Fleurieu Gift - Victor Harbor

24 runners nominating for the Gift, I would say 3 heats .
Looking more and more like a Little Athletics meeting everyday.
Havent had a good look at the handicaps as such but the one that stands out is the Womans Bay 550m winner , I think she pocketed about a grand down at the Bay, Goes from 71 to 69............wow. Put it this way, you didnt need a photo finish down at the Bay so she won by a very clear margin, so she goes to Victor with 2m less than the Bay and Victor is penalty free for Camden.Santa Claus still giving out gifts in Jan and Feb

CATEGORIES FOR REYNELLA AND VICTOR HARBOR RACES
One of the changes is that all win penalties from category 3, 4 and 5 races will not be counted in races which are stewarded. This means that winners of all races at Reynella and Victor Harbor (which are category 3, 4 or 5) will not have their win penalties count towards races such as the 400m Women’s Camden Classic, 400m Men’s Camden Classic and the 120m Men’s Loxton Gift.

Another joke. SAAL System operating really well. Handicapping concepts down the drain!!!

A 2m penalty for winning the Bay 550m. It should be more like a 12m to 20m penalty.

SAAL has lost the plot!!

Yep, its mind boggling to think they are continuing to persist with this rubbish.
The Womens 550m at the Bay is a Category 2 so the MANDETORY penalty is 11M not 2m!!

Sarah Manning also won the womens 550m at Kensington off 71 so she go no penalty at all from Kensington which is a Category 5 race where the MANDETORY penalty is 4M.

My basic assumption without going into all the results between Kensington and the Bay at ASA or SAAL would be that Manning should have been off at the most 67m for the Bay and for Victor should be off at best 56m.

Why are not basic logical principles being applied, its dumb founding!

Because the SAAL have become utterly useless. A complete joke.

Quoted from the Victor harbour Times

"The best elite runners in the state will converge on Victor Harbor Oval on January 23, to compete in the third Fleurieu Milk Gift."

Now that's false advertising!! Put yourself in a dad or mums shoes who read this and goes watches the debacle that is the SAAL. Between the little A's and the retirement village. I've seen better athletes at the pub

Of the men's 120 7 runners only behind 10m only one runner I would call Elite in Moss and even that is a stretch.
#bringbacktheelite #nomorelittleaths

Top Sport wrote:Yep, its mind boggling to think they are continuing to persist with this rubbish.
The Womens 550m at the Bay is a Category 2 so the MANDETORY penalty is 11M not 2m!!

Sarah Manning also won the womens 550m at Kensington off 71 so she go no penalty at all from Kensington which is a Category 5 race where the MANDETORY penalty is 4M.

My basic assumption without going into all the results between Kensington and the Bay at ASA or SAAL would be that Manning should have been off at the most 67m for the Bay and for Victor should be off at best 56m.

Why are not basic logical principles being applied, its dumb founding!

I think you will find that Manning pocketed $1500 at the Bay,
So shes won Kensington off 71, The Bay off 71 and now has 69 for Victor and cant be penalised for Camden.
You ask me how..........By running last in the 400m final at Brighton the week before Bay.
So Manning runs last in a 400m final at Brighton , week before the Bay and then walks away with $1500 MERRY CHRISTMAS
Hudson wins the 70m at Brighton week before Bay shows his form then wins again a week later at the Bay and gets DQ
I have more chance of meeting an Open South Aussie athlete at Wangaratta this weekend than Victor and thats why.

Winner of the womens Bay 550m goes back 2m for Victor.
Winner of the mens 550m Bay goes back 10m for Victor
Open and transparent .

Hmm, Rowston off 15m for the 120m under 18's boys, Novice mark is 6m!
For the 550m under 18's its, he started of on 30m ran a 400m off 50m (novice is 20m) then went all out to 80m for Reynella (Novice is 30m) How do you go from 30m to 80m after essentially 1 run in that distance, plain stupid!

Yep nothing to see here!

Top Sport wrote:Hmm, Rowston off 15m for the 120m under 18's boys, Novice mark is 6m!
For the 550m under 18's its, he started of on 30m ran a 400m off 50m (novice is 20m) then went all out to 80m for Reynella (Novice is 30m) How do you go from 30m to 80m after essentially 1 run in that distance, plain stupid!

Yep nothing to see here!

Just clicked on SHOW FORMULA next to his handicap of 15m because thats why SHOW FORMULA is there for, so everythings open and transparent, came up with Novice Mark Assigned: 6.00m. What a suprise.

EXPECT THIS COME FRIDAY

Tyler Rowston 120MU18 6M 15M

The calculated handicap includes a significant novice reduction and, based on previous performances,the handicapper believes a discretionary lift is needed so that the athlete is more competitive.

Why do I know this, because my names Z SCORE

Z Score you might be able to clear this up for me!

So with the "Show Formula"....

How is the base mark calculated?

How is the Holiday Reduction calculated? (and is this just applied if you haven't run for 12 months?)

What is "Proportion left" and "Proportion used" a proportion of?

donatello wrote:Z Score you might be able to clear this up for me!

So with the "Show Formula"....

How is the base mark calculated?

How is the Holiday Reduction calculated? (and is this just applied if you haven't run for 12 months?)

What is "Proportion left" and "Proportion used" a proportion of?

Hi Donatello
Its an open and transparent system that was ready to go Oct 2020 and has had at least 50 changes since.
Nobody seems to know , how the base mark is calculated, doesnt matter who you ask , nobody can actually answer it.
So in answer to your question about clearing it up , Cant help you.
Will wait for the explanation on how the Presidents son got 15m for his first 120m run when the novice is 6m
and it will be a reply very similar to this
The calculated handicap includes a significant novice reduction and, based on previous performances,the handicapper believes a discretionary lift is needed so that the athlete is more competitive.
Open and transparent

Joke. Novice marks exist for a reason. Conservative process. Making sure athletes that eventually arrive in big handicaps appreciate the standard coming from the back marks and understand the improvement needed to become better.

No athlete should ever start in front of a novice mark. Otherwise what is it all for. No standards, no sensible rules, greater tolerance for some than others. Everything a system should avoid.
SAAL = Failure.

So Mitch Tucker couldnt get a .25 lift when a handicap review was sent in without adjusting everyone that competed in a particular meet in 2016 and was asked due to the adjustment being only .25 it would be easier to leave it as is, YET, the handicapper can use discretion to adjust a handicap from what should be 6 to 15 so the individual can be "competitive"

Not sure if a complaint has been made on his mark but when using the "formula" it now only shows "Novice Mark Assigned: 6m"

Z Score wrote:

Top Sport wrote:Hmm, Rowston off 15m for the 120m under 18's boys, Novice mark is 6m!
For the 550m under 18's its, he started of on 30m ran a 400m off 50m (novice is 20m) then went all out to 80m for Reynella (Novice is 30m) How do you go from 30m to 80m after essentially 1 run in that distance, plain stupid!

Yep nothing to see here!

Just clicked on SHOW FORMULA next to his handicap of 15m because thats why SHOW FORMULA is there for, so everythings open and transparent, came up with Novice Mark Assigned: 6.00m. What a suprise.

Hi T.S. I mentioned earlier what happens if you click on Show Formula.
The junior handicapper needs to come out and give us a proper reason instead of what hes going to write on Fri
The calculated handicap includes a significant novice reduction and, based on previous performances,the handicapper believes a discretionary lift is needed so that the athlete is more competitive.
Open and transparent
And exactly what the Chief will say in his report on Friday as well.Track Standard because anything different and they should have done a time adjustment as they did down at the bay for circle races. Track Standard

Well after a bit of delving, looks like the handicapper is happy for Rowston to be off 15m. Told its the same shit just done differently! As long as its the same for all then its fair. WTF!
Seems obvious to so many that it isnt fair. Sarah Manning another point in case.

Bayliss penalty for Victor is hard to follow. The mandatory penalty for the Bay 120 win is 3.6m. The 1 up and 1 down penalty for CAT 1 and CAT 2 races is a CAT 3 penalty so my assumption is that for the 70m at Victor his penalty/win penalty should be either 1.05m or 1.8m depending on whether the penalty applied is the 70m CAT 3 penalty (1.05) or the 120 CAT 3 penalty (1., this isnt made clear, no surprise. My assumption would be its 1.05m.

Therefore the question I ask is why is there a win penalty of 3.85m applied to his 70m handicap?

3.85m is more than the win penalty for a CAT 1 120m which is 3.6m

Oh well I guess its the same shit done differently and its all fair for everyone????????????

Top Sport wrote:Well after a bit of delving, looks like the handicapper is happy for Rowston to be off 15m. Told its the same shit just done differently! As long as its the same for all then its fair. WTF!
Seems obvious to so many that it isnt fair. Sarah Manning another point in case.

I think most people will disappointed with Rowston off 15m . hes not going to win off that mark anyway.
But you earn your stripes over several runs and the novice mark is there to create a good starting point and 15m is not it.
For the handicapper to say hes happy , hes lost the plot

Z Score wrote:24 runners nominating for the Gift, I would say 3 heats .
Looking more and more like a Little Athletics meeting everyday.
Havent had a good look at the handicaps as such but the one that stands out is the Womans Bay  550m winner , I think she pocketed about a grand down at the Bay, Goes from 71 to 69............wow. Put it this way, you didnt need a photo finish down at the Bay so she won by a very clear margin, so she goes to Victor with 2m less than the Bay and Victor is penalty free for Camden.Santa Claus still giving out gifts in Jan and Feb

CATEGORIES FOR REYNELLA AND VICTOR HARBOR RACES
One of the changes is that all win penalties from category 3, 4 and 5 races will not be counted in races which are stewarded. This means that winners of all races at Reynella and Victor Harbor (which are category 3, 4 or 5) will not have their win penalties count towards races such as the 400m Women’s Camden Classic, 400m Men’s Camden Classic and the 120m Men’s Loxton Gift.

Its good to know the saal are reading this forum .
Blink and you will miss it.
Manning now off 65

Z Score wrote:

Z Score wrote:24 runners nominating for the Gift, I would say 3 heats .
Looking more and more like a Little Athletics meeting everyday.
Havent had a good look at the handicaps as such but the one that stands out is the Womans Bay  550m winner , I think she pocketed about a grand down at the Bay, Goes from 71 to 69............wow. Put it this way, you didnt need a photo finish down at the Bay so she won by a very clear margin, so she goes to Victor with 2m less than the Bay and Victor is penalty free for Camden.Santa Claus still giving out gifts in Jan and Feb

CATEGORIES FOR REYNELLA AND VICTOR HARBOR RACES
One of the changes is that all win penalties from category 3, 4 and 5 races will not be counted in races which are stewarded. This means that winners of all races at Reynella and Victor Harbor (which are category 3, 4 or 5) will not have their win penalties count towards races such as the 400m Women’s Camden Classic, 400m Men’s Camden Classic and the 120m Men’s Loxton Gift.

Its good to know the saal are reading this forum .
Blink and you will miss it.
Manning now off 65  

OOPS but in their haste to fix a doozy handicap , they still f#$@% up the formula
By clicking on Show Formula I got this. Which shows her mark was formulated to 67, Manning was initially allocated 69, put in to the formula and was worked out to be 67 but is now given 65

Base Mark
84.59m

Novice Reduction
Runs over this distance category: 21
Proportion of difference between raw mark and novice mark used: 0
Novice Reduction in Metres (Raw mark - Novice mark x Novice proportion):
(84.59 - 26) x 0 = 0m

Junior Reduction
Not a junior athlete

Holiday Reduction
Runs over this distance category this last twelve months: 14
Holiday Reduction in MPS: 0
The target time: 80 seconds
Holiday Reduction in Metres (Target time x MPS reduction):
0 x 80 = 0.00m

Z-Score Reduction
Has run red within the last 4 runs (BOTH actual distance and 1up/1down red)?: No
Top 3/6 runs MPS: 5.818 (6 Runs)
Top run MPS: 5.890 (1 Run)
Proportion of Degraded penalty left: 0
Z-Score Reduction in MPS (Top 1 - Top 3/6): 0.072
The target time: 80 seconds
Z-Score Reduction in Metres (Target time x MPS difference x Proportion left):
80 x 0.072 x 0 = 0.00m

The Novice Reduction is the largest of the four values, so it will be applied to the base mark (84.59 - 0).
Reduced Base mark = 84.59m

Win Reduction
Reduced base mark - Win reduction
84.59 - 10.00 = 74.59

Distance Reduction
(Handicap / Race Distance) x Handicap x Proportion Used:
(74.59 / 550) x 74.59 x 0.75 = 7.59
74.59 - 7.59 = 67.00

Final Mark Unrounded = 67.00m

FINAL MARK = 67.00m

Wish you Victorians would stop laughing at us South Aussies.

Hard not to laugh from over here in Victoria, so they have altered the mark but still incorrectly, should be 56M or at the very least the 11m mandatory penalty from the Bay be applied and put her on 60m.
Now that is one mark partially fixed, now how about the others? Why does it take for someone else to point it out?

So why with an open and transparent system , does her Show Formula mark show 67 and yet she has now been given 65 after originally being given 69.
Talk about xlotto .
If the Formula shows 67 and shes been given 65 ....you would have to appeal the mark