently married, and do not legally reside in the same residence, they remain linked, inseparable in our world as perhaps Lucy and Desi were in theirs. Most people, by the way, have no idea that Desi and Lucy were divorced. The judge and the owner travel to shows together–often over long distances. The judge’s name and image are on prime, loving display on the owner’s social media. That this dog is theirs as much as if not more than just hers is self-evident.

After filing a formal complaint, as I was instructed, to the Officers and Directors of the AKC, the various show chairpeople of the shows at this cluster and the show chairman of the Westminster Kennel Club, where I could see this judge figured prominently on the panel, and then a lengthy back and forth email exchange with the Judges Operations Department (no one else responded to my letter), the AKC position was that no rules were broken and the exhibitor was eligible to show.  In their argument, the AKC cited several examples of similar instances where the definition of household had been the basis for determining conflict or no conflict of interest: where children of judges were allowed to show at clusters where a parent was judging because they did not live at the same address, and where a certain exhibitor was excused from the group ring at Westminster because he resided at the same property as the judge.

My complaint was denied, and no further action was deemed necessary.

I accept the AKC rules and rulings just as I have in the past.

But still, I believe there is a conversation we should be having here—and I don’t know how to open it up for discussion and debate — because we should expect better.

I am under no illusion that dog shows are perfect, that the fields we play and compete on are immaculately level.  I am neither jaded or naive.  Advertising and social media make some impression on the collective psyche of the fancy; if ads had no impact, no one would be tempted to advertise. If social media didn’t worm its way algorithmically into our thoughts, it would cease to thrive. Strategy, picking where you show, is important; it’s what distinguishes campaigning from specialling.  Reputation plays a part, as does momentum. And there is the never-ending debate about the privilege earned by or afforded to professional handlers; in response, the AKC created the consolation prize with the NOHS division.

And it’s not like the AKC doesn’t already have a lot of rules and regulations with terms that define households and conflicts of interest, and rules that define distances and dress code and ring procedure. It continues to send out clarifications as recently as a few months ago.   There’s no question that the AKC has the authority and the covenant of member clubs and participants to maintain the standards and codes of conduct. The AKC is tasked with preserving the essence and spirit of the sport–the soul if you will–as well as the activities and actions. The AKC regulates both impropriety and the impression of impropriety.

Here’s what the rulebook states as 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.

Since there would be no way to know for sure if an exhibitor and a judge having dinner prior to a dog show were talking about certain dogs or something completely innocent, rather than accept the possibility of impropriety and the impression of it, the AKC chooses to prohibit the dinner itself.

The great challenge here is not what constitutes impropriety, but what constitutes the appearance of impropriety.  I can say that in the ring where my breed was being judged that day, and just outside the ring, that impression of impropriety was palpable and thoroughly disheartening—meaning literally I could feel it in my heart—and had nothing to do with the outcome of the judging. It triggered an almost primal response and a lasting aftertaste.

Perhaps from a certain distance and perch above, the AKC can say they don’t perceive that impression, or that they don’t feel it the way I did, but the AKC knows all too well–or it should–that the outward appearance of impropriety doesn’t go away if you tell people to ignore it. If it isn’t controlled and corrected, then it seems to be sanctioned by the organization. Then the same actions are repeated, and then the smell becomes a stench.

By their own standards of responsive action, it would seem the AKC would want to step in here.  As the handbook suggests: “ask yourself.” Shouldn’t they?

Might there be instances where a judge’s interest and involvement in a dog is clear even if his or her name is not on it? If a judge and an exhibitor collaborate on strategy, determining where a dog should be shown, isn’t that a shared interest, a form of collusion, that sets up potential conflict? Should exhibitors and judges be permitted to travel together and stay together at shows?  Or are there some privileged few who are allowed to side-step the underlying principles of fair play and good sportsmanship that underpin all of the rules?

A few words (see italics) could be added to the rule book section on breeding and handling: “you should never transfer or lease a dog to someone or obscure or obfuscate your shared or vested interest in a dog for the sole purpose of permitting the dog to be exhibited at shows or companion shows where you are officiating, and you should never own or co-own a dog for the sole purpose of handling it.”

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Short URL: https://caninechronicle.com/?p=224919

Posted by admin on Feb 27 2022. Filed under Current Articles, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.