PROTRACK

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



Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Maiden Rosebery Gift for Brandon Clark at the 2017 Rosebery Carnival
Today at 10:32 am by Admin

» Ararat Results
Yesterday at 9:57 am by SANCHEZ

» Ararat Gift
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:56 pm by timrosen35

» Multiple NAPS lead to anything?
Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:01 am by DDog

» Pro running right on track
Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:26 am by youngy

» Brighton Open Gift
Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:00 am by safrican

» Queanbeyan Gift overcomes small field and lower prizes, produces exciting final
Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:32 am by Admin

» Brighton (SAAL) HANDICAPS - 17th Dec 2017
Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:28 pm by Admin

» Brian Wilson rewarded for going the extra distance (PreBay Gift review)
Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:35 am by Admin

December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Women's Gifts

Women's Gifts

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

1 Women's Gifts on Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:28 pm

Slowcoach


How good have the finals been in the big women's gifts this year. Just when we thought Rye was as good as we had seen for many years, Ballarat produce a ripper with so many class athletes. Has Sophie Taylor ever started a women's race in the Pink? Well done to all the girls, let's hope we see more in the future.

2 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:03 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
Yes fantastic and awesome to see a quality final in the Ballarat Women’s Gift …..6 girls on or behind 5.25m.

Is that a first in women’s professional running? Was it the Ballarat Women’s Gift final the best Women’s professional final of all time? Has there been a better field in a women’s final?

It’s a real shame these quality girls are now not allowed or advised not to support and compete at the smaller or small non-parity gifts, now the stewarding precedent has been set with Domaschenz (a backmarker) at the small St Alban Women’s Gift. Is that what the VAL wants no quality girls competing in these small meeting?

If these backmarkers now run poorly or put in a bad run for the rest of the year they will get a UP and be pulled half a metre.

The Girls if they do compete will be expected to win and if they do win will be pulled double the men and not be anywhere near competitive in reasonably size or good parity Gifts going forward.

The men get half the pull the women get and also a lift of between 0.25m to 1m for Stawell, not so for the Girls they just cop a massive pull.

Women’s pro running has come a long way in a short period of time - don’t destroy it…. nurture it.

Will these quality girls be there at Easter??? …..some will need lifts to be a chance to make the final at Stawell with no opportunity or chance to get one…..let’s just hope they reduce the limit at Stawell to 11m. And there are a lot of girls still on big marks just waiting. It will be very interesting to see how the handicapper handles this predicament and what the HRP allows him to do. It's not rocket science …..but we will see.

3 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:04 am

Fishbowls


Agree, was a great womens gift to watch. By what the val website says, the womens limit for stawell is 11m,


'Swimming Around in Circles"

4 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:29 am

untouchables

avatar
That was terrible how they singled out Tara at St Albans on that so called cow paddock oval. I have seen a lot worse that has been let go. Tara is a great role model for upcoming kids on the circuit. She is one that gives her best week in and week out.

5 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:45 am

Phantom

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
You can't be serious 'untouchables', everyone else managed to run reasonably close to their time from Rye but Tara dropped .8, the Chief Steward took the opportunity to send a clear message to her and others.

6 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 12:07 pm

FortySevenThirty


Spot on Phantom. The PODS have form in this area and it was a good message sent by the stewards. I think it may have been changed to 0.25m penalty in the end so it isn't really catastrophic for her. Maybe if you can't/haven't warmed up properly and can't perform to your optimum scratching from the event is the best option

7 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:01 pm

Wishful


Phantom wrote:You can't be serious 'untouchables', everyone else managed to run reasonably close to their time from Rye but Tara dropped .8, the Chief Steward took the opportunity to send a clear message to her and others.

So just because someone doesn't run reasonably close to their target time they should be subjected to bullying?  There is no place for bullying at any time!  A reasonable discussion from the Chief Steward would suffice.

8 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:33 pm

Phantom

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
Someone losing and finding .8 in 1 week and being spoken to is not 'bullying', it is part of the sport of pro running. Don't cry 'bullying' when you get called in for a crap performance.

9 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:35 pm

PODSQUAD


Whether it is considered bullying or not is not the relevant point here.

And to suggest that the POD Squad has form in this area is out of order - we are no different to many if not all other stables and we won’t name others but a quick look at results will show many stables have inconsistent runners. We are about supporting and growing professional running and encouraging participation of all abilities.

Tara Domaschenz – Receive a UP and 0.5m pull for her run at St Albans – we challenged this unfair treatment and the HRP gave her back 0.25m.

Tara's performance was not up to her usual standards but she has an extensive consistent history of good performances - to bring her to tears and question our integrity and values is insulting. And to give her a 0.5m pull for one poor performance is nothing but unfair. She is an established back marker who due to her tight mark has to be at her absolute best to be competitive.


She has an extensive history including winning two Stonington Gifts and a 2nd and 4th in a Stawell Gift Finals -her ability is well disclosed with 10 years of supporting and running in the VAL having previously won the ACC and VRTA VAL athlete of the year.

Stewarding and handicapping should, and always was until recently, referenced to an athletes PB’s and previous winning performances it is a ridiculous and a flawed system that does not do this, as all athletes are capable of reproducing their previous best to well into their 30’s. Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes especially if a runner has established and disclosed form and ability. Surely it is an athlete’s best performance that determines their handicap.

Tara ran her best ever RPM PB performance at Rye (albeit Rye being a fast track and with big tail winds) just the week before. It has taken her several years and hard work to return to this form and even with that form she just managed to scrape into the Rye final.

While Tara’s performance at St Albans was not up to her usual standard the wind difference between St Albans and Rye was up to 11 (eleven metres) this is huge by any standards.

She ran into a 4.2m head wind at St Albans while she ran with a 7.4m Tail wind (semi) and a 4.5m tail wind in the final at Rye. These winds were extreme in both cases and we all know that the wind adjusted times are far from accurate when the winds exceed 2 m/s.
The St Alban track was also not as fast and good as Stawell or Rye.


Tara has been on tight handicaps in recent years due to her earlier success and rightly so.

To receive 0.50m pull for one poor run is nothing but unfair and, I have to say in the context …….

Is every athlete, who puts in a poor or similar performance being penalised to this degree? The answer to that is a clear no.


Why are Stewards focused on these runner's?... surely they should be focused on the athletes that have not yet exposed their ability and are out of shape and not physically conditioned with huge scope for improvement. They should be focused on trying to identify the next Stawell Gift winner not upset past Stawell Gift winners and athletes that have clearly exposed ability.



Last edited by PODSQUAD on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

10 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:04 pm

FortySevenThirty


Ok podsquad I will retract the "Form in that Area" statement. It was unnecessary from me and I'm sorry for that. I do still think she shouldn't have run if not properly able to warm up though due to the state of the track. And it isn't Bullying to be asked for an explanation of poor performance by the stewards either. It's part of their job and to not have at least a chat to her over that performance would have been remiss of them. 0.5m was probably too much and in the end I think the correct penalty was probably dealt. Sorry again for the first comment in my last post I got a little excited there I think.

11 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:11 pm

PODSQUAD


We have no problem with being spoken to ....as they are the rules for the time being. But is a poor performance by an athlete like Tara a significant issue, she was not running poorly to get a lift, she knew immediately upon finishing that it would be a NAP.... but really to get half a metre pull for it.

12 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:24 pm

Wishful


Phantom wrote:Someone losing and finding .8 in 1 week and being spoken to is not 'bullying', it is part of the sport of pro running.  Don't cry 'bullying' when you get called in for a crap performance.

The stewards doing their job and having a 'chat' is to be expected. But when that 'chat' reduces a person to tears (Maddie Coates also) it's bullying.

13 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:41 pm

Phantom

avatar
ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
What crap! 'Oh please Mr Steward I really was trying, now you've upset me and I'm going to cry so you can see how bad I feel about my poor performance and won't slap a penalty on me'.

14 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:44 pm

BMara


And to think I was just about to turn on Midsomer Murders and maybe sneak a quick nap ( not NAP).

Question, how mail email addresses and pseudonyms can one person possibly have. Surely he must have trouble recognising himself in the mirror each morning.
Lets look at the issues.
(1)Well done to ballarat, certainly the best women's final I can remember..... all those in the final are quality athletes.

(2)It’s a real shame these quality girls are now not allowed or advised not to support and compete at the smaller or small non-parity gifts
Of course they can run at St Albans, but any girl in that Ballarat final should be able to "crap" the St Albans gift in, in fact at least ten of the none qualifiers from Ballarat should walk the St Albans gift in.
Now, for plain english......If Winx runs at Pakenham and doesn't win but then wins the Cox Plate....someone is going ask questions
(Geez I like that analogy)   refer standard difference St Albans to Ballarat.
So now in even more plain english...... If some girls run at Trinity this Sunday, I know I'm going to be home late  ( and possibly miss Hercule Poroit)
(3) As regards the "pulls" ...not interested, they are worked out by the VAL board
(4) Girls get the "Stawell Lift".......maybe one day, but
(5) reduce the limit to 11m.....sounds like a vested interest for that statement to hit the ground running.
(6) loss of .8 in 7 days................maybe you mean in a 1600m event
(7) St Albans...correction......Downhill cow paddock.
(Cool Target time ........wouldn't hit the side of a barn with a shotgun
(9) We won't name names.......really.....is that true, I've just booked in for hearing test
(10)Stewarding and handicapping should, and always was until recently, referenced to an athletes PB’s and previous winning performances it is a ridiculous and a flawed system that does not do this, as all athletes are capable of reproducing their previous best to well into their 30’s. Poor performances should be ignored for handicapping and stewarding purposes.........
(11) Refer Space Cadet
(12) **** ran her best ever RPM PB performance at Rye (albeit Rye being a fast track and with big tail winds) just the week before.
(13) There is still only seven days in a week and we do allow for the wind and refer point 7
(14) repeat point 11
(15) Just for the record, Maddie didn't cry, sulk or even look sad.
(16) it's not as funny but have to go watch the comedy channel Sleep

15 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:47 pm

Hubbaup


I think some kids are a little more emotional then others. Keely copped the wrath of the stewards at Maribyrnong for dropping 0.11 secs in the final which I thought at the time was a little harsh but she wore the NAP and I think it may have even helped her to realise that if you don't worry to much about your handicap and getting lifts and worry more about improving yourself and running quicker that is a better way to go about it. After the way she ran at Wangaratta and Ballarat it think I actually owe them a beer or two

16 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:55 pm

Kangaroota

avatar
I was supportive of the Talia issues as I think she was targeted unfairly. Exum same improvement from Geelong. Dunmall from Keilor. Many others over all distances. You cant be serious regarding bullying. We are crying out for the stewards to, in the words of John Kennedy Sr, “Do something”. When they do we call it bullying. I think the POD squad are being targeted but would not call it bullied. If you make the Rye womens final should you have shit in St Albans or Maribyrnong? The womens cartel is alive and kicking.

BTW, did any of the 800 boys cry on the weekend?



Last edited by Kangaroota on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : wrong reference)

17 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:02 pm

PODSQUAD


You might want to refer to the administration of this site regarding the accusation ….of how many pseudonyms can one person possibly have …..they will tell you that you are clearly wrong.

POD Squad clearly identifies who that represent and everyone knows who fast is.



Last edited by PODSQUAD on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

18 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:14 pm

youngy

avatar
Admin
Admin
Stewards have no obligation to the athlete who has clearly performed below par - "to go easy on them" because they have been successful in the past. The athlete's sash history is irrelevant when it comes to incidents of inconsistent running. The issue has to be dealt with on its merits.

There may be a multitude of circumstances contributing to the sub par performance and these need to be examined and discussed to make an informed decision. Of course the discussion needs to be held with mutual respect but there shouldn't be leniency in any subsequent penalty because someone won a Stawell Gift or any other race of distinction.


_________________
"Let's Go While We're Young"

19 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:26 pm

BMara


PODSQUAD wrote:You might want to refer to the administration of this site regarding the accusation ….of how many pseudonyms can one person possibly have …..they will tell you that you are clearly wrong.

POD Squad clearly identifies who that represent and everyone knows who fast is.

Och och

20 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:31 pm

PODSQUAD


The purpose of having Stewards is to assist in more accurate handicapping of athletes, when an athlete has won big races they have clearly exposed ability and are hence easier to handicap and can be handicapped reasonably accurately.

Their future handicaps should be referenced to their PB’s and big winning performances any system that does not do that is flawed.

It is extremely dangerous to try and make out the charge of “inconsistent running” by reference to only one previous performance. It is impossible though, to make out the charge when the previous performance relied on is not, in any way, a reflection of the best that the runner is capable of.

21 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:58 pm

Wishful


Kangaroota wrote:I was supportive of the Talia issues as I think she was targeted unfairly. Exum same improvement from Geelong. Dunmall from Keilor. Many others over all distances. You cant be serious regarding bullying. We are crying out for the stewards to, in the words of Allan Jeans, “Do something”. When they do we call it bullying. I think the POD squad are being targeted but would not call it bullied. If you make the Rye womens final should you have shit in St Albans or Maribyrnong? The womens cartel is alive and kicking.

BTW, did any of the 800 boys cry on the weekend?

As Youngy put it the 'discussion needs to be held with mutual respect'. It wasn't with Tara.  It's not okay for the Chief Steward to speak in a bullying manner when having a 'chat'. I don't know if any of the 800 boys cried at the weekend - did they? And why should the 'POD squad be targeted? Personally I think the tone of some of the Chief Steward's recent posts is quite flippant.

22 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:05 pm

BMara


PODSQUAD wrote:The purpose of having Stewards is to assist in more accurate handicapping of athletes, when an athlete has won big races they have clearly exposed ability and are hence easier to handicap and can be handicapped reasonably accurately.

Their future handicaps should be referenced to their PB’s and big winning performances any system that does not do that is flawed.

It is extremely dangerous to try and make out the charge of “inconsistent running” by reference to only one previous performance. It is impossible though, to make out the charge when the previous performance relied on is not, in any way, a reflection of the best that the runner is capable of.  

VAL newslatter 21st October 2016
4. There will be reward for effort. Those that compete regularly & consistently will be considered favourably when reviewing handicaps.

5. First wins in the Group 3 events will receive the minimum penalty in accordance with the Penalty table and will be favourably considered for an additional lift when next due. These athletes will also be reviewed favourably by the handicapper for discretionary lifts for Classic and Stawell events.

6. The role of the Handicapper is to give every athlete the opportunity to win a race. The role of the athlete is to compete consistently and to the best of their ability.

Also in same newsletter
Progression from heats to semis and finals will be based on winners and fastest times. Progression is not to be based on placings.

Geez, I love the internet, the only things I love more are Foxtel,a Mai Tai and Zooper Doopers and of course flippancy

23 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:42 pm

PODSQUAD


That does not say ...” put in one bad run and the Stewards will come crashing down on you and pull you 0.5m”.

Reasonable, respectful and professional Stewarding would have looked at Tara's performances in totality and the intent of the run, there was no intent to run poorly to get a handicap lift…. that was not possible anyway as the run was clearly a time NAP, and that’s where is should have been left or at worst a UP to wipe out any existing AP’s but to pull her 0.5m is way beyond reasonable especially for an athlete that has the history and performance disclosure Tara has.
Who else has been pulled 0.5m?

I think there is quite a bit more behind singling out Tara and Talia at St Alban’s.

There is no place for selective targeted stewarding, good stewarding should be fairly and consistently applied to all athletes not just some or because they are part of particular stables.

24 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:11 pm

Slowcoach


There is something terribly wrong with a system, where an athlete can put in one bad run, after years of competeing, and get punished severely.

Let's make an analogy that some can relate to.......... As part of her preperation for the Cox plate, the owners of 'Winks' decide to take her to Pakenham to support the club and promote the sport. The crowd is is huge the sponsors are ecstatic. Unfortunately Winks doesn't perform to her best. Was it the track? Was she flat after a hard week on the track? Who knows, but its sport, sometimes things can't be explained. But overall the sport was the winner.

There is one thing for sure, she is not going to be punished and given another 2kg's for her next run. The stewards aren't going to advise all other Cox plate contenders not to run at the next Country meeting. And if they do and don't perform, will get the book thrown at them! Not a great way promote the sport. Any wonder these smaller meets are struggling to attract sponsors, when the elite runners are being advised not to run.

This whole process is laughable and the sooner the regulations are reviewed the better.





25 Re: Women's Gifts on Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:54 pm

BMara


[quote="Slowcoach"]There is something terribly wrong with a system, where an athlete can put in one bad run, after years of competeing, and get punished severely.

Let's make an analogy that some can relate to.......... As part of her preperation for the Cox plate, the owners of 'Winks' decide to take her to Pakenham to support the club and promote the sport. The crowd is is huge the sponsors are ecstatic. Unfortunately Winks doesn't perform to her best. Was it the track?  Was she flat after a hard week on the track? Who knows, but its sport, sometimes things can't be explained. But overall the sport was the winner.

There is one thing for sure, she is not going to be punished and given another 2kg's for her next run. The stewards aren't going to advise all other Cox plate contenders not to run at the next Country meeting. And if they do and don't perform, will get the book thrown at them! Not a great way promote the sport. Any wonder these smaller meets are struggling to attract sponsors, when the elite runners are being advised not to run.

This whole process is laughable and the sooner the regulations are reviewed the better.

Clearly not  a race goer  ( Winks is spelt Winx) .......If Winx......winx not winks went to Pakenham for a group 3 race and got beaten  .28 seconds by a maiden ( Sorry Michelle ) in the warm up not the semi final or the final, she would be immediately retired to stud.. If not the trainer would be queried , the Jockey's financials would be forensically examined, the strapper would have been turned upside down and the entire stabling complex of the trainer would have been searched.........And no the crowd would not be happy, they would be looking for "blood".

And to think at 2 pm today all I had to look forward to was reading the Coles brochure and Zooper Doopers....No Mai Mai on Tuesday

Now I've got a need for some stewarding advice from the good people in the VAL community.....What would you do??????

If there was a weekend of VAL racing, I'm just saying, it just came into my head, surely it would never happen. If there was a weekend of racing where there were two 120m races, one for the women and one open event. Both were worth, I'm just saying, $7500 each ...stick with me I'm just thinking out loud. There was a runner who qualified, not fastest , but not far off fastest. And just say,  If this runner had a proven record in a BIG Event. This runner would probably think, I'm not the fastest but I know I can win if a few of the "young Pups" fold up.... I've got the BIG race experience. And just say, still thinking out loud, my semi final is around the late morning stage and the final is around 3.30/4.00. I've got approx 4 hours where the inexperienced runners are worrying about what their mums are going to think if they can't fire. I know I've got the big race experience, but what I'll do, I'll make it really hard for those "underlings". I'll spend a couple hours out on the ground sitting on the three tier judges stand at the finish line, with my knees crunched up closer to my head than where ever they really should be resting.  I'll make sure that everyone can see that I'm taking this $7500 event in my stride. I don't need to go and find a quiet corner of the change rooms and make sure I give myself the best possible chance.  Doctor Phil ......What would you do??? Dr , would that ever happen.


Thank god for Zooper Doopers and silly runners

26 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:31 am

cantrun


Pretty simple. Run to win or just don't run at all. No athlete or coach is ever going to back you up when a runner is clearly just taking the piss. The stewards are not idiot's, and neither are those watching from the sidelines. If you honestly think that everyone is behind you on this, then you have no idea what the rest of the running fraternity are saying. Honestly think that there should be more UP's and handicap adjustments, would certainly make athletes and coaches think twice about they chose to run in. Nobody including sponsors want to see quality backmarkers jogging down the track in the small meets after making big finals or running recent PB's. Really bad look for the club, the VAL and the squad. Just my opinion.

27 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:25 am

Mushroom


[quote="Slowcoach"]There is something terribly wrong with a system, where an athlete can put in one bad run, after years of competeing, and get punished severely.

Let's make an analogy that some can relate to.......... As part of her preperation for the Cox plate, the owners of 'Winks' decide to take her to Pakenham to support the club and promote the sport. The crowd is is huge the sponsors are ecstatic. Unfortunately Winks doesn't perform to her best. Was it the track?  Was she flat after a hard week on the track? Who knows, but its sport, sometimes things can't be explained. But overall the sport was the winner.

There is one thing for sure, she is not going to be punished and given another 2kg's for her next run. The stewards aren't going to advise all other Cox plate contenders not to run at the next Country meeting. And if they do and don't perform, will get the book thrown at them! Not a great way promote the sport. Any wonder these smaller meets are struggling to attract sponsors, when the elite runners are being advised not to run.

This whole process is laughable and the sooner the regulations are reviewed the better.





Sorry Slowcoach if you are trying to support the argument with that anology it was a terrible choice. Without a shadow of a doubt would the Trainer be drag in and without a doubt if in the stewards minds there was even a hint of the performance being tainted the penalty would be far worse than anything the VAL could hand out.

28 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:23 am

Fast


ProTrack A Grader
ProTrack A Grader
cantrun wrote:Pretty simple. Run to win or just don't run at all. No athlete or coach is ever going to back you up when a runner is clearly just taking the piss. The stewards are not idiot's, and neither are those watching from the sidelines. If you honestly think that everyone is behind you on this, then you have no idea what the rest of the running fraternity are saying. Honestly think that there should be more UP's and handicap adjustments, would certainly make athletes and coaches think twice about they chose to run in. Nobody including sponsors want to see quality backmarkers jogging down the track in the small meets after making big finals or running recent PB's. Really bad look for the club, the VAL and the squad.  Just my opinion.


One poor performance, that is not representative of an athletes’ ability, does not warrant the punishment handed out.

I only ask the question – What would happen if the rules were applied to all and every athlete that put in a bad or poor performance and they were all pulled 0.5m?

There should not be rules for some and rules for others.

The integrity of the entire system is questioned when rules are not consistently applied to all.

I would have no issue if this were the case and the rules were applied consistently to all but I do believe there are better ways to ensure or achieve the purpose of more accurate and fairer handicapping.

I also spend half my time at amateur and AV competitions etc and I see bad and poor performances all the time.

Don’t lose sight of the outcome and purpose…………The roll of the Stewards and their purpose here is to assist in the more accurate handicapping of athletes.


“In a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.”
- Warren Buffett

29 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:02 am

untouchables

avatar
I think Bmara would not know if he had seen Phar Lap. That track is a disgrace, runners were stepping in pot holes everywhere and the fence is too close to the finishing line. The wind was gusting at the time putting runners off balance on uneven ground. Imagine if they had a tail wind of +4m/s. They would’ve run through the fence at the finish line.

30 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:14 am

DizzyRunner


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
untouchables wrote:I think Bmara would not know if he had seen Phar Lap. That track is a disgrace, runners were stepping in pot holes everywhere and the fence is too close to the finishing line. The wind was gusting at the time putting runners off balance on uneven ground. Imagine if they had a tail wind of +4m/s. They would’ve run through the fence at the finish line.

If an athlete does feel they can perform given the circumstances (due to weather, injury, or low prize-money) they are welcome to not compete.

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

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