It came as sad news to me that almost all reports on UK Schutzhund sport scene paint the sport over there in a very bad light!
I decided to do some investigation into this and found that whilst 1 organisation seemed to cop some serious flack, the other didn’t. Something seemed off base with this so after some more digging I came across some evidence of foul play by the 1 side that always came across as honest and innocent.
In these pages you will find REAL emails, which throw serious doubt over whether the 2 UK organizations can really work together or should they remain separate…..I’ll leave you to decide!!!
07 June 2009
BAGSD Proposals
The BAGSD proposes:
1. There will be four trials all of which will be for the F.C.I. and the W.U.S.V.
2. B.A.G.S.D.S. will run two and the G.S.D.L. will run two.
3. Top scores from three trials will count for team placing.
4. B.A.G.S.D.S. will put forward a number of judges as will the G.S.D.L. these will then be drawn from a hat so that neither organisation can be seen to favour one judge over another.
5. Helpers and tracklayers should come from the B.A.G.S.D.S. and the G.S.D.L. Helpers should also be tracklayers where possible. To help with costs it would be beneficial to both organisations if an expenses cap could be placed on this.
6. The helpers and tracklayers will be picked the same way as the judges.
7. The selection trials should between the calendar months of February and May, thus allowing time for the team members to make holiday arrangements etc.
8. Team captains and vice captains will continue as they are now.
9. It will be left to the discretion of each organisation as to which branch will host their selection trials.
1. There will be four trials all of which will be for the F.C.I. and the W.U.S.V.
2. B.A.G.S.D.S. will run two and the G.S.D.L. will run two.
3. Top scores from three trials will count for team placing.
4. B.A.G.S.D.S. will put forward a number of judges as will the G.S.D.L. these will then be drawn from a hat so that neither organisation can be seen to favour one judge over another.
5. Helpers and tracklayers should come from the B.A.G.S.D.S. and the G.S.D.L. Helpers should also be tracklayers where possible. To help with costs it would be beneficial to both organisations if an expenses cap could be placed on this.
6. The helpers and tracklayers will be picked the same way as the judges.
7. The selection trials should between the calendar months of February and May, thus allowing time for the team members to make holiday arrangements etc.
8. Team captains and vice captains will continue as they are now.
9. It will be left to the discretion of each organisation as to which branch will host their selection trials.
Whistleblower Comments
Whilst the BAGSD proposals here look very basic, this looks like just an outline of topics ready for discussion.
Again, very good suggestions. But I would still be asking if it is TRULY possible to FIND a NEGATIVE venue to ALL!
Again, very good suggestions. But I would still be asking if it is TRULY possible to FIND a NEGATIVE venue to ALL!
GSDL Proposals For Joint Selection
GSDL WDG Joint Selection Trial Proposal.
The contents of this document having been previously discussed and provisionally approved by Eric Roberts, John Ward and the BAGSD EC.
This proposal outlines the GSDL WDG criteria for a one off joint Selection Trial to select Schutzhund/VPG Teams made up of the best handlers and dogs from The GSDL WDG and The BAGSD/VPG to represent Great Britain at the FCI and WUSV World Championship Trials in 2010.
The GSDL WDG Executive considers this proposed one off Trial represents the most suitable means whereby both sides are able to organise and incorporate such a trial into both organisations respective Team Selection processes.
This proposed joint Trial enables all handlers and dogs to compete at a minimum number of major trials in order to achieve their place at this final selection trial, thereby maintaining the quality of performance required of the dogs. The proposed Joint Trial criterion also ensures that the numbers of final competitors are kept within a 20 dog format, therefore keeping running costs to a minimum.
The current situation, where both organisations host their own Selection Trials to enable their own respective competitors to fill the 2 or 3 vacant positions on each (WUSV or FCI) Team of 5 competitors; is not conducive in ensuring that the best 5 dog and handler teams in the UK attend either World Championship event. This can be evidenced through anlysis of the 2009 situation.
The proposed final Joint Selection Trial promotes a concept where each organisation runs Selection Trial(s) where entrants compete for a place in the final Joint Selection Trial rather than a place in the World Championship Team. This ensures that the best performing 5 handler/dog teams from both organisations attend both World Championship events.
We need to ensure that the proposed final Joint Trial system works; as there is no point in hosting multiple trials and having failures in the system. It is far more prudent at this early stage, to host one final Joint Trial for one World Championship (either FCI or WUSV) to proof the system and examine where improvements can be made for future joint ventures.
After many hours discussion with organisations from other countries with similar problems, the GSDL WDG sees this proposal to be the fairest system, whereby the best dogs from both organisations are sent to represent the KC at the FCI; and both organisations at the WUSV. We are looking to improving the Great Britain Teams’ placings at such events and wish to reduce the failure rate at these major championships to a minimum. This can only be achieved by sending the most consistent performing dogs and handlers with the highest standards to these trials. This proposal goes some way to ensuring this.
Points to be Discussed and Agreed.
1. The main working committee should consist of two persons from each organisation, preferably with knowledge of organising/hosting trials but with no interest in attending or running for the team. These people need to be as neutral as they can be.
All jobs will be allocated to each subcommittee by the main working committee.
Trial manager, secretary and all other helpers for the trial to be selected by the main working committee
2) A neutral ground to be chosen, this ground must be central to the country and be either a football or rugby type club with full facilities and capable of supporting a full size Schutzhund field. No club shall be selected to host the event as there is to be no home advantage allowing for a totally neutral competition for all of the competitors who enter.
A line to be drawn geographically from the 4 furthest clubs, NE to SW and NW to SE and an area within 50 miles from the centre point to be chosen for the preferred location of the venue.
Where possible, the venue is to supply all refreshments over the two days.
There must be adequate parking for spectators with a separate area for the competitors to park in shade for warm days. There must be adequate tracking land as near to the ground as possible and also a reasonable selection of hotels nearby for the judge and spectators.
3) Judge to be chosen/drawn from the following approved list of judges supplied by Gunther Diegel:- Chief Working Judge of the WUSV:
Heiko Grube,
Horst Dieter Träger,
Udo Wolters,
Deiter Schmale,
Uwe Stolpe,
Gunther Diegel.
Judges to be selected in a first to last place, so should the first judge be unable to accept, the invite is then offered to the next judge on the list, etc.
4) The date to be chosen from a weekend in June 2010. This gives each organisation time at the beginning of the year to be able to arrange their individual selection process and enough time after the event to organise captains for the team and arrange paperwork for entry etc.
5) Tracklayers to be chosen from a list of 6 tracklayers, 3 BAGSD and 3 GSDL the committee to choose one from each organisation. Tracklayers must have laid at least 10 Sch111 competition tracks at a major events in the last 3 years. This must be evidenced. Tracklayers will work, under a tracking manager to be appointed by the committee.
6) The trial helpers are to be selected from 2 A grade helpers from The BAGSD and 2 A grade helpers from the GSDL. The helpers chosen must have experience working dogs at a high level trial and must have completed in at least one major trial in the previous two years. This must be evidenced.
All 4 helpers selected will be requested to do a try out in front of the judge for the judge to select which two helpers are selected and from those two selected, which helper will do the long work and which helper will do the short work with the remaining helpers to be reserve in the unlikely event of injury or withdrawal by the two selected helpers.
The judge is not to be informed of which organisation these helpers are from so his decision on the selection of the helpers is unbiased. Min of 2 dogs for the helper try outs to be supplied by each organisation. Dogs entered in the trial are not to be used for the try outs.
7) A trial accountant is to be selected by the committee to oversee all finances and a total final account to be divided and paid by both organisations at the end when final P&L sheet is produced.
Each organisation is in turn to arrange the financial running of the event on a rotating basis each year.
The attached expense agreement is to be signed and dated by both the GSDL Chairman and the BAGSD Chairman with a witness to the proceedings.
Any further funds required outside of the estimated budget to be agreed on and divided equally by each organisation, and any funds over after the event to be issued back to both organisations.
Rough expenses:- (see attached sheet for estimated detailed costs)
Rental fee for football/rugby club grounds.
Flights/travel expenses for judge, helpers and tracklayers.
3 night’s accommodation and meals for the judge.
1 night’s accommodation and meals for the 4 helpers.
1 night’s accommodation and meals for the two tracklayers.
If the helpers meet the tracklayers criteria, helpers to be asked to tracklay at the event.
Advertising, schedules and catalogues. Some items to be sold and all proceeds to go back into expense fund.
Gifts for judge, helpers and tracklayers.
Trophies for winner, second and third place, Best track, best obedience and best protection (possible sponsor to be sought for trophies).
8) The competition shall be made up from 10 Sch111 qualified dogs from The GSDL WDG and 10Sch111 qualified dogs from The BAGSD, giving a maximum of 20 dogs competing in a two day competition. Each organisation is to compile their own selection process to select their 10 dogs. Should the entry fall short either side should be offered to fill the extra places to ensure the trial is full. Only Sch111 qualified dogs are to be eligible.
9) The team will be drawn from the first 5 handlers with the sixth being the reserve, should any of the first 5 selected not wish to take their place on the team then the reserve will move to a team position and the next handler that has qualified will be asked to participate, this to be repeated until a full team is selected. Only handlers that have qualified will be selected for the team.
10) The team captaincy will remain the same as the current criteria with the captaincy being given to each organisation on a rotational basis. Vice captain to be deem not necessary and is optional.
Appendices
1) Expense Agreement
2) Trial Organisation Procedure
3) Trial Checklist
4) Estimated Trial Expenses
5) Trial Statistics
Expense Agreement
It is mutually agreed that all finances and expenses for the joint selection trial organised by The GSDL of Great Britain and The BAGSD be shared equally for the running of this selection trial.
The purpose of this trial is to select the best team to represent Great Britain at the World Championships in 2010.
All accounts are to be presented and agreed by both sides during and on completion of the event. Any discrepancies or disagreement in the funding or expenses of this trial must be lodged with the organising committee before any financial balance sheets are finalised.
This agreement is to be signed and dated by the Chairmen of each organisation and witnessed by a third party.
Signed by…………………………………………………...………Date……………....
Chairman of The GSDL of Great Britain.
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed by… …………………………………………………….…Date……………….
Chairman of The BAGSD.
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
Witness Signature………………………………………………….Date………………
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
June 2009
Trial Organisation Procedure
These guidelines are to be used to assist in the correct organisation of a trial, within the WUSV rules.
Pre-trial planning
• Appoint a committee to work with the agreement between the two organisations.
• Choose a suitable date for the trial.
• Contact the judge of first choice to check and agree dates and availability.
• Appoint a Trial Secretary and a Trial Manager both must be members of either the GSDL-WDG or BAGSD VPG and not participating in the trial as competitors.
• Agree and find a suitable venue and tracking land.
After the event application is approved
• Produce trial schedule and entry form and distribute by mail or email to all qualified potential entrants at least 28 days before the trial entry closing date.
• Arrange accommodation for the judge, tracklayers & helpers. Book the Hotel.
• Book the judges flights and check travel arrangements.
• Check availability of all necessary equipment Tracking: tracking poles & articles (numbered) Obedience: dumbbell stand, full set of dumbbells, gun, ammunition, jumps, protection: hides, The helpers to provide their own suitable personal protection equipment checked by the judge as part of the try out, jacket with sleeve must be worn.
• Trial Secretary accepts entries in accordance with the appropriate rules.
• Liaise with judge regarding provision of judging sheets (some foreign judges prefer to use their own sheets; some like to use our tracking sheets etc.)
• Produce catalogue.
• If using a foreign judge, enquire how much travel, parking & expenses are to arrange Euro’s in advance of the trial.
Day of the trial
• Trial Secretary must collect all performance record books before the trial commences.
• Trial Secretary must complete a minimum 2 sets of judging score sheets, which the judge must sign and retain one. A further two copies are needed, one to be sent to the National Secretary of each organisation
• Trial Manager must organize a group of four for the crowd and a gun steward.
• Trail Manager must ensure all competitors are running on time for their three phases.
Trial Checklist
Tracking Actioned By
Land
Articles x 4 Numbered
Poles x 20 Numbered
Draw Numbers
Obedience
Clear Jump
A Frame
Dumbbells
Dumbbell Stand
Down Stay Signs D & B
Gun & Blanks
Gun Steward
Group x 4 Adults
Protection
Blinds x 6
Grass Paint
General
Scoreboard & Markers
Clipboard for Judge
Judges Marking Sheets
Catalogues
Certificates
Catering
Raffle Tickets
Raffle Prizes
Trophies
Gifts
Judge
Tracklayers
Helpers
Farmer
Notes Notes
Trial Expenses
Income Expenditure
Entries 20 x £25.00 500.00
Stadium 300.00
WUSV License 95.00
Judges Flight 200.00
Judge Accommodation (3 Days) 360.00
Helpers Travel x 4 200.00
Helpers Accommodation x 4 300.00
Tracklayers Travel (Local) 50.00
Tracklayers Accommodation 75.00
Catalogue Printing 30.00
Catalogue Sales 50.00
Raffle 80.00
Gifts 60.00
Trophies Sponsor
Totals £630.00 £1670.00
All figures quoted are estimated and should only be used as a guideline as they will be subject to change.
Major Trial Statistics 2009
GSD Entries Only for WUSV Selection
BAGSD GSDL
Number of Trials 3 2
Total Number of Entries 24 34
Passed 10 (42%) 30 (88%)
Failed 14 (58%) 4 (12%)
Qualifications V, SG, G 9 (33%) 28 (82%)
Number of Individual Dogs 9 21
Competing for Selection
The contents of this document having been previously discussed and provisionally approved by Eric Roberts, John Ward and the BAGSD EC.
This proposal outlines the GSDL WDG criteria for a one off joint Selection Trial to select Schutzhund/VPG Teams made up of the best handlers and dogs from The GSDL WDG and The BAGSD/VPG to represent Great Britain at the FCI and WUSV World Championship Trials in 2010.
The GSDL WDG Executive considers this proposed one off Trial represents the most suitable means whereby both sides are able to organise and incorporate such a trial into both organisations respective Team Selection processes.
This proposed joint Trial enables all handlers and dogs to compete at a minimum number of major trials in order to achieve their place at this final selection trial, thereby maintaining the quality of performance required of the dogs. The proposed Joint Trial criterion also ensures that the numbers of final competitors are kept within a 20 dog format, therefore keeping running costs to a minimum.
The current situation, where both organisations host their own Selection Trials to enable their own respective competitors to fill the 2 or 3 vacant positions on each (WUSV or FCI) Team of 5 competitors; is not conducive in ensuring that the best 5 dog and handler teams in the UK attend either World Championship event. This can be evidenced through anlysis of the 2009 situation.
The proposed final Joint Selection Trial promotes a concept where each organisation runs Selection Trial(s) where entrants compete for a place in the final Joint Selection Trial rather than a place in the World Championship Team. This ensures that the best performing 5 handler/dog teams from both organisations attend both World Championship events.
We need to ensure that the proposed final Joint Trial system works; as there is no point in hosting multiple trials and having failures in the system. It is far more prudent at this early stage, to host one final Joint Trial for one World Championship (either FCI or WUSV) to proof the system and examine where improvements can be made for future joint ventures.
After many hours discussion with organisations from other countries with similar problems, the GSDL WDG sees this proposal to be the fairest system, whereby the best dogs from both organisations are sent to represent the KC at the FCI; and both organisations at the WUSV. We are looking to improving the Great Britain Teams’ placings at such events and wish to reduce the failure rate at these major championships to a minimum. This can only be achieved by sending the most consistent performing dogs and handlers with the highest standards to these trials. This proposal goes some way to ensuring this.
Points to be Discussed and Agreed.
1. The main working committee should consist of two persons from each organisation, preferably with knowledge of organising/hosting trials but with no interest in attending or running for the team. These people need to be as neutral as they can be.
All jobs will be allocated to each subcommittee by the main working committee.
Trial manager, secretary and all other helpers for the trial to be selected by the main working committee
2) A neutral ground to be chosen, this ground must be central to the country and be either a football or rugby type club with full facilities and capable of supporting a full size Schutzhund field. No club shall be selected to host the event as there is to be no home advantage allowing for a totally neutral competition for all of the competitors who enter.
A line to be drawn geographically from the 4 furthest clubs, NE to SW and NW to SE and an area within 50 miles from the centre point to be chosen for the preferred location of the venue.
Where possible, the venue is to supply all refreshments over the two days.
There must be adequate parking for spectators with a separate area for the competitors to park in shade for warm days. There must be adequate tracking land as near to the ground as possible and also a reasonable selection of hotels nearby for the judge and spectators.
3) Judge to be chosen/drawn from the following approved list of judges supplied by Gunther Diegel:- Chief Working Judge of the WUSV:
Heiko Grube,
Horst Dieter Träger,
Udo Wolters,
Deiter Schmale,
Uwe Stolpe,
Gunther Diegel.
Judges to be selected in a first to last place, so should the first judge be unable to accept, the invite is then offered to the next judge on the list, etc.
4) The date to be chosen from a weekend in June 2010. This gives each organisation time at the beginning of the year to be able to arrange their individual selection process and enough time after the event to organise captains for the team and arrange paperwork for entry etc.
5) Tracklayers to be chosen from a list of 6 tracklayers, 3 BAGSD and 3 GSDL the committee to choose one from each organisation. Tracklayers must have laid at least 10 Sch111 competition tracks at a major events in the last 3 years. This must be evidenced. Tracklayers will work, under a tracking manager to be appointed by the committee.
6) The trial helpers are to be selected from 2 A grade helpers from The BAGSD and 2 A grade helpers from the GSDL. The helpers chosen must have experience working dogs at a high level trial and must have completed in at least one major trial in the previous two years. This must be evidenced.
All 4 helpers selected will be requested to do a try out in front of the judge for the judge to select which two helpers are selected and from those two selected, which helper will do the long work and which helper will do the short work with the remaining helpers to be reserve in the unlikely event of injury or withdrawal by the two selected helpers.
The judge is not to be informed of which organisation these helpers are from so his decision on the selection of the helpers is unbiased. Min of 2 dogs for the helper try outs to be supplied by each organisation. Dogs entered in the trial are not to be used for the try outs.
7) A trial accountant is to be selected by the committee to oversee all finances and a total final account to be divided and paid by both organisations at the end when final P&L sheet is produced.
Each organisation is in turn to arrange the financial running of the event on a rotating basis each year.
The attached expense agreement is to be signed and dated by both the GSDL Chairman and the BAGSD Chairman with a witness to the proceedings.
Any further funds required outside of the estimated budget to be agreed on and divided equally by each organisation, and any funds over after the event to be issued back to both organisations.
Rough expenses:- (see attached sheet for estimated detailed costs)
Rental fee for football/rugby club grounds.
Flights/travel expenses for judge, helpers and tracklayers.
3 night’s accommodation and meals for the judge.
1 night’s accommodation and meals for the 4 helpers.
1 night’s accommodation and meals for the two tracklayers.
If the helpers meet the tracklayers criteria, helpers to be asked to tracklay at the event.
Advertising, schedules and catalogues. Some items to be sold and all proceeds to go back into expense fund.
Gifts for judge, helpers and tracklayers.
Trophies for winner, second and third place, Best track, best obedience and best protection (possible sponsor to be sought for trophies).
8) The competition shall be made up from 10 Sch111 qualified dogs from The GSDL WDG and 10Sch111 qualified dogs from The BAGSD, giving a maximum of 20 dogs competing in a two day competition. Each organisation is to compile their own selection process to select their 10 dogs. Should the entry fall short either side should be offered to fill the extra places to ensure the trial is full. Only Sch111 qualified dogs are to be eligible.
9) The team will be drawn from the first 5 handlers with the sixth being the reserve, should any of the first 5 selected not wish to take their place on the team then the reserve will move to a team position and the next handler that has qualified will be asked to participate, this to be repeated until a full team is selected. Only handlers that have qualified will be selected for the team.
10) The team captaincy will remain the same as the current criteria with the captaincy being given to each organisation on a rotational basis. Vice captain to be deem not necessary and is optional.
Appendices
1) Expense Agreement
2) Trial Organisation Procedure
3) Trial Checklist
4) Estimated Trial Expenses
5) Trial Statistics
Expense Agreement
It is mutually agreed that all finances and expenses for the joint selection trial organised by The GSDL of Great Britain and The BAGSD be shared equally for the running of this selection trial.
The purpose of this trial is to select the best team to represent Great Britain at the World Championships in 2010.
All accounts are to be presented and agreed by both sides during and on completion of the event. Any discrepancies or disagreement in the funding or expenses of this trial must be lodged with the organising committee before any financial balance sheets are finalised.
This agreement is to be signed and dated by the Chairmen of each organisation and witnessed by a third party.
Signed by…………………………………………………...………Date……………....
Chairman of The GSDL of Great Britain.
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed by… …………………………………………………….…Date……………….
Chairman of The BAGSD.
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
Witness Signature………………………………………………….Date………………
Print Name………………………………………………………………………………..
June 2009
Trial Organisation Procedure
These guidelines are to be used to assist in the correct organisation of a trial, within the WUSV rules.
Pre-trial planning
• Appoint a committee to work with the agreement between the two organisations.
• Choose a suitable date for the trial.
• Contact the judge of first choice to check and agree dates and availability.
• Appoint a Trial Secretary and a Trial Manager both must be members of either the GSDL-WDG or BAGSD VPG and not participating in the trial as competitors.
• Agree and find a suitable venue and tracking land.
After the event application is approved
• Produce trial schedule and entry form and distribute by mail or email to all qualified potential entrants at least 28 days before the trial entry closing date.
• Arrange accommodation for the judge, tracklayers & helpers. Book the Hotel.
• Book the judges flights and check travel arrangements.
• Check availability of all necessary equipment Tracking: tracking poles & articles (numbered) Obedience: dumbbell stand, full set of dumbbells, gun, ammunition, jumps, protection: hides, The helpers to provide their own suitable personal protection equipment checked by the judge as part of the try out, jacket with sleeve must be worn.
• Trial Secretary accepts entries in accordance with the appropriate rules.
• Liaise with judge regarding provision of judging sheets (some foreign judges prefer to use their own sheets; some like to use our tracking sheets etc.)
• Produce catalogue.
• If using a foreign judge, enquire how much travel, parking & expenses are to arrange Euro’s in advance of the trial.
Day of the trial
• Trial Secretary must collect all performance record books before the trial commences.
• Trial Secretary must complete a minimum 2 sets of judging score sheets, which the judge must sign and retain one. A further two copies are needed, one to be sent to the National Secretary of each organisation
• Trial Manager must organize a group of four for the crowd and a gun steward.
• Trail Manager must ensure all competitors are running on time for their three phases.
Trial Checklist
Tracking Actioned By
Land
Articles x 4 Numbered
Poles x 20 Numbered
Draw Numbers
Obedience
Clear Jump
A Frame
Dumbbells
Dumbbell Stand
Down Stay Signs D & B
Gun & Blanks
Gun Steward
Group x 4 Adults
Protection
Blinds x 6
Grass Paint
General
Scoreboard & Markers
Clipboard for Judge
Judges Marking Sheets
Catalogues
Certificates
Catering
Raffle Tickets
Raffle Prizes
Trophies
Gifts
Judge
Tracklayers
Helpers
Farmer
Notes Notes
Trial Expenses
Income Expenditure
Entries 20 x £25.00 500.00
Stadium 300.00
WUSV License 95.00
Judges Flight 200.00
Judge Accommodation (3 Days) 360.00
Helpers Travel x 4 200.00
Helpers Accommodation x 4 300.00
Tracklayers Travel (Local) 50.00
Tracklayers Accommodation 75.00
Catalogue Printing 30.00
Catalogue Sales 50.00
Raffle 80.00
Gifts 60.00
Trophies Sponsor
Totals £630.00 £1670.00
All figures quoted are estimated and should only be used as a guideline as they will be subject to change.
Major Trial Statistics 2009
GSD Entries Only for WUSV Selection
BAGSD GSDL
Number of Trials 3 2
Total Number of Entries 24 34
Passed 10 (42%) 30 (88%)
Failed 14 (58%) 4 (12%)
Qualifications V, SG, G 9 (33%) 28 (82%)
Number of Individual Dogs 9 21
Competing for Selection
Whistleblower Comments
The document seems very well written but its a shame that they couldn't be transparent about it and published theproposals publicly. I did find BAGSD proposals on their website.
Do you wonder how a TRUE venue could EVER be found that is totally negative to both sides? If you really put every thought into it, both sides would have to consider travelling times and distances too!
That is just ONE of the concerns of being fair without adding a certain proposed judge who has made negative comments already about a dog from one of the sides! - Read all about it in the email below!
Do you wonder how a TRUE venue could EVER be found that is totally negative to both sides? If you really put every thought into it, both sides would have to consider travelling times and distances too!
That is just ONE of the concerns of being fair without adding a certain proposed judge who has made negative comments already about a dog from one of the sides! - Read all about it in the email below!
Steve Byfield to Richard James
From: Steve
To: Richard James
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 9:46
Subject: BAGSD
I think we need to get the BAGSD saga onto a wider audience, do you know anyone who can post on the pedigree database??
How friendly are you with Mr Payne??
Steve
To: Richard James
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 9:46
Subject: BAGSD
I think we need to get the BAGSD saga onto a wider audience, do you know anyone who can post on the pedigree database??
How friendly are you with Mr Payne??
Steve
David Payne (Videx GSD to Richard James (GSDL)
All “ammunition” is appreciated
David Payne
VIDEX GSD
www.videxgsd.com
David Payne
VIDEX GSD
www.videxgsd.com
David Payne (Videx GSD) to Andrew Winfrow (BAGSD)
From: David Payne [mailto:david@videxgsd.com]
Sent: 03 July 2009 22:14
To: 'Andrew Winfrow'
Subject: RE: pedigreeatabase
As usual Andrew you write crap.
I suppose it is pointless to remind you that IMPORTS in this country are shown under Kennel Club rules, and BREEDING rules in this country are governed by the Kennel Club, although thousands of dogs are bred outside of the Kennel Club rules, because they CAN BE.
Your intelligence is seriously flawed, and certainly disadvantaged with mine. You continue to write nonsense.
By the way, on a point of information, there is a difference between Belgium Shepherds and German Shepherds.
I am fully aware of how BAGSD have behaved in this matter, and I am simply ensuring they receive their FULL CREDIT around the World. Such is my ability.
David Payne
VIDEX GSD
www.videxgsd.com
Sent: 03 July 2009 22:14
To: 'Andrew Winfrow'
Subject: RE: pedigreeatabase
As usual Andrew you write crap.
I suppose it is pointless to remind you that IMPORTS in this country are shown under Kennel Club rules, and BREEDING rules in this country are governed by the Kennel Club, although thousands of dogs are bred outside of the Kennel Club rules, because they CAN BE.
Your intelligence is seriously flawed, and certainly disadvantaged with mine. You continue to write nonsense.
By the way, on a point of information, there is a difference between Belgium Shepherds and German Shepherds.
I am fully aware of how BAGSD have behaved in this matter, and I am simply ensuring they receive their FULL CREDIT around the World. Such is my ability.
David Payne
VIDEX GSD
www.videxgsd.com
Richard James to David Payne (Videx GSD)
From: RICHLINEGSD@aol.com [mailto:RICHLINEGSD@aol.com]
Sent: 04 July 2009 08:49
To: david@videxgsd.com
Subject: Re: FW: pedigreeatabase
Thanks for the update David
My opinions of Mr Winfrow are well known, i consider him to be a devious,twisted,egotistical individual with self interest ofcontrolling our breed for ever, which he intends to do whilst being devoid of all knowledge of a dog never mind a german shepherd dog
If you need any ammunition against him am will be happy to hepl
richard
Sent: 04 July 2009 08:49
To: david@videxgsd.com
Subject: Re: FW: pedigreeatabase
Thanks for the update David
My opinions of Mr Winfrow are well known, i consider him to be a devious,twisted,egotistical individual with self interest ofcontrolling our breed for ever, which he intends to do whilst being devoid of all knowledge of a dog never mind a german shepherd dog
If you need any ammunition against him am will be happy to hepl
richard
Richard James to David Payne (Videx GSD)
Ammunition
The GSDL WDG have proposed and agreed the format of the joint trial as per link http://www.gsdleague-workingbranch.com/news.html with both E Roberts ex VPG chairman and J Ward ex VPG chaiman who have both resigned from that position, when the BAGSD EC lead by Mr Winfrow voted AGAINST the joint trials under the direction of the BAGSD Event Coordinator Mr S Nye.
Mr Nye being one of the representatives selected within their slection process with 2 failures from 3 the only qualification being gained when the trial was held on his own club training ground!
The GSDL WDG have proposed and agreed the format of the joint trial as per link http://www.gsdleague-workingbranch.com/news.html with both E Roberts ex VPG chairman and J Ward ex VPG chaiman who have both resigned from that position, when the BAGSD EC lead by Mr Winfrow voted AGAINST the joint trials under the direction of the BAGSD Event Coordinator Mr S Nye.
Mr Nye being one of the representatives selected within their slection process with 2 failures from 3 the only qualification being gained when the trial was held on his own club training ground!
Whistleblower Comments
so let me get this straight, even though this Byfield character advocates “joint trial” he still wants to stir up trouble for the very organization he CLAIMS he want to WORK WITH!!!!!
John Ward (BAGSD) to Steve Byfield (GSDL)
From: John Ward
Date: 16/06/2009 20:48:07
To: Steve Byfield
Subject: Re: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hello Steve , this is the proposed proposition from BAGSD, you may have seen this if not keep it close to your chest but it now gives you the chance to see what is coming from BAGSD. regards John
Date: 16/06/2009 20:48:07
To: Steve Byfield
Subject: Re: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hello Steve , this is the proposed proposition from BAGSD, you may have seen this if not keep it close to your chest but it now gives you the chance to see what is coming from BAGSD. regards John
Steve Byfield freely distributes a private document
From: Steve Byfield [mailto:stephen.byfield@btinternet.com]
Sent: 23 June 2009 15:32
To: RICHLINEGSD@aol.com; Chris Bows; Dougie Bannerman; Glyn (GSDLWDB); CLAIRE JACKSON; Henriette H Bohnstedt; Phil Sergent; Ron White
Subject: Fw: GSDL Trial Proposal final
Hi All
Received this from John, this is a fucking joke and will never stand.
Great that we now have the inside verdict we can arrange our proposal to counter this direct.
This is the proposal I have drafted with a little help for the meeting with The BAGSD about joint qualifier.
Please read carefully and send me comments by e-mail.
I do not need to tell you that the contents are strictly for your eyes only as you will read there are a few things I do not want getting out till the meeting. We are the only people who know about this document.
What do you think of this as a release.
I know it will piss the BAGSD off as it states the truth.
Regards Steve
Sent: 23 June 2009 15:32
To: RICHLINEGSD@aol.com; Chris Bows; Dougie Bannerman; Glyn (GSDLWDB); CLAIRE JACKSON; Henriette H Bohnstedt; Phil Sergent; Ron White
Subject: Fw: GSDL Trial Proposal final
Hi All
Received this from John, this is a fucking joke and will never stand.
Great that we now have the inside verdict we can arrange our proposal to counter this direct.
This is the proposal I have drafted with a little help for the meeting with The BAGSD about joint qualifier.
Please read carefully and send me comments by e-mail.
I do not need to tell you that the contents are strictly for your eyes only as you will read there are a few things I do not want getting out till the meeting. We are the only people who know about this document.
What do you think of this as a release.
I know it will piss the BAGSD off as it states the truth.
Regards Steve
Jim Jackson to Steve Byfield
From: CLAIRE JACKSON
To: Steve Byfield
Steve
the document is fairly comprehensive and reads well.
I have noted the ammendments of Chris and again they seem fine.
My biggest reservation and please correct me if I`m wrong is that it any negotiations should surely be in relation to the W.U.S.V. trial.
Both the GSDL and Bagsd. are wusv members and therfore this should be their primary goal the F.C.I. is secondary.
I have had the impression all along that they are only interested in negotiating the F.C.I. thus perpetuating Clan Nye representation at the WUSV.(but I may have got the wrong idea!)
Jim
To: Steve Byfield
Steve
the document is fairly comprehensive and reads well.
I have noted the ammendments of Chris and again they seem fine.
My biggest reservation and please correct me if I`m wrong is that it any negotiations should surely be in relation to the W.U.S.V. trial.
Both the GSDL and Bagsd. are wusv members and therfore this should be their primary goal the F.C.I. is secondary.
I have had the impression all along that they are only interested in negotiating the F.C.I. thus perpetuating Clan Nye representation at the WUSV.(but I may have got the wrong idea!)
Jim
Steve Byfield to Nikki Farley
From: Steve Byfield [mailto:stephen.byfield@btinternet.com]
Sent: 16 June 2009 10:01
To: Nikki Farley
Subject: Fw: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hi Nikki
I know that Graham has gone back into hospital so thought as the VC you should be kept in the loop on the latest pitch battle with BAGSD.
This is yesterdays e-mail which are self explanatory, I merely asked for information and Andrew has started another e-mail battle, the problem I have is that all the negotiations that I have had and the many correspondence I have had with the previous chairmen is going to be just thrown away and the cheats of BAGSD will get what they want from Bob and Andrew.
I know that this is only a stalling tactic to postpone the inevitable, and that is that the top 5 dogs go to the worlds but it is really hard to remain calm.
It has gone quiet at the moment, but I am expecting it all to explode again.
Regards Steve
Sent: 16 June 2009 10:01
To: Nikki Farley
Subject: Fw: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hi Nikki
I know that Graham has gone back into hospital so thought as the VC you should be kept in the loop on the latest pitch battle with BAGSD.
This is yesterdays e-mail which are self explanatory, I merely asked for information and Andrew has started another e-mail battle, the problem I have is that all the negotiations that I have had and the many correspondence I have had with the previous chairmen is going to be just thrown away and the cheats of BAGSD will get what they want from Bob and Andrew.
I know that this is only a stalling tactic to postpone the inevitable, and that is that the top 5 dogs go to the worlds but it is really hard to remain calm.
It has gone quiet at the moment, but I am expecting it all to explode again.
Regards Steve
Whistleblower Comments
So not only are the BAGSD labelled “cheats”, but the FCI championships for ALL breeds is a lesser competition????
Also, why on earth should the BAGSD not expect FULL disclosure of all documents relating to any meeting? Is this REALLY promoting FAIR and HONEST behaviour? How can the competitors expect a fair chance at trial? Iif the meetings are going to be so corrupt, the how can the trials possible be FAIR??
Also, why on earth should the BAGSD not expect FULL disclosure of all documents relating to any meeting? Is this REALLY promoting FAIR and HONEST behaviour? How can the competitors expect a fair chance at trial? Iif the meetings are going to be so corrupt, the how can the trials possible be FAIR??
Nikki Farley to Steve Byfield
From: Nikki Farley
Date: 16/06/2009 18:28:46
To: 'Steve Byfield'
Subject: RE: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hi Steve – thanks for keeping me informed – I think they are enough to try the patience of a saint!! I spoke to Andrew on Saturday and he told me that he was now sort of in charge of the VPG crowd so I think his strings are being pulled by Stuart!! I have also spoken at length to young Richard from Walsall Branch who with the aid of Marti Woods seem as they are going to start a takeover bid on the VPG group as they had nothing to do with any previous history and want nothing to do with it and are very strongly in favour of the BEST 5 dogs go forward regardless of which club they come from. Might be worth having a chat with him as I feel they are starting to gang up on the troublesome ones!! Best wishes – Nikki
PS Now we have got the show out of the way I will try and organise the meeting at Weston Park.
Nikki Farley
www.nikonisgsd.co.uk
Date: 16/06/2009 18:28:46
To: 'Steve Byfield'
Subject: RE: Re: WUSV/FCI Teams
Hi Steve – thanks for keeping me informed – I think they are enough to try the patience of a saint!! I spoke to Andrew on Saturday and he told me that he was now sort of in charge of the VPG crowd so I think his strings are being pulled by Stuart!! I have also spoken at length to young Richard from Walsall Branch who with the aid of Marti Woods seem as they are going to start a takeover bid on the VPG group as they had nothing to do with any previous history and want nothing to do with it and are very strongly in favour of the BEST 5 dogs go forward regardless of which club they come from. Might be worth having a chat with him as I feel they are starting to gang up on the troublesome ones!! Best wishes – Nikki
PS Now we have got the show out of the way I will try and organise the meeting at Weston Park.
Nikki Farley
www.nikonisgsd.co.uk
Chris Bows Email To Herr Grube (Vice Chairman & Press officer for WUSV)
To: Heiko Chr. Grube
Subject: GB WUSV Team 2009
Dear Heiko;
I hope you are well and that you prevail in Deutchland! Things go well at our club and little Chris has grown in confidence and ability since his visit to you in Melle.
I am writing this note hoping that you will be able to offer me some good advice. I apologise for bothering you, as I am aware that you are a very busy man. You may remember I am Vice Chairman of the GSD League (Working Dog Group) in the UK; I write to you now, however, on a personal and confidential basis.
A situation has developed in the UK that threatens the future of dogsport here. I fully appreciate that you are unlikely to be able to take any direct hand in helping, but I would nevertheless appreciate your views.
As you may remember, when you came to England we discussed the problematical situation that exists here between the two British WUSV member clubs, the BAGSD and the GSD League. You may recall that both these clubs run entirely separate working groups, but that each club rotates alternate years, sending either 3 or 2 dogs to the WUSV World Championships. This has been the situation for a number of years, although the GSD League is evidentially the much larger organisation in terms of competitors participating in the sport in the UK.
As most of the members of the GSD League believe that separate selection process for WUSV is unsatisfactory and unfair, the League have robustly lobbied BAGSD in recent years with regard to holding fair and impartial joint Selection Trials. These approaches have been consistently rebuffed. It is now the belief of the Executive of the GSD League Working Branch Executive that;
a) BAGSD have no intention of ever agreeing to impartial joint Selection Trials
b) This is as a consequence of a small minority of powerful BAGSD members wishing to go to WUSV every year. This group is controlled by a Mr Stuart Nye. (Stuart was the guy you saw fail at WUSV 2008 in US)
This situation has now worsened; many of the successful and experienced handlers of the BAGSD have left and joined the League, as they are disillusioned by the behaviour of Mr Nye and his associates. As a consequence, the BAGSD selection process for WUSV participation this year has been of a very poor standard. This is illustrated by the following statistics; in a total of 3 Selection Trials, there were 12 entries.
BAGSD Qualifiers for WUSV 2009;
1) Mr Eric Roberts Trial 1 241 points; Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (fail)
2) Mr Stuart Nye Trial 1 241 points; Trial 2 210 points; (Fail) Trial 3 189 Points (Fail)
3) Mr Dave Wooles Trial 1 161 points; (Fail) Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (Fail)
At the last BAGSD Selection Trial, only 2 dogs qualified out of 11 entries.
We are aware that some BAGSD members are unhappy about this situation and indeed in the last twelve months three incumbent Chairmen of the VPG (BAGSD Working Arm) have resigned as a consequence of the BAGSD Executive’s decision to back Mr Nye and refuse to engage in discussion with the GSD League regarding joint selection Trials.
I would add that the GSD League has at this point held one of three scheduled 2009 Trials for it’s 2 WUSV places; all qualifiers (14 from 16) made more points than any of BAGSD’s Worlds Team at any of their Trials. The next League Selection Trial, judged by George Zum Felde, is oversubscribed with dogs on the waiting list.
On a personal level I am very saddened that our country will not be represented by the best dogs we have, after all the hard work of the last few years, especially as this great event takes place in the home of the breed this year. We are also now aware that BAGSD have refused to negotiate joint Selection Trials in 2010.
The motivation, I believe, for the BAGSD position is that the club is controlled by Mr Nye and his friends who will stop at nothing to access such events as WUSV year in and out. They are succeeding, and this is causing huge problems; many people like me feel that, should they qualify though the League selection process they would not take part as a matter of principle.
We have exhausted all avenues of reasonable, pragmatic approach in this matter; have you any ideas? (I would fully understand if you feel unable to comment).
Kindest Regard
Chris
Subject: GB WUSV Team 2009
Dear Heiko;
I hope you are well and that you prevail in Deutchland! Things go well at our club and little Chris has grown in confidence and ability since his visit to you in Melle.
I am writing this note hoping that you will be able to offer me some good advice. I apologise for bothering you, as I am aware that you are a very busy man. You may remember I am Vice Chairman of the GSD League (Working Dog Group) in the UK; I write to you now, however, on a personal and confidential basis.
A situation has developed in the UK that threatens the future of dogsport here. I fully appreciate that you are unlikely to be able to take any direct hand in helping, but I would nevertheless appreciate your views.
As you may remember, when you came to England we discussed the problematical situation that exists here between the two British WUSV member clubs, the BAGSD and the GSD League. You may recall that both these clubs run entirely separate working groups, but that each club rotates alternate years, sending either 3 or 2 dogs to the WUSV World Championships. This has been the situation for a number of years, although the GSD League is evidentially the much larger organisation in terms of competitors participating in the sport in the UK.
As most of the members of the GSD League believe that separate selection process for WUSV is unsatisfactory and unfair, the League have robustly lobbied BAGSD in recent years with regard to holding fair and impartial joint Selection Trials. These approaches have been consistently rebuffed. It is now the belief of the Executive of the GSD League Working Branch Executive that;
a) BAGSD have no intention of ever agreeing to impartial joint Selection Trials
b) This is as a consequence of a small minority of powerful BAGSD members wishing to go to WUSV every year. This group is controlled by a Mr Stuart Nye. (Stuart was the guy you saw fail at WUSV 2008 in US)
This situation has now worsened; many of the successful and experienced handlers of the BAGSD have left and joined the League, as they are disillusioned by the behaviour of Mr Nye and his associates. As a consequence, the BAGSD selection process for WUSV participation this year has been of a very poor standard. This is illustrated by the following statistics; in a total of 3 Selection Trials, there were 12 entries.
BAGSD Qualifiers for WUSV 2009;
1) Mr Eric Roberts Trial 1 241 points; Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (fail)
2) Mr Stuart Nye Trial 1 241 points; Trial 2 210 points; (Fail) Trial 3 189 Points (Fail)
3) Mr Dave Wooles Trial 1 161 points; (Fail) Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (Fail)
At the last BAGSD Selection Trial, only 2 dogs qualified out of 11 entries.
We are aware that some BAGSD members are unhappy about this situation and indeed in the last twelve months three incumbent Chairmen of the VPG (BAGSD Working Arm) have resigned as a consequence of the BAGSD Executive’s decision to back Mr Nye and refuse to engage in discussion with the GSD League regarding joint selection Trials.
I would add that the GSD League has at this point held one of three scheduled 2009 Trials for it’s 2 WUSV places; all qualifiers (14 from 16) made more points than any of BAGSD’s Worlds Team at any of their Trials. The next League Selection Trial, judged by George Zum Felde, is oversubscribed with dogs on the waiting list.
On a personal level I am very saddened that our country will not be represented by the best dogs we have, after all the hard work of the last few years, especially as this great event takes place in the home of the breed this year. We are also now aware that BAGSD have refused to negotiate joint Selection Trials in 2010.
The motivation, I believe, for the BAGSD position is that the club is controlled by Mr Nye and his friends who will stop at nothing to access such events as WUSV year in and out. They are succeeding, and this is causing huge problems; many people like me feel that, should they qualify though the League selection process they would not take part as a matter of principle.
We have exhausted all avenues of reasonable, pragmatic approach in this matter; have you any ideas? (I would fully understand if you feel unable to comment).
Kindest Regard
Chris
Richard James to Uwe Stolpe
Von: RICHLINEGSD@aol.com [mailto:RICHLINEGSD@aol.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 11:20
An: info@dogtrainer.de
Betreff: HELLO
Hi Uwe
I know that the host club have contacted you regarding the National and I am sure I will see you there,
Have you heard our system has allowes D Wooles to qualify to the WUSV with the following resullts from the BAGSD qualifying trial
Mr Dave Wooles Trial 1 161 points; (Fail) Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (Fail)
Is the right when our winners are scoring overall very goods! 271 278 283 284
regards
richard
Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Mai 2009 11:20
An: info@dogtrainer.de
Betreff: HELLO
Hi Uwe
I know that the host club have contacted you regarding the National and I am sure I will see you there,
Have you heard our system has allowes D Wooles to qualify to the WUSV with the following resullts from the BAGSD qualifying trial
Mr Dave Wooles Trial 1 161 points; (Fail) Trial 2 243 points; Trial 3 189 points (Fail)
Is the right when our winners are scoring overall very goods! 271 278 283 284
regards
richard
Uwe Stolpe to Richard James
Von: RICHLINEGSD@aol.com [mailto:RICHLINEGSD@aol.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 20:15
An: info@dogtrainer.de
Betreff: Re: AW: QUESTION
Well, I am sure that we have a drink at your nationals.
I have heard it in Ireland. That is the absolute joke! It will be a shame for the UK Team, if he started at the worlds! I know this dog, he will failed in all 3 disciplines!!!
Uwe Stolpe
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 17. Juni 2009 20:15
An: info@dogtrainer.de
Betreff: Re: AW: QUESTION
Well, I am sure that we have a drink at your nationals.
I have heard it in Ireland. That is the absolute joke! It will be a shame for the UK Team, if he started at the worlds! I know this dog, he will failed in all 3 disciplines!!!
Uwe Stolpe
Whistleblower Comments
WHOAH!!! If these guy’s are involving such“esteemed“ dudes such as foreign judges, how can the guy’s mentioned (ie Messirs Nye & Wooles) possible expect a fair ride? Am I just being naive or has the GSDL’s underhand tactics ensured that when talks go ahead, the BAGSD wil have all the reason they need to veto these 2 judges from the panel?
Another thing, should this Uwe Stolpe dude really be comenting on the potential performance of a competitor? I thought judges were supposed to be impartial!!!!
Another thing, should this Uwe Stolpe dude really be comenting on the potential performance of a competitor? I thought judges were supposed to be impartial!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)