This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Bob McKown on 16 May 2008 - 11:05
This is really sad:
You people have a lot of nerve, Damming and judging others and most of you have no idea what proceeded this event, the background pissing matches going on here are enormous but most of you hiding behind your little screen names preaching your utter disgust at this are utterly contemptible. Some of you may have had dealings with Gary some may not but before you all climb on your high horses and rush to burn the village you might want to do a little background here. I,m not justifying this type of behavior it,s uncalled for but again we have all done things that afterwards we knew we should not have done.
This again is another symptom of the lack of leadership of our USA orginization allowing these turf wars and pissing matches to continue to this point, the lack of conviction just amazes my self to no end from the president right down thru the regional directors this orginization needs someone with real commitment and spine to take us to a higher level to do away with the constant bickering that lessons us as a real top orginization.
I,m sure that the B.O.I. is bound by the rule of proof and evedience and maybe just maybe there only as powerful as we allow them to be, this type of thing should never of happened during a sanctioned trial .
I believe these are the types of things that will further make good people leave this orginization who tire of the constant childish bickering of the ego maniacs this sport seems to be producing.
The next time you set infront of your little computer with knifes and daggers pause for just a moment and think back in history and remeber the foolish things YOU have done in your life,ponder these things then begin to type away,
And remeber it takes only a coward to stand behind a false name and possibly slander others that takes REAL nerve... something obviously most that post here don,t have.
I don,t know Gary Hanarhan, only met him once for 5 minutes last year at the regionlas so I,ll not stand here and profess his superiorority but I will hold my judgement against him or another until the offense is directed at me or my beloved Breed.
Robert Charles McKown
by Two Moons on 16 May 2008 - 13:05
So,
At the end of the day, did these people have permission to be there or not?
Just curious how it all turned out.
by Steve Leigh on 16 May 2008 - 13:05
.
by Vom Haus Williams on 16 May 2008 - 13:05
I was at this trial very disturbing to see a man of Hanarans calliber carry himself this way but what would you expect from a man who also punched a judge in the face at another event years ago for disagreeing with the tracking and was given a re-track the following day. Regerdless of the differences Hanarahan had with the club people drove and traveled from all over the southeast to trial their dogs at this sanctioned trial and Gary damaged the reputation of our sport. As schutzhund enthusiast you have to ask yourselves is this what we want for our sport, our we as a group going to allow this sort of behavior from him or anyone else in the future. In my opinion if we dont make an example of this then what is next?
by Vom Haus Williams on 16 May 2008 - 13:05
the sheriff did not throw anyone of the property he adviced Mr Hanrahan to leave and the shriff and Hanrahan left and the trial did continue obviosly you were not there. Wondering where you got you information probally from Gary. Better to educate yourself before you try to base a fact. Also Eric is not the narrator it was another CASC member. The fact is Gary and Eric have both tracked there for years both have permission. But it is also unsportmanlike to act the way Gary did. The trial was a great trial and tracks were relayed for those that Gary drove across but the facts remain the same. Gary would be considered one of the fathers of schutzhund in the south sad to think that someone who could be a pillar in the sport would present himself in this manner. I understand that some off you think highly of Gary and that is understandable but you have to admit that in this situation the man was wrong
by Steve Leigh on 16 May 2008 - 13:05
.
by Vom Haus Williams on 16 May 2008 - 14:05
True it is also an issue of the law maybe that is why the club was allowed to stay on the property and Gary was made to leave. Im telling you Steve I was there and I know what happened. Gary is lieing to you and I am not sticking up for anyone just stating the facts. The more you comment on this the more it is obvious that you dont know your only repeating what Gary has told you . Dont be one of Gary's puppets be an individual with an open opinion. I would respect your opinion more rather than you trying to state facts. When the Sheriff arrived the officer never drove up to where the club members were he stopped at the entrance to the property as seen in the video talked with Gary as seen in the video then they both left and did not return so you tell me where in the hell are you getting that CACS was made to leave the property ? I can gurantee you they were not . CASC called the police not Gary . My only advice to you is to remember that you were not there so you can only base an opinion because in the real world there are three sides to every story his ours and the truth all im saying is watch the video post your opinion but dont post the lies that Gary told you because he is making you look like a fool not him. the only reason i can state facts is I was thereI saw it all and I was appauled by Gary I was new to the club at that time and I live rather close to Gary so I have no need to lie about or mislead if you want to know what happened you should ask the people that were at the event not Gary or Eric
by Steve Leigh on 16 May 2008 - 14:05
.
by Vom Haus Williams on 16 May 2008 - 14:05
Thank you sir you have my respect most people on the internet would argue with you if you said the sky was blue. Ya know when i first got into Schutzhund i thought that getting in these chats and discusion boards was part of it but i soon found out that it is better to work your dog rather than your keyboard wonder how many people are online trainers lol you have a great day Steve maybe see you at an event one day
by cledford on 16 May 2008 - 15:05
Something that people need to keep in mind is that the BIO process is an "administrative* proceeding. There are ABOSLUTLEY NO rules of evidence, rights, or standards of proof as compared to a court of law or the justice system. If you don’t like the process, you don’t have to be part of the organization. Most businesses and almost all organizations have similar processes in place and there is implied consent on the part of the membership or employment to abide by the rules or the organization or face administrative procedure if you violate them. Legal rules of evidence, rights and procedure DO NOT apply in these venues. The BIO should not investigate, nor be involved in matters of the law. Having said that, they should be involved with investigating and addressing violations of organizational rules. Since there is such a narrow focus (club rules only) and broad latitude to consider facts (freedom from most of the constraints to consider information that might not be admissible in the justice system), one would think that it would be quite easy for them to come to a decision about such things. There is an organizational rule that members not exhibit unsportman like conduct, nor behavior in manners detrimental to the image of the organization. The question in this situation is (and I don’t now if it was or wasn’t considered), did unsportsman like conduct, or conduct detrimental to the public perception of the organization occur, or not? This is regardless as to what prompted such behavior. Looking at this situation (and I wasn't there but can see the videos) let's ask what a reasonable person would do in a similar situation. Let’s say that if 2 people BOTH have permission to train on a certain property (written or verbal, doesn’t matter both the same), standard convention dictates that the first party there would have first right to complete whatever they were doing if they started first and were not purposely impeding the access to the second party within a reasonable period of time. Now, let's say (as has been stated) that the first party *did not* have permission to be there. Is driving all over the field owned by a third party a reasonable and appropriate response, vs. say calling the authorities, calling the property owner, videoing the trespassers, etc? This is where the BIO question should come in IMHO. Did the act of driving over tracks during an obvious trial (which one would think a former world level competitor would be hard pressed to not recognize) constitute a reasonable act/response to the situation at hand, or did it unnecessarily embarrass the club (and therefore the entire national organization in the presence of a foreign judge and possible non-club spectators)? There is an old saying that “2 wrongs don’t equal one right” and I’m sure there is nothing in the rules of the national organization that suggests that when you think there is something inappropriate going on you can physically intervene or do anything other than file your own BIO complaint. So, the 2 issues (or however many issues there are) are actually independent as I see them. Did the act driving over tracks, at a obivious trial, constitute poor sportsmanship and conduct prejudicial to the national organization, regardless as to any past history between the club member, permissions to use or not use a 3rd parties land, etc.? I think the videos speak for themselves. In the eyes of the justice system there might not be a single thing wrong with driving the van around the field and that is great – so no criminal charges or civil actions will take place. This DOES NOT a
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
