Admin wrote:FAST wrote:
Ddog it would be nice to have a chat at the next meeting.
But rather than involve the chief steward again, and given you want to throw me under the bus.
I will give you the inside information about the 300 masters at Ballarat the biggest and best masters' race in the world.
As you are well aware, I live in Ballarat, and Ballarat Is our grand final, the best pro meet in Australia. So obviously I had set myself for it, did the peak etc.
Well for a guy who has defended the SAAL system so strongly perhaps Peter, you may need to reflect on your defence of the SAAL system.
Tom Sclanders was disqualified for basically what you just described as “setting yourself.”
Under the SAAL stewarding model, you are not allowed to peak at a major race or as you describe - the grand final. You are expected to peak at every meet, every week. An upwards deviation from previous performances is considered worthy of a DQ. Sorry to tell you this but you would have almost certainly been disqualified under SAAL’s controversial stewarding model.
Most know my views on the best way to effectively Steward.
I think the VAL stewards understand that most athletes under best practice / good coaching will peak 3 to 4 times a season and stay up for a couple of weeks, give or take while supporting the circuit when not peaking. In the VAL you have to compete to move your handicap towards your ceiling- essentially your allocated handicap - a reasonable system, although I think athletes should progress to their ceilings quicker. Weekly participation by athletes is also essential for the VAL to survive.
You will see, however, that most athletes are reasonably consistent from PB to peak to peak. Of course, good coaching will see modest, reasonable improvement, and that’s in the spirit of what we do.
My support of the SAAL system is the program as a handicapping tool, and to be frank, I have not looked into it as a Stewarding tool.
I only visit this site when someone contacts me to let me know that something negative is posted about us.
Unfortunately, 95% of correspondence on this site is bitter and negative, and we prefer other social media.
So I’m not across the detail of the Sclanders case but if his peaks are reasonably consistent with his previous PB’s and he has been sanctioned for that - then that is very concerning and a massive step back.
Hence my push for unreasonable, unacceptable PB improvement- most non-masters athletes can return to previous PB form thus have disclosed form, for reasonable comparison after considering tracks and conditions.
The old stewarding practice of comparing worst performances to best performances and issuing sanctions is hopefully behind us.