This job seems fairly simple. Is the criteria: Someone you know that you have spoken with on occasion? Someone inexpensive that doesn’t have to travel far to judge your show. Someone that will always choose you, or your trainer, or what?
This single question is the cause of more club break ups, anger and wars within the local club than any other question. The whole reputation of a club rests on this decision. All contestants decide to attend on this one criterion; Are you as a club trustworthy with THEIR entry dollar? Does your club choose fair judges that contestants perceive they will have, or did have a FAIR chance at winning with at your show? Will they want to come back? They are deciding if your club is trustworthy enough, to make the decision to make the sizable investment in YOU, by placing their entry. At risk is the reputation of breeders, appaloosa sales, skill of contestants, along with cost and effort of training, along with stall and show expenses. This and more are all on the line at a show, and a lot of investment dollars worth careful consideration. When the better horses don’t win, it’s at a painful expense to everyone.
“Oh. . . It’s just politics.” “If you’ve won a World or National, you shouldn’t take the horse out again and get him beat at a small show.” Both of those ideas are both ridiculous and tend toward a continuation of injustice and an expectation of a lack of integrity. First of all it’s not politics it is fraud. The crime isn’t victim less. The club, the exhibitor, and the trainers are monetary victims. A lack of fairness costs everyone, some just don’t feel the crunch until later. The idea that a two judge show is most certainly corrupt, and you can’t expect to qualify your former World Champion at a local show is a sad situation, and doesn’t speak well of those choosing the judges. It is obvious that everyone wonders if the person doing the choosing is trying to establish friendships to benefit their own horse endeavors. That is of course an unfair assumption, and it is that assumption that causes the turmoil within a club. We all have to work together. Give the workers a break. If the mistake was yours, you know you’d excuse yourself. “The enemy”, (…If you will) is not your fellow members. The problem exists because many judges know to choose the better horse, but even though they are paid to do so think they can get away with not doing it. Circumstantial evidence can convict even in murder trials every day. If a judge repeatedly chooses a “face” they know or like over the better horses, but their horse preference lines up with normal standards with unknown handlers and owners, well you know what you’ve got. Get some guts and call a spade a spade. We don’t live in Sweden yet.
At a recent show while we scratched out the other former World Champion we brought. Bob discussed briefly his reason with Eric Benne. A woman jumped in and offered; “No one ever calls me.” (I had seconds to decide what this might mean. Okay she’s a judge. If they called her to judge this show she’d make honest decisions? No, that wasn’t her intend meaning.) I answered: “ It works so much better when they can throw out the top and bottom at the big shows, like the World or Nationals.” The point is clear, friends and enemies of the trainer or breeder are eliminated in the winning decision. I’m glad I didn’t say; the difference between a whore and a prostitute, is that the whore is cheaper. Their isn’t a lot of specific calling and arranging going on. It is a harsh but accurate depiction. The harsh analogy might have escaped her but the feeling of my righteous indignation she might have wrongfully perceived as aimed at her, and taken it personally. I’m glad I kept impersonally mild, instead of more accurate. My expectation of Judges remains the same, if a judge loves or hates me or my trainer it shouldn’t make a hairs difference in their decision. The winning criteria should also not include whether a trainer is new to our breed, (welcome!) has customers and interests in other breeds or not. Assuming the best doesn’t work when it comes to “culling”. In cattle the culling process is encouraged and it should be the same in choosing or eliminating a candidate as judge, for your show. The adage is;” You may occasional cull a good one, but you’ll never keep a bad one.” Remember structural defects like high or bad hocks aren’t really a matter of taste, or usually a skill problem with the judges either. We all should expect integrity, and it’s up to us all to safeguard THAT standard.
This situation can wreck a club. If left unchecked, with more one bad apple out there, it can wreck a breed. You CAN trust your eyes. At every show you attend act as a judge and state why you like this or that horse over another horse. Pick out their faults and assets. Judge the judge, and state why you think he will pick this horse over that horse. Please, do it quietly or to yourself, you might be sitting near an owner. Whoops . . .no rioting in the stands please. Halter classes should be the easiest to clean up, because in performance no one can see everything that the judge can claim to have seen. A club secretary can keep the ranking score of those who watched the halter classes. On a 1 to 10 ranking, how well did these judges do. Keep it anonymous, and keep it simple. Keep the judges name, date of show and rank forever on a judges list, to be handed down to the next club secretary. Admonish everyone to be honest and objective. Share ranking lists with other clubs. Halter people should vote after a show and on classes they personally witness. Club members that participate in showing and breeding for halter should vote only on halter judges, and performance people on performance judges. There should be only a few exceptions that overlap. Club PLEASE, we are all counting on you. Ranking and culling is a good tool, so be discriminating. With more thoughtful selection of judges, their will be more show participation, as well as a greater demand for our product. . . The Appaloosa.
