re Bay Sheffield

BOOKMAKERS
The Management Committee has identified the following concerns with having bookmakers present at the Bay Sheffield Carnival:
- The difficulty in finding current bookmakers in South Australia willing to attend the event
- An “all clear” from the Chief Steward is now not finalised on the day of a race meeting
- The fact there is betting on individual runners who are aged under 18
- The extra workload placed on officials and administrators on race day
Therefore, the decision has been made to not have bookmakers as part of the event. This will mean runners do not need to “accept” on the day as been done in the past. However, if a runner intends to scratch, they must notify the scratching steward beforehand via the League’s phone number (0404 350 907).

CALCUTTA
A Bay Sheffield Calcutta will continue to be held on the heats of the Men’s and Women’s Bay Sheffield races. Raffle tickets will be sold on December 27, while the auction will take place at 10.15am on the morning of December 28 outside the Glenelg Club bistro. There will be two winners of the Calcutta, with the heat winners for the Men’s and Women’s races splitting the kitty.

The history of the Bay is dying.
Not sure if Colin actually means the HEAT WINNERS will be splitting the kitty, thats a lot lot lot of shareholders

No Bookmakers, well it is just the suburban Glenelg Gift.
Besides no bookmaker would be willing to risk losing a packet from odd handicapping, inconsistencies and potential DQ's!

It is sad that people who have no feeling for the history of our sport are systematically destroying it. They’ve got the trifecta. A joke of a handicapping system, loss of traditional home and banning of betting. Sadly it is almost beyond repair over there now.

They have completely ruined it, may as well just call it the Glenelg Gift now

OMG, the excuses!!…what’s the difference in betting on individual u18’s vs a Calcutta where they will be part of the heat. It’s still betting on an underage athlete? Imagine if the Melbourne Cup couldn’t get an all clear on the day! Thank god I’m not a SAAL runner because I’d go crazy with the amount of ridiculous communications coming from HQ.

“The all clear is not finalised on the day of the race meeting “
Are you serious? If the system has that much doubt about the results it throws up then surely that tells you it is flawed. So winners on the day who get their sash , have their photos taken and celebrate that night are then stripped of their win later? We will never be coming back whilst that system is in place. No wonder Tassie has such quality runners in the Burnie Gift and 50 entries in the Burnie mile.

Why do the presentations on the day if the result isnt official.

Another series of farcical decisions.
Started with dubious system, followed by DQ's
Then the Chief Steward found the situation he had to deal with in relation to DQ's too stressful. The decision is then made later in the week after a meet.
This has now resulted in "discretionary" track ratings to suit the z-score situation. (all transparent??)
So what happens now if an athlete is DQ'd they are awarded the 1st, 2nd or 3rd placing and acknowledged as that specific placing as the z-scores wont be published until later in the week, HOWEVER, during the week following if there is a DQ the prize money is not awarded to the specific place getter but the result still stands.
Its a Claytons system, the 1st place you get when you dont actually have 1st place!
Farcical nonsense.
As a result no book maker will touch the Bay (Glenelg Gift) if pay outs are awarded on results that are not necessarily the results.
Can you imagine if the bookie is paying 10:1 on an athlete, thousands are bet on them, 10:1 athlete wins, bookie pays out thousands only to find 3-5 days later the winner isnt the winner!
Can you imagine this process at the Melbourne Cup?
I cannot fathom a process that allows a winner to be acknowledge as the winner but isnt financially because they technically got DQ'd and striped of prize money but not the placing?
Reality is no bookmaker will take this risk, not that the SAAL has decide to not have bookies.
Saying its also due to Under 18 athletes is a poor excuse, its always been in play.

Hi T.S really really bemusing to say that one of the reasons for no bookmakers is the under 18 kiddies.
YET they hold their hands out for sponsorship from a Brewery and a Winery

Athletes have decided where to run , less money but a handicapping system that has been around for years and a system you can believe in.

The impact on the Burnie New Years eve carnival has been profound with 63 entrants in the men's gift.
50 entries in the Burnie mile.
A total of 19 men with personal bests of under 11seconds have entered. The list of speedy fella’s continues, including;


Jack Hale – 10.12 (+1.5)
Jake Doran – 10.15 (+1.5)
Ash Moloney – 10.34 (+0.2)
Jacob Despard – 10.40 (+1.3)
Joshua Azzopardi 0 10.41 (+1.5)
Fejiro Omuvwie – 10.44 (+0.8 )
Calab Law – 10.53 (+2.0)
Zen Clark – 10.56 (+2.0)
Jagga Pybus – 10.57 (+1.0)
Abdoulie Assim – 10.61 (-0.1)
Jordan Sarmento – 10.61 (-0.1)
Isaac Dunmall – 10.68 (+0.5)
Aaron Leferink – 10.83 (-0.4)
Ryan Tarrant – 10.86 (+0.8 )
Ross Lovell – 10.86 (+1.1)
Ryan Cooper – 10.87 (+1.7)
Ian Halpin – 10.92 (+2.0) – also 46.39 (400m)
Zac Zainnedine – 10.92 (+1.6)
John Howe – 10.94 (+1.8 )

In July I had a punt on the Pinnacle of sport The Olympics, athletics , swimming etc and it didnt matter about under age athletes competing then little old bay sheffield, in little old adelaide uses the excuse you cant bet on the event because of under 18 kiddies competing.
one of the excuses the saal are using because no bookmaker will touch the league under the current system
Wonder why the vic bookmakers from last season arent hurrying back.

6 heats only for this once great event. 4 semis which means it’s no longer winners only. Yuck. This event has been absolutely destroyed in every way possible

So if they go with the 4 semi winners and the next fastest , you could actually run 3rd in a semi and make the final.
Will be a sensational Calcutta.No bookie there to spend the cash.

Dont forget to take out around 25% of the nominations from the competing field which is the minimum drop out rate for each event.
Back in 2010 there were 15 heats in the mens 120m Bay Sheffield. 12 heats in 2016 and 2017.
System comes in 2019 10 heats, 2020 7 heats, 2021 6 heats. Does this not tell you something?

T.S.
Gossips has been on the phone to me and tells me Cordoma done his dash last Fri by winning the 70m And there were others lining up, running the 70m and not the 120m to get there Glenelg Oval Gift marks out.
They know how the system works.
We are told the handicap system benefits those that race regularly.
The handicapper tell Hunter he needs to run more often.
Yet the blokes who have their foot on the till in the gift have ran no more than 1 or 2 meetings where 120m races were held.
Absolute joke

One of the nicest guys out there Jesse, always puts in 110%, hard to see why he might hand over $50 and run in the Glenelg Gift. This system kills reputations and aspirations which is such a shame.
He's in top form, is always competing so should be given the respect he rightly deserves and not be disadvantaged because of his win Friday night. Like you say there appear to be a few that know they can run their 3 runs and put the cue in the rack until the 28th, and have done so.

Yep 3 runs , run a heat , semi and final at the one meeting and that qualifies them.
To go from 12 heats to 6 heats in 4 years, surely the stakeholders should be asking questions.
Especially when they are jumping out of trees to run for less money at Burnie.

SA Whisperer wrote:Hi T.S really really bemusing to say  that one of the reasons for no bookmakers is the under 18 kiddies.
YET  they hold their hands out for sponsorship from a Brewery and a Winery

The League comes out and says , no bookmakers because its not acceptable to bet on under age athletes then has the choice to allocate sponsors and does the opposite.
Sponsorship on these two races below should have been changed around if they want to be fair dinkum and politically correct.
Not a good look if an underage girl wins the 1600m and gets a six pack of stubbies

COOPERS Womens 1600m, which includes underage athletes.
Coast FM - 1600m Over 35

SA Whisperer wrote:

SA Whisperer wrote:Hi T.S really really bemusing to say  that one of the reasons for no bookmakers is the under 18 kiddies.
YET  they hold their hands out for sponsorship from a Brewery and a Winery

The League comes out and says , no bookmakers because its not acceptable to bet on under age athletes then has the choice to allocate sponsors and does the opposite.
Sponsorship on these two races below should have been changed around if they want to be fair dinkum and politically correct.
Not a good look if an underage girl wins the 1600m and gets a six pack of stubbies  

COOPERS Womens 1600m, which includes underage athletes.
Coast FM - 1600m Over 35

You cant have your cake and eat it too, unless you are the SAAL committee!

Legitimate question
If you have a system where you are adamant about using times and numbers and figures only to determine marks, how can you then have discretionary pulls if the data is so accurate?
Win penalties are applied. Junior reduction. Haven’t run reduction etc. It comes out with a mark. How can you then adjust it? Are you not then just admitting the system is not accurate?

Also these are not small adjustments. Olivia Hastings has lost 2m discretionary. And there are others that’s just the biggest one I saw.

And the reasoning he “to protect her from running red”. As if they are doing something nice for the athlete by reducing their handicap

So basically, the SAAL do not want athletes to improve or strive to be better. They encourage them to not improve quickly. So they don’t want good athletes or coaches who are capable of this running?

I’ve known about the many issues in SA for a while, and this might all be old news. But every time I think about it, it just staggers me. This will kill the sport.

timrosen35 wrote:Legitimate question
If you have a system where you are adamant about using times and numbers and figures only to determine marks, how can you then have discretionary pulls if the data is so accurate?
Win penalties are applied. Junior reduction. Haven’t run reduction etc. It comes out with a mark. How can you then adjust it? Are you not then just admitting the system is not accurate?

Also these are not small adjustments. Olivia Hastings has lost 2m discretionary. And there are others that’s just the biggest one I saw.

And the reasoning he “to protect her from running red”. As if they are doing something nice for the athlete by reducing their handicap

So basically, the SAAL do not want athletes to improve or strive to be better. They encourage them to not improve quickly. So they don’t want good athletes or coaches who are capable of this running?

I’ve known about the many issues in SA for a while, and this might all be old news. But every time I think about it, it just staggers me. This will kill the sport.  

Right on Tim. Not to mention track rating adjustments days after the event to reduce the numbers running red. This all points to what we have said all along, its flawed and no matter what they do in an attempt to fix it, it always comes up short and always will. Discretionary handicapping IMO clearly acknowledges the system is continually failing.

Harrison Hunt had 3.75 when marks came out , exact mark he had when he won the Bay Sheffield 3 or 4 years ago.
Obviously someone has complained and those little fidgety fingers have come in and done a discretionary pull of .50.So he is now off 3.25 , just like that.

Brett Richards , was allocated 8.75 at Brighton, discretionary pull of .75 for the Glenelg Gift

If you look into the formula calculations there's actually a number of athletes in the Mens 120m where the value in "Final Mark" does not match the stand alone Handicap posted next to their name. Brett Richards is one, Mitchell Tucker, Jesse Cordoma, Harrison Hunt, Corey Baker just to name a few! If these are all discretionary pulls... then what is the point of having the system? Or there's a lack of transparency or accuracy somewhere

donatello wrote:If you look into the formula calculations there's actually a number of athletes in the Mens 120m where the value in "Final Mark" does not match the stand alone Handicap posted next to their name. Brett Richards is one, Mitchell Tucker, Jesse Cordoma, Harrison Hunt, Corey Baker just to name a few! If these are all discretionary pulls... then what is the point of having the system? Or there's a lack of transparency or accuracy somewhere

You could argue a pattern emerging here!