mt gambier

Is there going to be live streaming at this seasons meeting.
Huge success last time for those that couldnt make the trip.

SA Whisperer wrote:Is there going to be live streaming at this seasons meeting.
Huge success last time for those that couldnt make the trip.

Wouldn't think they would go to the expense with only 211 nominations, 25% is the scratch drop out rate, so not looking too flash at this stage?

We were told if a meeting wasnt going to be profitable it wouldnt go ahead.
Im going to get the saal to do my tax return next financial year.

Does anyone know If the 'Mount' is penalty free for Bay this year?

MaxFly wrote:Does anyone know If the 'Mount' is penalty free for Bay this year?

Not sure and not going to bother checking because as we have just be sent the handicaps can be adjusted back with the use of discretionary handicapping for the Bay Sheffield. They make changes constantly so what we have today may not be the case in 5 weeks time.
So if the answer is yes they could still change the mark anyway.
Its why handicapping should be either a "system" that actually works without the requirement of discretionary handicapping OR just go back to the original process done by handicappers, not both.
The whole point of the system was so it was supposedly fair, which we know its not, so as it stands approx 25K was spent to effectively have handicappers still able to give individuals a greater penalty than others in SA's biggest and highest prized event.

I like the one where a rule was brought in that you had to have 3 100 or 120m races to be eligible for the Bay Sheff .
Now Im hearing its okay to turn up on just one day only and run a heat, semi and final in that one day and thats your 3 races ,its all okay.
Then I hear that they are programming heats, semis and final for the Mort Daly meeting to assist athletes to be eligible.
But it gets worse Mumbles has discretionary powers to allow athletes to run who havent met the eligiblity critera.

yep, just like last year and the one before that, its policy on the run, why, because it doesnt work.

Perhaps there will A semis and B semis at Mort Daly much like they did with the 400mm at The Mount and Brighton a season or two back.

SA Whisperer wrote:I like the one where a rule was brought in that you had to have 3 100 or 120m races to be eligible for the Bay Sheff .
Now Im hearing its okay to turn up on just one day only and run a heat, semi and final in that one day and  thats your 3 races ,its all okay.
Then I hear that they are programming heats, semis and final for the Mort Daly meeting to assist athletes to be eligible.
But it gets worse Mumbles has discretionary powers to allow athletes to run who havent met the eligiblity critera.  

Might be a good idea to program a 120m egg and spoon race and 120m three legged race and these could count as well.

Marion
11 James Grant Green 200.00m 5:15.20 5:13.20 0.00

Pt Adelaide 1600m
9 James Grant Purple 240.00m 4:51.92 4:51.92 2.36

Mt Gambier
Final Mark Unrounded = 393.10m

FINAL MARK = 395.00m
Discretionary handicap of James Grant 280.00 m
Why in the earth would James fork out hard earnt cash to travel 5 hours to a meeting where he has no chance.
Just to show that he has no chance here are the results from Port Adelaide
2 Ryan Sibbick Blue 155.00m 4:16.63 4:16.63 Mount Gambier 175
4 Terence Carter Yellow 160.00m 4:19.96 4:19.96 Mount Gambier 160
9 James Grant Purple 240.00m 4:51.92 4:51.92 Mount Gambier 280

Dont forget the system allocated James 395m before it was dragged back to 280m

Its probably the wrong question but why have a handicap system that based on the data says he runs off 395 then have him off 280m?
Not sure how much he has run but going from 200 to 240 to 280 and using the results you outline SAW the progressive movement forward makes sense. Historically, gradual movement forward.
Perhaps based on the previous 2 seasons the 395m would be too advantageous instantly? Although I know of at least 2 individuals that would say throw him out on 395 and if he wins thats fantastic. Which it might be great for him but for those that have been around for awhile without a win would be spewing.
But again it highlights the inadequate system, 395 is the mark based on data but isnt used.
These cases are essentially being handicapped in a traditional handicap way, its now called "discretionary handicapping" same as the old way made to look like its a new way.
25k + spent on a system that they are not using? Money well spent???
I guess if he runs off the 280 its another run under his belt and "discretionary handicapping" might move him out again?

James Grant used to run approx 10 years ago and would be more than competative off 280m , not sure if its the same one, but that was 10 years ago.
Hes shown his current form in two 1600m races , running a 4.45 MPS AND A 4.6 MPS so much the same, he aint going to jump out of the water.
If he does thats why we have Mumbles.
But I guess my argument is , give the bloke half a chance to finish with some part of the money ,not use the DISCRETIONARY powers and kill off his chances.
Even at 395m , at his current MPS he would be around the 4m 20s mark , maybe slightly under .I would think even on that mark he would have not challenged on current form.

I guess this is a case of we cant have it both ways. Either use the system which they have paid for and entrusted to work (which it doesnt) or use the traditional way now called "discretionary handicapping".
Personally I prefer the discretionary if it is fair and as close to correct as possible. If it is the case of not running for 10 years then that gradual movement forward is more to my liking than the throw him out instantly on 395.
To be fair he probably could move 50m increments based on his results or have started further forward than the 200 in his 1st run? He will appreciate a win after a few more runs having earned it a hell of alot more rather than possibly getting it thrown out on 395.

Sibbick runs second in 4.16 at Port off 155 now goes out to 175.
Grant runs 4.52 of 240 at the Port and goes out to 280.
So he meets Sibbick 20m better off but needs to find 36 seconds
Im not quite sure thats discretionary handicapping.

Grant was off 280m at Burnside for the mens 1600m and didnt run, I'd take a guess and say the mark at the Port was 240m and 200m at Marion being an all-comers not open?
Based on traditional handicapping he would remain on 280m having not run at Burnside. Cant be given a lift without having a run.
Not sure why Ryan gets an extra 20m, Scoleri won and goes back for it (not entered at MTG) surely Sibbick gets either nothing given he was 2nd to Scoleri and only 2 seconds off the win or 5m lift max, not 20m. He has been rewarded for running 17 seconds slower at Burnside over PA but surely is capable of running sub 4:15 off 175m. I'd have given him 160, then the rest is on him to grab it or not.

T.S.
Have a look at the 1600m all comers.
The all comers is open to everyone .
I think I would be really concerned, if I was the league, and you have an athlete running under discretionary handicapping, who has ran 4 middle distance events this season and has finished last, last, last and second last wearing maybe the yellow bib.
If it was you , would you go to the Mount to run.

He didnt go to Burnside so I'd say he probably wont go to Mt Gambier either?

Kiddies with no form have been placed way ahead of the novice mark.
Kiddies on a higher MPS this season have been placed ahead of James.
What they are doing to James,We saw this last season with Ryan Hage ............Where is he now.
I wouldnt expect him to go either , why would you.
James has ran 4 races this season, surely thats enough under discretionary handicapping to move him out a bit more , not under discretionary handicapping , moving him back 115 from his allocated chook raffle mark and say Thanks for your donation.

I dont see a problem why hes not on 395m , thats what the handicapping system gave him.
Would have to run slightly better than the MPS he is currently running to even be a remote chance.
If he runs quicker , much quicker , thats why we have stewards.
Appears the discretion of the handicapper has seen him move everyone out except for one athlete, who has been moved back a hell of a lot.
Obviously no faith in the system.

Last meeting at Mount Gambier there were 30 nominations for the 1600m all comers , so many noms they programmed an A and B 1600m
Of those nominations 21 athletes ran on the day.
Roll on a couple of years with the handicapping system and we have 13 nominations, mostly kids having their first run for the league.Im hearing the backmarker wont run , so therefore the RED runner could possibly be off about 160m
Something is driving athletes away, I am sick of trying to tell them what it is.
Im hearing from my scribes over in Vic that approx 30 are lining up for the 1600m and around a dozen rolling up for the under 18 800m at their meeting.
Bear in mind this is the first meeting of the season.
And would you believe it they have programmed 3 hours between the races so athletes can have two runs.Backmarker is the same athlete in both races , correct me if Im wrong.

SA Whisperer wrote:Kiddies with no form have been placed way ahead of the novice mark.
Kiddies on a higher MPS this season have been placed ahead of James.
What they are doing to James,We saw this last season with Ryan Hage ............Where is he now.
I wouldnt expect him to go either , why would you.
James has ran 4 races this season, surely thats enough under discretionary handicapping to move him out a bit more , not under discretionary handicapping , moving him back 115 from his allocated chook raffle mark and say Thanks for your donation.

Like I said T.S.
It was a shambles.
Kiddies being placed way ahead of the novice mark running under target time , not just scrapping in under target but running under 4mins.
James Grant running 4.27 0ff his discretionary handicap.
But what do I know.
Kiddies with hardly any form in the saal or very little running quicker than they do in the backmarkers at Stawell.
No wonder middle distance runners are staying away in droves.
1600m All comers at Mt Gambier draws just over 10 competitors and the 800m events at Mile End draw just under 100

Under 18 120m
5 Jamilla Hartogh-Jennings White 7.50m 14.627 14.795
Open women 120m
6 Jamilla Hartogh-Jennings Yellow 10.25m 14.780 14.780

Not sure if apples are quite apples here.
Why has she ran 2.75m slower in the open.
The Chief Stewards report will be an interesting read.

SA Whisperer wrote:

SA Whisperer wrote:Kiddies with no form have been placed way ahead of the novice mark.
Kiddies on a higher MPS this season have been placed ahead of James.
What they are doing to James,We saw this last season with Ryan Hage ............Where is he now.
I wouldnt expect him to go either , why would you.
James has ran 4 races this season, surely thats enough under discretionary handicapping to move him out a bit more , not under discretionary handicapping , moving him back 115 from his allocated chook raffle mark and say Thanks for your donation.

Like I said T.S.
It was a shambles.
Kiddies being placed way ahead of the novice mark running under target time , not just scrapping in under target but running under 4mins.
James Grant running 4.27 0ff his discretionary handicap.
But what do I know.
Kiddies with hardly any form in the saal or very little running quicker than they do in the backmarkers at Stawell.
No wonder middle distance runners are staying away in droves.
1600m All comers at Mt Gambier draws just over 10 competitors and the 800m events at Mile End draw just under 100

I'd say James Grant will have been approx 17 seconds off Nett had the results been no greater than Nett. Not so bad, give him 320 next time round or 340??? What makes it look alot worse is when like you say kiddies being placed way ahead of novice or regardless handicapped with far too much of an advantage. In my opinion its not so much James is handicapped incorrectly its that some or perhaps most of the others are.
I think its fair to say that most of us who are pro handicappers and anti system prefer that someone doesnt roll up 10 years out of the comp and wins, that it might take a few meets to be in the mix and watch how they go and gradually move them up. If James hangs in there at 320-340m he will be in the mix next run, then 1 or 2 more he'll be set for the dais or win. The problem for him in doing this is that what some of the handicaps the others are getting will prevent this happening. Get their handicaps right as well as gradually moving him up. If he ran off 395m 1st time he ran and won the conversation will have been why was this allowed to happen, yeah?
Nett at 4:09 would have had competitors handicapped to run 4:15 and have that 6 second flexibility, when they attempt to handicap at Nett they F it up. Like they did at MT G.
Whats the Novice mark for the 1600m all-comers? Mens/Novice is 300m for Women, no info is shown for Leslie Jagger or Callum Wade so how do they come up with 410m and 440m?
If Terrance had run off 395m based on him MPS he would have run 4:05, under Nett, still wont have won.
I wonder if the track was measured correctly too? Would you be surprised if it was measured incorrectly?

James Grant will go very close at the Bay , WHY ,because by then he will have his handicap out enough to do it.
Dont be fooled T.S. that his Coach doesnt know what hes doing.Improving him each run, to peak at the Bay
Not sure who his Coach is , could even be the same club as Sherlock, wouldnt that be funny if it was.
Just to get the right mark just in time for the Bay.

OH MY GOODNESS
Blink and you will miss it.
Several times have been altered in recent hours

Now only one athlete went under 14 in the womens 120m
and the winner of the 1600m didnt go under 4min.
Obviously a discussion has taken place and it was discussed that there needed to be an adjustment , even though it was a day late
Good old mumbles