The QGBOTA responded to the announcement by Racing Queensland on Tuesday afternoon and asked for a reply by today (Friday Aug 15th at 2pm) We have not received any reply, but have been told through back channels that there will be follow up details released.
Please see our questions below
Sent to RQ Tuesday 12th Aug 5.21pm
Can I please ask who came up with the survey questions? Because they are all leading questions that force an answer that gives a false agreement to only two courses of action.
There is no option if you do not agree that 4th and 5th should be mixed at all. Why should a young dog that has only 3 wins, Maiden, Maiden Final, Novice be forced into a 4/5 mixed race.
Why do we even have 4th/5th mixed races at all. What is the point other than to promote 4th grade as favourites?
This survey also does not address any of the either points of FFA’s or the 2nd point of the 5th grade races to be “randomly divided amongst races” What does that even mean?
What is the rational for changing/adding this rule as a trial? What is the point?
This is another example of adding another layer of complications to the grading policy. Where will this be written inside the policy?
Sorry Gary, but this is what needs to be stopped right now until we can get a discussion group together and discuss all the grading rules and place a procedure in place.
1. Why do we need this change?
2. What is the intended effect of the change?
3. Give statistical examples of previous race meetings over 4 weeks where this would have an effect for a balanced assessment. (what was, what would be under the new rules)
4. Where is the external independent assessment for approval of these changes?
I look forward to your reply
Christine Goodwin
QGBOTA SecretaryÂ
Follow up email sent on Wednesday August 13th at 3.55pm
RE : Information that was sent by Alex on June 16th for the meeting held in May 2025
The limited release of this type of information and only engaging with RQ selected members of the industry can provide (in our opinion) a bias discussion to be profit driven; not necessarily Animal Welfare driven. We suggest this can result in a very unbalanced point of view for RQ Grading to base any prospective changes to the grading policy.
We believe that the intention to hold further engagement sessions in late 2025 should be with the industry as a whole to enable all levels of participants the chance to be heard. If we continue to alienate and force smaller kennels into closure (per the current LR11C rate) this will continue the increasing industry wastage rates. The TAS Racing news this week could refocus more on every dog having a run (Animal Welfare driven and not commercial gain driven) and not prioritising the FFA, Grades 1-4 and City class only for grading policy reviews.
Can we share this information to support the methodology for the current trial grading changes?
We would also like an explanation to the following questions relating to this email.
1. It seems modifications for Point 1 and 2 have already been decided, as the methodology/template was being drafted as at May 2025.
Why are we asking for feedback when the draft is underway.
2. If the feedback suggests a rejection of this policy, what guarantees do we have that RQ will listen and reverse this policy?
3. Do we have a decision from QRIC regarding 14 race cards that was due in July? What extra fields are Grading expecting to include? And for which tracks/classes will have the 14 races? How will the additional 2 races be kennelled with the current kennel block infrastructure. This was a limitation highlighted to Brenton Scott and Adam Wallish back in 2019 and immediately ignored prior to construction of the Q.
4. The budget for RQ will be in its final stages as the report must be tabled to parliament prior to Sept 30th. Do we have an indication on prizemoney reductions? Remember this was a key promise from Jason Scott that prizemoney will be held if the IGRC and BGRC members approved the amalgamation.
5. Pleased that Guarding will be held as we do not have an increase in handlers licences to enable trainers to have more than one entrant per race. We believe the need to increase licenses first.
6. the notation “RQ design the current program to afford as many greyhounds the opportunity to race weekly as possible.” is interesting that this aligns with the report presented graphing less racing opportunities. Poor form right now is ending racing careers and forcing dogs into retirement by not being drawn for 30 days plus as per the current order of draw in the grading policy.
7. Was there any feedback from the selected trainers as a response from this email?
I appreciate that this may take some time to review our request, however I would like to convey as much information as possible by Friday 2pm.
Kind regards
Christine Goodwin
QGBOTA Secretary