There was an article in the weekend papers about a high-jumping dog that has been banned from a jumping competition for being too good. The dog has won the event three times (the last time was a co-win) and has been ruled ineligible. The organisers say it's about keeping the event fresh. The owner feels that the rules applied to her dog are unfair and compare to banning the likes of Tiger Woods from golf, or a tri-winning Collingwood from the AFL.
So, do you keep the playing field level by removing those who excel? Then everyone gets more of a chance. Or do you let the leaders lead until they can't? I don't know.
But wouldn't it make a good dinner party discussion? I'm going to try it out, so be warned if you receive an invitation to my house for dinner...
No comments:
Post a Comment