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
» Regular VAL runner picked in U/18 Vic Metro AFL team to play WA
Yesterday at 9:43 pm by Willo the Whisp

» VRTA AGM
Yesterday at 12:25 pm by JH

» Mullewa Gift (WCAL) Saturday 26th August 2017
Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:54 pm by justheshot

» PITLOCHRY HIGHLAND GAMES
Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:37 am by JH

» A National Handicapping System
Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:03 pm by Fast

» Star athlete Michael Brusnahan jailed over horrific ‘coward’ kick to man’s head
Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:18 pm by Admin

» Blairgowrie (Scotland)
Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:39 pm by JH

» Mulgowie Gift (QAL) RESULTS - Saturday 2nd Sept 2017
Tue Sep 05, 2017 9:36 am by Admin

» Ipswich Winter Carnival RESULTS 2017 (QAL)
Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:36 am by Admin

September 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Calendar Calendar


You are not connected. Please login or register

PROTRACK » GENERAL » Women's Gifts

Women's Gifts

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

31 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:24 am

untouchables

avatar
DizzyRunner wrote:
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.



I agree 100%. Now trinity that's a beautiful running track.

32 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:41 am

BMara


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.

Hey Touchy Touchy, hold the phone , I'm not that old.... I saw Tobin Bronze, Biscay , Even Stevens ( no relation to Luke) and a few others including as a little tacker I witnessed Jockey Mick Mallyon "pull up" a horse called Maritana in about 1964-5. He got 5 years for his trouble, appealed to the HRP and got it reduced to 2 years. Oh for the good old days.

PS Once the runners go through the finish line they can hurdle the fence, buy a pie from the canteen, kiss their mother and lick the toilet seats for all I care, they're out my "care"

Surely the real reason for the form lapse was the amount of incredibly hard slogging work that was done after Rye. From all accounts even poor old Phar Lap would have pointed his hooves skyward.

Now for the killer punch....Gotta love the internet and people who don't read emails.."save the best to last" I think Quasimodo said that

Newsletter from VAL October 2016

10. Any performed athlete who believes that they may not be able to compete to a respectable level in a particular event must notify the stewards before racing. This may be due to work or study commitments, illness or injury. This includes athletes who believe an increased heavy training program may affect their performances. The athlete will be allowed to compete but will be given an NAP if their performance is below their normal standards. Please note any athlete who offers the excuse after the event will be given a UP, fine, suspension or handicap review.

As Galileo would say Q.E.D. Quod Erat Demonstrandum Translation ....That which was demonstated

Time for a change of topic

33 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:45 am

Trackstar

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
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.

Sounds like you've got your hands on your untouchables.
Mate, the only pot hole is your mouth.   Track was not a disgrace. Not at the level of Bendigo yes, but have some respect for the guys who did their best with trying to bring it to a reasonable level.
Mara's not the only one who wouldn't know Phar Lap if he saw it. None of us would recognise a 90 year old horse's corpse. At that age they all look the same.

34 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:50 am

BMara


Fast wrote:
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

My favorite Warren Buffet quote is regarding patience " You can't produce a baby in 1 month by getting 9 women pregnant"

35 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:36 pm

untouchables

avatar
Trackstar wrote:
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.

Sounds like you've got your hands on your untouchables.
Mate, the only pot hole is your mouth.   Track was not a disgrace. Not at the level of Bendigo yes, but have some respect for the guys who did their best with trying to bring it to a reasonable level.
Mara's not the only one who wouldn't know Phar Lap if he saw it. None of us would recognise a 90 year old horse's corpse. At that age they all look the same.



Phar lap part is a horse racing joke. Phar Lap is in the Melbourne Museum and I disagree St Albans is a better track than Bendigo. LoL

36 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:02 pm

Thatsthestats


Slowcoach wrote: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.




Since when does the weight for age  WS Cox Plate have weight penalties applied. Know what you are talking about before you talk about it Slowcoach

37 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:52 pm

Slowcoach


Thatsthestats wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.




Since when does the weight for age  WS Cox Plate have weight penalties applied. Know what you are talking about before you talk about it Slowcoach


Since when did I say the penalty would apply to the Cox Plate? Learn to read the post properly before you comment on it 'Thatsthestats'

38 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:05 pm

WhataboutmeMrHandicapper


untouchables wrote:
Trackstar wrote:
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.

Sounds like you've got your hands on your untouchables.
Mate, the only pot hole is your mouth.   Track was not a disgrace. Not at the level of Bendigo yes, but have some respect for the guys who did their best with trying to bring it to a reasonable level.
Mara's not the only one who wouldn't know Phar Lap if he saw it. None of us would recognise a 90 year old horse's corpse. At that age they all look the same.



Phar lap part is a horse racing joke.  Phar Lap is in the Melbourne Museum and I disagree St Albans is a better track than Bendigo. LoL

Woweee Great joke, hahahahahaha.....funniest joke I've heard....hahahahahahaha.....You crack me up...hahahahahahaha.....please no more....I'm in stitches...
That's the same response I use to give when my dad told a similar joke at the dinner table.
What i'm saying is................................Someone needs a new gag writer.

39 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:21 pm

Slowcoach


Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.


Mushroom, many long years ago I was a registered horse trainer, albeit not a very good one, hence the name. I had a few visits to the stewards room, but fortunately the stewards in that sport were a bit more understanding of the possibility of 'just a bad day at the office'. Horses (along with humans) are not machines, and for various reason can put in a bad run. Of course they would issue a warning, but if there had been years of consistent running, and then an unexplained bad one, they would never, and I mean never, hand out a fine or penalty in that situation.

40 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:47 pm

Thatsthestats


Slowcoach wrote:
Thatsthestats wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.




Since when does the weight for age  WS Cox Plate have weight penalties applied. Know what you are talking about before you talk about it Slowcoach


Since when did I say the penalty would apply to the Cox Plate? Learn to read the post properly before you comment on it 'Thatsthestats'


Oh sorry Slowcoach Winx's next run must have been an imaginary Handicap after the imaginary Pakenham start. I should have known it needed another run after the Pakenham flop. My mistake

41 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:03 pm

BMara


Slowcoach wrote:
Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.


Mushroom, many long years ago I was a registered horse trainer, albeit not a very good one, hence the name. I had a few visits to the stewards room, but fortunately the stewards in that sport were a bit more understanding of the possibility of 'just a bad day at the office'. Horses (along with humans) are not machines, and for various reason can put in a bad run. Of course they would issue a warning, but if there had been years of consistent running, and then an unexplained bad one, they would never, and I mean never, hand out a fine or penalty in that situation.

one one was a race horse
two two was one too
one one won one race
Two two won one too

42 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Mushroom


Slowcoach wrote:
Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.


Mushroom, many long years ago I was a registered horse trainer, albeit not a very good one, hence the name. I had a few visits to the stewards room, but fortunately the stewards in that sport were a bit more understanding of the possibility of 'just a bad day at the office'. Horses (along with humans) are not machines, and for various reason can put in a bad run. Of course they would issue a warning, but if there had been years of consistent running, and then an unexplained bad one, they would never, and I mean never, hand out a fine or penalty in that situation.

Sorry Slowcoach you lost me at "many long years ago"

43 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:34 pm

Slowcoach


Thatsthestats wrote:
Slowcoach wrote:
Thatsthestats wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.




Since when does the weight for age  WS Cox Plate have weight penalties applied. Know what you are talking about before you talk about it Slowcoach


Since when did I say the penalty would apply to the Cox Plate? Learn to read the post properly before you comment on it 'Thatsthestats'


Oh sorry Slowcoach Winx's next run must have been an imaginary Handicap after the imaginary Pakenham start. I should have known it needed another run after the Pakenham flop. My mistake


Thatsthestats, I think you have lost track of the reason the analogy was made.

44 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:49 pm

Slowcoach


Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote:
Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.


Mushroom, many long years ago I was a registered horse trainer, albeit not a very good one, hence the name. I had a few visits to the stewards room, but fortunately the stewards in that sport were a bit more understanding of the possibility of 'just a bad day at the office'. Horses (along with humans) are not machines, and for various reason can put in a bad run. Of course they would issue a warning, but if there had been years of consistent running, and then an unexplained bad one, they would never, and I mean never, hand out a fine or penalty in that situation.

Sorry Slowcoach you lost me at "many long years ago"

Funny how some people don't want to listen/read something that might actually make their opinion incorrect

45 Re: Women's Gifts on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:54 pm

Thatsthestats


Go to bed Slowcoach. Dream of more analogies champ

46 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:21 am

Slowcoach


Thatsthestats wrote:Go to bed Slowcoach. Dream of more analogies champ

Unfortunately the king of analogies is someone who shouldn't be posting on this site.

47 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:57 am

Slowcoach


BMara wrote:
Slowcoach wrote:
Mushroom wrote:
Slowcoach wrote: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.


Mushroom, many long years ago I was a registered horse trainer, albeit not a very good one, hence the name. I had a few visits to the stewards room, but fortunately the stewards in that sport were a bit more understanding of the possibility of 'just a bad day at the office'. Horses (along with humans) are not machines, and for various reason can put in a bad run. Of course they would issue a warning, but if there had been years of consistent running, and then an unexplained bad one, they would never, and I mean never, hand out a fine or penalty in that situation.

one one was a race horse
two two was one too
one one won one race
Two two won one too


Your childish and flippant remarks (that should never appear on a public forum) does make one question the professionalism and governance of the VAL

48 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:06 am

Whispers


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
1,1 was 1 racehorse
1,2 was 1,2
1,1,1,1 race
1,2, 1 ,1,2
Very Happy

49 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:10 am

Toolman


Slowcoach seems to need to have the last word on this topic. I too have an analogy mate. A guy sits In a police station after having failed a RBT. He starts to get emotional as he is pondering how he tells the missus he has screwed up. It's not the first time he has had a couple too many with the lads on a Friday arvo after knocking off but it's the first time he's driven into that booze bus half way home. Anyhow he blows low range and cops his 3 months disqualification on the chin and learns his lesson. I was at Bendigo last year looking for an Easter Bunny to have a couple of pennies on.I didn't circle Tara's name. If you think St Albans is Tara Domaschenz's only poor run Slowcoach you Sir are delusional. She did hit her straps at Stawell and made the semis though a few weeks later. Hopefully Tara's Rye form can continue and she can push up for a few more finals. Hopefully the POD Squad can accept the umpires decision and move on.



Last edited by Toolman on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:17 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Added a bit. Deleted a bit)

50 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:18 am

PODSQUAD


We had moved on from Stawell but others had not.

There should be one set of rules and regulations for all. Those rules and regulations should be applied consistently and without bias to all.

There is no place for bias targeted stewarding and handicapping in our sport.

All athletes will have poor runs; I challenge you to name an athlete that has not.

Treat all athletes equally.

51 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:15 pm

Wishful


Well Toolman, I guess Slowcoach started this thread so he's entitled to have the last word - especially if it's right.  Drink driving is an unfortunate analogy and has no place in this ongoing saga. Plenty of runners have bad runs and it's pathetic to target Tara as she has had more good runs than bad.

In my opinion a Chief Steward of the VAL should be above reproach unlike BMara who continually posts sarcastic and derogatory "humour' in an open forum to take the focus from his own shortcomings.

I doubt most athletes compete for the money as some never win anything and entry fees etc add up to a tidy sum.  I would think most athletes love the sport of pro running, the competition it provides and the great social network. The dedication and training required to competitvely compete an entire season is huge.  Athletes deserve a safe environment to work in and BMara as Chief Steward it is your job to treat all athletes equally.

52 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:18 pm

BMara


PODSQUAD wrote:We had moved on from Stawell but others had not.

There should be one set of rules and regulations for all. Those rules and regulations should be applied consistently and without bias to all.

There is no place for bias targeted stewarding and handicapping in our sport.

All athletes will have poor runs; I challenge you to name an athlete that has not.

Treat all athletes equally.

Okey Poddy
lets now get fair dinkum.... This discussion we had at St Albans is on tape and in the VAL office, I have suggested to Tom that for the sake of the "bully" accusation we make it available on the Facebook page. I made sure Tom was there with the recorder because from past experience what happens with our interviews ( you and I ) is that, what I say and what I hear change dramatically a day later. You know, **** knows, Tom knows , Darryl knows and I certainly know that the discussion was nothing like what has been reported. Maybe I shouldn't be opening up on this topic on a public forum but you have had no trouble from your side of the fence.
The story unfolds like this ..... Friday afternoon......Darryl rings and says "**** is entered for St Albans.....
BM says "well she'll shit in but won't be silly enough to run"
DN says **** will be running and she won't break 15 seconds.
BM "its gunna be a long night but why won't **** break 15 seconds.
DN says " I know what type of work **** has done this week"

Now Saturday night and 15.02 seconds later
BM " Peter, **** ran 14.22 at Rye and 15+ tonight.....is there any reason for the lose of form" reply "no"
BM **** is there any reason you lost so much time" ****"no".
BM to both " has there been any change in training , work etc" answer "no" .
BM "this is too serious a loss of time to not impose a penalty".
Peter " well give **** a NAP and we all move on".
Then Peter gave a dissertation, for 10mins, on his stewarding policy and how the VAL are doing it wrong.

One thing I will say is that by the time Peter appealed the penalty he had three pages of excuses and reasons, but he still forgot to mention the training schedule.

Now I hate to be a "dobber" but that is how the story unfolded.
If Peter gives his permission, I'm sure Tom can organise the tape for FB

53 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:50 pm

BMara


Hello Wishful and Slowcoach
maybe I'm a little flippant and sarcastic and crack a few jokes but before I go back to MR serious, I'll make my next and last analogy.
If you are a grade one teacher, you don't read McBeth to the kids, you stick with "Fixit Duck" or "The cat in the Hat". Sometimes, on this forum, there is the reasoning of fairly shallow minds, and that's when I talk to the level required. What I believe is that if you use your own name , you tend to be more reliable in your assertions. There are many silly statements made on this form that are made by, what i believe are sensible people. During a race day I talk to these people and they generally make sense...... because its one on one and they don't want sound like a fool. On the forum that goes out the door.
Now, I'm one of a handful of people who put my name to my statements, stories, theories etc. This forum seems to have people with multi accounts, that talk back to themselves. And of course Nicknames that can say whatever they like....If I'm incorrect, lie, defamatory etc, there's legal avenues to address my errors,......because I use my own name.

Whilst on McBeth ( William Shakespeare) a few quotes for the Forum people and their different persona at the track

"There's Daggers in men's smile"
and my favorite
" Double, Double Toil and Trouble , Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

And finally concerning Bullying........When at school, all the kids called William Shakespeare....... "Willy Shaker"

Now for the short time I will be retiring from the forum, unless there is a genuine stewarding issue that needs correcting.

Although I must admit the last time I had this much fun was when I played "spin the bottle" and I substituted a magnet for the cork

Q E D

54 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:04 pm

Wishful


I am glad you are retiring from this forum unless it's a true stewarding issue as that is how it should be. Unfortunately you had to give us one last bit of 'comedy'.  I was the one who said bullying and from experience with other situations if a person in a position of power targets an underling and makes them cry then I think it's bullying. I will apologise if your chat was done in a mutually respectful manner.

55 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 8:45 pm

PODSQUAD


BMara wrote:
PODSQUAD wrote:We had moved on from Stawell but others had not.

There should be one set of rules and regulations for all. Those rules and regulations should be applied consistently and without bias to all.

There is no place for bias targeted stewarding and handicapping in our sport.

All athletes will have poor runs; I challenge you to name an athlete that has not.

Treat all athletes equally.

Okey Poddy
lets now get fair dinkum.... This discussion we had at St Albans is on tape and in the VAL office, I have suggested to Tom that for the sake of the "bully" accusation we make it available on the Facebook page. I made sure Tom was there with the recorder because from past experience what happens with our interviews ( you and I )  is that, what I say and what I hear change dramatically a day later. You know, **** knows, Tom knows , Darryl knows and I certainly know that the discussion was nothing like what has been reported.  Maybe I shouldn't be opening up on this topic on a public forum but you have had no trouble from your side of the fence.
The story unfolds like this ..... Friday afternoon......Darryl rings and says "**** is entered for St Albans.....
BM  says  "well she'll shit in but won't be silly enough to run"  
DN  says **** will be running and she won't break 15 seconds.
BM "its gunna be a long night but why won't **** break 15 seconds.
DN  says " I know what type of work **** has done this week"

Now Saturday night  and 15.02 seconds later  
BM  " Peter, **** ran 14.22 at Rye and 15+ tonight.....is there any reason for the lose of form" reply "no"
BM  **** is there any reason you lost so much time"   ****"no".  
BM to both " has there been any change in training , work etc"  answer "no" .  
BM "this is too serious a loss of time to not impose a penalty".
Peter " well give **** a NAP and we all move on".  
Then Peter gave a dissertation, for 10mins, on his stewarding policy and how the VAL are doing it wrong.

One thing I will say is that by the time Peter appealed the penalty he had three pages of excuses and reasons, but he still forgot to mention the training schedule.

Now I hate to be a "dobber" but that is how the story unfolded.
If Peter gives his permission, I'm sure Tom can organise the tape for FB



I think you and I need to have a meeting and air these differences (which should have been done and mediated by the VAL long before now) as there is a whole other side to this story that is not appropriately aired on this forum.  I don’t think there is any doubt that we have been targeted - others with similar or worse deviation have not been treated the same way - right from when this started at Stawell.

Talia did not deserve the treatment and the punishment given to her at Stawell.  As you well know there is no recourse, under the existing VAL rules - any and every performance can be deemed and successfully argued to be inconsistent (this is legal advice)-  if you take an athletes best performance and compare it to their worst performance - you can even exaggerate that. If you apply the rules to one you should apply them consistently to all.

We did not allocate 13m to Talia and in the end she won Stawell by the smallest ever margin.  I will leave this point there, but I have a lot more I could add, including how you handled and spoke to the media, and sledged me- all of which is on public record.


Tara ran poorly at St Albans, and you know the reasons why she ran poorly or the HRP does. Tara felt intimidated and upset in front of 3 men with the hearing being recorded that took her by surprise.  It was not for me to raise the issue of why she put in a poor performance. Are all hearings recorded and conducted in front of 3 VAL officials? If a female is involved there should be a female on the panel. Due to the way and manor the hearing was held the reasons for the poor run were not revealed and neither did we expect Tara to be pulled half a metre.

There were also others that ran that had Tara clearly covered at St Alban on recent performances including Rye so she could never have won St Albans if those girls ran to form.  Therefore, yours and DN conversation should have taken that into account. Our training schedule does not and would not result in such a deviation in performance so that is not the main reason. The training load impact you referred to is not the reason Tara performed poorly, the deviation far exceeded that as is clearly evident by the performances of the rest of our squad.


Tara ran a PB at Rye and on that PB form is not capable of winning a bigger race from her current handicap. Tara is an established athlete that has clearly trained hard (the most disciplined and hardest training athlete ever in our squad and has achieved accordingly). So there was no intent to run poorly at St Albans.

Again others with similar deviations have not been penalised the same over the season.

Yes, I do disagree with the way you are stewarding, you are the first Chief Steward that I’m aware of who completely ignores an athlete’s performance history in assessing inconsistent running rather, just taking one previous performance. While I believe there are better ways to Steward (of which I have articulated clearly to the VAL) I accept that those are not the rules at the moment. But to interpret the current rules and ignore previous performance history is also not the intent or the spirit of the current inconsistent running rules.


I don’t believe you intended to bully and that is not the main issue with Tara, but when you are called to a recorded hearing in front of 3 VAL official’s it is intimidating, unnecessary and embarrassing and that is why she was upset and closed up.

I’m willing to discuss these issues and resolve this as I believe I'm a reasonable person and like you do work hard for this sport.

BTW -DN would have no idea what Training Tara has done during the week.....I find that really interesting and would like to pursue those statements further...and all discussed Friday night before she ran.

POD



Last edited by PODSQUAD on Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:20 am; edited 1 time in total

56 Re: Women's Gifts on Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:44 pm

untouchables

avatar
Whispers wrote:1,1 was 1 racehorse
1,2 was 1,2
1,1,1,1 race
1,2, 1 ,1,2
Very Happy


What’s the difference between praying in church and at the track?

At the track you really mean it.

57 Re: Women's Gifts on Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:42 am

BMara


Peter, as this is clearly a stewarding matter, I feel Ok to reply.
Very happy to meet with you on Friday night before Stonnington.
As regards time, It will all have to go through Tom, who will be also be in attendance for the discussion.
Maybe an agenda provided by yourself, Darryl and myself may be one way of keeping the discussion within some type of time limit.

58 Re: Women's Gifts on Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:40 am

DizzyRunner


ProTrack Star
ProTrack Star
BMara wrote:Peter, as this is clearly a stewarding matter, I feel Ok to reply.
Very happy to meet with you on Friday night before Stonnington.
As regards time, It will all have to go through Tom, who will be also be in attendance for the discussion.
Maybe an agenda provided by yourself, Darryl and myself may be one way of keeping the discussion within some type of time limit.

Are the rest of us allowed to come and watch?

59 Re: Women's Gifts on Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:23 pm

Mex

avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Does anyone remember the Albany Aths site? This is sounding familiar and I think I may be absent for a while if we don't improve a little. While some of you ponder this I will continue what may be my last write up.

60 Stonnington Handicaps - Friday 17 February on Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:06 pm

untouchables

avatar
http://www.val.org.au/handicaps.aspx

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

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