The problem with Burbidge is the St Bernards race was only 6 days before and its estimated he improved something like 10m in that time.
The VAL has a detailed handicapping system with certain parameters in place to protects its integrity and any loss of form or significant improvement from one meet to the next which is outside an acceptable level attracts scrutiny & likely penalties.
Burbidge’s improvement was well beyond what is deemed acceptable given the time frame involved.
Personally I would never have an athlete placed in a vulnerable position where they may demonstrate improvement of something like 10m in 6 days. I know the rules and I would expect the stewards to come down on me and my athlete if we transgressed.
The normal penalty for a serious breach of the rules is a 28 day disqualification.
Eg; Had a runner run 12.20 in the final at Keilor then went to Bendigo a fortnight later and ran 13.20, (losing about 10m) the athlete would probably get DQ’ed from the sport and cop a handicap review.
There’s always been some conjecture where the athlete improves significantly and what should happen.
But in a case where the inconsistency is so extreme then it shouldn’t matter whether it’s improvement or loss of form.
The issues with the ‘back pain’ may have mitigated Burbidge’s case, but the word is that a disqualification was considered but not imposed due to the potential ramifications.
I suspect before next season commences, all coaches and athletes will be reminded quite strongly of the rules and a similar incident of gross inconsistency may attract a far greater penalty than a $5000 fine.