Roman Abramovich will pay out £10m to Chelsea’s players if they win the Champions League, according to The Sun.It is claimed that each of the Blues’ 25-man squad will receive around £350,000 should they go all the way to glory at the Munich final on 19 May – and that adds up to £8.75m.It is suggested that interim boss Roberto Di Matteo could receive £500,000 for turning around the club’s season and that other members of the coaching staff may be rewarded too.The Sun also report that ex-Chelsea boss Jose Mourinho has been texting some of his former players in the build-up to their game against Barcelona.Mourinho, whose Real Madrid side face Bayern Munich in the other semi-final, apparently contacted Petr Cech, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole and Didier Drogba.He is said to have texted: “You can do it and so can we. See you in Munich.”There is continued speculation over whether Anton Ferdinand and his QPR team-mates will shake Chelsea skipper John Terry’s hand before Sunday’s derby.The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph both say talks between the clubs are set to take place and that Ferdinand is seeking legal advice over whether his decision could prejudice Terry’s forthcoming court case.Meanwhile, the Daily Star claim Ipswich midfielder Jay Emmanuel-Thomas, who has already been linked with Fulham, is also wanted by QPR. Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Related Posts Developers may create applications that are launched through a browser using Adobe Flash technology or on the desktop using Adobe Air.This is intriguing. We’ve seen a number of consumer application developed using Adobe Air, including Tweetdeck, the rich Twitter application that has grown immensely in popularity. The partnership with Salesforce.com means that developers may create similar applications through the integration of third-party API’s that may provide another means for enterprise customers to create their own social applications.We know there are any variety of ways to create applications for the enterprise but the relationship between Adobe and Saleforce.com demonstrates how easy it is becoming to create rich applications for specific, business purposes.The simplicity is evident in the way developers create applications using Adobe Flash Builder. It’s as simple as drag and drop to add such features as calendars, grids, charts, buttons and all the other elements to make the user interface compelling for the user.On the desktop, the data is synced to the Salesforce.com environment via an API, creating an integrated platform for users.Remember how third-party applications accelerated Facebook’s growth? A similar model is emerging in the SasS world. Applications are making SaaS platfoms rich integrated environments, tailored to the business user. Development is far easier than ever before, making it possible to create tools that can enrich the experience for the user by viewing data in ways that helps them take faster action without the need for an IT administrator or analyst to present it in a way that makes sense.The release preview for Adobe Flash Builder is available at force.com. The product will be fully available in the first half of 2010. IT + Project Management: A Love Affair alex williams Salesforce.com and Adobe have entered a partnership that allows developers to create rich Internet and desktop applications in the cloud. The partnership is just one more example of how an ecosystem is developing between Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) vendors and application developers.In recent weeks Salesforce.com has partnered with a host of companies, including Box.net last week and an integration with Cisco earlier this month.The partnership with Adobe means that users may create enterprise applications on the Force.com platform. Tags:#enterprise#Products#saas 3 Areas of Your Business that Need Tech Now Massive Non-Desk Workforce is an Opportunity fo… Cognitive Automation is the Immediate Future of…
About the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Spain coach Moreno dedicates Euros qualification to Luis Enriqueby Carlos Volcano9 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveSpain coach Robert Moreno has dedicated Euros qualification to Luis Enrique.La Roja have made the 2020 Euros after their 1-1 draw with Sweden.And Moreno says qualification is tribute to former Barcelona coach Enrique, who stepped down earlier this year to be with his daughter before her passing.Moreno said, “We have played a good game, and even if we had lost, I would have been happy. Because we have played more with our style. We are qualified and now we have to try to be the top of the group.”Spain is a high-level national team and qualification is a must, but achieving it has its value I want to take the opportunity to dedicate this to Rubiales and Molina because they trusted me, and also Luis Enrique. “It releases tension and doubt, and gives us time to work more comfortably, but without losing tension because the goal is to be one of the six best to go to the draw as seeded teams. It will not be easy, but we will try.”
Lauderhill (Florida): Krunal Pandya’s all-round exploits and Rohit Sharma’s characteristically sublime half-century powered India to a series-clinching 22-run win over West Indies in the rain-affected second T20 International here on Sunday. Batting first, India scored a challenging 167 for five and then had West Indies in all sorts of trouble at 98 for four in the 16th over when lightening and thundershowers struck. The Duckworth-Lewis par score at that point was 120, and West Indies were 22 runs behind. Also Read – Puducherry on top after 8-wkt win over Chandigarh Rohit Sharma top-scored with 67 off 51 balls, setting India up for a challenging total, before Krunal (20 off 13 balls) and Ravindra Jadeja propped up the innings by smashing 20 runs in the final over, which was bowled by Keemo Paul. Krunal hit the first two balls of the final over for sixes before Jadeja also found one maximum. During his knock, Rohit became T20 internationals’ most prolific six-hitter, going past Chris Gayle with 106 maximums. He struck six fours and three sixes in the match. Also Read – Vijender’s next fight on Nov 22, opponent to be announced later India were off to a quick start as they crossed 50 in the seventh over, with Rohit doing the bulk of scoring. Rohit found the gaps with ease, clipping Paul off his pads for a six over deep midwicket. The World Cup highest scorer then swept him for a four as the Indians upped the tempo. Keemo Paul gave West Indies their first breakthrough when he bowled Shikhar Dhawan with the Indian scorecard reading 67 for one in the eighth over. Two quite overs followed as Indian captain Virat Kohli joined Rohit, who broke the shackles with a six over deep midwicket, Sunil Narine being the bowler, and then brought up his 17th half-century in this format with a single to long-off. Nicely getting underneath the flight of left-arm spinner Khary Pierre, Kohli got going with a neat six. Well settled at the other end, Kohli’s deputy Rohit smashed Carlos Brathwaite for a six and four, as India’s hundred came up in the 13th over. It took a fine catch from Shimron Hetmyer to bring an end to Rohit’s stay in the middle — he hit one high up in the air off Oshane Thomas with just over six overs left in the Indian innings. Rishabh Pant (5) perished quickly, top-edging Oshane into the hands of third man fielder Kieron Pollard. Sheldon Cottrell then had the big one, sending Kohli’s middle stump cartwheeling for a 23-ball 28 with a perfectly-executed yorker and performing his trademark salute celebrations. By that time tough, Kohli had becme the highest run scorer among Indians in T20 cricket, including domestic tourneys. In reply, West Indies were off to a disastrous start with both openers Evin Lewis and Sunil Narine back in the hut, with just eight runs on the board in the third over. Rovman Powell and Nicholas Pooran lifted West Indies from the precarious situation with a 76-run stand for the third wicket before Krunal again got into the act by removing both the batsmen in a space of three balls in the 14th over. India had won the first match by four wickets.
MONTREAL – Consolidation within the global aircraft manufacturing industry is fine as long as the benefits of competition remain alive, Air Canada’s CEO said Monday.“Having a dynamic where some of the smaller aircraft are supported by some of the larger aircraft manufacturers can actually be a good thing provided that there is still good competition and you’re not faced with a single source environment,” Calin Rovinescu said during an aerospace conference in Montreal.Bombardier is in the process of finalizing Airbus’s purchase a majority control of the C Series program, while Boeing is in talks to join forces with Brazil’s Embraer.Rovinescu said duopolies can get too cozy and act as a negative force against innovation, but the move can also help companies to scale up to ensure programs get to market.He said Airbus supporting the C Series and Embraer working with Boeing isn’t necessarily negative as long as a couple of competitors remain in the marketplace that allow smaller aircraft makers to continue innovating.“We like the fact that the C Series served as somewhat of a disruptor in the narrowbody segment of the market where you really do not see a tremendous amount of innovation for nearly three decades,” he said in a discussion with Bombardier CEO Alain Bellemare.Bellemare said he doesn’t view the Boeing-Embraer tie-up as a “great marriage” but said Bombardier’s deal with Airbus will provide great value to the C Series program.He said the European manufacturer has an amazing customer reach and scale that will help to accelerate C Series sales, and a vast supply chain that can help the aircraft to achieve cost targets more quickly to meet customer demands for lower pricing.“It’s a big driving force behind our ability to take the cost down and get to cost target,” Bellemare added.The comments were made as Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains announced a $49.5-million investment in an aerospace consortium led by Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Inc.The funding is expected to create or maintain 300 jobs by helping Bell and 18 industry and academic partners develop innovative technologies, including fully autonomous aerial systems along with efforts to reduce noise.Bell Canada president Cynthia Garneau said the funding could help efforts to develop air taxis designed to reduce road congestion.“The future is not so far away and the future looks very uplifting,” she told the conference.Challenges to developing air taxis including battery technology, air traffic control, cost, certification and public acceptanceUber plans to test its network of electric “flying cars” that can take off and land vertically by 2020 in Dallas and Los Angeles.Meanwhile, the union representing Bombardier employees doesn’t anticipate overly acrimonious negotiations to renew the collective agreement once Airbus takes control of the C Series program.The contract expires Nov. 30 but the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) travelled to France to meet with the three main aerospace unions to learn more about their relationship with Airbus.David Chartrand, the union’s Quebec co-ordinator, says he was somewhat reassured because there is already a fairly strong union culture in both France and Canada.He says he was “happy” to negotiate with the French company rather than Boeing, the American aerospace giant that could have been Bombardier’s partner in the C Series.In March, Bombardier Aerospace workers voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new reciprocity agreement that ensures workers who switch between Bombardier and the future partnership don’t lose their pensions and keep most seniority benefits, including salary and vacation time.— With files from Julien ArsenaultFollow @RossMarowits on Twitter.Companies in this story: (TSX:BBD.B, TSX:AC)
iTunes Movies U.S. charts for week ending November 18, 2018:iTunes Movies US Charts:1. The Meg2. The Equalizer 23. Incredibles 24. Mile 225. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them6. Crazy Rich Asians7. Alpha8. BlacKkKlansman9. Christopher Robin10. The Spy Who Dumped MeiTunes Movies US Charts – Independent:1. Juliet, Naked2. The Death of Stalin3. Time Trap4. The Clovehitch Killer5. Leave No Trace6. Hotel Artemis7. Three Identical Strangers8. Eighth Grade9. Here and Now10. RBG__(copyright) 2018 Apple Inc.By The Associated Press, The Associated Press
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — The BC Wildfire Service has downgraded the status of three wildfires burning in Northeast B.C.Fire Information Officer Amanda Reynolds says that while the activity of the Tommy Lake Fire remains intense, fire activity on three other large fires has diminished to the point where the Service no longer considers them wildfires of note. According to Reynolds, the wildfire burning southeast of the Muskwa River near Fort Nelson has not experienced much fire activity in the past week. That fire currently sits at 4,793 hectares, and is not currently threatening any properties since it is located roughly 80 kilometres southwest of Fort Nelson. However, Reynolds said that crews may be looking at a modified response to that fire if it starts to see more fire activity. Closer to Fort St. John, both the Milligan Hills and Kahta Creek Fires have also been downgraded from wildfires of note. The Kahta Creek Fire, which has burned roughly 1,700 hectares near Buckinghorse River, has seen dramatically reduced fire activity over the weekend, especially after the fire saw 10 mm of rain fall late last week. There are currently 55 firefighters and 3 helicopters battling that fire, and Reynolds said that firefighters have been patrolling the fire’s perimeter to ensure that it doesn’t scorch a larger area. The fire is currently being held, meaning it does not appear to be spreading.Fire crews have also increased containment on the Milligan Hills Fire, which is 700 hectares in area. The 60 firefighters, 2 helicopters, and 3 pieces of heavy machinery have managed to build a fire guard and contain 35 percent of the fire, which is 10 kilometres from Milligan Hills Provincial Park. Reynolds said that the fire’s status has also been updated to “Being Held” which indicates that sufficient suppression action has been taken that the fire is not likely to spread beyond existing or predetermined boundaries.Despite this, Reynolds said that crews will continue to monitor these fires to try and ensure they don’t flare up once again.
New Delhi: Distancing from the statements of party leaders Pragya Singh Thakur, Ananth Hegde and Nalin Kumar Kateel calling Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse a “patriot”, BJP President Amit Shah on Friday said the party’s Disciplinary Committee will inquire into the matter and submit a report within 10 days. Saying the statements by the three leaders was against the party’s ideology, Shah tweeted: “The statements made by Pragya Thakur, Ananth Hegde and Nalin Kateel in the last two days are their own statements. The BJP has no relation with their statements. Also Read – India gets first tranche of Swiss account details under automatic exchange framework “However, they have retracted their statements and also apologized. The BJP has taken a decision to send their statements to the Disciplinary Committee. The committee will submit a report within 10 days to the BJP after receiving the replies of the three leaders over their statements that are against the ideology of the party,” he said. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) President’s announcement came as the party faced criticism over the remarks ahead of the final phase of the Lok Sabha elections. Also Read – Trio win Nobel Medicine Prize for work on cells, oxygen Pragya Thakur was the first among the three party leaders to call Godse a “patriot”, leading the Election Commission to seek a report from the Madhya Pradesh Chief Electoral Officer. As her statement went viral, two BJP MPs — Union Minister Anant Kumar Hegde and Nalin Kumar Kateel — also came out in her support. Godse shot dead Mahatma Gandhi at a prayer meeting in New Delhi on January 30, 1948. He was hanged after a trial.
It always comes back to the use of performance-enhancing drugs. The “steroid era” may be over, but Major League Baseball is still dealing with its consequences. At the National Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony over the weekend, Craig Biggio was the only batter among the four new inductees. Although some of the greatest hitting records in the history of the sport occurred in the past 20 years, many position players can’t catch a break with Hall voters.So we ran a SurveyMonkey Audience poll asking Americans how they feel about steroids, amphetamines and the pre-integration era and then gathered FiveThirtyEight’s baseball fans to talk about the results (the following transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity):Walt Hickey: It’s pretty clear the vast majority of people — even baseball fans — are not comfortable with just letting the records stand. Of everyone surveyed, 88 percent thought the records should be struck down entirely or have an indicator that there was some funny business going on.Neil Paine: I’m not surprised the majority of those polled want something — anything — to be done about the numbers compiled during the steroid era. Baseball is the most statistical of all the major sports, and it has always loved to foster the notion that you could compare, say, Honus Wagner’s stats to those of Alex Rodriguez side by side, without any adjustment, and still make a meaningful comparison. Sabermetricians have long acknowledged this as naive; between park effects and era adjustments, there are plenty of ways baseball stats need to be tweaked to level the playing field between different generations of players. But even for the lay fan, the age of PEDs [performance-enhancing drugs] destroyed any pretense that unadjusted numbers could be freely compared between eras, and I think that fact alone upset traditionalists as much as anything else.Harry Enten: I must admit that steroids to me is a highly emotional issue. Many of the players we associate with steroids are people we also associate with being jerks — people like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and A-Rod. But the real question is: Where does it end? Is it that stats are changed? Are champions changed? There can be no doubt that many, if not all, of the champions for a period in the 1990s and 2000s had steroid users. We’re not going to go back and change winners. In a lot of this polling, people are making an emotional argument.Walt: I, on the other hand, could not care less about steroid use. I feel like this notion of the game as some platonic ideal that existed prior to the big bad performance enhancers showed up is patently false. Every era had its own competitive advantages, as we’ll talk about in a second, but it’s only the steroid issue — and not, you know, the players who had the competitive advantages of rampant stimulant use and not having to compete with black players — that seems to make people think The Game is not somehow Pure.Rob Arthur: I’m under no illusions the game of baseball is Pure (nor will it ever be), but I also don’t know if it was ever dirtier than it was during the steroid era. Cheating is and has always been rampant, both on and off the field, but with steroids, we have a means of cheating that seems particularly effective. You can see that both in the scientific literature, where steroids seem to improve strength by as much as 20 percent, but also on the baseball field, where we had some notable steroid users like Bonds smashing records left and right.Harry: But what about during the “deadball era” — specifically between 1912 (I think) and 1920, when you had the spitball among other things? Offensive numbers took a dive. There is clear physical evidence that a spitball (or scuffing the ball) is a big deal. Now using that wasn’t illegal when it first started, but neither were steroids. They are now, yet people look at them so much differently than the pitching statistics that were occurring in the 1910s.Rob: Harry, you definitely have a point. But I think one of the reasons steroids are so objectionable is because of the asymmetry they created between players: Some players who used them seemed to become almost inhumanly effective, others didn’t use them at all and gained no benefit, and still others used but didn’t improve substantially. When the spitball was legal, it was available to all pitchers, and I doubt that any pitcher’s spit was 50 percent more effective at decreasing offense than any other pitcher’s spit. (I am aware that once the spitball was banned, some players were grandfathered in and still allowed to use it. Obviously, that wouldn’t fly in the modern era.)Neil: And don’t even get me started debating whether Lasik surgery counts as “unnatural” and “performance-enhancing.”Walt: Yeah, Tommy John called — he wants his pitching speed back. We will get back to the 1920s era of baseball soon enough, Enten. For now: My favorite part of this was comparing how different fan bases cared about steroids based on how much their teams gained from steroid use.Editor’s Note: On Friday, we introduced the idea of a steroid “discount” — a penalty in percentage terms that would be deducted from players’ individual statistics if they were found to be using PEDs. Our poll asked respondents to recommend said discount, which we can also break down by team fandom.The following table is color-coded by how much (red) or how little (white) each team’s fans would penalize steroid-using players.1Specifically, players who were suspended for PED offenses, were linked to the Biogenesis scandal, were named in the Mitchell Report or whose failed drug tests were leaked to the media. Because some teams had far more fans respond than others — and some teams’ fans hardly voted at all — the columns have been color-coded to represent a combination of average response and the number of respondents. In other words, results have been regressed to the mean based on sample size. Likewise, the correlations at the bottom of the table were weighted by the number of respondents from each fan base.Walt: Hot damn, Giants.Neil: It’s interesting that, as fandom intensifies, a relationship does begin to materialize between how much the voter’s favorite team relied on steroid users and how much tolerance he or she has for steroid users’ stats.If we look at all of our survey’s respondents — including those who were and were not self-professed baseball fans — there’s essentially no relationship between team steroid reliance and how much steroid-tainted stats the voter would recommend taking away. But when you throw out non-fans, a small2Correlation: -0.2 relationship emerges. Fan bases whose stars used steroids to generate more wins, whether on a per-season basis or as a percentage of the team’s total, tended to want steroid users to be punished less.Then again, it’s a slight relationship at best. While San Francisco Giants fans — hello Barry Bonds! — wanted juicers dinged much less than the average fan base, fans of the Oakland Athletics and Chicago Cubs (who rank fourth and fifth in the degree to which they were helped by steroid-using batters) asked for some of the highest penalties of any group of rooters.But that’s not the only way to measure the cognitive dissonance between a fan’s acceptance of steroids and the degree to which his or her team benefited from them.Walt: I whipped this up really quickly: It’s the scatterplot of teams, with that “how much did they gain from PEDs” metric plotted against the percentage of their fan base that said they thought the records of steroid users should be struck. What an interesting relationship:Walt: It’s a small sample size, but I really love that fans of teams that didn’t gain a lot from PEDs seem more likely to desire retribution against players who did.Rob: The relationship between steroid contribution and desire for retribution is really fascinating and upholds a long-held suspicion of mine. It also suggests (again) that these attitudes are largely driven by emotions: If my team benefited, then steroids were OK, but if not, steroids were terrible! It shows that fans, in particular, have a hard time divorcing their own fandom from the questions about how much steroids benefited particular players and how much we should care as a result.Walt: So then the question becomes where do we draw the line when it comes to performance-enhancing things in each era? I personally think it’s bullshit that people get so riled up about steroids and not, for instance, the widespread amphetamine use in MLB in the era prior to it.It turns out America agrees!Walt: So, Neil, who would this affect?Neil: Like you said, it’s pretty widely acknowledged that amphetamine use was prevalent in MLB throughout much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. During a 1985 drug trial, former Mets and Pirates first baseman John Milner testified that he had received “greenies” (amphetamines) from Hall of Famers Willie Mays and Willie Stargell at various times during his career, and Hall of Fame third baseman Mike Schmidt said the substance was “widely available in major-league clubhouses” when he played.So it’s at least possible — if not probable — that some of that era’s greatest superstars used a now-banned substance to sharpen their focus and boost their energy levels. (Even if the evidence is mixed over whether greenies actually even help athletic performance.)Walt: I feel like higher focus and higher energy is probably a nice thing for batters to have. I imagine their record collections were remarkably well-organized as well.I’m pretty happy to see some consistency here. I compared how people answered the steroid question with how they answered the stimulant question, and 88 percent of respondents (and 86 percent of fans) stuck to their guns and replied with the same answer they gave for steroid policy. It seems like at least among the general population there’s a lot more consistency with how to handle the policy than there is in the league.Still, it’s surprising that at the end of the day, 44 percent of Americans would strip away statistical accomplishments from amphetamine users in the era of Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Mickey Mantle.Neil: Agreed. The general attitude among sportswriters — even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense — is that there’s a distinction to be drawn between the supposedly widespread amphetamine use of the 1970s and the supposedly widespread steroid use of the 1990s. But according to those surveyed, there shouldn’t be. The moral judgment of the people appears to fall on both groups with equal fury.Harry: I really do wonder whether most people know that Mays may have used greenies. I tend to think not. If they did, there is no way that the polling numbers would look the way they do. I also tend to think that there is nothing ridiculous that Mays did in the sense that he looked normal, unlike Bonds who looked like someone shoved some orthopedic pillows in his arms. Not to mention that his head grew bigger than Donald Trump’s ego. It seemed natural. We tend to think of unnatural in how someone looks, not how they think.Neil: Right, and the bulked-up players and shifting head sizes gave fans and analysts a smoking gun of sorts. It added to the theatrical nature of the steroid hysteria. With a pill that doesn’t change appearance, you’re reduced to poring over stats and wondering whether a player’s out-of-the-blue power spike is just a career year or something much more sinister.Walt: But enough with the pharmaceutical advantages. What about the bigoted regime that kept black players out of the leagues? What about the competitive advantage conferred by excluding athletes based on the color of their skin?Walt: Kind of odd that baseball fans are nowhere near as mortified with pre-integration records standing than they are with stimulants. Neil, what’s the word on the effect that segregation had on baseball?Neil: One of the biggest tragedies of baseball’s color line is that we can’t know precisely how much the game’s pre-1947 stars benefited from only playing against white opponents. But we can certainly estimate how much more shallow the pool of available players was before the game was integrated. (As well as before the rise of Latin America and, now, Asia as a source of baseball talent.)As FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver notes in “Baseball Between the Numbers,” MLB was only drawing from a population of about 300,000 people per player in 1930. By 1960, when baseball was finally fully integrated, that number had more than doubled to 625,000, and it was a whopping 900,000 when Nate crunched the numbers in 2005. The bigger the talent pool, the tougher the competition, so it’s clear that pre-integration players had a major advantage in terms of the relative caliber of talent they played against.(A related note: Baseball’s level of talent is steadily increasing anyway as humans push the boundaries of athletic performance, which is another great reason statistics from the past can’t be compared to modern numbers straight-up.)Harry: My opinion on this is fairly simple: You can’t penalize players for things they didn’t control. Babe Ruth couldn’t play against a black player in the MLB even if he wanted to. It’s a tragedy that we were robbed of seeing Josh Gibson against Carl Hubbell, but we can’t go back and readjust the records.Walt: I don’t think it’s so much about penalizing players for things beyond their control as it’s about knocking down the idea that baseball was somehow defiled by pharmaceuticals. This nostalgia for baseball is wholly misguided — the Boston Red Sox integrated after Southern public schools! In 1959! — it’s not like this was an antiquated part of baseball history.Baseball’s commitment to some idyllic game that never existed — something that also manifests itself in a knee-jerk opposition to potential ways to improve the game, like the DH, speedier play and other experimentation — by now constitutes what I think is (on a long enough timespan) an existential threat for the league. The fact that more people aren’t more willing to look back in anger is a symptom of a much larger problem.Not to mention that at least the other two advantages at least made the game more interesting to watch. Segregation, if anything, made the game less interesting for fans out of mere spite. My main line? If you’re going to get indignant about steroids — something that unambiguously made the game more interesting — at least have the decency to be just as indignant about letting those segregated records stand un-asteriskedBut guys! We’re missing the point here. About 10 percent of Americans would strip Babe Ruth of his records! Including 8 percent of baseball fans. That’s awesome.Harry: What percentage of people believe we didn’t land on the moon?Walt: I mean Kubrick basically admitted as much in “The Shining,” man — learn how to read subtext.
Ohio State senior midfielder Megan McGillis handles the ball in the Buckeyes’ 13-9 win over Vermont on Feb. 12 at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center. Credit: James King | Lantern reporterThe Ohio State women’s lacrosse team (3-0) scored early and often in its 17-8 win over Cincinnati (0-1) on Sunday. The Buckeyes solved their early-scoring woes of the previous two games, netting five unanswered goals in the first four minutes of play.“The theme the whole week was getting off to a fast start,” coach Alexis Venechanos said. “I felt like we came in really focused and we were really on a mission. We knew Cincinnati was going to be well coached.”This was the sixth meeting between the two schools and the third in the past three seasons. The Buckeyes’ win kept them undefeated in six meetings against the Bearcats, with the series dating back to 2008.Within the first two minutes, sophomore midfielders Mackenzie Maring and Erika Keselman scored giving OSU the early lead. Then, for the second time this season, freshman midfielder Liza Hernandez scored two goals within 30 seconds, her first two of four on the day.“We wanted to just come out and play our game,” Hernandez said. “It feels amazing (to score four times). I just know I couldn’t have done it without my teammates and everyone around me.”Senior midfielder Morgan Fee added a goal of her own — her first of two in the first half — putting the Buckeyes up 5-0 with 25:16 remaining. The Bearcats would win the next draw, gaining possession of the ball for the first time in the game. Cincinnati took advantage of their first time with the ball when junior midfielder Brooke Kovinsky scored the first goal of the year for her program at the 24:52 mark in the first half. OSU went on to win 11 draw controls and take 25 shots compared to Cincinnati’s five and 12, respectively, showing how much the Buckeyes dominated the ball early. Venechanos said that a lot of that is attributed to the stellar play of Fee, who won 7 draw controls in the game.“She stepped up huge,” Venechanos said. “We put her in for the last five draws of the last game and she got those. So she’s been working really hard and I’m really happy for her.”Maring and Keselman again would score back-to-back goals moving OSU’s lead up six with 22:06 left in the first half. The Bearcats would respond with two goals from freshmen Monica Borzillo and McKenna Rushford.Up 7-3, OSU went on a 5-1 scoring run to close out the half, which included a hat trick from junior attacker Molly Wood, Fee’s second of the game and sophomore midfielder Baley Parrott’s sixth goal of the year.“We were just ready to show what we are and show what we’re made of this year,” Wood said. “We were firing on all cylinders today, we were all in control. It was really fun.”The Buckeyes opened up the scoring yet again in the second half when freshman attacker Alex Vander Molen scored her first of the day, second of the year, giving OSU a 13-4 lead. Cincinnati would try and fight its way back into the contest, going on a 3-1 scoring run cutting the Buckeyes’ lead to seven with 13:43 to play.OSU was plagued with turnovers in the second half, committing eight, turning their offense stagnant until Hernandez was able to score her fourth goal with 5:42 left on the clock. The Bearcats netted another goal, but OSU closed the game out with two more goals giving them the win, 17-8. One goal came from junior attacker Lauren Sherry and the other from sophomore attacker Alyssa Amorison in her season debut for the Buckeyes.For the second straight game freshman goalie Jillian Rizzo collected double digit saves, this time 11 on the day. Rizzo has been a constant safety blanket for this OSU team, helping them hold leads and coming up with big saves when needed.“She’s amazing,” Hernandez said. “She literally keeps us in games sometimes. I know she’s a freshman but she really doesn’t play like a freshman and we definitely need that.”In a game that was moved to Ohio Stadium due to some serendipitous February weather, OSU led from wire to wire. The Buckeyes, who took 40 shots compared to the Bearcats’ 25, were able to couple an aggressive attack on the offensive end with stout defensive play. “It’s always fun to score in the ‘Shoe,” Wood said. “But it was a team effort and that was what was really special.”OSU has the Stanford Cardinal up next, Friday at home at 6 p.m. Stanford is currently 1-3 on the year and have a game at Saint Mary’s on Tuesday before making the trip to Columbus.“Stanford is going to give us new challenges,” Venechanos said. “So we’re going to watch film this week, work on ourselves and then worry about Stanford … but it will be a big test for us.”