Stawell chances ?

With the last lifts taken by Iyer and Lacey, we can turn our attention to Easter.

Who are the best final chances ? I’m looking for input from everyone.. Calling out Tim, Donatello, Dwight, Jim, Soon to retire, Foxcatcher, Hawke…
Pretty much everyone except for Silva and HC.

Looking forward to seeing your tips

I’ll give this some thought after training and reply, but just to clarify, Iyer didn’t win on the weekend. Came 2nd

timrosen35 wrote:I’ll give this some thought after training and reply, but just to clarify, Iyer didn’t win on the weekend. Came 2nd

Whoops must’ve looked at the results wrong! I can trust you to keep me honest Tim. Well good job Halle anyway, another POD with a gift win

My initial thoughts without marks being released is that on paper Endale Mekonnen would have to start at the top of the market.  My only concern is that he seemed to get tight when under pressure with red runner in the 70 final on the weekend got past him. Similar at Castlemaine 70m final.  Point taken that Nicolussi has run 10.5 this year and Mekonnen won't have 10.5 runner around him. Also not a fan of 400m's so close to SG. He will be strong late so will be interesting with other runners around him with similar speed.  

The white tiger will be a final chance but he's 70s at Ballarat was a bit off the winners , so I think there will be too much speed around him early and I think he's need to find a bit early. Matthew Rizzo meets him better at marks though and I am not sure if he pulled the trigger at Ballarat.  

Jack Newman is a final chance, but needs probably 9.25 to be a winning chance . He's more the 10.9 runner and you need to be around 10.7s from that mark.  Ryan Illet another final chance, has run 10.67 + 2.4, but that is more than a decade ago. Solid final hope.

Nicolas Antonino, seems to tick both boxes of 70m speed and pb over 200m recently. He's my pick for runners closer to the limit.

Saye  Morris has 4m, from he's runs from 2.5m and 0.75 over 70m, he will get to the out markers, its question of the last 20m. Which is unknown. But I'll take the punt on talent shown  he's my pick over Rizzo at this stage. Antonino 3rd pick.  I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall when Newman, Matthew Rizzo, Jasper Thomas time trial. I suspect Jasper Thomas won't get the bonus due to being novice runner ( i think that's in the regulations ).    

When marks are released , I'll finalise my picks.

Saye has 5m

Norm the Form wrote:Saye has 5m

Well I will  wait on bookies odds. I would lay Mekennon, white tiger, if they start favourite.

Barring injury or mishap, like he's shoes coming off in a race. Morris will start short odds before the final.

Hawke wrote: I suspect Jasper Thomas won't get the bonus due to being novice runner ( i think that's in the regulations ).

Jasper Thomas had at least one race in an Open Men’s Gift at Waverley before he took his win at Beachside so he should be fine to receive the lift.

To be eligible for a lift athletes must have competed at least once in the 2020/21 or 2021/22 seasons or have a handicap that is less than the novice handicap.
Unfortunately for Jasper he doesn’t fit either criteria.

Tom wrote:

Hawke wrote: I suspect Jasper Thomas won't get the bonus due to being novice runner ( i think that's in the regulations ).

Jasper Thomas had at least one race in an Open Men’s Gift at Waverley before he took his win at Beachside so he should be fine to receive the lift.

Tom please re educate yourself on the rules before posting. Unfortunately for Jasper he does not meet the criteria to receive a lift. Is a shame because he would be a great add to the final.

My pick is saye morris to win, Ant man to run second.

Sanchez wrote:To be eligible for a lift athletes must have competed at least once in the 2020/21 or 2021/22 seasons or have a handicap that is less than the novice handicap.
Unfortunately for Jasper he doesn’t fit either criteria.

When I wrote those criteria at the start of the 2021/22 season they were intended to be updated each season start, as they had been previously by Mara, to represent the current live season dates and the immediate previous season.

It sounds like that change didn’t get updated when the 2022/23 lift rules were posted.

It certainly wasn’t the intention of the RC to prevent winners in their first season from receiving lifts, so long as they had shown the stewards and handicappers form prior to the win in another Men’s or Women’s Gift performance.

So I would be surprised if Jasper Thomas doesn’t receive his lift.

Surely it is incumbent of at least one member of the rules committee to ensure the public version of handicapping guidelines are correct. 2 weeks left in the season and such rules around OGA events, athletes and lift eligibility are clear as mud.
Disagree that competing in one event/ carnival is showing enough ‘form’ to satisfy handicappers to grant a bonus lift on a second entry win.
We’ve already had examples of new athletes running contrasting rpms and effort from one carnival to the next this season.

Hard to understand how rules can be bent to allow a particular athlete  to receive a lift because it seems harsh

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Socks off Sanchez wrote:Surely it is incumbent of at least one member of the rules committee to ensure the public version of handicapping guidelines are correct.

I certainly take your point, but if you were aware of the sheer volume of changes to the Regulations and Handicapping Regulations that had to be reviewed, and then updated this year, it probably wouldn’t surprise you that an item or two slipped through.

This is actually only the first year that the SG Lift rules were actually included in the Handicapping Regulations. To prevent it happening again in the future, on this issue, or several others where there are dynamic dates, the language probably needs to be changed to “… in the current season, or in the previous season…” or something to that effect.

Socks off Sanchez wrote: Disagree that competing in one event/ carnival is showing enough ‘form’ to satisfy handicappers to grant a bonus lift on a second entry win.

Again, point taken, and probably not my personal preference on the matter, but it did reflect a policy that has evolved, like much of the language around Stawell lifts, since the initial implementation back in 2015/16.

There have been attempts to balance providing opportunities to new athletes with safeguarding the opportunities for established athletes, and protection of the reputation of the league. Those three things remain in a constant state of tension, and no position is likely to make all sides completely satisfied.

Socks off Sanchez wrote:
We’ve already had examples of new athletes running contrasting rpms and effort from one carnival to the next this season.

A very reasonable concern, and although I’m not party to any conversation on the matter, it’s one that I don’t doubt is a constant source of concern for the stewards and handicappers.

Although it obviously won’t have an impact this year, I’d encourage you once the season is over, or perhaps after the AGM, to discuss any specific concerns over rules, including the lift policies or details, with a Board member. They are the ones who impact any RC agenda and vote on implementation of any RC recommendations.

Dwight Schrute wrote:Hard to understand how rules can be bent to allow a particular athlete  to receive a lift because it seems harsh

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

That’s a fair concern, but it doesn’t take into account things like typographical errors, etc.

Technically all Regulations exist under Rule 33 of the Constitution, so the Board has the capacity to amend any Regulation at any time if needed. Also, the Director of Handicapping role exists to ensure that both the intent and language of any handicapping regulations are followed, and the DoH was involved in the RC discussions.

I don’t have a personal stake in any current season Gift winner, and JT is not my pick from that squad for a chance at Stawell, but I would hate for any athlete to be denied a shot, not to mention squandering a decent chunk of cash travelling from NSW to support our league, over a potential typo.

Tom wrote:

Sanchez wrote:To be eligible for a lift athletes must have competed at least once in the 2020/21 or 2021/22 seasons or have a handicap that is less than the novice handicap.
Unfortunately for Jasper he doesn’t fit either criteria.

When I wrote those criteria at the start of the 2021/22 season they were intended to be updated each season start, as they had been previously by Mara, to represent the current live season dates and the immediate previous season.

It sounds like that change didn’t get updated when the 2022/23 lift rules were posted.

It certainly wasn’t the intention of the RC to prevent winners in their first season from receiving lifts, so long as they had shown the stewards and handicappers form prior to the win in another Men’s or Women’s Gift performance.

So I would be surprised if Jasper Thomas doesn’t receive his lift.

Whilst your reasoning is sound, Jasper won't be getting the bonus. That's straight from the horse's mouth so to speak. Not only won't he get the bonus, he will run from a reduced handicap due to the win. Talk about drawing the short straw. Handicapper may apply some discretion but I doubt it . 3 runners from the one stable possible making the final  ? You know the game, rules when not clearly defined can be arbitrarily applied at times or open to interpretation. Definitely a need to be more explicit with the rules so they are easily understood.

Tom wrote:

Dwight Schrute wrote:Hard to understand how rules can be bent to allow a particular athlete  to receive a lift because it seems harsh

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton

Technically all Regulations exist under Rule 33 of the Constitution, so the Board has the capacity to amend any Regulation at any time if needed. Also, the Director of Handicapping role exists to ensure that both the intent and language of any handicapping regulations are followed, and the DoH was involved in the RC discussions.

The modus operandi is to presume the rules and then fill in the blanks later. I have read over those regulations ,and its rather opaque, it would be a stretch to consider them easily understood for most members of the league. There are no judicial decisions, based on the constitution and regulations. Therefore intent / regulations has no a posteriori basis to them.

If sporting organisations had been under the jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal and if athletes have the proper right to due process. Rules and regulations would need to be very explicitly defined. Unrelated to the league, but a good indicator of the sporting landscape is the Peter Bol fiasco to see how badly athlete rights can be violated.

At the end of the day, you need a minimum $5000 to apply any of the sports arbitration tribunals, take things all the way to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and be $ 80,000 in the red. So when it comes to grey areas sports organisations can do whatever they want.

The Director of Handicapping is a new role, so it will take a few years to improve the system. There is probably the need for an assistant to the Director of Handicapping, that's too much for one person to do.

Hawke wrote:
The modus operandi is to presume the rules and then fill in the blanks later. I have read over those regulations ,and its rather opaque, it would be a stretch to consider them easily understood for most members of the league. There are no judicial decisions, based on the constitution and regulations. Therefore intent / regulations has no a posteriori basis to them.

If sporting organisations had been under the jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal and if athletes have the proper right to due process. Rules and regulations would need to be very explicitly defined. Unrelated to the league, but a good indicator of the sporting landscape is the Peter Bol fiasco to see how badly athlete rights can be violated.

It sounds like you’re passionate about the topic. I don’t want to risk derailing this thread any further since we’re here to talk about Stawell prospects, so I’ll just say this: the VAL is always looking for interested parties to be involved in one of the many roles. If you’re interested, get involved. You can achieve more from the inside.

Tom wrote:

Hawke wrote:
The modus operandi is to presume the rules and then fill in the blanks later. I have read over those regulations ,and its rather opaque, it would be a stretch to consider them easily understood for most members of the league. There are no judicial decisions, based on the constitution and regulations. Therefore intent / regulations has no a posteriori basis to them.

If sporting organisations had been under the jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal and if athletes have the proper right to due process. Rules and regulations would need to be very explicitly defined. Unrelated to the league, but a good indicator of the sporting landscape is the Peter Bol fiasco to see how badly athlete rights can be violated.

It sounds like you’re passionate about the topic. I don’t want to risk derailing this thread any further since we’re here to talk about Stawell prospects, so I’ll just say this: the VAL is always looking for interested parties to be involved in one of the many roles. If you’re interested, get involved. You can achieve more from the inside.

Sounds good, ether way it will be interesting to see what JT handicap is. Regulations can only be enforced as they are. It is written so maybe more responsibilities to coaches/ athletes to know them. Maybe those stipulations to novice runners will be revoked.

You are incorrect Tom. Let me know if you need any more clarifications on any rules and regulations. I’ll be happy to help you.

Wish Jasper the best off his mark, hopefully he comes back next year and takes an early lift

In the stewards report this week.

"Endale Mekonnen was allowed to scratch from the final of the Men’s 400m, without penalty due to suffering from heat distress."

Unfortunate, and I hope he recoveries but gut busting run in hot humid weather might leave him flat for weeks. Surely will blow out in the market.

The intention was that a first season runner couldn’t come in and take a lift when their initial start mark may have been too generous in the first place. It was obviously the reason Lindstrom came across and ran once the year before he took his win at Terang.
The rules were previously already in place for the women and they were changed to marry up the women’s and men’s to be the same.
I’m quite happy that the rule is as it is, and I wouldn’t want any change. If you haven’t run in the previous 2 seasons you should not be eligible.

Sanchez wrote:The intention was that a first season runner couldn’t come in and take a lift when their initial start mark may have been too generous in the first place. It was obviously the reason Lindstrom came across and ran once the year before he took his win at Terang.
The rules were previously already in place for the women and they were changed to marry up the women’s and men’s to be the same.
I’m quite happy that the rule is as it is, and I wouldn’t want any change. If you haven’t run in the previous 2 seasons you should not be eligible.

The chance of finding a novice runner to win from the novice mark is next to nil at SG. They would have to be an established amateur and they would inside the novice mark.

Rules like this protect the locals but harm the sport. It's one rule for established runners and another for novice runners. The rules are too far apart. You want to incentivise the sport for new runners.

Stewards have DQ runners this season, so if the example you canvass eventuates then stewarding can DQ exceptional improvements from inflated marks. I can't think of any examples of novice runners being on inflated marks and receiving the bonus and winning at SG.

Chico luckily had one pro run at Doncaster in the previous season, before winning at Hastings at his first run the following season.
History shows he went on to win SG.

Women's Top 6
Keratianos, Murray, Watson, Pasquali, O'Dwyer, Iyer(Winner will be someone else).
Men Top 6
Morris, Vaitohi, Mekonnon, Antonio, Illet, Hanna. (Winner Morris or Vaitohi)

Soon to retire wrote:Women's Top 6
Keratianos, Murray, Watson, Pasquali, O'Dwyer, Iyer(Winner will be someone else).
Men Top 6
Morris, Vaitohi, Mekonnon, Antonio, Illet, Hanna. (Winner Morris or Vaitohi)

crazy to not have Hastings in your womens final. surely Iyer doesn't make it, I'd rather Kinnersly who beat Iyer by 3m+ at Maribynong

And we get it, we know your bloke morris is gonna be hard to beat.

Dwight K Schrute
Dunder Mifflin Scranton