Most of us are familiar with the adage: “Form follows Function”. It is usually applied to discussions about canine breeding, genetics, structure, and functionality. This truth can also be applied to showing dogs. What is the Function of the dog show? Once the Function has been determined, its Form will follow.    The dog show began as a venue in which the breeder could exhibit his breeding stock for the purpose of evaluation. Does it remain that, or has it mutated into a means of ego gratification for the otherwise ego-deprived? If it is the former, Quality will be presented, sought and rewarded. If it has deteriorated to serve the latter, the dog show will be nothing more than a “fashion show” in which the participants utilize dogs much as they would any object which they think will advance their attractiveness.    But what is Quality? “What IS the difference between a good dog and a great dog? There exists in our fancy some sort of aesthetic absolute - some objects of art and some dogs simply "have it," while others don't. An old friend and mentor might call it Quality - not quality, or qualities, but Quality. For some, the recognition of Quality is not tedious at all, and it is, in fact, one of the rare thrills in life. If one has heard the Quality of Bach, if one has viewed the Quality of Rembrandt, or if one has stood before the Great Pyramid of Cheops, he possesses an understanding of, and an appreciation for Quality, for Quality is appreciated and understood throughout all time; it is timeless. Without the capitalization, quality can be defined simply as the sum of the good points of an animal; this is so elementary as to be the same as asking for the point total. With the capital "Q", in our fancy, Quality means aesthetic beauty, presence, soundness, and balance, i.e., the ways in which the finer points of the Siberian Husky fit together, totalling more than the sum of their points. Quality means more than being fault-free; a dog free of major faults and with the usual array of minor faults can still be perfectly mediocre, and standing next to a dog with the same point total of minor faults, but with Quality, can look, and be, a poorer specimen. Quality is not a myth, it is a reality, although many breeders and judges seem to have given up on it, thinking it unobtainable. Inspire the newcomer with the vision of Quality, to look for it always, but to understand that the truly great dogs are few and far between. The near-great, the ones we can all, with effort, be privileged to know and have our hands on and learn from, come along every few years; the good dogs are the ones which most people show and finish, live for, and devote their lives to.” (Nist and Cornell, “The Siberian Quarterly”, Summer 1981, p. 16.)    For the person who uses the dog show only to salve his starving ego, the understanding of Quality will be elusive. Instead, the dog show entrant, the human, will embroil himself with politics, and will merely use the dog to salve and advance his narcissistic, neurotic ego. He may not even handle his own dogs, but will hire a “handler” to engage in these political battles for him. Judges will become susceptible to, and sometimes encourage, the unethical, political, ego struggle. Unfortunately, those who strive for Quality in the ring must learn to circumnavigate the politics of the ring. "Political judging” has been a serious point of discussion right from the beginning of the dog show. At the very first dog show ever publicly held (for Pointers and Setters) the Pointer judge put up the Setter judge's dog and the Setter judge put up the Pointer judge's dog. Those who truly strive for Quality in the ring must learn to circumnavigate the politics of the ring. Quality and politics are inherently mutually exclusive.    Politics, i.e., unethical exhibition and judging, presents a real problem to the fancy, but is not peculiar to the dog show exclusively. Corruption raised its ugly head recently even at the 2002 Olympics at Salt Lake City when a French judge was approached with intimidation in her hotel room “to perform in a certain way” (translation: trade votes) in her adjudication of the Pairs Figure Skating event. (NBC event coverage, Scott Hamilton) She left her judging assignment, and returned to France the following day. After all the unprecedented expense and efforts to prevent terrorism, “Skate-Gate” sullied the entire 2002 Olympics. Similar fraud has been part of skating for decades, and might have continued in this instance were it not for the public outcry. This cannot be blamed on poor sportsmanship as David Pellitier (the Canadian Pairs Skater involved) initially emphasized, “I don’t have to have the Gold Medal, but I want the truth to come out.” Katie, a young American Olympic contender, stated, “If the judges don’t know you, you’ll lose!” (CNN Press Conferences, Feb. 15, 2002) Carol Shulman of The Professional Skaters’ Association called for “banishment for life for all judges who make deals in the backroom”. (CNN Late Edition Interview of 2/1702) In a similar vein, but perhaps more germane to us, recently, an heretofore respected AKC judge was disciplined by a ninety day suspension, and loss of a Group, for using a toss of the coin to determine the first and second placings in a Group. There IS fraud and corruption within our fancy. Those who strive for Quality in the ring must learn to circumnavigate the politics of the ring.    Corruption in Skate-Gate was so deeply ingrained that it was the French Federation which initiated the fraud; this fraudulent judging was perpetrated at a national level. The two performances in question were presented side by side for the viewers of 60 Minutes, and the differences in Quality were clearly obvious even to the non-skater. The French judge later transparently tried to deny that the fraud had originated with her own government, and that she was the scoundrel, but she had to do so at the same time trying to conceal a smug smirk. (60 Minutes, CBS, April 28, 2002) Anyone who would try to argue that corruption has not permeated the dog show ring would find a sly smile no less convincing.    For the person who uses the dog show for the purpose of exhibition and evaluation of breeding stock in search of Quality, the widespread politics (i.e., crooked judging) are very disheartening. There are solutions, but they do not come without costs. These frauds could be largely overcome by ceasing all judging with the Best of Breed award, and with Groups being replaced by a Parade of Best of Breed Winners. I suppose this solution would be opposed by all-breed clubs, but it IS one workable solution; realistically, and to the heart of the matter, how can an exhibit which exemplifies the Chihuahua Standard do so to either a greater or lesser degree than another dog which exemplifies the Siberian Standard? A dog either represents its Standard, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, any Best of Breed status awarded to it is a sham.    Another solution which would largely put a stop to politics and corruption is to replace the objective judging with the written evaluation. This would, at least, make the judge accountable to “something”. It would also be much more valuable as a tool in the search for Quality in exhibition and breeding stock. All too often, one pays for an opinion, yet, at the end of the day’s judging, has not even the slightest idea what the specifics of that opinion might be. Even the judges of Olympic Figure Skating must mark, and defend a card, and account for a score.    Yet another partial solution to politics and corruption in the ring is to replace the single judge with a panel of three judges, and make each placement contingent upon consensus within that panel similar to what we see in Olympic Figure Skating. This solution wouldn’t be nearly as expensive to implement as one might imagine, and this solution is employed by the European shows. To what lengths are we willing to go to purify our quest for Quality? It all depends on the Function of the dog show. Is the dog show entry fee submitted for an honest, ethical evaluation of the dog, or is it tendered in exchange for an aphrodisiac for one’s neurotic ego?    Many breeders use Breed Specialties to exhibit and evaluate breeding stock, but must the all-breed shows be abandoned to corruption? The sport of figure skating wisely realizes that a one-judge system is vastly insufficient to provide an adequate representation of the degree of the entrant’s Quality, so it employs many judges to form a median subjective opinion which is then used to rank Quality. Each of these judges must submit an individually scored (written) evaluation. Even with these safeguards, as we have seen, there is room for dishonesty and corruption to foul the Function of the sport.    We all realize that the present system of judging dogs is subjective, and like Skate-Gate, is susceptible to the quackery of the crooked judge. Where money and power are flaunted, and sought, there is room for the unscrupulous, be he exhibitor, handler or judge, to commit the fraud of chicanery and corruption. As a precaution, in the Olympics, there are alternate judges seated for these untoward situations, should they arise. In our fancy, we have nothing. Are we just complacent?    This author was terribly “amused” when the wife of a formerly well-known Pacific Northwest PHA handler asserted in a widely circulated e-mail that “POLITICS in [sic] an excuse! I personally feel that there is VERY LITTLE POLITICS involved in the sport of dogs.” Contrast that denial with the realistic statement of Povelas Wanagas, the male half of the Lithuanian Olympic Ice Dancing team, which team officially and vociferously protested the decisions of the 2002 Olympic Ice Dancing judges, when he exclaimed that ice skating entrants know even before they make Olympic entry what competitive position they would occupy within plus or minus one position, and that this was just an accepted certainty. (CNN, American Morning Interview, Feb. 20, 2002) As it concerns Group placements, and The Best in Show Award, this writer is well aware of the parallels within our own fancy, and believes that few but the extreme novice would argue to the contrary.    Intrinsic to “subjective sports” is the invitation for corruption and fraud. Professional boxing (more exactly termed “commercial athletics”) is a fine example of such a revenue generating activity which is allowed to pose as a sport.    CONSIDER THIS: In its quest for Quality, the ISU made unprecedented and wide-sweeping corrections in the Form of its subjective judging because they wanted to maintain the Function of their sport. Do we not owe at least as much for the recognition of Quality in the purebred dog fancy? Or, shall we allow our sport to sink to the level of becoming kissing cousin to “professional wrestling”?   ### -- The above article is published in The Siberian Quarterly: Hoflin Publishing, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Summer 2002 Issue, pp. 15 - 17.

---

Back to
Artyk Siberians


All Web Pages and Images ©Copyright 1997-2005 Fredric R. Cornell, MIS
All Rights Reserved

Maintained By HarborNet