groovemaster
Enthusiast
May 30, 2007, 9:32 PM
Post #73 of 144
(25684 views)
Shortcut
|
Re: [Admin] Malaysia Dog Olympic Day 2007, May 27, Central Park, Bandar Utama
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The clarification from the Game Committee as follow :- In all competitions in the Dog Olympic Day, the Name of the Handler and the Dog of the each winner team are recorded. Dog they themselves will not be able to complete those competition themselves. How well a dog will perform will depend on the handling skill and physical condition of each handler. For example, the Dog Olympic Run depend very much on the stamina of the handler. A fast dog with handler with poor stamina and speed will not win the race and vice versa. Other competitions also depend on the skill of the handler to give proper command so that the dog can perform and win each competition. Hence a direct comparison of the performance can only be based on the combination of Handler/Dog and points were awarded to each pair accordingly. Only in this way we are able to ensure fairness to all those participated. By the way, there are more than one dogs handled by multiple handlers. Result is being tabulated and will be posted in due course. Games committee, Wow, that is a very convoluted and technical interpretation of a rule which nobody was aware of. As Chrisong has mentioned, with the rules being so specific and technical, why wasn’t it brought to the attention of all participants, and only mentioned days after the event has concluded. Just reading your original published rule which states, ‘The dog that have accumulated the most points after all the competition will be the Malaysia K9 Olympic Champion 2007 and prizes as below’, any ordinary person would come to the conclusion that it is the dog’s performance that matters and the 2 dogs who have accumulated the most points from the games will then go on to win the titles of Champion and Reserve Champion. How the games committee has managed to interpret this sentence to be as convoluted and long winded as the ‘new technical rule’ above is beyond imagination. Now just for argument sake, we will assume that you intended for these ‘new technical rules’ to apply which somehow was mistakenly left out from your event posting. The ‘new technical rules’ only make sense if all the 12 games require a certain skill or difficulty level which involve training and specific handling elements. As it is, the games on Olympic Day encompass Best Dressed, Fastest Eating, Best K9 Twin, Waggiest Tail and Simon Says which do not require any or much handling skills at all. So how do you justify diluting the scores should a dog win these 5 events under 2 different handlers? Under your ‘new technical rules’, the dog’s score of 50 would have to be divided by 2 handlers leaving him with only 25 points. As a result, the dog loses out on the Champion titles which is absurd and does not make sense at all. There is no specific handling skill being exhibited in all these events and it really does not matter if the dog was handled by the owner, gf, brother, sister or any member of the family for that matter. In addition, certain games may require 2 handlers to be present eg. Ultimate Recall and Best Dressed (when dressing up the dog). How do you divide the score in this instance, 5 points each? The games committee should be extremely careful when conjuring up these ‘new technical rules’ after the event because they don’t really make any sense at all. The objective of casual doggie games is to encourage participation amongst all owners and dog lovers and your ‘1 dog 1 handler rule’ is in total contradiction. Morever, you have also underestimated Groovy’s abilities as he can perform equally well with either of his 2 owners and it doesn’t really matter who handles him in the games. It is not like agility or tricks or OB trials where the individual handler really makes a difference. Most of the Olympic Day games do not require much handling elements or skill at all. At the other end of the leash, both me and my gf are also equally adept at handling him. Our intention in taking turns in handling him wasn’t designed to achieve any advantage in the games but more so to give both of us a chance to partake in the games. Unfortunately, we have been penalised for a non existence rule which the games committee has so handily conjured up after the event, and that no one was aware of in the first place. It is certainly very convenient for the games committee to come up with the ‘new technical rules’ after the event has concluded just to justify their own agenda. The action itself doesn’t speak well of the committee and certainly reeks of unsporting and unfair elements, which is a great shame for everyone concerned. Ps. thanks kien29, chrisong n nairud for your support and comments. Really appreciate it and am glad that you guys can see right through the ‘new rules’ that the committee is trying to impose on the participants after the event. __________________________________________________
Feeling groovy? ... den take a peek at 'GroovyDogsJustWannaHvFun'
|