I can't really answer your question without a few more specifics Roastbeef, but it will probably suffice to say that there is protection that includes consideration of a fairly significant tailwind (actually an omni-directional wind), plus an allowance for an error in your outbound timing, plus an allowance for the time it should take you to recognise the point at which you should turn inbound and a further allowance for the time it takes to establish the bank angle and for the plane to start turning.
There's a bit more to it than that, but that's the essence of the primary protection area. Then there's a secondary protection area around the outside of all that, to a distance of 2.5 NM. Within this area, obstacle clearance progerssively reduces to zero, so it's probably not the best idea to test the limits of the protection area too far!
I suspect that the terminology used to describe the approach, "standard", was intended to imply that it's a base turn procedure. This is soemtimes known as a tear-drop turn. I think that he (she?) was trying to differentiate between this type of approach and one that uses a procedure turn at the end of the outbound leg.