If you have been reading or have read the previous post
What Would You Do For Flyball’s Sake
you may be interested in an update. Rather than post additional information via the comments, since at times it is difficult to keep up with the twists and turns going on with discussions such as this, here is a brief summary and update.
What is known at this time:
- A person was convicted of animal abuse and/or neglect which was published in a local newspaper last month.
- The incident took place in 2010 and the conviction in September 2011.
- The article mentioned there was a relationship of some sort with flyball.
- The person continues to play flyball.
- Some flyballers do not believe this is appropriate, both locally and in other parts of the country.
- A local flyballer stated in the comments section of the previous post they knew the convicted person had spoken with the ‘ED’ about the incident and “gave (their) account of what happened”. The same commenter stated they believed the person convicted was going to try for an appeal.
- A local flyballer in a leadership role in the Region commented and quoted from an email they received from NAFA that said (they) would be unable “…to do anything even if someone did file a disciplinary charge.”
- The published NAFA Rules and Corporate Policies and Procedures Code of Ethics addresses “best interests of the dog and Flyball”, “abuse…of a dog”, “inhumane treatment of a dog”, and “misconduct”. The Executive Director (ED) has authority to suspend privileges for infraction of the Rules and Corporate Policies and Procedures as stated in the By Laws.
- An inquiry has been sent to U-FLI to confirm their rules related to this topic.
Whichever way it turns out, at minimum we will all be better informed about both flyball organizations.
v/r, Linda
5 comments ↓
I would hope both organizations would come to the same decision whatever the outcome (as it’s bigger than both organizations). Those outside of Flyball aren’t going to try and distinguish between NAFA and U-Fli.
There are several points that have been made and I shall address them one at a time.
Some have stated that this person’s “Team or Club” should be the only ones to “do something”. My answer is that a group of people organized as a club for the purpose of entering flyball tournaments for flyball competitions holds a level of authority that is too low to be an effective “deterrent”.
Reason? This person can always join another team/club. There are enough groups available at this level that one can always find a group that either dismisses the seriousness of the charges or disputes their validity or may be unaware of the situation entirely.
The BoD added language on 5-8-2010 to the Code of Ethics intended to prevent people from running dogs that are described as “overweight”.
[Racing a dog who is not in adequate physical condition for the number of heats the dog is asked to run] is considered to be a breach of the Code of Ethics.
“Were any of you at the court during the trial?” Court proceedings are a matter of public record and the trial transcripts are available for review of what was entered into the proceedings as evidence. One does not need to be in attendance to know what happened in court.
Also, the “Burden of Proof” is much higher than in any other proceedings in our society, including disciplinary hearings conducted during Executive Sessions for NAFA.
The People of Florida were represented by a prosecuting attorney. The People of Florida includes people who do not own animals or pets or who may be too young to attend school yet. There is a much larger picture here than that of our Flyball community.
“Demanding leadership ‘do something’ to protect the reputation of the sport? Is that what we’re really worried about here… the reputation of a dog sport?”
It’s not about “worry”, it’s about “justification”. NAFA files yearly reports with the IRS just like the rest of us. It is a non-profit therefore, it is eligible to skip paying taxes on its income. The IRS wants to know what is the “purpose of the organization”. NAFA has reported every year in which a 990 is available on its website that NAFA’s purpose is “to promote responsible dog ownership.”
The question to ask is: Does it promote responsible dog ownership when a person is convicted of animal neglect/animal abuse by a court of law to allow that person to continue to participate in flyball when her attendance at a flyball competition was a contributing factor to her conviction? (If she had NOT attended the flyball tournament, she would have been at home and available to care for her dog.)
“Do we really want a small group of people (or one person) deciding the fate of a participant without falling back on any rules or guidelines currently in place? Just because it was done in the past doesn’t make it right. …this is how governments gain too much control and people lose their rights… Should NAFA do something even though there is no rule against it? Most people would agree they should.”
The history of NAFA shows that the above quoted paragraph is completely true. Rulings that impact not only individual participants but, entire clubs are routinely made and the only reasoning supporting them is that “it is in the BEST INTERESTS of NAFA” Misguided or otherwise, NAFA participants want it this way.
So, it is misunderstood that “NAFA can’t do anything about it. There’s nothing in the Rules”. The NAFA Board and the Executive Director have very broad powers and can put anyone “on notice” for a breach of the Code of Ethics. Don’t need a hearing or even a written and published “rule” to determine that a conviction in a court of law on animal cruelty/neglect/abuse charges brings “discredit” to the sport of Flyball. “Conviction” requires proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It is more than enough for NAFA to take action “in the best interests of NAFA/flyball”.
The above is intended as an editorial comment. It is my opinion and nothing more except the references to actual Rules in place and situations in NAFA history where NAFA has taken action with NO written or published rule in place.
Chris
Another update:
This morning I sent a formal request to the CoB for a review of all the details known (and published here on this blog) about this situation. I asked that it be an item at the NAFA BoD meeting Oct. 6, 2011. The reply I received from the CoB stated that according to bylaws, it is too late to add an item; however, it was stated that the “board and ED are currently actively considering that issue/situation and our rule book, and possible actions. I would think you should hear something as soon as late next week.”
I have not received a response from U-FLI at this time.
v/r, Linda
I received confirmation of my inquiry from the U-FLI Secretary this morning; the reply stated it will be forwarded to the Rules and Regulations Committee.
Here is what I asked:
“Dear U-FLI,
I would like to know the official policy regarding a U-FLI participant’s continued eligibility to compete in U-FLI events after having been convicted of animal abuse and/or neglect by an official court. The article explains that the incident occured while the person was participating at a flyball event.
The publically known specifics can be found in the following article:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/st-petersburg-animal-lover-goes-on-trial-in-animal-abandonment-case/1191476
There are a few sections in the U-FLI Rulebook that I believe may apply; such as:
1.0 Participation
‘…Flyball also requires that the competitor exercise sound judgement in looking after the safety of dogs…”
1.1 Club Eligibility
“…in promoting responsible pet ownership.”
1.3 Participant Eligibility
“Participants must be in good standing with U-FLI.”
I included the quote from club eligibility due to the wording about responsible pet ownership, however the article in the paper about the person’s conviction does not to my knowledge include the person’s club in the findings of the court.
Thank you.”
I received an update today from U-FLI. My inquiry has been discussed by the Rules & Regulations Committee and is now with the Board. I have not received anything further from NAFA; however, the previous communication from the CoB said late this week was a possibility.
Linda
Leave a Comment