The Dog world was thrown further in to turmoil today as it came to light that a prominent Dog Judge has been alleged to have displayed a high degree of independence and awarded a Best In Show to a dog handled by a "non face" exhibitor. It is also alleged that the dog had not been prominently advertised and was indeed a much-loved family pet and only "part time" show dog.

The Judge, who cannot be named, said he will strongly defend these scurrilous charges and has appointed Mr Lionel Hutz from Legal, Eagle, Beagle and Briefcase Ltd to defend the matter. In a statement to the media, Mr Hutz said that he thought that although the Judge had been a little indiscreet in his actions the defense would rely heavily on a technicality within the rules of dog showing, that being the interpretation that the best dog exhibited on the day should indeed win. The statement by Mr Hutz caused a flurry of activity within the ranks of the unnamed Canine body as they went through all old records and statute books to find if such a rule had ever existed.

In a statement for the un named canine body, a Very Important person who may also be a member of a Board said that the role of a Judge is to uphold the traditions of dog showing and not allow such basic and indiscriminate errors to occur. The matter would not be heard under the internal rules of any un-named Canine body but would be referred to the highest and most expensive court available. It is believed that the case could be settled within 2 years and costs should be no more than $250,000.

The swift action taken against this renegade Judge should prove to exhibitors that despite the attempts of a few rabble rousers and dissidents within the ranks of Judges that all was well and that they should not concern themselves with this or any other rumours concerning the financial solvency or management of the Dog fraternity. More new as it becomes available .