I am finding more and more that most judges fail to see a lame dog or when pulled up on it later claim the rest of the hound was my type?

Lame is lame and any hound who is lame is NOT fit for purpose, and more importantly in pain.

The other excuse is " lameness started after being benched, or in the car on the way here". REALLY? It is of little consequence surely?

I can forgive a layman for being unable to see lame but I cannot forgive a hound Judge for not being able to see lame.



To balance this in my mind, and to avoid calling judging corrupt and favouring mates rates, I have reached the conclusion that some judges cannot recognise a sound hound. Therefore, in my opinion, judges might benefit by attending professional development movement sessions, hopefully gaining more experience and have the ability to recognise lame.



I would be mortified if I took one of my hounds to the vets and he didn't recognise lameness and I would be even more shocked if I took my hound to the next level and the veterinary orthopaedic surgeon couldn't see it either!

So why are we not mortified when our judges can't SEE LAME.

Maybe they need a little help ringside from those who can see?