DISPUTED OR FAKE PEDS FROM THE PAST AND PRESENT .

[Officially Retired]

I think Mayfield recorded conversations with other dogmen without their consent b/c 1. He was paranoid as hell 2. He wanted to use confidential info for and against different people and 3. He was probably a fucking snitch and used these tapes against rivals.
Why in the hell else would someone tape conversations of other people

I can understand why, because it sets a precedence of the person being a liar.

I taped 3 conversations of me and Pat Patrick, a long time ago when I was a beginner, when he and I were on the verge of falling out. I was a green nobody then, and he had personally told me of the "true breeding" of so many dogs, that I felt this needed to be documented. So I do "get" why Mayfield would want to preserve on tape "the true breedings" behind some famous dogs. (Same as Bobby Smith got Pat Patrick to admit Ch Blaze was really off of Reuben.) I personally never made my tapes public ... but I may too someday when I am old, angry, and bored ... same as I did when I published Smith's tape when I The Truth about Mason's Ch Hammer

This doesn't necessarily make a person a snitch; it might be the only way for the truth to get out. I could likewise publish the tapes with Patrick admitting how Buck, Cheryl Tiegs, and Ch Chewy are really bred, but since I don't run dogs down from these lines (like I do Ch Hammer), I have never bothered.

Jack

PS: Ultimately, I agree it doesn't matter anymore, but it does make for interesting historical footnotes for discussion.

[Foxman]

Jack, The problem with any dogman that lies and says it is a lie but the second story he is fixing to share with you is the correct one. I have a problem with any story he tells. The first second or third. Whether it is recorded on the phone or otherwise. All he is doing by saying he is now expressing the true breeding is confessing he is a lier. So how could a person believe anything he says. A good attorney would completely ruin a witness using that approach. It's something to talk about among friends but I am not convinced anything any of those guys say like Patrick is ever the truth. I can see a mistake like saying it was the 24th when he was born then shortly after that statement saying I was wrong it was the 28th but to tell a Whole line of dogs you lied about then say you lied and here is the new truth. I'm out on that crap. Randy Fox

[Officially Retired]

Jack, The problem with any dogman that lies and says it is a lie but the second story he is fixing to share with you is the correct one. I have a problem with any story he tells. The first second or third. Whether it is recorded on the phone or otherwise. All he is doing by saying he is now expressing the true breeding is confessing he is a lier. So how could a person believe anything he says. A good attorney would completely ruin a witness using that approach. It's something to talk about among friends but I am not convinced anything any of those guys say like Patrick is ever the truth. I can see a mistake like saying it was the 24th when he was born then shortly after that statement saying I was wrong it was the 28th but to tell a Whole line of dogs you lied about then say you lied and here is the new truth. I'm out on that crap. Randy Fox

I hear what you're saying.

As a fraud investigator for over 12 years, who then either settles claims or litigates/prosecutes them with attorneys, I am well versed in dealing with lies.

The key word is motive.

When Patrick was telling me "the inside scoop," it was as a confidant. When he was lying, it was either because someone wanted "a Maloney dog" (so he papered it that way to make $$) ... or it was because a famous stud was shooting blanks (so he used a no-name son to cover for the elder, so again he could make $$) ... or it was to take some dog that made Champion off a dead stud (and re-paper it under an active stud, so again he could promote that living stud), etc.

When I was being told "the truth" there was no financial motive ... it was just during 3-hour conversations shooting the breeze. But, I agree, once a person is a confirmed liar on paperwork ... it's hard to take their word seriously if the money is on the line.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

I can understand why, because it sets a precedence of the person being a liar.

I taped 3 conversations of me and Pat Patrick, a long time ago when I was a beginner, when he and I were on the verge of falling out. I was a green nobody then, and he had personally told me of the "true breeding" of so many dogs, that I felt this needed to be documented. So I do "get" why Mayfield would want to preserve on tape "the true breedings" behind some famous dogs. (Same as Bobby Smith got Pat Patrick to admit Ch Blaze was really off of Reuben.) I personally never made my tapes public ... but I may too someday when I am old, angry, and bored ... same as I did when I published Smith's tape when I The Truth about Mason's Ch Hammer

This doesn't necessarily make a person a snitch; it might be the only way for the truth to get out. I could likewise publish the tapes with Patrick admitting how Buck, Cheryl Tiegs, and Ch Chewy are really bred, but since I don't run dogs down from these lines (like I do Ch Hammer), I have never bothered.

Jack

PS: Ultimately, I agree it doesn't matter anymore, but it does make for interesting historical footnotes for discussion.

I see all of that. Makes sense. I sincerely apologize to......well, nah, I'll just take this good perspective and admit, I can totally see this.

You guys have a great New Year