# What a tool



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Did anything ever come of this , LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Bbd2MkH2M&feature=related

part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzI1cJZWh2c&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQaWXukJWN4&feature=related


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I thought I was pretty much an azz. This is guy seems to be a real a-hole for sure.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> Did anything ever come of this , LOL
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Bbd2MkH2M&feature=related
> 
> ...



I understand that Gary H won in court and that the club did NOT
have permission to use the property for tracking. Whether his
actions were appropriate is open to discussion.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Thomas Barriano said:


> I understand that Gary H won in court and that the club did NOT
> have permission to use the property for tracking. Whether his
> actions were appropriate is open to discussion.


 I would want to see the court action and the other players BEFORE commenting. IF these folks had permission, why wasn't Gary arrested by local or state police for criminal trespassing and any other charges? Too little known!!!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> I would want to see the court action and the other players BEFORE commenting. IF these folks had permission, why wasn't Gary arrested by local or state police for criminal trespassing and any other charges? Too little known!!!



Howard,

You can probably Google Gary Hahrahan/tracking and get most of the details. The incident was 2 1/2 years ago and like you say
he was NOT arrested at the time. You can't always go with the first impression you get from a one sided, incomplete video.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Who gives a shit about the court actions, that's got nothing to do with it, it's a red heering. 

His actions are what i'm talking about. Did you actually watch all 3 videos? That was pretty serious unsportsman like conduct to me. 

Here's a thread about it on Leerburg that i found http://leerburg.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/196223/page/0/fpart/11


----------



## Betty Mathena (Apr 19, 2006)

Here ya go Al.

http://germanshepherddog.com/documents/EBallots-2008.pdf

For me the only issue ever should of been did he intentionally disrupt tracking. Can you imagine showing up for a trial and having someone run over your track?


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Yes, actually, I can. I'd be given a new track!!


----------



## Candy Eggert (Oct 28, 2008)

Betty Mathena said:


> Here ya go Al.
> 
> http://germanshepherddog.com/documents/EBallots-2008.pdf
> 
> For me the only issue ever should of been did he intentionally disrupt tracking. Can you imagine showing up for a trial and having someone run over your track?


Not to mention how this must have looked to Rinus B, SV/FCI Judge from Belgium  [-X :sad:


----------



## Mike Lauer (Jul 26, 2009)

Why didn't someone just take the misdemeanor $50 fine for A&B


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2010)

Who is that guy and why did he do that?


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

If the Central AL SCH Club had a legal right to be there, Gary should have been dealth with by the state police right there. SCH USA should have then backed that group and made major adjustments! JMO...

If he has the right to be there and they just popped on the site, I would give them all 30 seconds to haul a$$ or get locked up.

Was it less than a best move to run all over the field? I thought it showed ones rear. Professional is as professional does. But each has their own standard and reasons for doing. 3 video clips can't in my book tell the full story.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Betty Mathena said:


> Here ya go Al.
> 
> http://germanshepherddog.com/documents/EBallots-2008.pdf
> 
> For me the only issue ever should of been did he intentionally disrupt tracking. Can you imagine showing up for a trial and having someone run over your track?


Betty

The club was trespassing. They did NOT have permission to be on the property. Hanrahans reaction was over the top But that doesn't change the fact that the club was trespassing and that's why IMHO all UScA did was give him a slap on the wrist in the form of a reprimand.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas are you friends with this guy? Was it his property? Putting aside the red heering for a minute.........This is as bad as it gets


----------



## Rick Mattox (Dec 8, 2008)

The whole story is that the field belongs to a friend of Gary's. The owner has given Gary and Gary only permission to use the field with people that HE brings with him. Practice and trials. The owner also asks Gary to keep an eye on the place and keep trespassers OFF the property. 

The club that was using the field DID NOT have permission to be there. So they were trespassing. The club that was there was started by a guy who Gary mentored along the way. That's how he knew about the field. The guy eventually won the nationals and as all to often happens this guy now KNEW EVERYTHING. He didn't NEED Gary anymore and struck out on his own. YADDA YADDA YADDA. 

Although it could have been handled better it was actually the club owner who was in the wrong.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the details. It seemed like Gary played into the hands of someone looking to set him up, video camera and all.
I also seem to remember another incident where Eric and Gary
almost game to blows (punches may have been thrown?) at some big UScA event and that the Police were called. The two
aren't exactly best friends anymore.





Rick Mattox said:


> The whole story is that the field belongs to a friend of Gary's. The owner has given Gary and Gary only permission to use the field with people that HE brings with him. Practice and trials. The owner also asks Gary to keep an eye on the place and keep trespassers OFF the property.
> 
> The club that was using the field DID NOT have permission to be there. So they were trespassing. The club that was there was started by a guy who Gary mentored along the way. That's how he knew about the field. The guy eventually won the nationals and as all to often happens this guy now KNEW EVERYTHING. He didn't NEED Gary anymore and struck out on his own. YADDA YADDA YADDA.
> 
> Although it could have been handled better it was actually the club owner who was in the wrong.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Man, talk about missing the point. Sorry, forgot . Good job Gary! LOL


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> Man, talk about missing the point. Sorry, forgot . Good job Gary! LOL


Al,

Nobody is saying good job Gary. The point is, there are two sides to every story. The video that was posted only showed one side.
It's real easy to come across as all innocent on a video tape when
you know you're being taped.
FYI I am NOT friends with Gary and have never met him or Eric
Eisenberg. I just don't jump to conclusions based on a video tape.
Are you friends with Eric?


----------



## Betty Mathena (Apr 19, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Betty
> 
> The club was trespassing. They did NOT have permission to be on the property. Hanrahans reaction was over the top But that doesn't change the fact that the club was trespassing and that's why IMHO all UScA did was give him a slap on the wrist in the form of a reprimand.


See, I understand what you are saying but it's two different issues to me. I just can't get past the point that a USA member of some importance disrupted a trial intentionally. 

You want to wait until after the trial and duke it out, go for it. But that someone would disrupt a trial is just reprehensible to me.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Betty Mathena said:


> See, I understand what you are saying but it's two different issues to me. I just can't get past the point that a USA member of some importance disrupted a trial intentionally.
> 
> You want to wait until after the trial and duke it out, go for it. But that someone would disrupt a trial is just reprehensible to me.


 
ditto, betty.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Al Curbow said:


> Did anything ever come of this , LOL
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Bbd2MkH2M&feature=related
> 
> ...


Havent seen or herd of him in quite some. Sad to he has brought some of the greatest blood and German Shepherds to ever work and live in America.


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

I also agree with Betty - no matter who was right and who was wrong (who was and wasn't supposed to be there etc) - you don't drive your vehicle or otherwise disrupt and destroy a trial - it's unsportsmanlike conduct and Gary should have been punished for that. He did it in front of competitors, judge and video camera. He needed to act like a man and take the issue private, not have a temper tantrum and wreck the trial. shame on him, and shame on USA for allowing it to happen without consequences.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Wait. Am I missing something? As I understand it these people had no right to be on the property and were in fact trespassing, right?

So in my mind property rights surpass sportsmanship. If I walk in to my back yard and there are people tracking they're dogs I'm kicking them out. I'm not waiting for the trial to be over. If they had they were there in a knowingly illegal manner than the expectation of sportsmanship goes out the window.

Also if he was asked to be the steward of the property and he and his club members were the only ones allowed in the field then if he had let a bunch of competitors, spectators, judge, dogs etc that had no right to be there stay, why wouldn't the land owner just decide to ban everyone from the property forever. Perhaps he was protecting his own ass.


----------



## Betty Mathena (Apr 19, 2006)

You do have a point. If I suddenly walked out on my back 5 acres and found a club from my organization, or any organization, holding a trial without my permission they would be escorted off my property and the trial would not be completed.


If the judge did not stop the trial I would call the police. 

I can't imagine a trial being planned for my property though without having a clue before the day of the trial. I would certainly be on the phone to a Regional Director long before the trial day.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

HI Betty,

In addition, this is old news. The "incident" happened 2 1/2 years ago. The issue was dealt with by UScA and the legal system already. What was the purpose of stirring up old shit?




Betty Mathena said:


> You do have a point. If I suddenly walked out on my back 5 acres and found a club from my organization, or any organization, holding a trial without my permission they would be escorted off my property and the trial would not be completed.
> 
> 
> If the judge did not stop the trial I would call the police.
> ...


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

so then he should have kicked them off. Why didn't he? Because, he was also NOT owner of the property, that's why. Why didn't he call the owner and have the owner kick the trespassers off? Why didn't he call the police and speak to them before taking matters into his own hands? why didn't he just make them leave, if he was "steward" of the property? Instead of going through the proper channels (contacting the owner, telling the host of the trial to leave, calling the police and giving them proper proof the people were trespassing, etc) he DROVE HIS VEHICLE OVER THEIR TRACKS. There were many other choices he could have made. The only point he made that day was what an ass he is, and what a poor sport.


----------



## Betty Mathena (Apr 19, 2006)

Purpose? Heck, I don't know...........:-k

Al asked it anything had happened and I referenced the BOI findings.

Guess it's just not often that we hear about someone driving over tracks! 
ROFL

But I guess you find the thread disturbing so I'll bow out.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Molly Graf said:


> so then he should have kicked them off. Why didn't he? Because, he was also NOT owner of the property, that's why. Why didn't he call the owner and have the owner kick the trespassers off? Why didn't he call the police and speak to them before taking matters into his own hands? why didn't he just make them leave, if he was "steward" of the property? Instead of going through the proper channels (contacting the owner, telling the host of the trial to leave, calling the police and giving them proper proof the people were trespassing, etc) he DROVE HIS VEHICLE OVER THEIR TRACKS. There were many other choices he could have made. The only point he made that day was what an ass he is, and what a poor sport.


Molly,

The case was settled in court. Hanrahan WON. He was legally in the right. He was the owners agent. I don't know why the police
(who I understand were called) choose not to get involved and
called it a civil matter. He "DROVE HIS VEHICLE OVER THEIR TRACKS." tracks that were laid on PRIVATE PROPERTY. Sorry
but you don't get to trespass on private property and then try
to play the victim, when you get caught. The club owes the
trial entries an apology.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Molly,
> 
> The case was settled in court. Hanrahan WON. He was legally in the right. He was the owners agent. I don't know why the police
> (who I understand were called) choose not to get involved and
> ...


You are right Thomas. A couple of my family members at one time owned 350 acres and some idiots decided to go 4x4 on the property one weekend and got serious hurt, had to medivac the drivers out of the area. Their must of been 75 private property signs listed and a locked gate that they had to go through. They injured parties had to nerve to sue my family for medical expenses. We had to pay attorneys to defend the lawsuit and the injured parties appealed the trial judge decision, so more litigation. We won but at a steep cost.

I don't condone Gary's action, but the club trial per court transcript did not have permission. Two wrongs don't make a right. Gary could of went by it many different ways. The Sherriff or LE could of gotten on with the phone with the owner of the property and kicked the trial participants off the field. Instead Gayr decided to do some 4x4. I was thinking about this when I saw this post. If they were having a trial, I would think the trial entries would of got on the field a few times leading up to the trial as well. 

I don't see how USA could of handle it differently. A trial court ruled in Gary favor. What is USA to do slap Gary with a suspension or kick him out of USA? USA would invite a Lawsuit by Gary that they would have to spend $ to litigate. USA already had to pay a Lawsuit a several years back with a judge and lost.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

I lease hunting property here in Delaware. It belongs to the landowner and I manage it, this includes the right to have folks arrested for trespassing and to post the property. All of this is in writing and as a contract!

Driving on a field that is planed is not the smart way to go! If it is a grass field and you have the right to be and do as the landowner says...do what you will. IF the club was there w/o permission from the LANDOWNER, the state police should have been called and folks arrested.

Bad taste or not on Gary's part, IF he has the right to be there and manage the property, sucks to be the club!!! They should get no breaks...


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

still there is no excuse for driving over tracks and disrupting a trial in this manner. There were many other options. IMO Gary should have used one of them, then he wouldn't have been looked at by MOST people as a jerk who demonstrated bad sportsmanship -


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Molly Graf said:


> still there is no excuse for driving over tracks and disrupting a trial in this manner. There were many other options. IMO Gary should have used one of them, then he wouldn't have been looked at by MOST people as a jerk who demonstrated bad sportsmanship -


 So Molly the fact that they did not belong there is their right to continue to lay tracks and have a trial? Can't sell that idea to me! [-X


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Molly Graf said:


> still there is no excuse for driving over tracks and disrupting a trial in this manner. There were many other options. IMO Gary should have used one of them, then he wouldn't have been looked at by MOST people as a jerk who demonstrated bad sportsmanship -


It's pretty funny actually, this happened 3-4 years ago about? Still it creates discussions as Hanrahan gets fingers pointed at him no matter and will continue to do so as long as people remember. Even if he won in court he still is a loser for his actions. 

Look at Micheal Jackson he won both times in court, but he still is known as a pedophile. Hanrahan will always be known for his actions and lack of restraint from that day.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Howard Gaines III said:


> So Molly the fact that they did not belong there is their right to continue to lay tracks and have a trial? Can't sell that idea to me! [-X


Well I guess he is the police, judge, jury and executioner all in one. [-( Very poor choice of actions on his part .. the simple thing would have been to call the police.


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

No, Howard - he could have done a lot of things other than drive his van all over tracks and demonstrate what an ass he was. He was NOT the owner of the property. He disrupted the USA trial, which is against the rules for USA - directly against the rules. But of course, he knew the right people....
He could have done a lot of things including had the police and owner stop the trial and make the people leave the property. He didn't. Instead he drove over everyone's tracks. No excuse for that.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

It sounds like he had the legal right to be a dickhead....and he exercised that right=D>


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

If I was getting my dog ready for weeks, needed this trial for the next competition, whatever…….. I would personally be pissed at the person in charge of the trial. WHO holds a trial and doesn’t have the common courtesy to make sure they have permission to use the field? OH MAN I WOULD BE PISSED!
It may be in the rules not to disrupt a trial…….if you are holding it within the rules of the LAW, but once you have broken the law as far as I see it all bets are off. They couldn’t use the tracks anymore anyway….they weren’t allowed to be there. All the club had to do is get prior consent and this would be a non-issue.
When I watched the videos I see a man over reacting. Next thing to pop in my mind, is why? Then Im thinking that it seems pretty obvious there was some history prior and what is taped is the “final straw” or one thereof.
JMO, and NO I don’t know either party personally, just seen too much BS in my own neck of the woods to know how it plays out.
t


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Howard Knauf said:


> It sounds like he had the legal right to be a dickhead....and he exercised that right=D>


* And my point was made!!!* If I found a nice field and went ahead and held a trial w/o permission would that be OK? Or hunt on someone's property? How does a club holding tracking on grounds they don't have permission for make a Schutzhund venue look? Clubs represent local and national branches, poor planning or management on their part speaks more volumes than someone being a wanger!!! And I don't support his behavior...


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

He acted like a jerk, but the trial should have been stopped. Molly, I think the USA should have stopped the trial as soon as they were told that they weren't allowed on the property. I'm sure if Jeff O decided to have a Mondio trial on property that you werevested with charge of you would be acting the same way and try to stop the trial. If that is what you truly believe I'm sure there are many people who would love to come do as they please on and with your property.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Nearly all the above posts are speculations. What was the offender charged of?


----------



## Molly Graf (Jul 20, 2006)

If I were in the same position and someone came on my property I would TELL them to leave immediately. If they didn't, then I would call the authorities to TELL them to leave. The owner of the property has the rights - Gary was not the owner. And even if he did have a right to tell the club to leave - according to USA rules he disrupted a trial and acted in poor sportsmanship. It's proven on video for all to see. USA shouldn't have been involved in who was in the right and wrong of property and trespassing - the court decided that. USA should have taken action against him for disrupting a USA trial and acting in poor sportsmanship. It wasn't done, because (????????) - 

I would never even dream of driving over tracks at a competition, or knocking over the jumps, slashing tires or whatever nuisance I could think of to ruin someone's trial - if it were on my property without permission, I would tell them to leave, or allow them to stay, my property - my choice.

Two instances I have been involved in - being a competitor at a trial run by MY training director/club - he took us out to some new fields - really nice fields, and several Schh3 tracks had already been laid. Someone stopped in a truck and asked what we were doing there - he then left and returned with the news that the owner hadn't given us permission to use the field. Our TD left with the guy to speak to the owner, meanwhile we waited. He came back and said we had to leave - tracklayers went out and got the flags and articles and we left. He had thought he had permission but apparently spoke to the wrong person. It was an oops but no harm done, no hard feelings. 

Recently I was a tracklayer at a Championship trial - we (the tracklayers) were told which fields to lay tracks in, and where the property line was. We were told wrong (or misunderstood) and proceeded to lay 8 tracks (an entire flight) in fields that we did not have permission to use. The last two tracks were in a field just outside of a beautiful estate home, I was watching and directing the tracklayer on his last leg when the owner walked over in his bath robe LOL - who were we, why were we there? What the heck were we doing? Obviously we had made a big mistake, but I was able to explain to the owner what we were doing, and that dogs would be on leash, no vehicles, no noise, and we would appreciate if we could continue to use the fields as we had just walked 10 miles setting tracks down. Meanwhile the other tracklayer had called the trial organizer who came running up the road full of apologies - anyway I had already won over the owner and we were all set. But he could just as easily told us to take a hike, and that would have been what we had to do if that had been his decision. 

molly


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Molly, 

You're looking at a video made by one side. You have no idea what had happened before the camera was turned on. Did Gary
tell them they did not have permission to use the field and had to leave and they ignored him? Gary as the agent of the owner
has the same rights as the owner. UScA DID take action, they issued a reprimand. What else did you expect them to do? Throw out a Schutzhund Icon who has done LOTS for the sport for disrupting an illegal trial (trespassing on private property)?

Thomas Barriano




Molly Graf said:


> If I were in the same position and someone came on my property I would TELL them to leave immediately. If they didn't, then I would call the authorities to TELL them to leave. The owner of the property has the rights - Gary was not the owner. And even if he did have a right to tell the club to leave - according to USA rules he disrupted a trial and acted in poor sportsmanship. It's proven on video for all to see. USA shouldn't have been involved in who was in the right and wrong of property and trespassing - the court decided that. USA should have taken action against him for disrupting a USA trial and acting in poor sportsmanship. It wasn't done, because (????????) -


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Lets face facts both sides are NOT innocent in this matter. But lets not beat a dead horse...oops too late. #-o


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

So if the trial participants refuse to leave and LE say it is a civil matter what would you do, Molly. That is what I would like to know. I have no standing in this, but it sounds like you have made up your mind that the trial participants were in the right. Gary might have been a jerk, but the courts seem to say he was in the right. At some point the USA has to make the organizer of the event take some culpabiltiy for his part in the trial.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Dwyras Brown said:


> So if the trial participants refuse to leave and LE say it is a civil matter what would you do, ....


 Trespass is not civil...it's criminal. The officer is either wrong, or the person telling the story is wrong.


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

I know, just going by what the info given. Wondered if that info is correct, what would she have done. Would her opinion still be the same or not.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Howard Knauf said:


> Trespass is not civil...it's criminal. The officer is either wrong, or the person telling the story is wrong.


What is a cop to do when no one has a deed, both people claim the right to use the property and breakfast is fast approaching?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Ben Colbert said:


> What is a cop to do when no one has a deed, both people claim the right to use the property and breakfast is fast approaching?


Lock em both up and go for a mixed grill.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I didn't realize this thread had been going when I responded to Al's new thread about the same old trial and same old story. 

Gary won the asshole contest but only by a nose. He shouldn't have driven over those tracks this mess certainly wasn't the fault of the competitors who were really the innocent bystanders who only wanted to compete and title that day. 

Eric came in a damn close second biggest asshole of the day. He went out of his way to drive to a field near Gary that he knew Gary had permission to use and he knew he did not have permission to use. Way to hold a trial, real classy. 

USA did the right thing. Yes, Gary tried to screw up the tracking at a club trial and that was tacky. I wonder if he had been successful in getting law enforcement to remove the trespassers what would have been the outcome? I think Eric would have been the one to be sanctioned in that case.

The trial wasn't post poned or cancelled. All the competitors were able to track and complete the trial. Nobody got hurt. Gary had a tantrum. Big deal. Get over it. Move on.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I have this picture in my head of some really gigantic guy grabbing both Gary and Eric by the scruff of their necks and banging their heads together about 20 times in hopes of knocking some sense into their heads and telling them to knock off the crap. Sheesh:-o


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Ben Colbert said:


> What is a cop to do when no one has a deed, both people claim the right to use the property and breakfast is fast approaching?


 You DON'T need a deed, if the other person has a signed agreement from the landowner. This has been tested and proven with me when folks were spotlighting and I called Fish & Wildlife they set up for night shooters! :-$


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Molly Graf said:


> still there is no excuse for driving over tracks and disrupting a trial in this manner. There were many other options. IMO Gary should have used one of them, then he wouldn't have been looked at by MOST people as a jerk who demonstrated bad sportsmanship -


ABSOLOUTLY!! Had he been a smart and thinking woman with a personal grudge, he would have:

Gone to the tracking field with her trusty video camera, and on tape informed the judge and TD that the club did not have permission to use the farmers fields for the event. Eric would have said that in fact, he did have permission and she being the smart woman she is, would have that on tape too.

A woman would have continued to quietly video tape the event and not interfered any further.

Afterwards she and the land owner would sue his ass in court, get a judgement against him, THEN take everything before the board and probably Eric would have had his hand slapped for lying and causing all the entrants to be in danger of being charged with trespassing.

If only he had been a smart and thinking woman!


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

susan tuck said:


> ABSOLOUTLY!! Had he been a smart and thinking woman with a personal grudge, he would have:...If only he had been a smart and thinking woman!


 OH MY and to think SUSAN used "smart" and "thinking" to discribe a woman...!???
Well my "man card" hasn't been taken and quiet isn't on my lips! I can give you one out of two...8-[


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Gary probably would have gotten into less trouble if he just shot them for trespassing before they had a chance to turn on the
video camera 




susan tuck said:


> ABSOLOUTLY!! Had he been a smart and thinking woman with a personal grudge, he would have:
> 
> Gone to the tracking field with her trusty video camera, and on tape informed the judge and TD that the club did not have permission to use the farmers fields for the event. Eric would have said that in fact, he did have permission and she being the smart woman she is, would have that on tape too.
> 
> ...


----------

