The VRTA endorses the message from Chief steward

Hello all
Just in case you haven’t seen the Steward report this week .

The VRTA endorse this message from the Stewards

“Stewarding at Stawell – Runners please be aware that Stewards will be taking a strong approach to inconsistent running at the Stawell Carnival, with the likely sanction being disqualification rather than handicap adjustments or fines. As we have stressed all season, please be aware of the events that you compete in leading into Stawell as all meetings between now and Easter will provide a clear form line to Steward from.”

If you need any assistance over Easter weekend or at any other meet
we will happy to help guide you

Please if you have any Inquiries regarding Stawell marks As this is a super busy time in the offices and we can point you the right direction
Please email the VRTA info@vrta.org.au this also go for any other meet

This could get ugly ……

It does not need to get ugly.
It is quite simple. If you have not yet shown your improvement, do so over the next 3 weeks. Don't go bang at Stawell out of nowhere.
Kerr, Phelan, Parkinson and many others have shown improvement in recent weeks with no action from stewards.
Improve now not at Stawell.

With this taking place I’ll get my popcorn ready and tune into all humour coaches and athletes have to explain to stewards on why they shouldn’t be disqualified/sanctioned for their “sudden improved performance”

Zonked wrote:It does not need to get ugly.
It is quite simple. If you have not yet shown your improvement, do so over the next 3 weeks. Don't go bang at Stawell out of nowhere.
Kerr, Phelan, Parkinson and many others have shown improvement in recent weeks with no action from stewards.
Improve now not at Stawell.

Didn't Phelan get pulled 2m? It's no disqualification but realistically based on what it says in the report, he was being treated as OGA, they lifted him quickly + training = runs well, gets a UP and pull, makes sense they made a mistake and moved him too quickly.

Parkinson ran 50s off 40 at Ballarat, 49.2s off 42 at castlemaine and then runs 45.9 off 46 at Bendigo... no UP no pull no mention in the stewards report.


Kerr running consistently gets lifts goes bang in a notoriously slow gift and 70m with no handicap penalty unless I'm mistaking and you could argue he didn't break any ceiling's so why would he get pulled.

Not sure if these three scenarios can be lumped together though as there seems to be inconsistency here especially in first two scenarios.

Donatello,
Zonked is not suggesting penalties for the examples he listed. He is merely pointing out that those athletes have shown their improvement and therefore they are ok moving forward. However, he is pointing out that anyone else that hasn’t yet shown their improvement, will need to show it if they run between now and Stawell.

Willo the Whisp wrote:Donatello,
Zonked is not suggesting penalties for the examples he listed.  He is merely pointing out that those athletes have shown their improvement and therefore they are ok moving forward.  However, he is pointing out that anyone else that hasn’t yet shown their improvement, will need to show it if they run between now and Stawell.

Gotcha Willo, I guess I was just pointing out that there was action in one case by the stewards but yes you are right, they've shown early and now you would expect no penalty at Stawell for exceptional performances!

The 3 were just random selections from the last meeting or 2 for example purposes.
There are many more.
I'd say any winner through the season can go bang at Stawell in that distance. They have shown form.
Any suspect 2nds and 3rds etc, especially if they have appeared in a stewards report are treading on thin ice if they improve at Stawell.
It has been made crystal clear by the stewards all season.

Look at last season for 2 examples where they would get disqualified this year.
Brennan - Docklands could not get out of heat in 400m. Stawell has time up or close to after heats
Armour - Docklands could not get out of heat in 300m. Stawell comes 2nd in 35 secs

Long May We Play wrote:This could get ugly ……

It could get ugly because they are taking a hard stance. The degree of improvement is noted within the regulations , however it will be hard to  assess this objectively because naturally peoples emotions often get in the way when applying the rules.

Is this purely down to steward/handicapper discretion ? Then it could very well could get ugly. Is it going to be consistent across the board ? Or only the ones who come out and go under ceiling. For example like a Jerome lugo did last season with the 70m. Where he showed nothing all year and then ran 7.39. What about the person who has ran 13 seconds all year in the 120, then comes out and runs 12.5/6. Is that considered to much improvement? Even though they still wouldn’t be competitive in winning. What about someone that has run 12.5 all year then peaks for Stawell and runs 12.25, is that worthy of DQ? Or are we only talking about the ones that really do run dead and then run a fastest heat time and looks unbeatable. I still believe handicap readjustment’s are much better then DQ.

Whilst we are talking about J Lugo would his 70m mark be correct ? Wins Stawell off 7m and runs 7.38 and 7.42 up there and now his mark is 4.25m Could someone who  knows how the handicaps work please explain the steps to end up at this mark? Cheers

Thatsthestats wrote:Whilst we are talking about J Lugo would his 70m mark be correct ? Wins Stawell off 7m and runs 7.38 and 7.42 up there and now his mark is 4.25m Could someone who  knows how the handicaps work please explain the steps to end up at this mark? Cheers

Looks like they have forgot to take the 1.5m pull for winning on top of time here,
Readjustment on race day?

Agree re Lugo. If the runner up in the Stawell 70 had two samples from there of 7.40 and 7.44 then it would mean he would only meet Lugo maybe .25 better. Lugo has to cop a penalty, as at the moment he is only coming back to his two ratings average.
In regards to improvements, if you can’t find a couple of metres in the the last month with tapering and freshening up then you need to change trainers. The only ones in trouble of disqualification are those that show nothing in the last month and then sprout wings. Whatever happened 6-8 weeks before Easter is irrelevant. You can improve significantly in that time (and you should).

What constitutes an unacceptable improvement.
I would think we should only be looking at realatively newbies.
If an athlete has ran time in the recent years the handicapper should be aware of it and it should be acceptable to be able to turn it on at Stawell.
A good handicapper would be fully aware of what athletes are capable of and keep the handicaps tight for seasoned athletes.
Like I said , now problems with newbies who are going to float into the league and float out.
The saal is full up with those athletes now.

Z Score wrote:What constitutes an unacceptable improvement.
I would think we should only be looking at realatively newbies.
If an athlete has ran time in the recent years the handicapper should be aware of it and it should be acceptable to be able to turn it on at Stawell.
A good handicapper would be fully aware of what athletes are capable of and keep the handicaps tight for seasoned athletes.
Like I said , now problems with newbies who are going to float into the league and float out.
The saal is full up with those athletes now.

In summary , unacceptable improvement , would bring forward a charge under 16.38, this would be under inconsistent running ( rarely done ).  According to the tables , it depends on the event and distance. I don't think it is black and white and some common sense needs to be exercised due to variations in tracks and peaking profile of different athletes.

It looks like when an athlete is moved out too far , a flimsy UP is issued , as a attempt to bring back the athlete.
According to the regulations a UP can only be issued if the stewards are of the opinion that the athlete has not been given a full effort in race. In the case of both Phelan and Taylor's UP's and handicap re-assessment are against the rules. They can't use the UP as weapon to re-assess runners marks.  If anything the provisions of s16.38 apply but even then I don't think you can pin someone on inconsistent running by just the fact they've improved.

When they start bending the rules to cover mistakes, this opens up a can worms.