QLD Rule Changes and Training requirements

Notice Change AheadRacing Queensland have released documents for comment by Participants.

The policy is on Training Facilities and references public facilities and has the following definition.

  • A training track is any track where any of the following activities are undertaken in respect of greyhounds:
    (a) breaking in;
    (b) pre-training;
    (c) training; or
    (d) trialling

The proposed changes to the QLD Local Rules remove the word “Public”

A similar policy was attempted to be introduced previously. The QGBOTA was involved during that Greyhound Advisory Panel discussion process. The previous policy was deemed to be ambiguous and the requirements of obtaining a Track Licence to be unachievable to trainers who own their own Bullrings, Small Straight tracks, Boxes, and other training equipment, making it offence to operate.

The QGBOTA has not been involved in any discussions regarding this policy and is unsure of the reason, intent, or benefits of why these changes are required in Queensland. The QGBOTA is unsure of the timing of this release when the document is dated Dec 6th, and with the Christmas closure, allows minimal business days for queries and clarifications prior to the comment deadline of Jan 10th. This new policy makes it very clear that to operate any training on an unregistered track guilty of an offence.

Please be reminded that QRIC will prosecute based on the governing rules, under the stewards interpretation, not the “intended” policy of Racing Queensland.

The QGBOTA urge all participants to take the time to read all policy documents and contact Brenton Scott, RQ Greyhound Development Manager for both clarification and comment. Email bscott@racingqueensland.com.au – Mobile 0438 402 198

Consultation closes on January 10th 2020

 


5 thoughts on “QLD Rule Changes and Training requirements

  1. * TYPO
    “complicit with QRIC standards”
    Should read “complying with Qric standards”
    Please change…not a good typo!
    Cheers.

  2. P.S.
    More to the point, questions need to asked as to why there needs to ba a licence at all?
    QRIC have been thorough in inspecting people’s properties.
    Surely a Class whatever trainer should be allowed to train his dogs on a property already complicit with Qric’s standards?
    Don’t owners and trainers pay enough money already and have enough compliance requirements?
    There should be no licence required or charges applied to properties that have been passed by QRIC…full stop.

  3. I think what we have here is a sloppy proposal that needs precise clarity and a condensed explanation from RQ of exactly how this affects each participant.
    I can see your point but by their own design, it’s contradictory.

    The way I interpret it, Class 1,2 and 3 trainers can apply for a Cat 2 training facility where they can train, break-in etc AND be allowed up to 3 non resident trainers to use the facilities as well.
    This licence and Cat1 is issued and policed by RQ.
    The other (private) is the responsibility of QRIC with RQ having no jurisdiction over it.

    Where it becomes ambiguous is in the LR where it states “Training Track” to be inclusive of ALL facilities.
    RQ states it has no jurisdiction over private non-RQ licenced properties.(QRIC) yet “Training Track” contradicts this…
    So you are right. By the letter of the proposed law, QRIC can disallow training on a property that is not RQ registered.

    So, the bottom line is RQ is forcing all trainers to register their properties with them or you won’t be allowed to train on your piece of dirt.
    That’s about as clear as I can say it.

    Having said all that, the upside is that at last people can use other trainer’s facilities, help each other, and go forward.

    The interesting part is…HOW MUCH FOR A LICENCE?

  4. Agreed, that is what the proposals say, now put that document aside and read the proposed LR changes. It takes out the word “public”, which means the rules apply to all training facilities.

  5. I might be wrong but these proposals pertain to public tracks(RQ)and not private(Qric). It clearly states QRIC are responsible for private facilities?

Leave a Reply