Hamersley Gift

One of the first attempts by WCAL to introduce pro running to Western Australia was in the end unfortunately quite laughable with major over handicapping by the handicapper. We had the 120m Gift and 550m.

Heat 1
1. Steven Rafty (15m) 12.80sec
2. Aldis Jaunzems (18.25m) 12.96sec
3. Cole Unasa (7.5m) 13.12sec
4. Taylor Watson (25.50m) 13.35sec
5. Abilgail Dargan (26.50m)13.39sec
6. Mathew Mahood (12m) 13.49sec
7. Mana Runnion (29.75m) 14.25sec

Heat 2
1. Tenneille Triggwell (27.25m) 12.24sec
2. Andrew Bannister (39.50m) 12.66sec
3. Tim Branston (15m) 12.79sec
4. Glenn Ross (11m) 12.83sec
5. Gemma Grigg (26m) 12.90sec
6. Leigh Edwards (12.5m) 13.00sec

Heat 3
1. Adam Moore (13.25m) 12.70sec
2. Dylan Panizza (8.75m) 12.74sec
3. Sam Hughes (15.5m) 13.00sec
4. Ella Italiano-Schmidt (26m) 13.02sec
5. James Ockelford (11m) 13.15sec
6. Jane Stockey (28m) 13.31sec
7. Adrian Biemmi (21m) 13.66sec

Heat 4

1. Ben Clark (14m) 12.47sec
2. Mathew Short (9m) 12.69sec
3. David Cicchini (11.75m) 12.87sec
4. Emily Dixon (26m) 13.02sec
5. Jessica Mondello (25.25m) 13.16sec
6. Erin Jameson (29.50m) 13.18sec

Final
1. Tenneille Triggwell (27.25m) 12.09sec
2. Andrew Bannister (39.50m) 12.40sec
3. Ben Clark (14m) 12.60sec
4. Adam Moore (13.25m) 12.63sec
5. Tim Branston (15m) 12.70sec
6. Steven Rafty (15m) 12.79sec eq
7. Mathew Short (9m) 12.79sec eq
8. Dylan Panizza (8.75m) 12.80sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cAkP0QllC4&feature=youtu.be

550m
1. Kirstie Morrison (157m) 1.04.00sec
2. Harry Hooper-Lewis (115m) 1.04.81sec
3. Arnan Van Nieke (90m) 1.06.18sec
4. Andrew Bannister (165m) 1.06.44sec
5. Jesse Rodgers (122m) 1.07.74sec
6. Fraser Fullerton (78m) 1.08.71sec
7. Angelique Van Nieke (128m) 1.09.13sec
8. Liam Watson (121m) 1.09.74sec
9. Steven Rafty (53m) 1.10.08sec
10.Brenton Mizen (28m) 1.12.78sec
11.Mark Midgely (39m) 1.14.21sec
12.Leigh Edwards (56m) 1.14.42sec
13.Adrian Biemmi (102m) 1.18.02sec
14.Toni Phillips (130m) 1.18.25sec
15.Nathan Caccamo (51m) 1.27.90sec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW5R9Uv4WlU&feature=youtu.be

I think they need to look up the definition of the word "novice" and then have all the novices off the "novice" handicap. To have 6 people under the 550m time from the Bay Sheff is ridiculous and the winner of the 120m was seriously over handicapped to win by .3 seconds in a 120m.

There are a lot of flaws to be ironed out and for someone who has entered to compete at the next meet will seriously have to reconsider when with the current handicaps I would get beaten by 6+ seconds.

WCAL has been around since 1987 and has recently just taken back the pro running circuit from AWA.
In the Hamersley Gift 120m race the eventual winner had finished 8th in our last pro meeting (Dardenup late last year) so had been lifted 0.25m. The second place winner in the gift had finished 4th at Dardenup and had been pulled 0.50m. The adjustments were probably justified, fact is, they both ran really well and much better than last meeting. Making the margins look huge, otherwise the rest of the field were pretty close together.
In the 550m race I agree with your comments the winner should be around 1.15sec not 1.04sec. You should probably direct them to the WCAL though?
Otherwise it was a really great carnival... The sponsors, runners and officials were very happy and it will be bigger and better next year!

I am not sure who to direct the issues I raised from the 550m to. I think that there are some overall issues with the handicaps people are given.

1.04min and 12.09sec are extremely quick times for both 550m and 120m races. 12.09 is usually the time someone would run to win a Stawell Gift or the Burnie Gift with a tail wind or with a runner like Steve Brimacombe in the field in his hay day. 1.04 is never seen at any meet and to see the Dardenup 550m won in 1.16 to the Hamersley 550m won in a time that is 12 seconds quicker is laughable.

I want to compete in Pro Running in Perth and I am glad there are meets now available to run at but based off this meet there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. This is why I raise the point of having a novice mark so you may get people winning in 1.12-1.13 or 12.6-12.7 to start with but much closer finals from first to last.

Any queries or comments can be directed to the secretary - info@wcal.com.au and they will pass them onto the relevant persons.
You can be sure the WCAL take all feedback and comments seriously and will try to be as transparent as possible by displaying publically times & video footage.
I think it is more a case of a 'fine tuning' issue rather than 'laughable' one. We had some really positive feedback on the weekend and we believe we are not far from getting a really good pro circuit happening in WA again.
We would really appreciate your support!

It was a good carnival but i would also agree that the handicaps were terrible and need a bit more then fine tuning. I'm happy to support but I'm not sure that i would waste my money entering again if the handicaps don't get sorted out, not complaining about not winning but didn't even come close to catching the front marks. Everyone that i showed the handicaps to before the race laughed and they knew it wasn't going to be a good race, so why couldn't the handicapper see this? needs to be a big improvement if they want to more people to participate.

I think that they haven't learnt from the last meet especially with the calibre of runners like Brooke Pires-peranzee off 18.5m for a 120m.. surely she will be able to run 12 low for a womens 120m when usually the womens gift (when separated from the mens) should be won in 14 low 13 high. I think she has to be the favourite for the race and when the meet organisers separate womens and mens races they should give the women new, adjusted handicaps for a womens race as opposed to the mens/opens races.