There have been predictions of favorites to win before on the famous Westminster dog show, but this year’s winner was a little too hyped and forecast long before the final. Early in the lousy Fox coverage, with a surfeit of ditzy Fox females talking about themselves, which inexplicably cut off on National Geographic without explanation or apology in the middle of the final, it was opined, more than once, that Rumor the German shepherd “should have won last year”. Coincidentally(?) Rumor won his breed category and then somehow was ‘amazingly’ picked as the obvious winner in the final. Two independent objective choices for a dog predicted to win? Highly unlikely methinks. Rumor’s victory was telegraphed all the way, like NHL referees looking for any negligible move to call a very questionable penalty.
There were innumerable worthy contenders again this year. In the past, Westminster has surprised with the boldness and uniqueness of its choices, though this year it was interesting to see how many times certain breeds had won previous shows way more than m/any others. Finally, the victory of Rumor suggests, too, that there may be prejudice, bias and possible ‘fixing’, which unreasonably and ‘magically’ ensured that the early predictions would come true like divine destiny. The Fox pundits picked the winner and ‘the story’. So, uh, like what’s the point in watching the now-7 hr.-event (which Fox ‘overkilled’ on from the previous 6 hr. totals of the past) in which the viewer is telegraphed and basically told who the winner will be well in advance? Where’s the suspense, fairness, and level playing-field?
I figure some great dogs simply got ‘stiffed’ by a prediction for ‘a story’. My last Westminster show for sure and I wonder for how many other dog-lovers and viewers.