Local equestrians gearing up for the 2016 season started their preparation at the Kingston Polo Club, Caymanas Estates, over the weekend, with showjumpers in particular introduced to a new discipline – vaulting. Since last Friday, visiting FEI representative Emma Seely from California in the United States conducted a three-day workshop to familarise showjumpers with vaulting, one of seven disciplines in international competitions except the Olympics. Vaulting, she explained, is akin to gymnastics on horseback, but it requires intense training (initially on a barrell) to develop the skill. Seely said the workshop started last Friday with the older and more experienced showjumpers such as Jason Walter, Susan Wates, Lexie Wates, Denise Cole, Nabila Khouri, and Maelle Johnston, then moving to the children on Saturday and finally back with the older participants yesterday. “The response was good,” disclosed Seely. “Being introduced to vaulting for the first time, the participants were curious at first, but they soon got the hang of it, regarding basic movements on a horse, as well as get-fit exercises, and in the end they were quite keen and receptive,” added Seely, who has had vast experience in this area of the sport spanning 35 years. The sessions were conducted under the watchful eyes of national coach Betty Wates, who is also president of the Equestrian Federation of Jamaica. “Jamaicans being natural athletes, I believe we will adopt to vaulting pretty fast, and in a few years, could impact internationally in much the same way Samantha Albert did in showjumping and Alia Atkinson in swimming”, she said. Meanwhile, the polo players started their preparation over the weekend with practice matches on Saturday and yesterday ahead of the Doc Masterton Tournament on January 31 at the Caymanas Estates, traditionally the first polo match each season. According to Rachel Turner and Mitta Rousseau, two of the island’s top polo players, the action should increase this season following a lull in activities last year. Turner said the Doc Masterton will be followed by the Burger King Kids tournament on February 20, as well as the annual tour of the visiting team from Newport from March 3-6. They will play matches at the St Ann Polo Club at Drax Hall, Chukka Blue in Hanover and the Kingston Polo Club. Rousseau disclosed that later in the year there will be the club tournaments – the Hurlingham Cup and Senior Cup – for which Kingston Polo Club are defending champions, with players such as James Robertson, Paul Lalor, Mark Wates, Jorge Donovan, and Turner, as well as the Hi-Pro Family tournament, Dennis Lalor Polo tournament, and one of the big ones – the Scotia-sponsored tournament in mid-year.
The leftist agenda of most science journalists forces them to oppose conservatism, no matter how twisted their logic becomes. Why would anyone trust them about Darwinism?As everyone knows, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords on June 1. It’s a political story, not a scientific one, except for its dependence on a scientific ‘consensus’ (an oxymoron) that humans are guilty of warming the planet. The president listed various reasons for his decision: (1) it was not a treaty passed by Congress, it was a one-man executive order by the previous administration, so it is non-binding; (2) it punishes Americans, making the USA alone pay up billions of dollars while major polluters (including India and China) have no obligations till 2030; (3) nations taking the US money via carbon credits would have no obligation to prove it will be used for climate mitigation; most likely, the money would end up lining the pockets of dictators, providing no help to the third-world poor; (4) US free-market efforts have strongly decreased pollution over the past years without the need for this accord; (5) the Paris accord would accomplish nothing, because under the most optimistic projections, it would decrease global temperatures by less than two tenths of one degree by 2100. To this he could add that pulling out simply returns America to status quo ante 2016. As such, the decision keeps America in basically the same position it was for most of the Obama administration.Basically, Trump pulled out because it is a one-sided punishment of America that would cost thousands of jobs, it is a scheme for redistribution of wealth, and it would accomplish nothing. Nevertheless, the president expressed his deep concern for the environment, saying he was willing to renegotiate a deal if it could be made fair. After his speech, though, heads exploded all over the media. One would think Trump had committed the unpardonable sin.Left-leaning reporters ignored his arguments and focused instead on whether Trump and his EPA secretary Scott Pruitt “believe” in global warming. Ostensibly if Trump expressed doubt about it, they could pounce and call him a “denier” of climate change – a phrase with nefarious overtones like “Holocaust denier.” Logically, though, the president’s agreement or non-agreement about human responsibility for climate change is not the issue. The author of The Art of the Deal could be a complete believer in global warming as strongly as Al Gore and still conclude that the Paris accord was a bad deal. Or, he could have taken the Constitutional strategy and relegated such decisions to Congress. (Commentators seem fairly certain if President Obama had tried that, it would never have passed.) Or, he could believe the globe is warming, but be uncertain about the causes, and have voted in favor of staying in. In many ways, then, President Trump’s decision seems perfectly logical. It’s doubtful any of these options would have satisfied the “believers” in anthropogenic climate change, though. Taking the word “anthropogenic” out commits the unpardonable sin just as much, making one a “denier.”Now let’s look at a couple of reactions from “science reporters” that are well-known for treating Darwinian evolution as unassailable fact.Unimpeachable logic says Trump shouldn’t quit Paris climate pact (New Scientist). Before the decision to pull out had even been aired, Owen Gaffney claimed the logical high ground against it. (Gaffney should not have used the word “unimpeachable” about his logic, because it invites us to try to impeach it.) It’s not for him to decide if his case is unimpeachable. It’s for the fair-minded reader to evaluate his evidence and his reasoning.“Leaving would be an illogical act of self-harm,” Gaffney says, a curious claim in light of all the jobs it would cost Americans suffering from an overwhelming debt from the past administration. So what evidence does Gaffney present? He says, first, that it might lead other nations to bolt from the accord. How that causes self-harm to America is not exactly clear. Gaffney further says that some of the leftist activist groups and funds might lose out. Again, how that is an illogical act of self-harm is not apparent. Third, Gaffney flat-out says that denying climate change is illogical. That’s an assertion, not an argument.Of all Trump’s policy choices, his attitude on climate ranks among the most illogical – and competition in this space is fierce. By leaving the Paris deal, he’ll change little and risk missing out on the economic gains of an energy revolution.His ‘logic’ is purely hypothetical and politically biased. Gaffney does not consider whether market forces could take care of energy production in a smarter way – a position conservative and libertarian economists argue with historical case studies and laws of supply and demand. They would certainly welcome a chance to impeach his logic. In addition, Gaffney fails to answer any of the president’s specific claims about the flaws in the Paris deal. If indeed the best case scenario shows the accord will accomplish no significant climate mitigation, why would anyone consider it logical to stay in? In short, nowhere in the article does Gaffney present unimpeachable logic. He just boasts about it.Want to Really Boost the Economy? Stay in the Paris Agreement (Live Science). Tia Ghose is another perennial Darwin loyalist in her leftist media outlet, but even here, it seems she is out of her element trying to report about climate policy. She tries to take a more friendly, positive approach. Rather than calling the president illogical, she proposes that it would be in America’s best interest to stay in the unconstitutional executive order (which, as we stated, is not a treaty approved by the people’s representatives, but more like a king’s decree). To shield her own bias, she calls on an expert to speak for her:But the idea that the Paris Agreement will harm the economy is nonsensical, said Jonathan Koomey, a lecturer in Earth Systems at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences at Stanford University. For one, the agreed-upon emissions cuts are nonbinding; the only legal obligation is that the United States report its carbon emissions. So if the required cuts are too damaging to the economy, the United States is free to revise its emissions goals, he said.“You can’t have nonbinding standards that are draconian,” Koomey told Live Science.Beyond that, most economic analyses suggest that environmental regulations may actually boost the economy, both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm, Koomey said.Here, she lets Koomey call President Trump’s decision “nonsensical,” which is equivalent to illogical. But in what way is it nonsensical? Her expert claims that the USA could revise its emissions goals. In other words, the USA could lie. It could state emissions goals at the outset, but then fail to keep them, saying, On second thought, we don’t like that promise, so we’re going to lower the standards. Think about this argument. If the USA could do that, so could any other party to the accord. What’s logical to expect is that nobody would keep their promises once economic pains set in, and no climate mitigation would result.She also plays the “most doctors agree” trick (bandwagon) — “most economic analyses suggest” (OK, name one; probably not by Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek) “that environmental regulations” (how about the ones that declare a puddle on private property ‘wetlands’ forbidding a landowner from planting?) “may” (hypothetical) “actually boost the economy” (non-specific), “both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm” (glittering generalities). This paragraph is followed by a rash of statistics from leftist-only sources geared to make Obama look good – you remember, the president who lost more jobs, created more dependency, and increased the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. The statistics commit the fallacies of card stacking, either-or, and non-sequitur, even if they had something to do with the Paris accord. We suspect the Heritage Foundation would love the opportunity to make their case with other statistics.Ghose’s other point is, like Gaffney’s, hypothetical: environmental regulations “may” boost the economy. How exactly government regulations spur innovation and prevent harm is not exactly clear. She and her expert Koomey point to past instances of regulations that helped clean the air and spurred innovation (in their version of the story). Sure; with some card-stacking, half-truths and hypotheticals, one could employ propaganda tactics to promote the big-government liberal view, but that would ignore numerous recent stories of real harm to American families, communities and whole cities destroyed by burdensome regulations (think Detroit). It also ignores whether free-market policies might achieve the same green-energy innovation without government regulation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris Climate Accord! In fact, all the innovation that has occurred in the USA and other countries took place before Paris, and is likely to continue, Paris or not. So who is being nonsensical here?The fact is, both New Scientist and Live Science are so committed to big-government, globalist, leftist thinking, they have abandoned logic and any sense of journalistic fairness. Their agenda is to defend their political bias, no matter what. Calling anyone they disagree with illogical or nonsensical is not an argument. It is not journalism. It is not science, which should welcome openness and lively debate.Readers wary of our reporting here may claim we have a bias, too. That’s right. Everybody has a bias. But a journalist can choose to be fair about their bias, strive for transparency, and work hard to give both sides of an argument a fair hearing in their coverage. We can guarantee you that neither New Scientist nor Live Science will link to our article! Our attitude? We link to the original sources. Go ahead–read their articles. Have at it. Come back and evaluate our response. May the best case win! We’re not afraid for our readers to look into the very best arguments of those with other positions. We try to persuade with logic and evidence a different perspective in the news that is rarely heard in the secular media.If you decide our coverage is more fair, then consider: the leftist reporters who constantly bash President Trump and all conservative positions are the same ones praising Darwin every chance they get. Do you expect them to give a fair hearing to creation or intelligent design? Ha! That would be most illogical, Spock would say. (Visited 494 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Elizabeth WilliamsDTN Special CorrespondentINDIANOLA, Iowa (DTN) — Pat Swanson has already started filling in the paperwork on prevented planting for her family’s farm and for several of her customers.“We have some fields under water, and the dam upstream increased its outflow by 67% last Friday. For some fields, we have no choice,” the Ottumwa, Iowa, crop insurance agent said.Swanson, like many across the Corn Belt, is facing the tough decision that comes with saturated fields. As of this weekend, one-third of the nation’s corn acres are still unplanted. Yet it’s not so late into June that farmers are giving up hope on planting corn even though the “final planting date” for crop insurance has passed.Corn and soybean producers have several options still available.PLANT CORNIf your ground dries up enough, you could still plant corn with reduced crop insurance coverage until the end of the late-planting period, despite agronomic issues like reduced yield and soil compaction.The late-planting period varies by state and by county in some states. In Iowa, that’s June 1-25, in Ohio June 6-30, in Nebraska May 26-June 14. Check with your crop insurance agent or go to https://prodwebnlb.rma.usda.gov/….Under this option, you lose 1% of your crop insurance coverage each day, and your final yield becomes a part of your actual production history (APH), which could lower your revenue guarantee in future years. But on the plus side, corn prices are climbing.The most important thing to do this spring is keep good planting records.“That’s the main thing we learned in 2013 when we had unplanted crop acres,” said Steve Johnson, Iowa State Extension farm management specialist in central Iowa.You’re dealing with two government entities: USDA’s Risk Management Agency and the Farm Service Agency. They have different deadlines, different forms to file and the rules are very specific about dates, acres, crops and historic yields.TAKE PREVENTED PLANTING ON CORNIf you are considering this, Johnson said you should call your crop insurance agent immediately. The deadline to record your corn prevented planting acres to FSA is 15 calendar days after the final planting date. In Iowa, that’s June 15.“One thing we learned from 2013 was farmers found out later they were not eligible for prevent plant payment on some acres,” Johnson said.You cannot take prevented planting on more acres in your crop insurance unit than acres of corn planted in the past four years. For example, you generally have a 50/50 crop rotation on 100 acres, but one year in the past four years, you planted 52 acres of corn. Even if you were planning to plant all 100 acres to corn this year, you’re only eligible for prevented planting on 52 acres.Farmers with enterprise units have an easier time qualifying their acres for prevented planting. It’s called the 20/20 rule: the prevented planting acres must total 20% of the unit or 20 acres, whichever is less. Farmers with optional units must have at least the lesser of 20 acres or 20% of corn acres in that section for those acres to qualify.This minimum is important for farmers planting around wet spots to be sure they have the minimum acres prevented from planting.Another advantage to taking prevented planting is your APH yield history won’t be dinged for the lack of a corn yield reported on that ground.Prevented planting on corn will pay more than prevented soybean planting, so most farmers will try to get as much of their unplanted acres designated to corn as possible.For example, if your corn APH yield is 180 bushels per acre and you took 80% coverage in crop insurance, using the spring corn guaranteed price of $4.00 per bushel multiplied by the 55% prevented planting payment rate for corn, you would receive $317 per acre.For soybeans, if you have a 55 bpa APH yield at 80% coverage and a guaranteed price of $9.54 per bushel, then multiply it by the 60% prevented planting payment rate for soybeans, you would receive $252 per acre.PLANT SOYBEANS“At some point, probably the middle of next week, producers will need to decide ‘I’m done planting corn,’” said University of Illinois ag economist Gary Schnitkey. “Then they’ll need to plant soybeans on their intended soybean acres.”For your soybean acres to qualify for full crop insurance coverage, you have until June 10 in the northern and Western Corn Belt; June 15 in Iowa, Michigan, southern Wisconsin, northern Illinois and northern Kansas; and June 20 in Indiana, Ohio, southern Illinois and central Kansas.“The economics right now point to maximizing your PP corn acres and then the remaining unplanted acres as PP soybeans,” Schnitkey said.Every operation — and actually every field — could have a different revenue scenario. University of Illinois’ FarmDoc decision tool (https://farmdoc.illinois.edu/…) and Iowa State’s Ag Decision Maker model (https://www.extension.iastate.edu/…) can help you work through some scenarios.TAKE PREVENTED PLANTING ON SOYBEANSThe deadline for reporting your prevented planting soybean acres to FSA is 15 calendar days after the final planting date.“Another lesson learned in 2013 is do not miss a reporting deadline,” ISU’s Johnson advised. “You get busy in the field; it’s easy to miss. But if you miss it, you don’t get paid.”To calculate your PP soybean payment, multiply your APH yield times your original percent crop insurance coverage times the spring price of $9.54 times 60% for prevented planting.COVER CROP CAUTIONJohnson said farmers can use leftover corn and soybean seed as a cover crop, but that caused a lot of issues in 2013.“It was a mess because the crop adjusters confused it with a planted crop, not a cover crop,” he said. “That is why it is so important to work with your crop insurance agent and adjuster now and communicate completely.”You can use treated soybean seeds, which can’t be returned to the dealer, as a cover crop on corn prevented planting ground, but not on land that’s been designated as soybean prevented planting.“You’ve got to be super careful and communicate with your crop insurance agent and adjuster so they are not counted as a planted soybean crop and reduce your benefits,” Johnson said.You also cannot graze or hay prevented planting cover crops until Nov. 1.“Farmers may find this August the perfect time to lay down tile on their prevent plant acres,” said Johnson. “I’d schedule my tiler now before his August gets too full.”Elizabeth Williams can be reached at [email protected](KD/AG)© Copyright 2019 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.
In an incredible community effort, thousands of people from around the world came together to work the case. We are happy to report that all jewels have been returned to the museum in time for the gem exhibition that opened on August 11th. Were you on the case? What was your favorite part of Mystery at the Museum? Share in the comments below! Share with your Friends:More SharePrint RelatedMystery at the Museum FAQJune 25, 2019In “News”Groundspeak Weekly Newsletter – May 2, 2012May 3, 2012In “Groundspeak’s Weekly Newsletter”Breaking news! Mystery at the MuseumJune 25, 2019In “News” Detectives from around the world hosted events to share intel, find clues, and recover the stolen gems. Thanks to your help, authorities are happy to say that the Mystery at the Museum is now officially solved.
Mario Balotelli and Andrea Pirlo will be crucial for Italy in the World CupWhen Italy won the 2006 World Cup, then-coach Marcello Lippi pointed to the group collective as his squad’s strongpoint – and the fact that each forward scored at least one goal over the seven matches attested to that theory.This year’s squad, by contrast, is singularly led by forward Mario Balotelli, the volatile AC Milan forward with superstar potential.Both in their mid-30s, midfield maestro Andrea Pirlo and goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon remain the backbone of the squad, Andrea Barzagli anchors the defense and Daniele De Rossi offers coach Cesare Prandelli options with his versatility.Here are five players to watch:MARIO BALOTELLIWhen Mario Balotelli gets his mind in focus, there is often no stopping him.Italy has never really had a forward that combines so much physicality and skill – a player who can muscle by defenders to score goals or find the target with well-placed free kicks or penalties.Until he finally missed in September, Balotelli had converted all 26 penalty kick attempts in his professional career.But Balotelli has struggled to control his temper and is often subjected to racist taunts. The son of Ghanaian immigrants and raised by an Italian family, he shoulders the burden of representing a new and rapidly expanding class of Italians.ANDREA PIRLOAndrea Pirlo will be 35 by the time the World Cup starts but his passing and free kick skills remain undiminished.Pirlo mesmerizes defenders with his superb ball control and when he has possession it often seems the match speed drops into slow-motion.advertisementUsually positioned just in front of the defense, Pirlo picks out his passing receivers with uncanny acumen and his field vision inspires many of Italy’s goals.He’s also a free kick expert, having scored from 24 dead ball kicks in his Serie A career – leaving him within three of the all-time record held by Sinisa Mihajlovic.GIANLUIGI BUFFONAt 36, Gianluigi Buffon is heading to his fifth World Cup – his fourth as a starter – as Italy’s captain and undisputed changing-room leader.Buffon didn’t let in a single goal from opposition players over the normal course of play during Italy’s run to the 2006 title, then was injured during the opener when the Azzurri were eliminated in the first round four years ago.It used to be said that Buffon’s one weakness was penalty shootouts, but he stopped three attempts in a shootout win over Uruguay in the third-place match of last year’s Confederations Cup.In October, Buffon passed Fabio Cannavaro for the all-time Italy appearance record with his 137th cap. He now has 139 appearances.ANDREA BARZAGLIAfter being left off the 2010 World Cup squad by Marcello Lippi, Andrea Barzagli has developed into Italy’s most reliable center back.He can partner with Leonardo Bonucci in a traditional four-man defense or anchor a three-man backline that Italy coach Cesare Prandelli often resorts to.Known for his barrel-like chest, Barzagli has had a series of minor injuries with Juventus this season. He was a reserve on the 2006 World Cup squad and saw action in two matches of the Azzurri’s title run.Barzagli honed his physical skills during three seasons with Wolfsburg in the German Bundesliga.DANIELE DE ROSSIDaniele De Rossi is Cesare Prandelli’s wild card, a player who the coach can place at any position in midfield or even defense.A regular starter for Italy since he played at 22 in the squad that won the 2006 World Cup, De Rossi is now 30 and has made 93 appearances – second only to Buffon’s 139 and Pirlo’s 107 among active players.His versatility is a product of his completeness, a player who can tackle, pass or shoot with equal ability.
Liverpool boss Klopp hails matchwinner Milner: Incredibly importantby Paul Vegas20 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveLiverpool boss Jurgen Klopp hailed matchwinner James Milner after victory over Leicester City.Milner’s 94th-minute penalty settled Saturday’s match and ensures the Reds go into the international break having won all eight of their top-flight fixtures so far in 2019-20.Milner had earlier registered a fine assist as Sadio Mane’s 50th top-flight goal for the club put the home team ahead, but James Maddison’s 80th-minute leveller appeared to have claimed a point for Brendan Rodgers’ visitors.However, Marc Albrighton’s foul on Mane in the area gave Milner the chance to win the game from the spot in the 94th minute – and the No.7 did just that, sending Kasper Schmeichel the wrong way with an ice-cool penalty.Klopp said, “I’m really not sure if I’ve said all the positive things about James Milner, no problem to do it again. Not only today, in general, how incredibly important he is. Today it was a super game but not even Millie can play 12 games in a row or whatever, it’s just too demanding and all that stuff. But yeah, very good performance, the pass for the first [goal] is just smart. “Unfortunately you need to have a few games in your legs probably to know about the situation, but we had a lot of these situations. We played a few smart passes for the boys. We obviously changed formation a little bit, we brought Mo in the centre, Sadio and Bobby more in the position 10 [against] the opponent who could train a full week to prepare for us – [that’s] what we cannot do.” About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say
Michigan might be Kelly Kovach Schoenly’s alma mater, but the Ohio State softball coach isn’t pulling punches this weekend. “All I can say is I root for my team,” Schoenly said. “We will work hard as a unit to get a win for Ohio State. I worry about us.” For the first time as coach of the Buckeyes, Schoenly will face a place she once called home. While she was a star pitcher from 1991 to 1995 for Michigan under current coach Carol Hutchins, she insists her loyalties lie with the Scarlet and Gray as they stand to face the Wolverines in Ann Arbor, Mich. “If you went to Ohio State and you’re not fired up to play Michigan, then you’re crazy,” Schoenly said. “We’re fired up about it.” No. 12 Michigan has been one of the best softball programs in the Big Ten and has been a national powerhouse since Hutchins took over in 1985. The Wolverines are the five-time defending Big Ten champions. And they haven’t lost to OSU since 2011. But the Buckeyes (21-11, 3-3), despite their underdog status, aren’t backing down. Buoyed by the confidence of three victories against ranked teams already this season, Schoenly and the Buckeyes are ready for the challenges Michigan presents, both offensively and defensively. “The challenges of the preseason have helped (us) tremendously,” Schoenly said. “We’ve seen quality hitters for the last two months and I think they won’t be intimidated by that.” And OSU freshman left fielder Cammi Prantl attested to the team’s belief that it has an extra incentive to win this weekend. “It’s Michigan,” Prantl said. “You always want to beat Michigan.” The desire to compile conference wins in Big Ten play is equally important for OSU. “We haven’t won against (Michigan) for the last two years,” said senior outfielder Alyson Mott. “There’s a little bit more incentive because it’s Michigan, but we have to not pump ourselves up too much and take it like just any other regular game.” After dropping two games last weekend against Purdue, OSU is looking to get back on the winning track as Big Ten play nears the halfway point. OSU begins the three-game series with the Wolverines Friday at 6 p.m. in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Freshman defenseman Drew Brevig (4) passes the puck during a game against Robert Morris Oct. 25 at the Schottenstein Center. OSU won, 5-3.Credit: Julia Hider / Lantern photographerAfter opening the season on a three-game losing streak, the Ohio State men’s ice hockey team bounced back by sweeping Robert Morris over the weekend.The Buckeyes (2-3-0) traveled to Pittsburgh Saturday for the second of the two-game home-and-home series against the Colonials (0-4-1), and pulled out a 4-3 victory.Neither team managed to score until the second period, when the Buckeyes opened the gap to take a 4-0 lead after the first 40 minutes. Freshman forward Nick Schilkey tallied a goal 17 seconds into the stanza and junior defenseman Justin DaSilva raised the lead to 2-0 nearly a minute later. Freshman defenseman Drew Brevig added to the shutout with his first goal of the season at 13:03 with an assist from junior forward Max McCormick — his team-best fifth assist of the season.Capping the second period was a late goal by sophomore forward Tyler Lundey on the power play with 11 seconds left.The third period saw Robert Morris fall just short of a furious comeback. The Colonials cut the lead to 4-2 with two early goals at 2:23 and 4:07, and sophomore forward Zac Lynch narrowed the gap even more with a goal on the power play to make it a one-goal game with less than eight minutes to go. OSU managed to hold on for the remainder of the game, though, to clinch the victory.The first of the two-game series was played Friday in Columbus, and the Buckeyes finished on top, 5-3, after overcoming an early two-goal deficit. The victory was the first of coach Steve Rohlik’s career as a collegiate head coach.“We didn’t start out pretty tonight and we certainly have some things to work on, but what I liked about our team tonight is they weren’t going to let it (a loss) happen to them again,” Rohlik said during a press conference after the game Friday. “We have a good group. We bounced back and fought hard. Good teams find a way to win, and we did that tonight.”After trailing the Colonials by two goals early in the first period, the Buckeyes scored five straight to put a victory out of reach for Robert Morris.“I think it was that our guys just finally said, ‘Enough is enough’ and ‘Let’s get after it,’ and that was kind of the mentality on the bench, and the guys were ones talking like that,” Rohlik said.Among those who were being vocal was senior forward Travis Statchuk.“We took it upon ourselves to find a way to win tonight,” Statchuk said Friday. “Coach challenged us between periods and we went out there, stuck to our plan and got it done.”Robert Morris got a goal back during a power play in the third period, but it was not enough and the Buckeyes held on for the victory.Junior forward Nick Oddo said the team’s preparation to play more physically was a contributing factor to the win.“We’ve been working on that all week — driving the net, getting bodies around, second-chance opportunities — and it worked out for us tonight,” he said Friday after the win.The Buckeyes are slated to return to action Tuesday in a non-conference rematch against Bowling Green, who beat OSU 4-3 Oct. 15. The puck is set to drop at 7:05 p.m. at the Schottenstein Center.
Former Rangers striker Derek Johnstone insists the upcoming Old Firm derby against Celtic is a must win for his old club.Rangers host arch-rivals Celtic in the second Old Firm derby of the season at the Ibrox Stadium this Saturday, following their game against Hibernian on Wednesday.Steven Gerrard’s men are currently one point behind league leaders Celtic, although the defending champions have a game in hand. Ibrox is expected to witness a full house on Saturday and Johnstone, who has featured in so many of these games claims that the Old Firm derby is the biggest game in Europe.The former Rangers man also said the magnitude of the Celtic clash should serve as extra motivation for the players.“I think, first and foremost, these games stand out above anything in Europe, it’s an Old Firm game”, Johnstone told the official Rangers podcast.Rangers is still behind Celtic: John Hartson Manuel R. Medina – September 3, 2019 According to the former Celtic player, there’s still a massive gap between his ex-club and Rangers in the Scottish Premier League.“That’s the game that everybody wants to see.”“Even down south, they will turn it over from a Liverpool game to watch an Old Firm game.”“That’s how important you have to take it because you know the fans.” ”If you are beaten on the Saturday, you don’t work on the Monday because you get slaughtered by the opposition.”“And we realised that as players, that was the game I had to win.”
Facebook0TwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Pete Kaiser won the Iditarod early Wednesday, throwing his arms over his head and pumping his fists as he became the latest Alaska Native to claim victory in the iconic sled dog race. “I’ve always said that I’m very fortunate to have the support system I have, the whole community of Bethel, and the whole Kuskokwim River and all of western Alaska,” he said. It’s the first Iditarod victory for Kaiser in his 10th attempt. He said he wasn’t sure what made everything come together this year for him. Fifty-two mushers began the race in Willow. Petit was among 10 racers who withdrew during the race. Kaiser greeted Ulsom under the finish line and shook his friend’s hand. Kaiser’s winning time was 9 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes and six seconds. Ulsom finished the 1,000-mile (1,600 kilometer) race 12 minutes after Kaiser. Ulsom was about 40 minutes behind Kaiser and made up ground in the final 77 miles (124 kilometers) to Nome but couldn’t overtake him. Ulsom placed second, coming across the finish line before Kaiser could get his picture taken on the winner’s podium. Petit’s downfall came near the same spot on the Bering Sea coast where he surrendered the lead in the 2018 race after getting lost in a blizzard. He recovered in time to finish second last year. Kaiser, 31, crossed the finish line in Nome after beating back a challenge from the defending champion, Norwegian musher Joar Ulsom. This year’s race was marked by the stunning collapse of Frenchman Nicolas Petit, who was seemingly headed for victory as late as Monday. Petit, a native of France living in Alaska, had a five-hour lead and was cruising until his dog team stopped running between the Shaktoolik and Koyuk checkpoints. Kaiser will receive $50,000 and a new pickup truck for the victory. Four other Alaska Native mushers have won the race, including John Baker, an Inupiaq from Kotzebue, in 2011. “Just years of knowledge gained and trying to put it all together to have a better race, better dog team this year, every little detail coming into play,” he said in a post-victory interview televised statewide from the finish line, adding that a little luck didn’t hurt either. Kaiser called that support “extremely humbling and it motives me every to perform to my best, and I just want to thank them for coming out here tonight. This is just awesome.” Crowds cheered and clapped as Kaiser came off the Bering Sea ice and mushed down Nome’s main street with a police escort to the famed burled arch finish line. His wife and children greeted him, hugging him at the conclusion of the race, which began March 3 north of Anchorage. Petit had to withdraw, and the dog team had to be taken back to the previous checkpoint by snowmobile. Petit said one dog was picking on another during a rest break, and he yelled at the dog to knock it off. At that point, the entire team refused to run. Kaiser, who is Yupik, is from the southwest Alaska community of Bethel. A large contingent of Bethel residents flew to Nome to witness his victory. Alaska Native dancers and drummers performed near the finish line as they waited for Kaiser to arrive, even though it was past 3 a.m. local time.