Camden marks

Colin , I know that you read this forum, can you make sure you get the naming of the 1600m race correct.
Its handicapped as an All Comers but programmed in the schedule as a 1600m mens.
Minor I know , but lots of minors make a major which you are behinning to find out.

What has me wondering is if a certain athlete is going to run at Camden after his coach was allegedly told by someone high up on the committee if he did compete he would be DQ'd.
Not sure if its a misunderstanding, if it was as it was understood it is neither appropriate or acceptable! All sounds a bit familiar to those emails that circulated last season.
I can see why you dont but if you do trust the system then let it determine the results and outcomes, this is not for someone in your position to allegedly call.

Hey T.S.
Fleurieu Meeting was supposed to have been penalty free.
McIvor brought back 80m after winning.
Obviously the target time has been changed , AGAIN, as everyone has taken a hit but if I was McIvor I would be contesting the mark.
Absolute joke he had 270m in the first place but then to wack him with a deficit of 80m what a joke.

The SAAL seem as though the can’t follow fair reasonable rules, like non penalty status, but they create new unfair ones like the stupid z score and they DQ people.
Great League..... pffttt.

Very transparent ..... pffftt.

Very consistently fair ...... pffft.

Z Score wrote:Hey T.S.
Fleurieu Meeting was supposed to have been penalty free.
McIvor brought back 80m after winning.
Obviously the target time has been changed , AGAIN, as everyone has taken a hit but if I was McIvor I would be contesting the mark.
Absolute joke he had 270m in the first place but then to wack him with a deficit of 80m what a joke.

Based on his time at Victor I would expect he will run approx 4:18 so based on the revised Nett time to 4:10 I think someone or more the point something has stuffed up the equation if they were to balance the non penalty with the revised Nett time. But then that is the system!

Same seems to have been applied to Dylan Bosch, was off 140m for Marion ran 4:10 he's now off 60m but if the target time is 4:10 then why move him? He's out to 4:23. So who is working on these handicaps, is it purely the system or "handicapper" "discretion". His MPS for Marion was 5.84 his handicap for Camden is based on him running .32 MPS quicker for 80m longer!
Dylan is also off 140 is 30m back of the 170m he won at Camden last year which but perhaps due to the stuff on what was the last lap there are no times on the website. So he is now 110m back from what he was when he won last year!

How many others have had the same applied?

Z Score wrote:Hey T.S.
Fleurieu Meeting was supposed to have been penalty free.

The winners of all races at Reynella and Victor which are Cat 3,4 or 5 wont have the win penalties applied to the Camden 400m, Camden 400 womens and 120m at Loxton.

This means the 1600m will have win penalties applied at Camden. Note the minimum win penalty for a CAT 5 (Victor) is 16m I'm not doing anymore math tonight but Im sure someone can work out why he ended up with such a penalty?

Top Sport wrote:

Z Score wrote:Hey T.S.
Fleurieu Meeting was supposed to have been penalty free.

The winners of all races at Reynella and Victor which are Cat 3,4 or 5 wont have the win penalties applied to the Camden 400m, Camden 400 womens and 120m at Loxton.

This means the 1600m will have win penalties applied at Camden. Note the minimum win penalty for a CAT 5 (Victor) is 16m I'm not doing anymore math tonight but Im sure someone can work out why he ended up with such a penalty?

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.

The penalty for winning at Victor should have been ZILCH for the 1600m, are you telling me they are going to steward the shorter races and not the 1600m.

The last 400m ran in SA was at Brighton prior to Christmas.
The winner meets everyone on better terms for having won that event.
Whoever beats Whittaker Sun , wins.
Its his to lose.
Brighton
Event 70 - 400m Mens - Final:
Position Name Colour Mark Time Adj Time
1 Tyler Whittaker Pink 43.00m 47.47 -5 .....38
2 Bradley Harvey Green 37.00m 47.98 -10.......27
3 Anthony De Ruvo White 26.00m 47.99 -8....18
4 Aidan Ross Yellow 35.00m 48.00 -10......25
5 Hayden Rothe Blue 33.00m 48.20 -12.....21
6 Cameron Vinall Black 42.00m 49.04 -7.....35
7 Jack Dowling 1 48.00m 49.10 -10.....38

Z Score wrote:The last 400m ran in SA was at Brighton prior to Christmas.
The winner meets everyone on better terms for having won that event.
Whoever beats Whittaker Sun , wins.
Its his to lose.
Brighton
Event 70 - 400m Mens - Final:
Position Name Colour Mark Time Adj Time
1 Tyler Whittaker Pink 43.00m 47.47 -5 .....38
2 Bradley Harvey Green 37.00m 47.98 -10.......27
3 Anthony De Ruvo White 26.00m 47.99 -8....18    
4 Aidan Ross Yellow 35.00m 48.00 -10......25
5 Hayden Rothe Blue 33.00m 48.20 -12.....21
6 Cameron Vinall Black 42.00m 49.04 -7.....35
7 Jack Dowling 1 48.00m 49.10 -10.....38

Fair call ZScore ....doesnt make sense does it.
Marks have gone back for a change in target time and Whiiaker has gone back only 5 for the win as well.
Have to go against you though on the winner, Was at Victor and Ponury couldnt go a yard early in his 550m and then flashed home and I was watching him after the line and he wouldnt have blown a candle out.
Im thinking Ponury in the mens and Messant in the womens.
Just had a look at the handicappers explanation to why Rothe was pulled 12m from Brighton, he refers to lasts years final 12months ago whilst Frank was referring to a race 12 weeks ago you voted for it Frank.

Sam Keen, his formula for the 1600 says novice mark 100m then gets an nice 100m bonus to run off 200m so I can only assume Novice marks are no longer a thing!

Then on the other hand you have Terrence Murphy in the 800m Novice who is working off a novice reduction but has a Base Mark at 239m but will run off 61m based on their "formula" but then gets discretion and goes off 110m

Ohh yeah this is totally transparent, and makes complete sense???

And then what we will do is change the target times as many times in a season so the system works.
Under a normal handicapping system where you have a handicapper doing it all , tell me how many times target times are changed.
Under the current model , tell me a story telly me a story and then we will go to bed.

Z Score wrote:Chad Ryan , why bother hopping on the plane.
You have disclosed form from competing at and showing support at the Camden meeting in the past.
You need at least 28m.
You have sinned , you know how you have sinned, by posting times at Bendigo and Ringwood exactly what Whisperer and Willo have been referring to.
If I was you I would be on that phone asap requesting at least 28, mate you are no smokey and if you dont get it , dont get on the plane.

Cannot believe that Chad Ryan with this you beaut model was initially allocated 21m and through the goodness of his heart the handicapper has given him 4m to make it 25m
Hes had several runs at the Camden 400m , we know what he can run , HE AINT NO SMOKEY.

Z Score wrote:Chad Ryan , why bother hopping on the plane.
You have disclosed form from competing at and showing support at the Camden meeting in the past.
You need at least 28m.
You have sinned , you know how you have sinned, by posting times at Bendigo and Ringwood exactly what Whisperer and Willo have been referring to.
If I was you I would be on that phone asap requesting at least 28, mate you are no smokey and if you dont get it , dont get on the plane.

4 Chad Ryan VIC Yellow 25.00m 50.554
Dont forget, the you beaut handicapping model actually spat out 21 , before the handicapper nervously gave you an extra 4

Z Score wrote:

Z Score wrote:Chad Ryan , why bother hopping on the plane.
You have disclosed form from competing at and showing support at the Camden meeting in the past.
You need at least 28m.
You have sinned , you know how you have sinned, by posting times at Bendigo and Ringwood exactly what Whisperer and Willo have been referring to.
If I was you I would be on that phone asap requesting at least 28, mate you are no smokey and if you dont get it , dont get on the plane.

Im not sure what everyone else expected the Vics to have , but I thought around 30/31 for Chad given his previous runs here, Around 28/29 for Jai and about 35 for Tom , so hes done okay , but they all mays as well enjoy the weekend in Vic.
For the Girls I thought probably around 30 for Eleni and 35 for Rosamond so they have both done okay.If I was Eleni I think I would be on that plane as I think she can run a time which would put her on the dais..
Eleni , you have been very lucky with the xlotto , dont waste it, my moneys on you.

As I mentioned , 35 for Tom was about as much as he should have had , well done on the win with 37.

Soft 6 at Morphettville races across the road on Sat but no adjustments on the circle events.
All that rain we had surely there had to be an adjustment of some sort.
You either do it all the time or you dont.
Just a real broken carton of egg shells.

SA Whisperer wrote:Hi T.S., When Jenni Poole was added to the committee , I said to Gossips , Why Jenni , shes in the office anyway , why not someone outside.
Gossips back then,  just told me to wait and I would find out what its all to do with.
Im hearing annouuncement later this week of the meeting at Pooles home deck being locked in, possible announcement Thurs , put on the app Fri

Jennis son wins the under 18 120m and under 18 400m and is awarded athlete of the meet.
Just as Jennis is appointed to the Committee, pays to be on the committee.
Dont know about anyone else but I personally dont think under age athletes should be winning athlete of the meeting trophys.
The award today is judged by the starters so is not on a points basis.

To be fair Zee Sco. The kid has done well for the past 5 years since he started. Going by his marks and times they continue to get better with age as his handicap comes down. Talented kid.

Top Sport wrote:To be fair Zee Sco. The kid has done well for the past 5 years since he started. Going by his marks and times they continue to get better with age as his handicap comes down. Talented kid.

T.S. He won the under 18 400m last season at Camden , 49.63 off 35m
He runs off 30m today.
Lets just say , theres a few athletes that would also like to get the same treatment.
Only goes back 5m for a Camden win and natural underage improvement. You say his times are getting better with age so why only 5m .

Well here's a first in awhile. Its a CAT 5 race so the min win penalty is 4m, from what I can tell he got 7m from winning this event last year, competed a fair bit and came back 2m to be on 30, 5 back on last year is fair enough IMO.
As much as I dont like the system I think the mark was fair. At least it wasnt his first run in the distance like in other occasions.

Perhaps the other marks were more the problem?

Top Sport wrote:Well here's a first in awhile. Its a CAT 5 race so the min win penalty is 4m, from what I can tell he got 7m from winning this event last year, competed a fair bit and came back 2m to be on 30, 5 back on last year is fair enough IMO.
As much as I dont like the system I think the mark was fair. At least it wasnt his first run in the distance like in other occasions.

Perhaps the other marks were more the problem?

Totally agree with Z Score. Under the current system , he can come back next year and win again off 25 or a bit more. Three in a row.
T.S. as you have already mentioned , he gets better with age , thats called natural improvement and easily negates the 5m.
Under the old system he would have copped a pull for the win, and another pull for natural improvement and would have run off somewhere around 25 or 26.
By the way T.S. the lad who ran second to Poole last year was pulled 11m so met Poole this year 6m worse off.
Open and transparent. How on earth could the lad that ran second last year possibly beat Poole this year.
Just not a good look for the league at all.

Thanks Whisperer, doesnt make sense where you can beat some one in 2020 then meet them 6m better off in 2021.
The crowd should have been hanging from the rafters for this years return to Camden but the rafters were empty and the atmpsphere the worst I have seen it at a Camden Classic.
Lots of little spot fires going on everywhere over the handicapping system.
Very noticable that the kiddies who the saal places all its emphasis on when they talk numbers , only come for their races then leave, they show no interest in the other events.Its a bit like when Collingwood are down by 6 goals with 5 mins to play , you can see the crowd dispersing before your eyes.
Heard one family saying , quick lets get going before we have to help pack up.
The After Party at the GFC after the Bay Sheff was a real fizzer and is still fizzing.The after party after Camden was relocated to the GFC for a reason and dont be suprised if the presentation night gets the gig there as well.
And finally a penny for your thoughts
Sam Sibbick  Victor 1600m.....................315m... 4.16.90
                  Camden 1600m..................255m....4.16.25
Asher Gillings Victor 1600m....................185m.....4.17.62
                    Camden1600m..................150m....4.09.73
Connor McIvor Victor 1600m ....................270m....4.04.22
                     Camden 1600m.................. 190m......4.06.78  
I think you are getting the picture, one of these tracks was marked incorrectly , WHICH ONE , you be the judge.
Handicaps go back at Camden but they run 50 to 70 m quicker:evil:
And the sad part of it all , these times will go into the computer to access future handicaps.
Chief Steward is obviously not doing his job in checking either the track distance or the handicaps.

Fair points z-score. Like I said Id be looking at the other marks rather than Xavier's so much. Generally 4m is the penalty for the 400, under 18's is always going to be harder to get right as a handicapper, as a system I have little faith in it and little faith in the current handicapping discretion.

I also assume he is near the end of his under 18's era?

If he does run another 400 under 18's I'd expect he'll go back 4m for the win and perhaps another 2 or 3m for running under Nett, but under the system who knows?

I'd assume that Toole's mark came back from the State Champs 400m result ran 56.92 off scratch, yes quicker on the rubber. I assume this is how he lost 5m? (BTW I dont really agree with adjustments from ASA results). He then went on to win Brighton off 33m at 49 secs in the final so no doubt same scenario gets a 4m penalty and in this case I guess 2m for running under nett. Explains the 11m.

Poole runs 7.267 MPS in the heat of the under 18 400m
then runs 7.437 MPS in the Final. Great back up.

But squeezed in between these two runs is 6.73 MPS in a heat of the Classic.
Why was he allowed to run in the heats of the Classic when he had already made the under 18 final.
He coasted around in the Classic heat and never tried.
Does the time he ran in the Classic heat go into the computer.
Disgusting stewarding

The irony of it all is that, if Poole had concentrated wholly and soly on the Classic and ran off 40m and ran 7.437 MPS he probably would have looked the winner until the last 10metres.
Im sure looking back he made the wrong choice of race to concentrate on.

Z Score wrote:The irony of it all is that, if Poole had concentrated wholly and soly on the Classic and ran off 40m and ran 7.437 MPS he probably would have looked the winner until the last 10metres.
Im sure looking back he made the wrong choice of race to concentrate on.

Hi Zed , you know what is the real irony of it all is, Poole didnt even run in the Classic heat, Ive checked my program for the scratchings and results and Poole certainly didnt run.
The saal has made a cock up and if these wrong results are being fed into the computer what hope have we got.This is what happens when you rush in officials and handicappers that dont know the athletes.
Colin and Ali I know you both read this , FIX the bloody mistake.
The only way I could be wrong is if, Poole changed his hair colour from black to blonde and back to black.
Event 129 - 400m Mens Camden Classic - Heat: 1
Position Name Colour Mark Time Adj Time Z Score Z Score 1U/1D
1 Tom Perry Pink 37.00m 48.32 48.32 1.25 1.07
2 Gras Amekata Blue 21.00m 49.22 49.22 0.09 0.09
3 Toby Cook Green 26.00m 49.64 49.64 -0.93 -0.22
4 Ryan Atkins White 12.00m 49.79 49.79 -0.82 -0.75
5 Dylan Stenson Red 6.00m 50.73 50.73 -1.50 -1.56
6 Luke Bero Yellow 25.00m 52.36 52.36 -1.83 -1.61
7 Xavier Poole 1 40.00m 53.49 53.49 -1.92 -1.75