| |
Review &
Reconsideration of the New Course Times
Executive Summary
This paper invites the Agility Liaison
Council to reflect on the development, implementation, and impact of the new
Course Time Matrix, in light of the Kennel Club's strategic aims. Drawing on
concerns raised by competitors, judges and volunteers, it highlights the
following key issues:-
-
Misalignment with KC strategic aims, including dog welfare, inclusion,
and member experience.
-
Lack of
transparency in data sources, statistical methodology, and consultation.
-
Unintended consequences for breed diversity, safety, and competitor
motivation.
-
Governance concerns, including potential conflicts of interest and
procedural fairness.
- Need for review, including
retrospective withdrawal for progression and warrant points, and development
of fairer, more inclusive timing frameworks.
The paper does not seek to assign blame,
but to foster constructive dialogue and collaborative solutions that uphold the
values of KC agility. It also recognises the time, expertise and good intentions
behind the development of the Course Time Matrix and appreciates the effort made
to modernise agility standards.
Introduction
This paper is submitted to the Agility
Liaison Council to support open discussion around the development,
implementation, and impact of the new Course Time Matrix ('the CTM'). It
reflects concerns raised by competitors, judges, and volunteers across the
agility community and invites collaborative reflection on whether the CTM aligns
with the Kennel Club's strategic aims and values.
Strategic
Context
The Kennel Club's published strategic aims
are to:-
- Champion the wellbeing of dogs.
- Safeguard and enhance the future
of pedigree dogs, addressing breed-associated health issues.
- Protect the future of dog
activities together with our grassroots network.
- Become relevant to more dog
owners to increase our impact.
- Deliver an excellent member
experience and widen our community.
- Ensure we are financially secure
and sustainable.
The CTM appears to contradict nearly every
one of these aims:-
- It discourages participation by
steady, reliable dogs - often from less represented breeds - who are now
receiving time faults. This is undermining inclusivity, breed diversity, and
the celebration of different working styles.
- It demoralises grassroots competitors
and volunteers, particularly those who have invested years in progression
and warrant points, and who are now receiving time faults despite unchanged
performance.
- It risks alienating handlers who
prioritise welfare, control, and partnership over speed; compromising the
wellbeing-first ethos and potentially encouraging handling choices that
conflict with best practice in dog safety in an attempt to avoid time
faults.
- It has created confusion and
frustration mid-season, eroding competitor experience, trust, and confidence
in the fairness of implementation.
- It may reduce long-term engagement
and financial sustainability by discouraging continued participation from
those who feel excluded or undervalued.
Key Concerns
1. Data Integrity and Transparency
The dataset, methodology, and assumptions used to develop the CTM have not
been published. Greater clarity would help competitors and judges understand
how the CTM was built and ensure confidence in its application. It appears
that the data was drawn from Showtime Online and Agility Plaza. However,
Agility Shows Online (ASO), which is no longer active, was the show
processor for a significant number of KC agility shows during the relevant
period. If ASO data was excluded, this omission could have materially
affected the results and raises concerns about the completeness and balance
of the dataset. Clarification is needed on whether ASO data was considered,
and if not, how its absence may have influenced the conclusions drawn and
the overall validity of the CTM.
2. Consultation, Timing and
Procedural Fairness
The CTM was introduced without prior consultation with competitors, the
wider judging community, or show organisers, despite its significant impact
on progression and awards. A collaborative development process would have
fostered greater confidence and acceptance.
It has also been suggested that the
CTM was trialled at KC shows before its formal rollout, without informing
competitors that their runs were contributing to a data-gathering exercise.
If true, this raises concerns about transparency and informed consent.
Competitors deserve to know when their performances are being used to shape
future competition standards, and any trialling must be disclosed clearly
and respectfully.
The timing of the rollout compounded
these concerns. The CTM was implemented mid-season, after entries had
already closed for some shows, leaving affected competitors with no
opportunity to adjust their plans. Many may have chosen to reduce runs or
avoid certain classes had they anticipated being penalised under the new
system. Instead, they were disadvantaged, with no fair option to amend
entries or withdraw without forfeiting entry fees. This may conflict with
the principles of fairness and transparency outlined in the Consumer Rights
Act 2015 - particularly in relation to the reasonable expectations of
competitors engaging with a paid service. Moreover, the Kennel Club was
aware that, due to upcoming changes to the Agility Liaison Council,
competitors would have no formal opportunity to raise concerns or challenge
the CTM until 2026. This effectively silenced the community during a
critical transition and undermined trust in the governance process.
3. Arbitrary Buffer Time
The CTM adds a fixed 10-second buffer to each calculated course time,
intended to ensure inclusivity and account for natural variations such as
weather and course complexity. However, no evidence or rationale has been
provided to justify this specific figure, nor is it clear whether
alternative margins were considered or tested.
Without transparency around how the
buffer was determined, its application risks being perceived as arbitrary.
This is particularly concerning given its real-world impact: many handlers
are now receiving time faults on otherwise clear rounds, especially those
with steady, accurate dogs. These faults reduce opportunities for
progression and warrant points, and may discourage participation from dogs
and handlers whose style prioritises control and partnership over speed.
The use of a fixed 10-second buffer
across all course lengths introduces a structural inconsistency that
disproportionately affects longer courses. For example, in Intermediate
Agility, a Grade 1 dog on a 95m course is given 35 seconds, requiring a
speed of 2.71 m/s. On a 250m course, the same dog is given 76 seconds, which
equates to 3.29 m/s. So that dog is expected to run 21% faster simply
because the course is longer. Such a requirement is not only statistically
inconsistent, but also counterintuitive: over greater distances, speed
expectations should remain stable or even decrease to reflect the increased
physical effort. The problem arises because the fixed buffer becomes
proportionately smaller as course length increases, thereby artificially
inflating the required speed.
A more equitable approach would be to
apply a proportionate buffer, adding a consistent percentage to the
calculated time rather than a fixed number. This would help maintain a
stable or slightly reduced speed expectation over longer courses, reflecting
the increased physical demands. It would also support fairness,
predictability and inclusivity, avoiding the penalties currently faced by
steady, accurate dogs on longer courses. A more consultative and
evidence-based approach is needed to ensure the buffer genuinely supports
inclusivity rather than undermining it.
4. Inclusion and Breed Diversity
The CTM provides average metres-per-second values by height and grade,
but it is unclear whether breed-specific performance and variation within
height categories were fully considered. The statistical method used to
calculate these averages has not been disclosed, and each method can produce
very different outcomes:-
- The mean may be skewed by
very fast dogs, raising benchmarks that steady, accurate dogs cannot
realistically meet.
- The median offers a more balanced
reflection of typical performance, but only if the dataset includes a
diverse mix of breeds and handling styles.
- The mode reflects the most
frequently occurring speed in the dataset. However, if the dataset is
dominated by fast breeds such as Working Cocker Spaniels and Border
Collies, the mode may simply reflect the most common fast performance
rather than a representative average across all dogs. Without knowing
the breed composition of the dataset, it is difficult to assess whether
the CTM fairly reflects the diversity of dogs competing in agility. If
the dataset is dominated by fast breeds, this may have skewed the
averages and raised benchmarks that are unrealistic averaging for
steady, accurate dogs. Clarifying the statistical approach and dataset
makeup would help ensure the CTM supports the inclusive spirit of the
sport.
The averaging method used to calculate
course times has produced outcomes that defy both logic and lived
experience. Most notably, Large dogs now receive a more generous course time
than Intermediate dogs, despite typically being faster and more physically
capable. This leads to scenarios where, for example, an Intermediate Show
Cocker is expected to complete the course more quickly than a Large Border
Collie - a comparison that is not only counterintuitive, but fundamentally
flawed.
Such disparities undermine confidence
in the methodology and suggest that the statistical approach may have failed
to account for breed-specific performance and natural variation within
height categories. These outcomes are not just questionable, they are
demonstrably unfair and risk penalising dogs purely due to arbitrary
classification. An urgent review is needed to ensure that course times
reflect realistic expectations and uphold fairness across all breeds and
heights.
The CTM's tighter time thresholds may
also disproportionately penalise slower clear dogs, reducing their chances
of earning progression or warrant points. In any class, the fastest clear
dog will always win, and that principle remains unchanged. However, a fair
system should also recognise and reward a broader range of skills such as
control, accuracy, and consistency. This balance is essential to maintaining
fairness, breed diversity, and long-term engagement in competition. 5.
Unaccounted Variables Factors such as ring size, surface, number of
obstacles, weather, and course flow all influence a dog's speed and
performance. While these may have been considered during the trial phase, it
is unclear whether they were included in the statistical analysis of the
historical data used to build the CTM. Without transparency on how such
variables were accounted for, it is difficult to assess whether the CTM
reflects the full range of conditions encountered in competition or supports
fair benchmarking across diverse environments.
6. Measurement Consistency
Course length directly affects calculated course time, yet even with
consistent use of the straight-line method, measurement outcomes can vary.
Measuring the same course twice will rarely produce identical results, even
when done by the same judge. There is currently no standardised protocol for
verifying measurements, nor any mechanism for confirming the accuracy of
recorded course lengths in the historical dataset. This undermines the
reliability of the data used to build the CTM and raises questions about its
credibility. Without consistent and verifiable measurement, it is difficult
to ensure that course times derived from past events are accurate.
7. Consistency and Discretion
As with the previous matrix, judges retain discretion to adjust course
times. However, the lack of clear guidance on when and how to apply these
adjustments has led to inconsistent practice across shows. Some judges are
increasing the recommended time to reflect course f low or ground
conditions, while others are reducing it - even though the CTM already sets
t ighter benchmarks than before. While discretion is important, reducing
times below an already stricter baseline may unintentionally disadvantage
capable dogs and undermine the CTM's stated aim of inclusivity. Clearer
parameters for adjustment would help ensure consistency, fairness, and
confidence in judging practice.
8. Safety and Welfare
There is concern that the CTM may unintentionally encourage handlers to
push their dogs to run faster than is safe or appropriate for the course,
surface, or conditions, simply to try to avoid time faults. This could have
implications for dog welfare, particularly in hot weather, on uneven ground,
or with younger or older dogs. It may also increase the likelihood of unsafe
approaches to equipment, raising the risk of injury for both dogs and
handlers. Many competitors value agility for its emphasis on control,
accuracy, and partnership. These qualities should continue to be recognised
and rewarded. These concerns directly relate to the Kennel Club's strategic
aim of championing dog wellbeing, and should be central to any future review
of the CTM.
9. Impact on Competitor Experience
Many handlers are now receiving time faults on otherwise clear rounds,
reducing opportunities for progression and warrant points. This has affected
motivation and led some to feel excluded from a sport they have long
supported and enjoyed. Receiving time faults on clear rounds can feel
disheartening, particularly for handlers of steady, accurate dogs who are
doing their best. The CTM risks shifting the balance of the sport away from
rewarding control, accuracy, and partnership, and toward an overemphasis on
speed. This undermines the inclusive spirit that has long defined KC
agility. If competitors feel excluded or demoralised, they may choose to
leave KC agility altogether in favour of organisations that are perceived to
be more inclusive. This has wider implications for sport sustainability,
especially as many affected competitors are also volunteers who support
shows through judging, ring party duties, and event organisation.
10. Lack of Clarity Around Intended
Benefit
Greater transparency around the intended goals and beneficiaries of the CTM
would help the community understand its purpose and assess whether it is
achieving its aims. At present, it is unclear who benefits from the CTM, and
whether its impact aligns with the broader values and strategic priorities
of KC agility.
Suggested Areas for Council
Consideration
Rather than proposing the
immediate withdrawal of the CTM, this paper invites the Council to consider:-
- Whether retrospective withdrawal of
the CTM for progression and warrant points is appropriate.
- How future timing frameworks can
better reflect breed diversity, course design variation, and fairness.
- What consultative processes should be
adopted to ensure transparency and community trust.
- How agility governance can better
align with the Kennel Club's strategic aims.
Governance and Transparency
Considerations
To ensure confidence in future decision-making, the
following governance considerations may help to reinforce impartiality and
community trust:-
1. Potential for Conflicts of
Interest
As the next term of the Agility Liaison Council begins
in January, the membership is not yet confirmed. However, given the origins of
the CTM and the individuals involved in its development and promotion, there is
a possibility that some may also serve on the incoming Council. While their
expertise is valued, this dual role could present a perceived or actual conflict
of interest when reviewing the CTM's impact. To safeguard impartiality and
community trust, it may be appropriate for any such individuals to recuse
themselves from decision-making on this matter.
2. Maintaining Confidence in the
Process
Transparency and fairness are essential to good
governance. Where decisions affect progression, recognition, and competitor
experience, it is vital that all stakeholders feel the process is unbiased and
inclusive. A clear separation between CTM development and CTM review would help
reinforce this principle and ensure that any future revisions to the CTM are
guided by broad community input.
Possible Next Steps
- Consult the community - Engage
competitors, judges, and organisers to rebuild trust and gather feedback.
- Support affected competitors -
Communicate transparently and offer fair remedies for those disadvantaged by
the mid-season rollout. This could include recognising runs that incurred
time faults only under the CTM (but would have been clear rounds under the
previous matrix) for the purposes of progression and warrant points.
- Review the data - Commission
an independent analysis of CTM impact across breeds, grades, and course
types.
- Form a working group - Explore
timing models that reflect the diversity of dogs, courses, and conditions.
- Develop a fairer CTM - Build a
revised CTM informed by evidence and shaped through meaningful community
input.
KC agility has long been defined by its
inclusive spirit, emphasis on partnership, and commitment to dog welfare. This
paper recognises the time, expertise, and good intentions behind the development
of the CTM, and appreciates the desire to modernise and improve agility
standards. However, the agility community - from grassroots competitors to
experienced judges - deserves a system that reflects these values and supports
diverse styles of excellence. By reviewing the CTM with transparency, fairness,
and collaboration, the Council has an opportunity to restore trust, strengthen
governance, and ensure that all dogs and handlers feel valued and motivated.
This paper is offered in that spirit.
| |
|
