Burbidge wins Stawell 2010

[Sharmer]

@Youngy

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.

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.