St Albans results

70m Open
1  Musa kamara  4
2  Hugh Hoffmann  5.50
3  Cooper Sherman  .5
7.49

120m Mens Gift
1  Cooper Sherman  2
2  Ryan Ilett  7.25
3  Seth Kennedy  6
12.21

120 m Womens Gift
1  Ebony Newton  7.25
2  Nicole Berridge  4.75
3  Olivia Barry  11.25
13.62

120m Masters
1  Dominic Condello  20
2  Leigh Phelan  5
3  Glenn Stephens  18.75
13.14

120m Under 14
1  Emma Wilson  13.25
2  Emma White  14
3  Sophie burrows  9.75
14.5

120m U/18 Girls
1  Harriett Fox  17.25
2  Kylee Drew  11.25
3  Olivia Wilson  18.5
13.94

120 U/18 Boys
1  Marcus Franze  18.5
2  Henry Dwyer  19.25
3  Dashiell Muir  3.25
12.69

300m Masters (35+)
1  Glenn Stephens  35
2  Tom Drum  37
3  Cam Dunbar  17
37.22

300m Mens
1  Nicholas Antonino  20
2  Jesse Madigan  24
3  Lonain Burnett  29
34.91

300m Womens
1  Halle Martin  19
2  Ruby Crisp  23
3  Lucy Zotti  17
40.39

800m Open
1  Harvey Anderson  36
2  Natalie Densley  186
3  Jhye Hadfield  26
1.56.91

1600m Open
1  Kaleb Laker  75
2  Terrence Kavanagh-dando  240
3Mandessah Wyatt  265
4.24.07

Norms women’s Stawell tip comes to life! Newton easily the most impressive performance of the year. Hope they give a track allowance so she can at least run off that mark, we need someone to contest Mannix-Power!

Norm the Form wrote:Norms women’s Stawell tip comes to life! Newton easily the most impressive performance of the year. Hope they give a track allowance so she can at least run off that mark, we need someone to contest Mannix-Power!

Obviously I could be seen to have a biased view here… but… was the track fast or was she fast? Our athlete Steff Rutherford ran same time yesterday as she did at Terang.

Sherman only ran .1 better than he did the week prior… without Newtons result, Sherman’s run probably not seen as the track been fast, just him being in great shape.

I overheard John Henry say last night that the 120m at St Albans has never had a track allowance. What has changed this year? I haven’t looked to validate.

The stewards will do what they need to do so we will wait and see.

Amazing run by Newton and Sherman. Congratulations to them both.

Got to agree with Robbo here. There is no way that track is fast. Obviously Newton has had a ripper Winter prep and her rpm has improved significantly from last season and at Warrnambool this season. And Cooper Sherman, well he is just one out of the box. This kid could be anything

Track was certainly faster than previous years. We’ve never had men or women’s gifts go as quick at St Albans. If there is no track allowance then runners will avoid running at these tracks, which hurts the clubs and the sport.

The track was faster than previous years but if we start playing the game to rate tracks based on hindsight than this does more harm and good. Some years surfaces and conditions will result in faster than normal times, this is part of the sport. It just sets a bad precedent to start allowing track allowances in such a manner. Some runners ran slower at St Albans than Maryborough, some ran similar times others faster.

To be fair to everyone handicappers should at the same time apply good judgement and discretion if a particular performance results in a substantially faster rpm. Might be better way forward then to apply blanket track allowances.

Are you talking about both the 70m and the gift? If no allowance is awarded for either than I won’t be taking my athletes to St Albans next year! Too fast and will ruin marks permanently. Poor Musa Kamara is coming back to 1.5m next year, Sherman is back to Scratch in the gift, Newton back 1.25m for Stawell and 3.25m for next season.

We have a 2m track allowance for a rubber track, but nothing for when the track goes downhill like the ski slopes?

Correct.
Runners shouldn’t be penalised for compèring on tracks that aren’t a true indicator of how an athlete is running. If anyone thinks it is fair for athletes to come back 2-2.5 m next year for runs at St Albans or Castlemaine etc. that aren’t reflective of what they could run at Stawell, then they are really just looking at their own self interest.

Sanchez wrote:Correct.
Runners shouldn’t be penalised for compèring on tracks that aren’t a true indicator of how an athlete is running. If anyone  thinks  it is fair  for athletes to come back 2-2.5 m next year for runs at St Albans or  Castlemaine etc. that aren’t reflective of what they could run at Stawell, then they are really just looking at their own self interest.

So, what track(s) are a “true” indicator? Stawell? Their usual training venue? Somewhere else?

It shouldn’t be downhill to start with like St Albans, Castlemaine, Bendigo 300/400, Warrnambool old track, Ballarat 70.
The 70m at St Albans or Ballarat which are downhill the entire trip,,and should be getting an allowance if we are happy to give .15 on a flat rubber track at Essendon or Ringwood.
Otherwise we just won’t enter these races.

Don’t get to caught up in self interest… of course there are winners and losers in an argument for or against, each could be seen as in self interest.

Only 2 athletes broke the ceiling time so I would hardly suggest there was a pandemic of super fast times.

The gift track was both up and down so let’s not pretend the race was down a mine shaft.

The Burnie gift produced similar times the week before and there is no outrage about a fast track nor was there a track allowance for the event.

Four girls have run 13.5 in the last two seasons so it is not out of reality for it to be a real run.

Robbo wrote:Don’t get to caught up in self interest… of course there are winners and losers in an  argument for or against, each could be seen as in self interest.

Only 2 athletes broke the ceiling time so I would hardly suggest there was a pandemic of super fast times.

The gift track was both up and down so let’s not pretend the race was down a mine shaft.

The Burnie gift produced similar times the week before  and there is no outrage about a fast track nor was there a track allowance for the event.

Four girls have run 13.5 in the last two seasons so it is not out of reality for it to be a real run.

Someone sounds nervous 🫣

Norm the Form wrote:Are you talking about both the 70m and the gift? If no allowance is awarded for either than I won’t be taking my athletes to St Albans next year! Too fast and will ruin marks permanently. Poor Musa Kamara is coming back to 1.5m next year, Sherman is back to Scratch in the gift, Newton back 1.25m for Stawell and 3.25m for next season.

We have a 2m track allowance for a rubber track, but nothing for when the track goes downhill like the ski slopes?

Historically the handicapper has exercised good judgement and not punished athletes over the 70m at St Albans. As rightly pointed out its downhill.

Again a blanket allowance doesn't apply as all athletes didn't run substantially faster. Historically the St Albans 120m is not known as a fast track over that distance. It just doesn't make sense to apply a blanket allowance. As for next year the track might return to the normal or average over 120m.

Historically Warrnambool has been fast but this year it appeared to be slower. If athletes start avoid running in fear of breaking rpm , it makes a mockery of the sport. Is that a game we should be playing ?

There is always the option to bring up points to the HRP if athletes are harshly handicapped according to one performance. From my feedback the handicapper and HRP are very knowledgeable and fair in allocating a competitive handicap.

Norm the Form wrote:Historically Warrnambool has been fast but this year it appeared to be slower.

It has only been at that ground twice. They moved it there after it had been redeveloped. And maybe it was a bit slower this season, work had gone into the surface during and after football season. It was too hard and footballers were all getting injured on it. It's perfect for runners and firm like every other ground over summer, but was just as hard all winter and not ideal for running round on in footy boots for two hours.[/quote]

Track allowance of 0.15 seconds for the gift and 0.1  for the 70m.

What are our thoughts?

Norm the Form wrote:Track allowance of 0.15 seconds for the gift and 0.1  for the 70m.

What are our thoughts?

Interesting decision. I understand what a few are saying about notoriously fast tracks often lose competitors without an allowance (i.e. Wang, Warrnambool old track) but is this also taking people who run slowly into consideration? If an athlete ran slower at St Albans than Maryborough but by the track allowance should have been 0.1-0.15 faster...

Lots of ifs buts and maybes when it comes to our sport I'm not sold allowances are the best way to go about it. What if one lane had a huge hole/sand patch in it half way down the track? Can't say that will help. How do we quantify the actual level of assistance as well? I'd argue a hard downhill grass track would be as good as some rubber tracks if not better by the end of the race...