Queensland trainers want a system of compensation introduced to cover events such as the decision to overturn a photo finish result two months after the race.

After a race at Yeppoon on July 23, Great Fox was declared the winner despite connections of runner-up Victory Toast disputing the photo-finish decision.

Stewards opened an inquiry into the result this week and overturned the original decision, awarding the race to Victory Toast.

Stewards used a racing rule which allows them to overturn decisions after correct weight.

The Queensland secretary of the Australian Trainers Association, Cameron Partington, said the over-turning of a photo-finish result from July was concerning to the ATA.

In a letter to Racing Queensland the ATA said the winning connections survived the post-race protest and subsequent inquiry on the day and correct weight was given, which was what all in the racing industry abided by.

"If two months later the industry investigates the issue (its own due diligence or requests from other parties) and find that a mistake has been made through poor technology or human error or whatever, surely we can't be asking the original winners (who won the race and were subject to all available critique) to pay the cost of the mistake," the ATA said.

" The Queensland Racing Integrity Commission who RQ contract to handle this part of the business, would appear to have made the error/oversight/mistake. Should not they be accountable ?"

"We have received plenty of feedback once again wrongly "blaming" RQ, and that RQ should be responsible for the cost. "

"The ATA firmly believes that the matter should have been left at "correct weight" and the decision be final. Any further investigations should not be at the detriment of the winning connections, and if compensation is deemed appropriate due to an error, then the owner of the error is where the liability should be accountable."

Partington said the ATA had spoken to both trainers concerned, and they were both in full agreement.

He warned there could be legal action which would no doubt come at a both a financial and a brand-diminishing cost to the industry.