Flyball - What's Love Got To Do With It

Last weekend I watched the epic DVD called 'Hatfields & McCoys' with Costner and Paxton.  It got me thinking about love and hate and what these emotions do to people.  The movie was, to me, a very extreme example of hate and how devastating it can be.  

The example of bad sportsmanship in my previous post could also be construed on a deeper level to be hate.  Perhaps it was only spite or anger.  But, the fact the person(s) purposely made their thoughts public to all flyballers demonstrates they wanted others to know their feelings.

Question is...why did they want others to know.  It is obvious what was in their hearts and it definitely was not sugar and spice and everything nice.  So, could it have been hate?  

Now, imagine how you would feel on the receiving end of someones hate.  Does it feel good?  Not.  

What is completely absurd to me is some people actually allow themselves to feel spite, anger and hate in flyball.  It is simply sad and honestly ridiculous.  To top it off, why on earth would they want to spread something that could infect and destroy all that is good in flyball.

Bigger question is what makes them think the rest of us will put up with their spiteful or hateful behavior. 

Unfortunately, I have been around people in flyball who do not come from a good place in their heart.   And, truth be told, it can be devastating if their attitude and behavior are allowed to infect a group of people, just like it did in the movie. 

Come on folks!  Flyball is by purpose and design a happy place where we all bring our best furry friends and we play until we can no longer stand up and move or smile because all our muscles, including our smile muscles, are too tired from having been used for hours on end.  

I've read somewhere that happiness can be contagious.  I've also learned that it's more fun to surround one's self with like-minded and like-hearted people in life.  I am on a mission to do just that and I hope you'll join the cause.  

And, just like the Hatfields & McCoys, in the end, love won!  (ooops, sorry for giving away the ending)

Sincerely,
I Like Flyball!  

  

Sportsmanship and heads up, Club Owners.

This topic is probably as 'old as dirt' and I suppose there are times we all want to sweep the bad parts under the rug.  But I don't think it can be swept under when it keeps happening over and over and the cumulative effect is negatively impacting our sport's level of participation and its image.

Sportsmanship and ethical behavior are addressed in both NAFA and U-FLI Rulebooks.  Their rules generally refer to what occurs 'at a sanctioned tournament' and I get that.  But, are there instances that occur outside the technical realm of an event that can also be considered unsportsmanlike or unethical?

The answer is yes.    

At the recent, 11/9/12 NAFA Candidate Chat (for Board of Directors election), the topic was discussed.  An example was given of poor sportsmanship that was not observed by everyone at the CanAm, but was none-the-less evident to anyone watching via livestream.  To me, it is an example of what could be called 'subversive' bad sportsmanship with an underlying bias against and intention of undermining other flyballers.

[It is wise for all of us to remember what we say privately may or may not affect how we are perceived in public, but what we say publicly (eg., livestream) will lastingly influence how we are perceived in the eyes of others, including new participants and the next generation of flyballers.]

What concerns me the most during the Candidate Chat, of which there were current Board members as well, the major response to the question of how to handle unsportsmanlike conduct was it would best be handled by the Club Owner(s).  Other suggestions were to lead by example or handle unethical and unsportsmanlike behavior in private.
      
One candidate said if 'policy issues' were brought to their attention, they would look into it and take action as a board member.  But no one said they would take the same action in the case of unethical or unsportsmanlike behavior.

Why is this a concern?   Because instances of poor sportsmanship, including the example from the CanAm that was brought up in the chat, can be found at all levels of flyball including club owner, board member, officer or others who represent flyball's leadership.  And, if one read the chat carefully (especially during the live session), it appeared possible the specific incident may have been associated to a club owner or higher level participant.   
      
It is clear 'leading by example' is not universally applied nor being followed and the idea of handling sportsmanship and ethics issues in private has either not been utilized or it is blatantly not working. 

Who in this example would be handling this specific occurrence if it were the club owner with the bad sportsmanship?  Or, who would handle this if it were a board member?  That's right...no one.

Where does that leave flyballers who are subjected to either direct or indirect unethical or unsportsmanlike behavior by those on the Board or another Club Owner, or anyone in a leadership role?

[Yes, there is the official and formal process of filing ethics charges and paying the $100 fee complete with a hearing to resolve the concern; but, in this case with this example of a subversive and unsportsmanlike public comment, I believe the formal process is not the answer.]

Another option that needs to be considered is for those in like-positions (i.e., club owner to club owner or board member to board member) to find the determination within themselves to confront their colleagues with the truth, have an honest conversation and ask the person to stop the bad behavior.

It would be a good starting place and will demonstrate to others that no one is above reproach when it comes to ethics and sportsmanship.                  
      
[I am struggling with an overall point with this post because it is a HUGE topic with many different facets.]

I think perhaps this is not only a heads-up but also a warning to Club Owners.  Unsportsmanlike conduct and unethical behavior is not limited to what you might personally see in front of you and if someone in your club is behaving badly, you may be the last to know and the first one on the hook to deal with it. 

This post is also an encouragement to all flyballers to read the latest NAFA chat transcript.  And, I encourage current Board members, the current candidates and current leaders in NAFA flyball, do not go along just to get along (with unethical and unsportsmanlike behavior of your colleagues), stand up for your own principles of what is right and what is wrong, and dig down deep in your determination to confront the issue of bad behavior and help promote the positive changes that are needed within the organization.    

As far as U-FLI is concerned, I hope they have already learned by example and are wise beyond their years.  

On a slightly somber, yet hopeful note for flyball everywhere,
I (still) Like Flyball!
       

           

There is a new twist to 'ghost club' and co-hosting tournaments in flyball.  At least that's what I've heard recently.  So, I checked it out a little and discovered one example that looks a little odd to me.

The example is a well-known, long-time flyball club who had just co-hosted a tournament along with another club.  The 2nd club is owned by the same people associated with the 1st club.  Thing is the 2nd club has no actively racing dogs (the few dogs on their roster were all listed as 'retired' or 'deceased' in the database).  In addition, the 2nd club (the co-host club) had no entries at the specific tournament.  

In essence, it appears one club co-hosted a tournament with themselves.  A fact only made clear if one looks closely at the two clubs and their information.  

I get the purpose of co-hosting with a different, perhaps small club since that may provide the help a new club needs to get off the ground as well as help teach them the ropes about how to host a tourney.  I also get the use of a (ghost) club name in order to organize a team and send some entries to race in the Open class since this may allow dogs and handlers from different clubs or who are free agents to come together which may help grow flyball in some fashion.

But, the same club, made up into two clubs and then co-hosting with themselves with no racing dogs or handlers in the one club...do you see the same things I do with this scenario?

Some thoughts I have are that this co-hosted-by-the-same-club tournament:

a) does not help a new club get off the ground since there technically were no new dogs or handlers, and

b) had nothing to do with additional team entries that allow free agents or dogs from different clubs to run together so it does not help grow flyball.

I can only surmise there is some other motivator here.  I truly have no idea but a couple of things jump out at me as possible outcomes of these actions:

1) There are now two clubs rather than one club being tallied under the organization's numbers; this means the numbers may be artificially affected/inflated with respect to number of hosting clubs and growth trends.

2) It is possible that one club now garners additional delegate votes since technically it is treated as two clubs hosting and both clubs therefore may earn a vote for this tournament.

  > The maximum a club is allowed to earn in a year is capped at 15 votes; so the scenario in this post may actually allow the 'ghost club' to also earn a vote for co-hosting.  However, since it is actually the same people in both the ghost club and the first club, it is potentially a round about way for the first club to earn more votes and to have more voting power than the max allowed. 

[Note: I do not know specifically how co-hosting affects delegate vote accrual and I have not sent a formal inquiry to the organization, yet.]




3) It appears this scenario has been able to 'fly under the radar'.  Fishy?  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  Definitely interesting.  

Sincerely,
I Like Flyball!

PS - If you'd like to read my original 'ghost club' post, please see 5/17/12.