That’s pretty consistent for a guy with a back injury, huh?
Burbidge races to semi-final win
STAWELL
April 5, 2010 - 1:27PM
Canberra sprinter Tom Burbidge has confirmed his favouritism for the Stawell Gift with a dominant victory in the semi-finals of the 120m handicap race.
Running in the sixth and last of the semis, Burbidge powered to victory in 12.03 seconds off a mark of 8.75m.
The other semi-final winners were Brendan Matthews, Kevin Brittain, Josh Tiu, Dale Woodhams and Douglas Greenough, although none went close to matching Burbidge’s time.
World championships long jump bronze medallist Mitchell Watt was eliminated after finishing third in the opening semi, which was won by Matthews.
The final is run at 1.44pm (AEST) at Central Park.
Not saying he wasn’t foxing, but I have had injuries that have lead to inconsistent performance in the past - running 21.4 one week and backing up with a 20.6 10 days later (had a mild groin tear).
In the scheme of things, a $5000 fine is not that great a disincentive when the athlete stands to gain $40000. You could consider it an expense.
On another note, it was great to see extensive live (?) coverage of athletics on free to air today. It’s a shame that the elite stuff can’t get a sideways glance, but the coverage of the gift today shows that the sport in one form or another can be entertaining and can be presented in a manner that is conducive to the TV format. There was no waiting 15-20 minutes for a race to start, and the uncertainty (well not in the gift) makes it interesting. I don’t think the IAAF will change the format of GP’s, and are probably right not to; however I think it’s time to try something new in Australia and AA could probably stand to benefit from borrowing a part of the model devised by their Pro cousins.
Events such as skins, handicaps and eliminations not only provide prolonged entertainment, but they can probably provide a great off season training stimulus too. This puts elite Aussie athletes infront of a domestic crowd, while at the same time not interupting their preparation for the international season, which is where we need to develop if we are to compete with sports such as swimming.
I’m sure there are more synergies to be had in the sport, and they must be identified and exploited if we are to survive in the not-so-long run.
How do the Police not get involved in this scam? As posted by Youngy after betting had been opened for 3 hours
[i]Tom Burbidge from $31 to $21.
Burbidge is very interesting one because he has run as recently as Sunday at St Bernards, failing to show anything that would suggest he would do well over 120m at Stawell. He has had the biggest lift of any athlete this season going from 7.25m to 8.75m. He ran 12.33 in his heat last year off 7.25m so the 1.50m lift seems very generous but his recent form suggests he needs that and a lot more. he is trained by Matt Beckenham in Canberra who has 11 athletes going to Stawell.[/i]
so some people knew his back was going to be ok and would have made a packet.
$40k winners check - $5k fine is still a good pay day! :rolleyes:
The entry standards for nationals are 10.84 and 21.54s. If he has run those times, his mark at Stawell should have been around the 6m mark, if not, how can he even enter nationals?
I have an ongoing back problem. Some days I feel great and do great some days I felt crap and did crap. You can tend to feel it coming on and sometimes you can’t anything about it.
Not saying he did or didn’t do anything wrong. Just saying a lower back problem does take longer than 8 days to heal, but there are generally ongoing issues which flare and can knock you about at various times
1- The punters tend to exaggerate the volume of money bet on Stawell gift runners- I remember backing Fabrice the year he was DQ from 50-1 to 7-1 and didn’t put down more than 1k.
2- The 5 k fine is inconsistent and unfair- I remember when Tony Fairweather trained Josh Ross won in 03. No fine was issued when Josh was running 12.6 all season and dropped 11.87 at Stawell; Tony even said after the race that the secret to winning Stawell is to get under the radar of the handicapper.
You will find ample examples of reversal of form of past Stawell gift winners- where’s the justice by fining runners now?
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.
Do the stewards look at relative performance? Running on grass means that the speed of the track may change dramatically given weather conditions and I was wondering if this is accounted for by looking at the times across the field relative to other meets rather than just the individuals relative performance.
Yes they look at the relativity across the board. They can compare a group athletes and see how much the average difference is depending on atmospheric and track conditions.
when efficient won the Melbourne cup he had a huge reversal of form, you see it all the time in horse racing… the stewards don’t fine the owners or trainers…
I just think if you can get under the radar , reverse and win- good for you- that’s the heart and soul of pro running.
a few years back a few mates owned a race horse regal center, at its first start in provisional Victoria - we actually rubbed dirt on its coat to infloat the odds on track, it had been beating city winners in track gallops over 800ms ( 46s gallops) so we knew it would have no problems winning a maiden 1200m race in provisional Victoria… 16 starts later it won at Flemington over a 1600m beating a Oaks Winner denentri, unfortunately snapped a fetlock next start.
deception is part and part of pro running and horse racing- any sport that involves gambling- will have involve some degree of deception.
burbridge may have cut the line fine, but he may have had a medical reason for poor performance at St Bernards ( back spasms). If I was him I would send through a letter of dispute regarding the fine on the basis of medical reasons- with medical support.
I agree Sharmer that Burbidge should not have been DQ’ed and I’m glad he wasn’t for the sake of the event.
Still think the fine fits the crime though. That sort of improvement in 6 days needs to attract some sort of penalty otherwise it opens up a can of worms. We have rules in place and stewards are there to enforce the rules.
Matt B & Tom B accepted the fine with good grace and we now move on to Ararat tonight & Ballarat on Saturday…
Will this only apply to the SG or apply to other VAL meetings? ( 5 k fine) It seems the VAL are setting up a penalty based system based on the prize money of the gift rather than the degree of form reversal . That in itself seems contrary to natural justice.
How much of a deterrent is it really going to be to state “If you win $40,000 by concealing your true form we’re going to take $5,000 away from you again.” I think a lot of people would happily take the $35,000.
I think it is a big deterrent for MattyB or any of his crew if they were to be in such a position in the future. They made a big mistake racing 6 days or even 2 weeks before the event with that level of improvement and paid 5k of their hard earned as a penalty for it.
It is likely that MattyB’s crew, who openly support ‘pro’ running will be very heavily scrutinised by the handicapping officials in the future. It will be tough to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes like that again.
Incidentally, Burbidge had only 0.25m less in handicap a few months prior, so running a week before Stawell was fruitless in that regard. If anything it sucked the bookies into believing he couldn’t do it and gave them better odds to punt on. As a result the 5k could have been easily generated with less than a $100 outlay with one of the corporate betting agencies.
You are referring to the tactical error of running dead too close to the Stawell Gift.
What I was referring to was the general question of whether running dead is the way to go if you want to earn money on the pro circuit. I think that the small fine (small in relation to the earned benefit that is) for an obvious case of running dead will encourage rather than deter from this practice.
I think the result will be that other runners will reach the conclusion that running dead is the only way to winning the Stawell Gift, and that the benefits of this tactic outway the risks.
I think the result will be that other runners will reach the conclusion that running dead is the only way to winning the Stawell Gift, and that the benefits of this tactic outway the risks.
Hasn’t this been the case since the game was invented? As soon as one enters the pro circus the running dead strategy lingers in mind, and then, it only develops further as they progress through the ranks and get more experienced. Why? Well, because everyone thinks the same way - run dead, get a better mark, increase your chances.
Now, you will find some idealists (vast minority) who may say - we run fair and square. Sure! I believe you too!
Pro running success is not measured by the size of a trophy but by the size of a bank cheque!
If I wasn’t too old to participate in pro running, I too would carefully select minor gifts, run dead throughout a season and then suddenly peak for the Stawell gift. The incentive is too great for the hard working class. So the show goes on.
Run a consistant time for about 3 years, you would also have to do some VIC gifts. To get away with it otherwise I suggest a bit of help somewhere.
I know a couple of coaches who do the gifts and use the story to get under the handicappers guard when what they originally started to do was to keep the athletes away from the eyes of some preferred coaches who have athletes competing elsewhere.
Either way I really dont care but suggest it is wrong when people have to feel this way to survive.
As posted by Youngy after betting had been opened for 3 hours