PROTRACK

A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» SAAL - First meet in four weeks at Sacred Heart (now 2 weeks)
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyYesterday at 3:15 pm by Downesy

» VRTA Date change
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyFri Oct 18, 2019 11:55 am by Ribera

» 10th Anniversary Noosa Gift Announced
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyMon Oct 14, 2019 11:22 am by NoosaGift

» Vale - Barry McLeod
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyFri Oct 04, 2019 4:02 pm by mwebster

» Warrnambool Gift
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptySat Sep 28, 2019 12:28 pm by DDog

» 550m races
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyThu Sep 26, 2019 12:10 pm by Downesy

» Teen Ellie Beer youngest ever to represent Australia as athletics team turns to youth for Doha world championships
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyWed Sep 11, 2019 12:48 pm by Admin

» VRTA Award winners
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyMon Sep 02, 2019 10:42 am by Todd Ireland

» Who would win the VRTA voted awards so far?
Targetted disqualification at Stawell EmptyFri Aug 02, 2019 10:26 am by Ribera

October 2019
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Targetted disqualification at Stawell

Targetted disqualification at Stawell

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:53 am

Kangaroota

Kangaroota
The 2nd placegetter in heat 3 of the 800m was disqualified for finding 5 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.57.91 to 1.52.64)

The 2nd placegetter in heat 4 of the 800m was not disqualified for finding 7 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.59.87 to 1.52.52)
The 2nd placegetter in the final of 800m was not disqualified for finding 7 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.56.21 to 1.49.04)

I don't get it. Why target one but not the other?

The 3rd placegetter in the frontmarkers 400m found 5 secs over 400m between Fleurieu gift in SA on the same weekend as Bendigo (52.56 to 47.37). This 5 sec improvement was also after 2 x 800 on the same day at Stawell.
His 800m improved 10 secs from a meet in November (1.58.41) to Stawell (1.47.42). Too long between runs to question but was lifted 20m from Stawell 2018 to Stawell 2019 without a Vic run in between.

2Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:32 am

Admin

Admin
Admin
Admin
Kangaroota wrote:The 2nd placegetter in heat 3 of the 800m was disqualified for finding 5 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.57.91 to 1.52.64)

The 2nd placegetter in heat 4 of the 800m was not disqualified for finding 7 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.59.87 to 1.52.52)
The 2nd placegetter in the final of 800m was not disqualified for finding 7 secs between Bendigo and Stawell (1.56.21 to 1.49.04)

I don't get it. Why target one but not the other?

The 3rd placegetter in the frontmarkers 400m found 5 secs over 400m between Fleurieu gift in SA on the same weekend as Bendigo (52.56 to 47.37). This 5 sec improvement was also after 2 x 800 on the same day at Stawell.
His 800m improved 10 secs from a meet in November (1.58.41) to Stawell (1.47.42). Too long between runs to question but was lifted 20m from Stawell 2018 to Stawell 2019 without a Vic run in between.

I was thinking much the same. There were a few winners and placegetters who, when I sat down and had a look at the form line, seemed to have a significant improvement on some of the stuff they've served up in in their previous results.

So I'm not convinced that the lad who was DQ'ed in the 800m, would have copped the same penalty had he been with a more prominent stable.

http://protrack.forumotion.com

3Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:30 pm

Easier Said Than Run

Easier Said Than Run
Clearly a pre conceived plan to dq runner after his 800m heat performance. Already had a $750 fine after his winning run in the backies mile.

There is a continual display of inconsistent stewarding not only at Easter, but across the season at large. Definitely different courses for different horses.
Athletes, coaches and supporters can see the differentiation of treatment.

Have to wonder how someone who improves over 6-7m in a straight sprint in 4 weeks and wins a sash isn't called in at least for a 'please explain', in comparison to previous penalties at Stawell.
Mediocre performances continue to be rewarded. The same athlete ran only 4 meetings in their winning event, all runs well outside acceptable performance range and received a 6.25m lift over the course of season.

4Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:29 pm

Kangaroota

Kangaroota
Stawell 100m Masters winner.
Had 8.25m at Waverley and ran 12.84
Had 14.50m at Stawell and ran 11.12
Couldn’t make the final at Berwick 4 weeks before Stawell.

5Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:30 pm

The Truth


The warning signs were there early if you looked closely. At Wangaratta our friend had a faster RPM in the 300 compared to the 120. I guess no ‘please explain’ was sought given the paltry prizemoney on offer?

6Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:36 pm

Kangaroota

Kangaroota
Stawell Restricted 1600m winner
Ringwood 100m 4.25
Stawell 110m 4.15
10 sec improvement in 2 weeks

Stawell Restricted 1600m 3rd placegetter
Ringwood 260m 4.38
Stawell 275m 4.18
20 sec improvement in 2 weeks

The Ringwood Restricted 1600m winner
Ringwood 260m 4.20
Stawell 260m 4.21
Very consistent

7Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:55 pm

timrosen35


Maybe the easiest way to avoid all this is to have every single runners RPM's published online in a profile?
Therefore it would've been noticed that his 300 rpm was quicker than 120 rpm. Which is almost impossible to do legitimately.

The VAL have unfortunately had a lot of website/data issues out of their control in the past few years. They are working hard to get it back on track. But I do think ideally being able to click on an athlete and see all their Times/RPM's and marks across different distances and events is the way forward. There are some cases where athletes have been half a second or more different across junior races to open races etc on the same day too.

My other suggestion is creating a track adjustment equation. I do this myself (and I know other people do too), where you use a sample of athletes to determine how much quicker or slower a certain track is. And this becomes part of the stewards report. This is how I came up with DRC as the one to beat at Stawell.

Anyway I am nitpicking now because I am bored on a Friday evening.

8Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:58 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
This is unbelievably embarrassing for the VAL.
Appalling inconsistent application of the rules.
Rules for some and rules for others.
It’s time for those on the VAL board with a moral compass to stand up.

9Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:22 pm

Manikato


Hey fast if you think they favorite some people don't run at meeting they organise

10Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sat Apr 27, 2019 2:48 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
There are some good honest people in the VAL just a few with influence are ruining it for the majority.

Hey Manikato most in the sport are sick of poor stewarding rules, poor and bias interpretation of those rules, The rules are are catch-all-rules and used for the advantage of a few. Just have a read of the rules and look at how they are applied!

11Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:41 pm

Thatsthestats


I don’t think anywhere on an abacus or slide rule there is any way to calculate a comparison between a 100m and 300m RPM.

12Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:36 am

The Truth


It’s not so much having a estimated 300m RPM based on your 100m or vice versa. It’s being able to spot anomalies. All things being equal your 300m RPM should never be faster than your 100m RPM. It’s why Wayde van Niekerk runs 43.0 and not sub 40.

13Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sun Apr 28, 2019 8:38 pm

Castlemaine jim


Great to hear all your thoughts.we are a family who has only been in the Val 2 years and have loved it I coach a squad of 7 av athletes who I am encouraging to mix in with the Val next season.i have informed them that if they run their guts out 6 to 7 times in all sprints whether gifts or u18s that after that they should be a rock solid chance of some success.i understand people who improve 26 17 or 11 metres in certain events that is life that is pro running that is peaking for stawell but all I will say to those athletes is a lot of 15 16 17 and 18 year olds are on the border of staying with the Val or quitting it for av so give us a chance cheers

14Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:42 am

Phantom

Phantom
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
Poor performance by the Stewards (and handicappers who are also stewards) across the season and it culminated at Stawell. When will the VAL Board take their responsibilities seriously?? Too many conflicts of interest, which makes it very hard to achieve 'independent' handicapping and Stewarding.

15Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:15 pm

BMara


Hello Everyone in boredom land
Some of us really need to have a holiday, walk the dog, talk to our mothers or just relax.
This topic has the usual post Stawell "sook" session, the same old heads with same old "what about me story". The stewards, the handicappers, the board, the weather, my boss or my ability have conspired against me.
We could have just cut and posted the topic from last Easter.
The sooking from Mark and Peter Sleep  are predictable and expected but Phantom has thrown a new slant on the VAL.


Too many conflicts of interest, which makes it very hard to achieve 'independent' handicapping and Stewarding.
We should discuss the conflicts
Myself, I have a son who ran once this season and that was off scratch in the 2 mile... I tried to get him 5 metres.
Wally, His conflict is 50 years of dedication to provide some small  benefit to the sport... must have a long range plan.
Brownie, without doubt the harshest Hippo stable critic.
Darryl, hasn't raced or coached for years
Colin, handicaps distance and has a daughter on a tight handicap that only runs sprints. Although I do believe she is keen for a cross country career.
Andrew McD, handicaps the kids and has a daughter who runs open events.

Originally this forum was at times quiet entertaining and sometimes even informative but unfortunately, certainly due to lack of volume and general interest, it has become a sad old sight, leaning towards the old Bradley website.


More Importantly
The VAL have committees, finance, Rules , women's, stategic planning etc etc . You don't have to be a board member, anyone can be involved.
Give Tom a ring.
As they say in the TV adds.......Show someone you  REALLY care.
I'm happy to keep reading the website occassionally but it's my final post for season 18/19, can I suggest for many to do the same.

16Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:35 pm

Easier Said Than Run

Easier Said Than Run
Usual dismissive response and misdirection from the Chief.

No conflict of interest here but negligent application of proper stewarding, that would allow the following pi$$ take of the year award to go to the Stawell 100m masters winner: -

Stawell 100m @ 14.50m = 11.12 (7.68m/s) 1st  silent
          300m @ 37m = 35.22 (7.46m/s) 8th  Suspect

Berwick 120m @ 17m - 13.90 (7.41m/s)
            Win time = 13.21
            300m @ 35m - 37.48 (7.07 m/s)

Wangaratta 120m @ 15m - 14.57 (7.20 m/s)   scratch
             Win time - 13.19
                 300m @ 38m - 35.99 (7.28 m/s) 1st  cheers
             
Castlemaine 120m @ 12m - 14.41 (7.49 m/s)
            Win time - 13.04
                 300m @ 36m - 37.58 (7.02 m/s)

Waverley 100m @ 8.25m - 12.80 (7.16m/s)
             Win time - 11.18
                  300m @ 36m - 37.96 (6.95 m/s)

2nd year runner; no starts in the 100m in first season, 4 below par efforts in 2018/19
That's the way to do it kids; run like a donkey and reap the rewards when you're ready to drop some bombs.

17Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon Apr 29, 2019 5:02 pm

Whippet


Jeez I’m having trouble reconciling a quicker rpm in a 300 compared to a 100!!??? Unlike the Healesville dogs I’m pretty sure there’s a bend involved in the VAL 300s.
To Castlemaine Jim I’d encourage your kids to keep running hard cos they will eventually get wins. I’m proof of that. Maybe not Stawell or Bendigo but sashes nonetheless which are incredibly rewarding. It’s the best training for the ammos too. If Stawell is your thing then, well, you have to play a different game.

18Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:05 pm

Castlemaine jim


Thanks whippet I think your advice is spot on.my daughter and my squad will run their guts out each time they get out there with the knowledge that whilst it will take longer to win sashes it will surely feel more satisfying than the way some others go abour winning.winning anywhere is great and whilst we all ultimately strive to win at stawell I personally would not let my athletes mentally and physically tank at every lead up Val event just for that chance.

19Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Tue Apr 30, 2019 11:18 am

Graeme Lebroy

Graeme Lebroy
personally I think it a bit rough to go too hard when the athlete(s) in question haven't broken the ceiling time. To be honest no one bets seriously on the backies 1600 or masters 100 and both winners of those races didnt break the ceiling so whats the big deal? Surely everyone expects people to improve for Stawell. Both would have been soundly been in 2018 by Sapac and Ireland who both went unquestioned.

The only disclaimer on this theory is the winner of the womens/vets 1600 who farcically jogged down the front straight to land bang on the net time. But that was plain for all to see and didn't incur the wrath of the stewards

20Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:48 pm

Easier Said Than Run

Easier Said Than Run
Graeme it is irrelevant whether the athletes have broken ceiling time if they have dramatically improved their performances from what is expected from their current or most recent form.

Surely if someone was running 12.70 - 12.80 each week in the Men's Gift and then wins Stawell in 12.25, they should be called into question. The same goes for any other race category. If not, then you are encouraging mediocre efforts for maximal rewards with hcp lifts and eventual wins.

BTW Sapac was fined for his winning performance in the 1600m in 2018, due to apparently improving his previous performance in the extreme range. So stewards have been red hot on the backies these last two seasons, why not other events as well?

Maybe the incentive lifts should be introduced to all distances to flush out the bunnies. The Gifts have definitely benefited from better quality racing, and the winners have to be prepared to come back the following season regardless of how they perform at Easter.

21Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Thu May 02, 2019 7:13 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
The VAL is also not helped by the very poor Athlete Performance Assessment rules, which enable the Chief Steward to do as he pleases. The integrity of athlete performance assessment is undermined (some would say deliberately) by not considering an athletes PB (Rpm PB's), thus the whole performance assessment process is totally floored.
 
The basis of any athlete performance assessment needs to be Unacceptable Personal Best Improvement (UPBI)
 
The handicappers, I believe, are trying their hardest (despite the poor rules) but are being pulled and pushed by Stewards and those that think they are entitled, exerting influence and putting pressure on them.
 
Most are hoping these issues will be addressed in the VAL Strategic plan.
 
Integrity is Success!

22Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri May 03, 2019 7:26 am

sprint queen


Far too much " discretion" is being used by handicappers and stewards. In any given week, one athlete can be given an NAP for losing time into a semi or final, while others are given an AP for losing more time, or clearly pulling up.
There are certainly protected species out there, while others athletes and squads clearly feel the full wrath of the stewards. There is no consistency. Some handicappers work well outside of the rules. For example, how can an established athlete receive a 1mt lift between their last run at Stawell and the the first start of the year in the gift? The stewards will hide behind the "HRP approval" clause. Again, too much discretion. If a question is raised, the standard response is that you're not allowed to ask about another athlete.
If we want this sport to flourish then there needs to be consistent application of the rules. Its seriously becoming a joke.

23Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Fri May 03, 2019 11:17 am

ding dong


Couldn’t agree more sprint queen. This “discretion” is ridiculous, allows the stewards and handicappers to do whatever they want and hide it under the “discretion” banner.

24Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Mon May 06, 2019 8:28 pm

Bazza McKenzie


I had hung up my posting for the year but after reading all the comments on this subject I got out of my post Stawell foetal position and put my finger into drive. 
.
First of all we are missing the most important issue which is that the first immigrants to invade this country were primarily convicts so cheating and corruption are very much in our DNA.I know that new coaches in the VAL like Castlemaine Jim will be horrified to learn this but hopefully you will learn to play the game.

Secondly that Mara is not going to reply also gave me motivation to post. I will say that although Fast is particulary dark on you I think you and Wally do your job well. We all have qualms with handicapping  refer to paragraph four. They also do their job, a thankless task.

Thirdly for gods sake handicappers either go by the rules and regulations or go with discretionary, you cannot mix both. There have been some horrible handicapping gifts over many years and it is always very sad that many occur at Stawell.

The mystique of professional running is the attraction, if you want be be given a chance through handicapping then success is achievable. If you want to finish in the same position every week do ammos. 

To Stephanie and the board and Tom and crew I am old enough to appreciate the effort you guys put in. I am sure the majority of athletes and coaches feel the same.

25Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Tue May 07, 2019 2:58 pm

Castlemaine jim


Have always loved your posts bazza but and I have known for 30 years how the pro game works but for the 2 years I have personally had an athlete involved we have and will continue to choose not to play it. I think a lot of topics on this site come down to the fact that a lot of pro athletes/squads run dead at some or all meets for the best handicap/opportunity to win a race at stawell.I am fine with that if that floats your boat and as I am bringing a squad of 6 to 8 elite junior athletes across to compete at about half of the Val meetings next season I have made them aware of that.I know you guys will shoot me down for this but from what I have seen why does stawell rate so much more important than the rest.yes it's last event yes it's on tv yes it's historic but apart from the 2 gifts (different kettle of fish) the prize money is actually not a lot different to quite a few others in the other 20+ finals.does anyone really remember without checking who won the 2015 stawell open 800 compared to the ballarat/castlemaine or wangaratta 2015 open 800.my daughters membership/entries expenses over her val short career have been 935 bucks with prizemoney back of 1190 so bazza you can make a profit while trying your guts out in every race.cheers until next season boys with an early tip for 2020 stawell women's gift 18 year old younger sister after a 12 month hiatus sienna fighera good luck

26Targetted disqualification at Stawell Empty Re: Targetted disqualification at Stawell on Sat May 11, 2019 5:50 pm

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
The off season is the time for discussing how to improve our sport, make positive change and bring integrity into our systems.
 
The sole purpose of stewarding, athlete performance, is to assist in accurate handicapping.
The sole purpose (aim) of handicapping is to have all athletes finish at the same time.
 
So if you are going to criticise handicapping, to have credibility the same criteria should be applied to Stewarding. However I believe the handicappers are trying to do their best but are being pressured and influenced by the establishment.
 
So any Stewarding rules or Stewarding decisions, of athlete performance, that do not assist in accurate handicapping are either….bias, unnecessary, nasty, ego filling, pointless, vindictive, power grabbing, ego satisfying, unfair, ineffective, spiteful, importance deprivation fulfilling, futile, resource wasting, attention seeking, unprofessional, incompetent …whatever the individual motivation - call it what you like but it does not serve our sport positively in anyway.
 
Hopefully we will move into the 20th century and introduce computer programmed handicapping and stewarding very soon. It is long overdue.
 
Computers are consistent and not biased or subjective and can be programmed to apply the same criteria fairly to everyone and will add integrity to our wonderful sport.
 
Can anyone believe that it is 2019 and we don’t have computer programmed handicapping and performance assessment.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum