A forum devoted to track events from 60m to the 2 mile. Mainly pro but also news from local, national and international sprint & middle distance competitions.

Log in

I forgot my password


Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Stawell Gift Final - where do we stand?
Today at 8:21 am by Scoop

» Bunbury Gift entries close 9th of April
Yesterday at 2:37 pm by Pro Pasto

» Past "Bill Howard Winners"
Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:23 pm by Todd Ireland

» Stawell Accommodation Available 3km from the track
Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:59 am by timrosen35

» Euroa Results
Sat Mar 17, 2018 10:43 pm by JH

» Adjusted times
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:07 pm by Fast

» Euroa Gift
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:36 pm by Bang bang

» Doncaster Gift
Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:22 pm by HarryWho

» New Massage Business in Bayside Melbourne
Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:01 pm by Foles

March 2018

Calendar Calendar

You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Inconsistent Handicapping

Inconsistent Handicapping

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Inconsistent Handicapping on Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:33 am


Watchdog is on the trail of a small band of cats who have close links with the VAL distance handicapper and who the facts suggest are being handicapped in the manner that is inconsistent with the rest of the field. Without specifically naming the athletes I'll provide 2 examples although this is not having a go at the athletes, but rather the Distance handicapper and the VAL Board for allowing it to occur.

Athlete 1 is a junior with limited racing who has achieved significant success last season, despite limited racing with 2 wins from only 6 starts, including the novice 1600 at Stawell from a very nice mark compared to others of similar age and form, of 160. In the 800 He had 66 at Stawell including the 10 meter field lift. Whilst the rest of the field went back the 10 for their first start this season, He did not and ran off 66 at Daylesford, making the final. Watchdog is prepared to accept this was one of the many handicapping errors we have seen this season, but the killer is that rather than go back to 56 as he should've, he then ran at Rye off 60. This is very inconsistent with the rest of the 800 field, many of whom have had more starts over the distance for less mark.

Athlete 2 is another cat who seems to have done very nicely in both the 1600 and 3200 despite very few starts. In the 1600 his form has been very inconsistent but watchdog is firmly of the opinion that this lad can run. After a poor run at Waragul he then received a 45 meter lift from his only other previous start in the Novice 1600 at Daylesford, to win in a time that was much quicker than the open race. He then received a 10 meter lift in his next open 1600 start at Rye, despite most other 1600 open participants being lifted very slowly.
In the 3200 he had his 2nd start at Wang and received a 40 meter lift from his run at Ballarat last season where he finished a creditable 6th. This is easily the biggest single lift from those that ran at Ballarat and especially handy given that he didn't run At Stawell or Epping since. As a comparison the athlete who came 10th out of 13 at Ballarat also had his first start since over 3200 at Wang and received a 20 metre lift. Most of the 3200 field at Wang received either 0 or 10 since their last start including those that supported Epping earlier this season. This flys in the face of the previous claim that the VAL will look after those that support the 3200s throughout the season. Athlete 2 ran a very noticeable race at Wang, going as good as any and better than most for all but the last few laps but faded to finish 6th. Watchdog has a very big watch on this athlete for Easter as he is new and improving quickly.

Again my concern is the inconsistent treatment compared to others given the close ties to the distance handicapper. Since his appointment this small group of cats won a number of races last season, including 2 at Stawell and would appear to be well placed to be very prominent again this season. I have no problem with that provided they receive the same handicapping treatment as the rest of the field.
Watchdog would like to know who the Distance Handicapper reports to, is it MOB or the Board. Whoever it is is needs to step up here. MOB I know you have said you won't comment on individual handicapping, but please advise us, who does the Distance Handicapper report to and are you happy with the level of consistency shown.

2 Re: Inconsistent Handicapping on Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:03 am


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
I can't imagine that, even if he felt so inclined, MOB would undermine the distance handicapper by commenting here specifically on the consistency of handicapping.

Perhaps you'd be better off having a quiet word with MOB or another board member at the next meet and address your concerns that way, rather than in a manner that suggests impropriety and is guaranteed to cause contention?

3 Re: Inconsistent Handicapping on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:55 pm


Watchdog your a joke.

To think that one group is getting special treatment from the handicapper is ridicules and is never gonna happen. That so called group that your talking about, trains just as hard as everyone else. They've come along way in a short time thanks mainly to their hard work and good coach. Being a young and inexperienced group, their results are always going to be inconsistent, that's normally what happens when your still learning. Everyone's been there. You still see the good runner in the pros running shit from week to week. It happens. I know one of the runners dropped 30 sec in the mile over last yrs season. Not because he was cheating, just that he had no winter and only started training in nov. just shows what hard work and commitment can do without cheating. Xx

4 Re: Inconsistent Handicapping on Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:45 pm


i looked at runner no1's record and compared to my nov. distance runners who started this year i cant see anything different with the handicapping

5 Re: Inconsistent Handicapping on Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:31 pm


ToM, you make a decent point. In retrospect it was unreasonable to ask MOB for a response on the inconsistent handicapping. I do think it is reasonable, however to ask wat the line of reporting for the handicapper is and therefore who is ultimately responsible. I have heard MOB is overseeing the Handicappers this season, whatever that means. I have taken the matter up with a Board member, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Scroto, I do appreciate your support for the cat squad. I have no issue with the athletes themselves. Their coach has been a quality VAL athlete for a long time and is showing himself to be a quality coach. It is great to see his athletes improving. My concern is purely with the Handicapper and the VAL. The facts support they are being treated better than their opposition. In seasons gone by, the handicappers mates used to be looked after which was detrimental to the development of the VAL, but in recent seasons that has been stopped. Unfortunately it seems to be creeping back in.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum